Share |

Saturday, October 25, 2014

40 NGO anjur himpunan pertahan institusi raja

Radical Islamic cleric declares BRITISH law is invalid...in BRITAIN

RADICAL cleric Anjem Choudary sparked fury today by declaring he 'doesn't accept' that British law is valid in the UK.

By: Jason Taylor
 
The 46-year-old hate preacher made the extraordinary statement when asked if jihadist fighters returning from Syria should have their passports confiscated and be charged under anti-terror laws.

Choudary blasted: "I don't accept British law. If you have a law, you need to apply it universally. These laws are only being applied against Muslims.

"This [anti-terror legislation] is purely being hyped-up to support the bombing campaign that is taking place in Iraq and Syria.

" He also spoke of his support for Islamic State (ISIS) and claimed a ban on jihadists returning to Britain would 'alienate' the Muslim community.

He added: "If these guys have actually not committed any crime in England, then why are we stopping them returning?

"I think it's a very ill thought-out policy, I don't think it will work.

 "I think it will disenfranchise the Muslim community here, I think it would be a cause of further radicalisation in this country."

 Choudary has always denied that he has incited or glorified acts of terrorism.

His comments, which were immediately condemned as 'dangerous' by anti-extremist organisations, came in an Express Debate with Douglas Murray, Associate Director at the Henry Jackson Society.

A visibly angry Mr Murray, who has profiled Mr Choudary for this website: "Don't pose as the defender of citizens in Syria and Iraq when the thing you would wish to impose on those people is the most barbaric and authoritarian form of government the world has ever have seen.

 "The bombing campaign is taking place to try and stop people in those countries being dictated to by Mr Choudary's friends in ISIS.

"The first victims, in both of these countries, are Muslims.

"They're Muslims of the kind that these people, in this 'perfect Islamic State' think can legitimately be killed.  But they are Muslims."
 

Taking up arms for God is fine, claims hardline Islamist group

Malay Mail

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 24 — Muslims can take up arms if they are fighting for their God, hardline Islamist group Hizbut Tahrir’s Malaysian chapter said today.

Hizbut Tahrir accused the West of wrongly giving negative connotations to the word “militant” and associating it with terrorists.

The radical Islamist group, which works openly in Malaysia, insisted that militant activities for jihad are acceptable and required in Islam.

“Anyone — whether an individual, group or army — that battles to fight infidels in the framework of raising up Allah, then this is jihad and they are mujahideens,” it said on its website today, adding death on duty would make the fighters “martyrs”.

Hizbut Tahrir said armed militants cannot be labelled as jihadists if they illegitimately kill the public or fight against other Muslims.

“If their intention and activity is to kill and fight among Muslim groups, then this is wrong and forbidden.

“If they fight and kill the public and leaders without rights, whether those killed are Muslims or non-Muslims, this will also be wrong and forbidden and all this is not categorised as jihad,” it said.

Yesterday, Minister Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom said the National Fatwa Council had decided that those who die while fighting under the Islamic State (IS) banner in Syria would not be considered martyrs.

On October 15, Home Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi told Parliament that authorities have identified 39 Malaysians as having links with militant groups, including IS.

Putrajaya has previously designated the IS, formerly known as Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, as a terrorist group.

ISIS Massacred Every Man And Boy Over 15 In Muslim Town



Daily Caller

The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria’s (ISIS) single bloodiest operation to date — the execution of over 700 Shaitat tribesman over a three day period in August — received little to no coverage from western media outlets, The Washington Post reports.

The massacre targeted all men and boys older than 15, and was in response to an uprising.

After years of rejecting the central Syrian government, the Shaitat tribe was forced to sign a July truce with ISIS after jihadist forces captured the massive supply of U.S. munitions stockpiled in the Iraqi city of Mosul.

When ISIS descended upon the Syrian town of Abu Hamam, “we realized we had no hope. We were surrounded. We wanted to save our people,” said one Shaitat fighter.

But the uneasy cease-fire between the Sunnis and ISIS’s extreme jihadist faction quickly decayed into violence.

When ISIS militants publicly beheaded a Shaitat man who had fired on one of their patrols, local residents overpowered the small garrison of terrorist fighters and forced them from the town, only to see them return with reinforcements and artillery from Mosul.

After shelling Abu Hamam for days, ISIS forces once again captured the town and began systematically executing every Shaitat male over the age of 15.

“A photo essay on an Islamic State blog boasted of the different ways tribesmen were killed, including beheadings, mass shootings and a crucifixion,” the Post reports. “A video shows how the militants lined up scores of captives on a road, their hands bound, then set about clumsily decapitating them, one by one.”

Female cop caught with drugs and ammo – Bernama

Two women, including a policewoman, were arrested for possession of drugs and 10 bullets in a house at the Karak griculture Separtment quarters, near Bentong, yesterday.

A police team from the Karak station which conducted the raid at 1.21pm seized 0.38 type bullets and drugs found in a bag belonging to a lance corporal.

The drugs seized include three pills suspected to be eramine 5 weighing 0.88 grams, two yellow colour pills and pills which were half-blue in colour suspected to be ecstasy pills with a gross weight of 23.1 grams, and two injection needles.

In the same bag, police also found an authorisation card and police security pass in the name of the suspect, and two mobile phones.

On further searching the house, police found a tin containing a transparent plastic sachet filled with crystalline powder and lumps of crystals suspected to be syabu weighing 0.51 grams and a needle at the foot of the bed in a room in the house.

Following the discovery, the policewoman whose postal address is Jalan AU/1, Ampang, Hulu Kelang and her friend, an Indonesian from Jakarta, both in their 30s, were detained for further investigation.

According to the initial investigation, the policewoman admitted the drug was obtained from a Chinese man in Bukit Bintang, Kuala Lumpur.

The investigation also showed the policewoman and her partner did not have any record of past offences.

However, on screening their urine, they both tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine.

Pahang police chief Datuk Seri Sharifuddin Ab Ghani, when contacted, confirmed the arrests.

The two suspects were remanded at the Bentong district police headquarters lock-up for further investigation. – Bernama, October 24, 2014.

- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/female-cop-caught-with-drugs-and-ammo-bernama#sthash.N5SxPse5.dpuf

Anwar: What right has UM to ban me?

 
Whether banned or otherwise, PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim will still deliver his speech at Universiti Malaya (UM) on the eve of his sodomy charge appeal hearing.

And this is despite his alma mater claiming that it will never allow the programme to go on.

In an interview with Malaysiakini today, Anwar said he had not been told by the university that he was banned from delivering his speech on Monday.

“I will still go (even if I am banned). What right do they have to ban me? I was invited by the highest student body in UM. By 9pm, I’ll be at UM.”

Asked whether he was going to “gate crash” the university, Anwar simply said that he is “very familiar with the terrain”.

UM yesterday issued a show-cause letter to Universiti Malaya Students' Association (PMUM) president and the event organiser, Fahmi Zainol.

The university’s student affairs deputy vice-chancellor Rohana Yusof said Fahmi could be suspended for one or two semesters as well as fined RM200 if he goes ahead with his plan.

The Oct 27 event, titled 'Anwar Ibrahim: 40 years from UM to jail', is scheduled to take place at 9pm at the Dewan Tunku Canselor square in the campus in Kuala Lumpur.

He is also expected to hold a rally the same night at the MPSJ stadium in Subang Jaya.

The gathering is one of several scheduled rallies since Wednesday by Anwar in a nationwide blitz to mobilise support ahead of his sodomy appeal on Tuesday.

Flashmobs to continue

Meanwhile at a major intersection just outside the campus today, a handful of PKR supporters, led by its youth wing Angkatan Muda Keadilan (AMK), organised a flashmob in the run-up to Anwar's appeal.

"This flashmob is to raise awareness on grassroots issues, on oppression – whether in the form of rising fuel prices, rising price of goods – and the Sedition Act cases that have been slapped on so many politicians, academics, members of Parliament and reporter," said AMK vice-chief Fahmi Fadzil.

Fahmi, who is also the PKR communications director, said the flashmobs will continue until Anwar's hearing date at the Federal Court on Oct 28.

At the flashmob, about 25 persons chanted "Reduce fuel prices" while holding placards calling for lower fuel prices, an independent judiciary, and abolition of the National Higher Education Fund (PTPTN).

Many motorists passing the group outside the Universiti LRT station greeted them with honks, and the group replied with cries of "reformasi". Traffic remained smooth throughout the event.

Additional reporting by Anne Muhammad

Rudeness Should Not be a Crime

I am not sure it is meant to protect public figures from rude comments from people who are angry at how you do your duty.

Sin Chew Daily


There is a stereotype about Malaysians that says we are a very polite people. I am not sure how true this is. Maybe once upon a time this was a reality, but nowadays I don’t see much politeness in my day to day life here in the capital city. Perhaps it is because I live in a big city that I feel this way. Maybe in the smaller towns, people are still polite to one another and treat one another with civility and friendliness.

Having said that neither are we especially rude. It happens of course, but quite rarely, to the point that when it does occur it feels rather jarring. Generally speaking we don’t see people shouting at each other. Of course on the internet people can be very rude. Also you get examples of extremely rude people in political settings, like at the anti-sedition protest in Penang recently which was broken up by a bunch of extremely uncouth thugs.

Rudeness is unpleasant of course, but the question I want to ask here is should it be illegal? I am speaking specifically about Wong Hoi Cheng and M Krishnan, who both have incurred the wrath of the authorities as a result of their “rude” actions.

Wong had likened the Inspector General of Police to a Nazi military commander and Krishnan had posed for a photo holding his slipper against a picture of the Prime Minister. Both actions were done apparently as an angry action to the police arresting scores of Penang Voluntary Patrol Unit and the rising cost of living respectively.

Krishnan was arrested and detained for a few days but as yet has not been charged. Wong has been charged under section 504 of the Penal Code. It is possible that Krishnan may be charged with the same section. If we look at section 504 it says:

“Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

Looking at this section, insulting someone can be a crime but it seems that the insult has to fulfil two components for it to be an offence. First is the insult itself and secondly that the insult will result in some sort of breach of peace or any other offence.

On the face of it, I don’t see how Wong’s statement can fulfil the second component. But of course ultimately that is for the court to decide. The question remains however as to why the police have decided to use their resources to charge him. Seriously, was what he said going to cause a breach in public order or result in other crimes?

I think the law was designed for situations where a person insults another person to the point that a fight ensues. I am not sure it is meant to protect public figures from rude comments from people who are angry at how you do your duty.

Now perhaps the IGP and the PM were very upset by the acts of these two men. Perhaps they are sensitive people and it hurt them badly. Perhaps, I don’t know, but being the object of anger and the occasional rudeness is the price one pays when holding high public office. Sure it is not nice and sure it is probably not in line with our culture, so sure these men can be scolded and told off by their own fellow Malaysians, but it is not correct for the law to be used to punish them.

This would mean that the law is used in a manner to protect the powerful from criticism. And criticism comes in many forms, including insults. It’s not nice, but then if you are not tough enough to take it, perhaps you shouldn’t be in public office.

Anyway, since the police are so keen on criminalising insults, perhaps they should investigate all those people who have been insulting Syed Azmi Alhabsi. Syed Azmi recently organised an event where people, including Muslims are encouraged to touch dogs in order to get over their prejudices against the animals. Quite a sweet thing to do I think, but not everyone shares this view.

Syed Azmi has been insulted vehemently by some angry Muslims and these insults have also been followed by calls of inflicting violence, even death on the poor chap. Surely this clearly falls under section 504 of the Penal Code. It would be interesting to see what the cops do.

Who will lead Pakatan after Anwar?

The Malaysian Times

The Federal Court will hear the appeal of Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy case next week. Political analysts are of the opinion that PKR and Pakatan Rakyat need to map out new strategies for post-Anwar era.

Sin Chew Daily reported political analyst Tan Ah Chai saying that if Anwar were to go to jail, PKR’s deputy president cum Selangor MB Azmin Ali would likely become the successor.

He told Sin Chew Daily if Azmin made good use of the power in his hands, he would be the most likely person to lead PKR and Pakatan.

He said, as a matter of fact, there have been talks within the party for a successor to take over Anwar’s place in case the verdict is unfavorable to Anwar.

“If Anwar were to go to jail and lose his leadership power, who will coordinate the conflicts and strategies among Pakatan parties?

“PKR and Pakatan are unwilling to talk about this seriously because they do not want to instill a bad impression before a verdict is passed down.

“But if they don’t do so now, the existing support might become shaky.”

Tan said party president Wan Azizah has all this while served only as the spiritual leader of PKR, while Anwar is the de facto leader, adding that Wan Azizah’s competency in handling the Selangor MB issue had been anything but desirable.

Collective leadership

In addition to Azmin Ali, Tan said DAP parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang and secretary-general Lim Guan Eng, and PAS’ deputy president Mat Sabu, are also potential future leaders of Pakatan.

However, given the country’s political reality that Pakatan’s chief leader must be a Malay, the probability of Azmin taking over Anwar’s place is the highest.

“If Anwar really goes to jail, Pakatan should adopt collective leadership during the transitional phase whereby key leaders from each component party should form a committee to map out the pact’s directions and strategies.

“During such a transitional phase, leaders from all parties have the opportunity to display their leaderships. In the past Anwar was too strong that the other leaders’ style and their strengths were largely obscured.”

He said Pakatan could not exist without a leader. Indeed it needs several leaders to take over the role of Anwar Ibrahim to coordinate the conflicts and contradictions among the component parties.

Kit Siang, Hadi not suitable to lead Pakatan

Tan pointed out that although Lim Kit Siang and Hadi Awang are leaders of their respective parties, they are not suitable to lead Pakatan due to their personal ideologies, characters and styles.

According to him, Lim is highly sensitive to existing political situations and is quick to respond to changes. However, he has never acted as a coordinator.

“Moreover, to a large extent he has started to bow out and let his son take over party and Pakatan affairs.”

As for Hadi Awang, Tan believe PAS would definitely fight for Pakatan leadership in the absence of Anwar. Nevertheless, Hadi is overzealous and conservative in religious matters without substantial policies for issues pertaining to national economy. He is unlikely to be accepted by PKR and DAP as the common leader of Pakatan Rakyat.

“PAS secretary-general Datuk Ali, meanwhile, is an interest-minded veteran politician with unpredictable stands.”

Tan also mentioned the likelihood of PAS deputy president Mat Sabu leading Pakatan Rakyat, instead of Hadi Awang, because of his good relationship with other Pakatan leaders.

However, he asserted that due to the deepening conflicts between the liberals and conservatives within the party, the statement of any leader would only represent half of the party.

Although Mat Sabu is the party’s deputy president, he doesn’t hold the real power. He held very different views from Hadi Awang over the Selangor MB crisis, and it remains to be seen whether he can be accepted by the conservatives within the party.

Premature to discuss heir now

DAP’s organizing secretary Anthony Loke said Pakatan had yet to meet and discuss the successor of Anwar, although he believed Pakatan would not split just because Anwar has to go to jail.

He said PKR’s leadership should be decided by PKR and other component parties should not interfere.

He said although Anwar has served as Pakatan’s supreme leader thus far, Pakatan has been operating in a collective leadership mode, and all the major decisions by Pakatan must be agreed by all the three parties.

“DAP hopes Anwar will be a free man again in next week’s appeal, and it is premature now to talk about Anwar’s successor.”

He added that Pakatan’s common leader needs not come from PKR.

DAP dares IGP to propose revival of IPCMC

Kit Siang said eyebrows were raised when Khalid said police never objected to the commission being established.

FMT

KUALA LUMPUR: DAP Parliamentary Leader Lim Kit Siang has challenged the Inspector-General of Police to propose to the Cabinet to revive the IPCMC Bill with an amendment to allow appeal against conviction.

Reacting to yesterday’s statement by IGB Khalid Abu Bakar that police had never objected to the establishment of the IPCMC (Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission), Lim said the “eyebrows of all Malaysians would have been raised” by the remark.

News reports yesterday quoted Khalid as saying that police objected only to certain terms in the IPCMC recommendation because they did not leave the police with any rights.

According to earlier reports, there was no clause in the recommendation that would allow police to appeal against conviction.

In his press statement today, Lim asked: “Is Khalid now saying that the police will support the IPCMC proposal if the police is given the right to appeal against any conviction?

“Is Khalid prepared to take the initiative to propose to the Home Minister, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet that the IPCMC Bill, giving the police the right to appeal against conviction, should be presented to Parliament for passage?”

He said it was “imperative” that the IPCMC be established and gave the following reasons:

One of the main objectives of IPCMC was to end deaths in police custody but police custodial deaths have not ended and have continued to be a national scandal despite the three-year operation of the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC).

The establishment of a special committee headed by the Inspector-General of Police in June last year failed to curb police custodial deaths.

The Court of Appeal in the A Kugan case in August called for “zero tolerance” of police custodial deaths and recommended that independent public inquiries be held for all such cases.

Lim recalled that the Court of Appeal censured Khalid, who was the Selangor police chief at the time, for acting both as “judge and jury” and committing “an affront to fair play and transparency” when he negotiated with the Attorney-General for investigations in their probe into Kugan’s death to be confined to Section 330 of the Penal Code for “voluntarily causing hurt”.

Fatwa Council says touching dogs not Islamic

Islamic religious authorities say that Muslims must adhere to the stipulated Islamic code practised in Malaysia.

FMT

KUALA NERUS: The National Fatwa Council Muzakarah has decided that touching and holding dogs is against mainstream Islamic doctrines in this country which follows the Imam Shafie school of thought.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Jamil Khir Baharom said Islam revered all animals including dogs. However, Muslims must adhere to the stipulated Islamic code with regards to touching dogs.

He said this to reporters after closing the National Fatwa Committee Conference 2014, which was also attended by Malaysia Islamic Development Department (Jakim) director-general Othman Mustapha and National Fatwa Council chairman Abdul Shukor Husin.

Jamil Khir said Jakim would call on the organisers of the recent “I Want To Touch A Dog” event to get a clearer picture.

The event which was held at Central Park in Bandar Utama, Petaling Jaya attracted over 800 people from all faiths and was aimed at encouraging human compassion towards dogs.

However, it drew flak from the Islamic religious authorities after some Muslim visitors to the event including children were pictured touching and petting the dogs there.

On another note, Jamil Khir said among the major issues discussed at the conference were the Islamic State (IS), particularly on Malaysian extremists fighting in Syria, Goods and Services Tax (GST) and surrogacy.

In regards to IS, he said the National Fatwa Council found that Muslims were still confused about the context of jihad, martyrdom and religious rulings on these, not just held by Muslims in Malaysia but also throughout the world.

Jamil Khir said that Malaysians who were recruited were willing to fight in Syria in the name of IS, which was against true Islamic teachings.

Regarding the GST which will be implemented next April, Jamil Khir said the National Fatwa Council was of the view that Islam allowed a ruling government to collect tax but it must be within the Islamic legal framework.

On surrogacy, the minister said the National Fatwa Council decided that it was not encouraged except in mitigating circumstances.

He said the details of the decisions or edicts made by the council at its meeting would be released soon by the secretariat of the Malaysia National Fatwa Committee. – BERNAMA

The thinking Malay is dangerous

The ulamas, like the political leaders, are obsessed with power and want Muslims to be at their mercy.

FMT - Mariam Mokhtar

The most dangerous threat to the Malaysian government is not an invading army, a contagious disease, or a nuclear threat. It is the thinking Malay.

When young pharmacist Syed Azmi Alhabshi decided to organise the “I Want to Touch a Dog” event at Bandar Utama on October 19, he didn’t expect such a huge response. More than 1,000 people –Muslims and non-Muslims – turned up.

Whilst man and beast were having lots of fun, in other parts of the country temperatures were raised. Syed Azmi was perceived as a threat.

Syed Azmi may have united Malaysians but he was alienating some conservative Muslims in Malaysia. His innocent “dog touching event” is a defining moment in 21st Century Malaysian history.

The Internet was awash with photos of tudung-clad girls smiling with their favourite dogs, Malay toddlers chasing German Shepherds, elderly Muslim couples stroking contented looking Labradors and Malay teenagers playing with Cocker Spaniels.

Malays and non-Malays were getting to know one another, through another of God’s creatures. The people learnt to bond – not just dog with humans, but Muslims and non-Muslims.

Any Malaysian, including the political leaders, should have been pleased to see harmony in action. People forgot their inhibitions. They did not see themselves as people of different faiths or races. They got on with one another, with help from the dogs.

Society’s party pooper, Jakim, waded in to spoil all the fun. Its director-general, Othman Mustapha, was furious, and said that the programme should not have taken place to begin with. He barked that Jakim would investigate the matter immediately.

He was followed by a Kelantan ulama who cried “Repent. Repent. Repent.” Other conservative Muslims claimed that the ulamas were being insulted. If anyone needs their heads examined, it is these people.

This is not a political issue; so why were the ulamas angry? They were furious because they saw their power being eroded. The 3Rs – race, religion and royalty – keep us in check, and safely divided.

For years, Muslims have been told what to do by the ulamas. The political leaders, together with their cronies and religious authorities carve up Malaysia for themselves.

One political cynic said, “To keep them in power, the leaders manipulate laws. To control dissent, they bully us with draconian laws. We are threatened with sedition. We are told that women leaders will lead us to hell. We are told that God approves of the GST. We are told that voting for Umno-Baru is a one-way ticket to heaven. The sad thing is that many Malays believe this.”

His colleague said, “After last Sunday’s dog touching event, more Malays are finally seeing the light. The Malay mind is being freed from its mental slavery. That explains why the authorities and the conservative ulamas are working at breakneck speed to find Syed Azmi guilty, but he has done nothing wrong.”

Fear of being irrelevant

Syed Azmi only wanted Malaysians to be compassionate towards animals and overcome their fear of dogs. He was not insulting the ulamas. The ulamas did not even bother to ask him why he organised the event.

The ulamas and conservative Muslims see their power base eroding. They are afraid that they will no longer be of relevance in a modern world which does not believe in the 3Rs.

Many Muslims nationwide observed the event on the Internet and saw no issue with dog touching. The ulamas are afraid that the thinking Malay will start to ask questions about their other edicts, handed down, in the past, to control Muslim behaviour.

The ulamas, like the political leaders, are obsessed with power. The rakyat is at their mercy. However, a thinking Malay can see past their warped thinking.

Touching dogs is not going to lead to touching pigs or eating non-halal food. It will not lead to free sex. It is the ulamas and their obsession with sex which makes the thinking Malay question why the ulama are stupid and shallow. The ulamas use sex as a crowd puller.

The ulamas must realise that in Saudi Arabia, the Bedouin tribesmen hunt with dogs (the Salukis), as in Afghanistan (the Afghan hounds). Dogs are used in search and rescue, for drug detection, hunting, and to assist the blind, the deaf and those with epilepsy. The dog is man’s best friend.

The thinking Malays wonder why things like chocolates, dogs, the word “Allah” and beer take prominence in the national debate. They wonder why the ulamas keep silent about the rising cost of living, petrol price hikes, the collapsing infrastructure, corruption, the abuse of power by the leaders, incest, drug taking by Malays and the high crime rate.

Today, the ulamas are against us touching dogs. Knowing how their minds work, it won’t be long before Muslims will be banned from eating hot-dogs, and using English idioms like “dog in the manger” or complaining that a book is “dog eared”, or that Malaysia has “gone to the dogs”.

Mariam Mokhtar is an FMT columnist

Doubts in administration of justice

The Star
by K.C. VOHRAH


THE recent episode in Parliament when Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nancy Shukri gave a written reply to a parliamentary question in relation to the Malay Bible burning threat by Datuk Ibrahim Ali raises a number of concerns.

The minister in a written reply stated, inter alia, that Ibrahim was not charged under the Sedition Act because the police concluded that he was merely defending the sanctity of Islam and had not intended to create chaos with this statement.

The written statement was from the Attorney-General’s Chambers where the Attorney-General (A-G) is the adviser to the Government on legal matters under Article 145(2) of the Constitution.

The first concern is the reliance by the A-G Chambers on the finding that Ibrahim was not intending to create chaos, to exculpate him from a charge under the Sedition Act.

However, section 3(3) of the Act clearly states that “(for) the purpose of proving the commission of any offence under this Act the intention of the person charged... shall be deemed irrelevant if in fact the words... had a seditious tendency”.

Again in relation to Ibrahim’s statement in the context of the words used, is there not a “seditious tendency” under the section 3 (1)(d) where “seditious tendency is defined as being a tendency” to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia...”, an offence under section 4 of the Act?

The second concern is that it would appear that the police had concluded that there was no intention to create chaos. How the police came to that conclusion shows that the provisions of the Sedition Act had not been understood or studied by the officers who compiled the investigation papers (collectively called the IP) before they concluded that no action should be taken against the man.

The third concern is that under Article 145(2) it is the duty of the A-G to advise, among others, any minister on legal matters. The A-G is the ultimate legal adviser to the Government and he cannot afford to be wrong.

The A-G Chambers will answer a parlia­mentary question in the form of an opinion. An opinion will comprise a statement of facts and the application of the law on the facts.

In our context the A-G Chambers relied on the police for the facts of the case. On the issue of law and its interpretation the A-G Chambers appeared to rely on the opinion of the police in the IP, as well, that no offence had been made out under the Sedition Act. That clearly is wrong.

I had been with the A-G Chambers for 16 years in the 70s and early 80s and the protocol for dealing with parliamentary questions was strict. An answer had to go through many layers of scrutiny and approval before being sanctioned by the A-G for release. What has happened to the strict procedure in the A-G Chambers?

Admittedly the A-G Chambers in my days was, and more so now is, never idle as the volume of problems that come to the chambers for legal opinion is enormous.

But in matters relating to parliamentary questions, truthful and accurate statements of law are expected in the august body of Parliament as the A-G is the ultimate adviser of the government in legal matters.

There needs to be a re-think probably of the protocol relating to answers to parliamentary questions especially in criminal law matters, and the decision on the law should be for the A-G Chambers and nobody else, except for the courts.

There are other concerns but perhaps I should deal with the biggest concern. It is with regard to the perception of the role of the A-G (as Public Prosecutor) in the legal administration of the country.

The A-G under Article 145(2) has the power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence.

The power is an awesome power which has to be exercised bona fide and with great professionalism and care. And any perception that the A-G when exercising such powers, is biased, selective or acts under ministerial pressure or pressure from any group will bring disrepute to the office of the A-G and cause grave misgivings as to the fair administration of the legal system. And when mistrust arises in regard to the exercise of such powers it would be to the discredit of the Government.

Clearly, the A-G Chambers has to be circumspect in regard to police IPs when dealing with the issues of fact and, especially when dealing particularly with parliamentary questions.

The A-G Chambers must also be solely responsible for the interpretation of the law in accordance with the tenor of the legislation and the relevant court-decided cases on that law; and the A-G cannot abdicate that duty to any other body, though the courts will have the last say on it.

With these concerns in mind, in relation to the Sedition Act, the A-G should review the cases where persons have already been charged in court bearing in mind that:

(1) The Sedition Act is an oppressive law and that many jurists and scholars consider sedition (based on common law seditious libel) as obsolete. Seditious libel came during a period when the divine right of rulers was not only accepted but believed to be necessary; rulers who dispensed laws were above questions and criticism of rulers was considered sinful as well as unlawful.

Lord Denning in Landmarks in the Law (1984) stated at p 295:

The offence of seditious libel is now obsolescent. It used to be defined as words intended to stir up violence, that is, disorder, by promoting feelings, of ill-will or hostility between different classes of His Majesty’s subjects.

But this definition was found to be too wide. It would restrict too much the full free discussion of public affairs... So it has fallen into disuse for nearly 150 years. The only case in this century was R. v. Caunt... when a local paper published an article stirring up hatred against Jews. The jury found the editor Not Guilty.

In the Canadian Supreme Court decision of Boucher v The King [1951] SCR 265 at 285-286, Mr Justice Rand held:

Up to the end of the 18th century it (crime of seditious libel) was, in essence, a contempt in words of political authority or the actions of authority.

If we conceive of the governors of society as superior beings, exercising a divine mandate, by whom laws, institutions and administrations are given to men to be obeyed, who are, in short, beyond criticism, reflection or censure upon them or what they do implies either an equality with them or an accountability by them, both equally offensive.

(2) That once a person is charged for an offence under the Act, looking at the state of case law in Malaysia, there is no defence that can normally be taken for offences, say, under the Penal Code or other acts creating offences. So it appears there can be no defence even of truth, lack of intention, presence of an innocent or honourable intention, absence of consequent harm, or even a lack of possibility or potential for consequent harm. Prove the utterance of words as “seditious” (defined circularly and widely) and there is no defence to the utterance. Very oppressive in the 21st century. And to think this is the law in Malaysia, a democratic country.

(3) That the A-G before exercising his discretion whether to charge a person for sedition must ignore pressure from any quarter, political or otherwise, the noisy and the cantankerous, and the well-meaning and well-intentioned groups (who have not seen the oppressive implications of the law), and focus on whether it is reasonable to charge such a person in the context of all relevant circumstances in an age of “disagreement in ideas and belief on every conceivable subject” which are the essence of our life in modern Malaysia pushing on for developed status in 2020.

Let us hope that the A-G, who had indicated he would review the cases of those charged for sedition, will do so with a group of officers who have researched the history of sedition law, its very rare use in other common law countries including Australia, Canada, India, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, United Kingdom and the United States and the reasons why that is so.

Using such reasons and in the context of reasonableness it is hoped the charges against a slew of persons including academics will be withdrawn. It boggles the mind that even intellectual discourse can be considered seditious.

K.C. VOHRAH
Kuala Lumpur

'Suhakam, probe Uthaya's prison horror stories'

 
Proham has urged the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) to investigate detention conditions in prisons following former detainee P Uthayakumar's revelations of  his experiences in Kajang Prison.

"Proham recognises that the Suhakam Act empowers the Human Rights Commission not only to visit detention centres but also undertake public inquiries.

"We therefore urge Suhakam to undertake a comprehensive review so as to ensure the treatment of prisoners and prison conditions are in accordance with basic United Nations standards," Proham chairperson Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari said in a statement today.

Kuthubul also called on the home minister and the director-general of prisons to engage with Suhakam for a review of current standard operating procedures (SOP) on treatment of prisoners and conditions in Malaysian prisons

Kuthubul reminded that with its recent acceptance as a UN Security Council member, Malaysia should adhere to the basic principles for the treatment of prisoners as adopted by the UN general assembly.

In a series of interviews with Malaysiakini this week, the Hindraf leader related his ordeal during his two years in Kajang Prison, after being convicted for sedition.

Prisoners have rights too

Meanwhile, Kuthubul urged for implementation of the basic principles for the treatment of prisoners which were adopted and proclaimed by the UN General Assembly resolution 45/111 in 1990.

The resolution states that all prisoners must be treated with respect as human beings and should not be discriminated on any grounds.

“Except for those limitations that are demonstrably necessitated by the fact of incarceration, all prisoners shall retain the human rights and fundamental freedoms set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

“All prisoners shall have the right to take part in cultural activities and education aimed at the full development of the human personality,” Kuthubul said.

He also pointed out that there should be efforts to address the abolition of solitary confinement as a punishment.

“(Also), prisoners shall have access to health services available in the country without discrimination on the grounds of their legal situation.

“Favourable conditions shall be created for the reintegration of the ex-prisoner into society under the best possible conditions,” he added.

Uthayakumar: Let me be the last jailed for sedition

Friday, October 24, 2014

5 inmates share a toothbrush - Uthaya reveals his experience in prison

PKR must act on reps who 'betrayed' Azizah

Terror grips Ottawa: Gunman was flagged as ‘high risk’



Terror gripped the Canadian capital of Ottawa on Wednesday when a convert to Islam shot and killed a soldier guarding the National War Memorial before storming the packed Parliament building, where he was gunned down in a hail of police bullets.

The armed assault, which put Parliament and much of Ottawa on lockdown, came as Canada was already in a heightened state of alert over an attack just two days earlier, when another jihad convert intentionally ran down two Canadian Armed Forces soldiers with his car in Quebec, killing one of them.

Wednesday’s terror attack began when a black-clad man wearing a hoodie and a bandanna appeared at the memorial at 9:52 a.m. and opened fire on the soldier, who was carrying only an unloaded ceremonial rifle.

“All of a sudden, I just heard a shot, turned around and there was a guy with a rifle . . . and just pow, pow,” said a bystander, Raivo Nommick.

The soldier, Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, of Hamilton, Ontario, died despite first responders’ desperate attempts to save him.

The 24-year-old father was a member of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders regiment.

The shooter was identified as Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, 32, a drug-addled recent convert to Islam who had been on Canadian authorities’ radar. Sources told the Toronto Globe and Mail that he was designated a “high-risk traveler” and his passport had been seized, suggesting that authorities were wary that he might travel to join foreign jihadis like ISIS.

In other developments:

  • Authorities released a photograph showing Zehaf-Bibeau posing with a pointed rifle on a since-deleted ISIS media account. They were trying to determine whether the gunman acted alone or was part of a terror plot.
  • The NYPD beefed up patrols at the Consulate General of Canada in Midtown as a precaution.
  • Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper spoke to his nation Wednesday night declaring, “Let there be no misunderstanding. We will not be intimidated. Canada will never be intimidated. In fact, this will lead us to strengthen our resolve . . . [and we will] redouble our efforts to work with our allies around the world and fight against the terrorist organizations who brutalize those in other countries.”
  • President Obama said, “I expressed on behalf of the American people our condolences to the [slain soldier’s] family and to the Canadian people as a whole.. Obviously, we are all shaken . . . but we’re going to do everything we can to make sure that we’re standing side by side with Canada during this difficult time.”
  • British Prime Minister David Cameron tweeted, “I’m appalled by today’s attack in Ottawa.”

After shooting Cirillo, Zehaf-Bibeau ran up the street toward Parliament Hill.

Dramatic video taken by a Globe and Mail reporter showed police warily searching for the shooter in the historic chamber before a loud rifle shot boomed out and then as many as 50 shots rang out in quick succession as cops returned fire.

Politicians and their staffers scrambled down scaffolding that was in place for renovations, while others hid inside barricaded meeting rooms as cops with high-powered rifles and body armor took up positions on the surrounding streets.

A security guard at the building was wounded in the fusillade but was expected to recover.

Canadian authorities said the intruder was taken down by 58-year-old Parliamentary Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers, a former Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer.

Zehaf-Bibeau had an extensive criminal record for drugs, assault, and weapons. His most serious crime resulted in a two-year sentence for a robbery.

The killer’s mother, Susan Bibeau, is a member of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board, while his father, Bulgasem Zehaf, is a Quebec businessman who owns a cafe, the Globe and Mail said.

Neighbors said the shooter grew up living a privileged life in a quiet neighborhood where he attended a private high school.

He told a friend at a British Columbia mosque about three years ago that he was thinking of traveling to the Middle East said “the devil” was after him, the Globe and Mail reported.

The bloodshed came as Canada prepared to join the US-led bombing campaign against ISIS terrorists in Iraq.

The cutthroat jihadis have urged supporters to kill military personnel and civilians in Canada and other countries — even instructing them to use their cars as weapons, as was the case in the Quebec attack.

A witness to Wednesday’s attack said the gunman was dressed in a manner similar to the uniforms worn by ISIS fighters.

“I looked out the window and saw a shooter, a man dressed all in black with a kerchief over his nose and mouth, holding a rifle,” Tony Zobl told the Canadian Press. “The honor guard dropped to the ground, and the shooter kind of raised his arms in triumph holding the rifle.”

Cirillo didn’t stand a chance. Soldiers who guard the memorial are part of a ceremonial guard, and he his comrade were carrying unloaded rifles.

The bespectacled Vickers was hailed as a hero for stopping the attacker’s advance just feet away from the country’s top officials.

Vickers’s brother John told the CBC his sibling called their mom, Monica, in New Brunswick to tell her he was safe.

“I just couldn’t be prouder of him right now,” John said, adding that his brother, a 28-year veteran of the Mounties, has “always been committed to service, people and country” during his law-enforcement career.

'Follow the footsteps of our brave brother': ISIS takes to Twitter to call for MORE attacks on Canada as it's feared more than 130 young Muslims have already left the country to join the terror group

  • Suspected terrorist attacks in Canada have sparked commentary from the online jihadist community on Twitter who are calling upon others to strike
  • 'Muslims in Canada, follow the footsteps of our brave brother Martin Rouleau who took revenge for Canadian military aggression in our lands,' wrote suspected jihadist Abu Khalid Al-Kanadi
  • The Canadian government estimates that over 130 Muslim youth have already left the country to join ISIS and that the number is growing

After two terrorist attacks in Canada in a week left two Canadian soldiers dead, ISIS has stepped up its rhetoric calling for even more radicals to carry out mass murder and mayhem in the country.

An even more horrifying fact is that an estimated 130 Muslim youths in Canada have been seduced and radicalized by ISIS and have even left Canada behind to join forces with them.

The first attack happened Monday night - a hit-and-run by suspected jihadist Martin Rouleau.

After two terrorist attacks in Canada in a week left two Canadian soldiers dead, ISIS has stepped up its rhetoric calling for even more radicals to carry out mass murder and mayhem in the country.

An even more horrifying fact is that an estimated 130 Muslim youths in Canada have been seduced and radicalized by ISIS and have even left Canada behind to join forces with them.

The first attack happened Monday night - a hit-and-run by suspected jihadist Martin Rouleau.

'Muslims in Canada, follow the footsteps of our brave brother Martin Rouleau who took revenge for Canadian military aggression in our lands,' he wrote.

One day later his account was suspended.

Insite Blog reports that a second jihadist Twitter account posted on October 21 and said that Canada is 'starting to pay the price of intervention' of the war against ISIS and followed up with a second tweet urging more attacks.

'A Canadian Revert killed a Canadian Soldier then he earned Shahada at the hands of the kuffar All This reward.. without evn leaving Canada.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2804359/Follow-footseps-barve-brother-ISIS-supporters-taken-Twitter-call-attacks-Canada-130-youths-left-Canada-join-terror-group.html

Doggy debate reveals Malaysia’s narrow Islamic code

The ‘I want to touch a dog’ event has spurred a debate among Malaysian Muslims on handling canines. – The Malaysian Insider pic, October 23, 2014. As Malaysian Muslims debate the different views in Islam on handling dogs, the National Fatwa Council today said that teachings under the Shafie school of jurisprudence, which Malaysia follows, had to be obeyed.

The council today decided that touching or holding a dog went against Shafie jurisprudence, which the Putrajaya has called the "official" Islamic code for Malaysia, Bernama reported.

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom said even though Islam held animals, including dogs, in high regard, dogs were still "unclean" from a religious standpoint and Muslims had to obey rules on handling them.

"That dogs are held in high regard is another matter, Muslims still have to abide by what has been decided under Islamic laws," he said in Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, today after a meeting of the fatwa council.

Bernama reported that the meeting was also attended by the director general of the Department of Islamic Development Malaysia (Jakim) Datuk Othman Mustaffa and chairman of the National Fatwa Council, Professor Emeritus Tan Sri Dr Abdul Shukor Husin.

A day after the "I want to touch a dog" event in Bandar Utama, Petaling Jaya, on October 19, Shukor had said that there was no need for the council to issue a new fatwa about dogs as "everyone knew" that they were unclean.

Shukor also said that while there were different opinions about dogs between the four main schools of Islamic jurisprudence, the matter should not be debated as Malaysia followed the Shafie school.

This school has the strictest interpretation on dogs, which cannot be touched whether they are wet or dry, and requires Muslims to perform the "samak" cleansing ritual if contact is made.

The Maliki school, on the other hand, does not view dogs as unclean and does not prohibit touching them.

"The council feels there is no need to issue a new fatwa because as we know, in this country, Muslims cannot touch dogs without reason whether the animal is dry, what more if it is wet. And if they happen to touch it, they will need to perform 'samak'.

"The law against touching dogs should not be hyped up as it has already been decided by the ulama that it is haram. So why should we want to debate it. That is why we do not need a fatwa because the matter is clear," Shukor was quoted saying in Utusan Malaysia.

There are four schools of jurisprudence among Sunni Muslims: Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi and Shafie. All four schools are accepted among Sunni Muslims as being within the confines of Islam. However, Malaysian Muslims traditionally follow the Shafie school of jurisprudence.

The debate has raged on social media between Muslims, and cyber bullying including threats to kill and beat up the event organiser, Syed Azmi Alhabshi, have also been made.

These threats have been condemned by moderate Muslims as bringing shame to Islam, while some scholars analyse the ongoing furore as part of a shift in Malaysian Muslim society with more people becoming open to other schools of jurisprudence.

Former Perlis mufti Professor Datuk Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin (pic, left) said the Malaysian Islamic authorities had to learn how to deal with a "modernising landscape".

"We cannot manage it as if we were from the dark ages. We must handle these modern changes in a mature manner,” he told The Malaysian Insider.

Asri has also said that Muslims were free to switch between schools, according to the teachings of Syrian scholar Wahba Zuhayli who held that it was not compulsory to commit to just one school of jurisprudence.

International Islamic University Malaysia lecturer Dr Maszlee Malik also told The Malaysian Insider that Muslim youth are now exposed to the other schools of jurisprudence through books, the media and the Internet. – October 23, 2014.

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/doggy-debate-reveals-malaysias-narrow-islamic-code

Top cop looks to ordinary Malaysians to keep police in check

Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar said Malaysians were the best monitors of police misconduct. – The Malaysian Insider pic, October 23, 2014. 
Brushing aside a proposal that an Independent Police Integrity Commission (Ipic) be set up to check abuse of power and graft among the boys in blue, top cop Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar said that the public are the best monitor of police misconduct.

He said the public were tech savvy and made use of their smartphones to immediately expose any abuse of power or misconduct via social media.

"I think this is the best monitoring for us. With the smartphone, they take a picture and put it on YouTube. So the people generally can monitor anything that involves the police," the inspector-general of police said in Kuala Lumpur today.

Khalid was commenting on the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Consultation and Prevention Panel’s suggestion that the police look into setting up the Ipic, in an effort to reform the force and improve public perception towards it.

"I am waiting for the proposal. We have not seen it yet. We will see what are the suggestions and proposals made by the committee in setting up the Ipic before making any comments.

"But as I have said before, PDRM is not only closely monitored by the new Integrity and Standard Compliance Department but also by the MACC and the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC).

"But more than that, we are also monitored by the people."

The Ipic is similar to the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC), which was proposed by the 2005 Dzaiddin Police Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI).

The MACC panel said it believed that the Ipic, which would be independent, would be as effective as the IPCMC in preventing police misconduct and abuse of power, including bribery.

Despite calls by the opposition to set up the IPCMC following a string of death in custody cases, the police and Putrajaya have repeatedly rejected the proposal.

They said it was unconstitutional and would result in overlapping jurisdictions.

Khalid, however, said the police have never objected to the setting up of IPCMC, but only certain terms in the clause that did not leave police any rights.

"It is as if we are second-class citizens. That we have no rights under the law with IPCMC."

It was reported that under the IPCMC, there is no clause to permit convicted officers to appeal decisions in court.

Critics of the IPCMC, including former IGP Tan Sri Musa Hassan, have said that the IPCMC must include an avenue for this, arguing that police should be accorded fairness and justice. – October 23, 2014.

- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/top-cop-looks-to-ordinary-malaysians-to-keep-police-in-check#sthash.WvTftmir.dpuf

Melayu perantau, bukan pendatang, kata Isma


Kawasan Nusantara disebut sebagai rantau Melayu kerana penduduknya bertutur menggunakan bahasa Melayu dan mengamalkan adat istiadat serta budaya Melayu secara saksama. – Gambar fail The Malaysian Insider, 23 Oktober, 2014.
Masyarakat Melayu di negara ini adalah penduduk asal wilayah Nusantara dan bukannya pendatang dari wilayah luar seperti kaum lain, kata Naib Presiden I Isma Muhammad Fauzi Asmuni.

Fauzi berkata, ahli parti politik Gerakan yang membicarakan isu pendatang di Tanah Melayu, Tan Lai Soon sebenarnya tersilap berhubung perkara itu ketika mengatakan Melayu juga pendatang di negara ini seperti kaum Cina dan India.

"Jika beliau merujuk orang Melayu yang duduk di Malaysia sekarang ini datang dari Sumatera, Kepulauan Sulawesi, Kepulauan Borneo, maka dalam sejarah ia tidak dipanggil bangsa pendatang. Orang Melayu yang berhijrah dari kawasan tadi, kita gunakan istilah sebagai perantau," katanya di laman sesawang Isma hari ini.

"Sebabnya, bila kita sebut Tanah Melayu, ia bukan merujuk kepada Malaysia sahaja, Tanah Melayu adalah satu wilayah cukup luas yang bermula dari Champa, sekarang ini dikenali sebagai Vietnam, Thailand, Singapura sehingga ke Riau Lingga.

"Kemudian di sebelah barat, Sumatera keseluruhannya, turun lagi ke bawah Kepulauan Jawa, kemudian naik semula ke atas Kepulauan Sulawesi, Borneo dan Filipina."

Beliau berpendapat, kenyataan pemimpin Gerakan itu tidak wajar disebut kerana ia amat bercanggah dengan fakta dalam sejarah.

"Saya tidak pasti sama ada perwakilan Gerakan tersebut merujuk kepada mana-mana kajian untuk mengaitkan atau menyimpulkan kaum Melayu adalah pendatang," katanya.

Fauzi berkata, kawasan Nusantara itu disebut sebagai rantau Melayu kerana penduduknya bertutur menggunakan bahasa Melayu dan mereka mengamalkan adat istiadat dan budaya Melayu secara saksama.

"Kalau kita lihat orang di Borneo, di Filipina, Maguindanao, Luzon dan sebagainya. Begitu juga jika di Sumatera, Jawa, mereka menggunakan nama-nama Melayu, bertutur dalam bahasa Melayu. Jadi itu dipanggilnya rantau Melayu.

"Rantau Melayu ini adalah rantau orang berpindah dari satu lokasi ke satu lokasi. Ia tidak dipanggil pendatang. Ia dipanggil perantau. Istilah itu lebih tepat," katanya.

"Jadi bila kita kata orang selain Melayu adalah pendatang, mungkin mereka akan sensitif dengan perkataan ‘pendatang’."

Fauzi berkata, rumpun Melayu menjadikan wilayah di Nusantara ini sebagai kediaman lalu menduduki rantau ini.

"Orang Cina berasal dari Tanah Besar China, orang India berasal dari tanah besar India. Kalau ada di sini saki baki keturunan orang Portugis, Belanda, mereka berasal dari Eropah.

"Jadi mereka ada tanah asal dan mereka datang ke sini. Kalau sensitif gunakan perkataan pendatang, gunalah apa-apa istilah pun.

"Tetapi mesti menunjukkan mereka itu datang dari tanah asal mereka dan masuk ke sini (Tanah Melayu)," katanya.

Fauzi berkata, pakar arkeologis dan pengkaji DNA serta seumpamanya mengatakan orang Melayu sudah bertapak di sini sejak penghijrahan awal manusia lebih kurang 35,000 tahun sebelum Masihi lagi.

"Jadi apabila pemimpin Gerakan itu mengatakan Melayu juga adalah pendatang, kita kena tanya semula kepada beliau, apa maklumat yang dia ada sampai dia sebut begitu? Sebab saya tidak nampak dia merujuk kepada mana-mana fakta ilmiah," katanya.

Fauzi berkata, selepas kemerdekaan sebahagian individu mula lupa sejarah terutama sebahagian kaum Cina dan India.

"Mereka menuntut kita lupakan sejarah dan mulakan sejarah baru bermula dengan kemerdekaan.

"Jadi mereka kata, selepas merdeka, mereka sudah duduk di sini, jadi sepatutnya kita bina negara baru.

"Saya tidak setuju dengan cadangan itu kerana sepatutnya kita perlu lihat kembali sejarah kita," katanya.

Beliau berkata, apabila kaum luar menuntut perubahan konsep kesamarataan, kumpulan itu tidak memahami konsep negara asal.

"Contoh, jika kita beramai-ramai pergi ke China dan menuntut mengubah konsep negara tersebut, pasti mereka tidak akan bersetuju.

"Mana-mana negara pun tidak bersetuju. Jika kita pergi ke Amerika, Amerika bertapak dengan konsep sekarang sejak pertengahan kurun ke-18.

"Jadi adakah satu cadangan daripada sesuatu pihak dengan mudah boleh diterima Amerika untuk mengubah konsep negara mereka? Mereka tidak akan ubah," katanya.

"Jadi logiknya, orang Islam Melayu di sini untuk tidak bersetuju terhadap beberapa tuntutan yang dituntut."

Beliau turut menegaskan konsep negera ini adalah Tanah Melayu dan ia adalah tanah Islam.

"Semua orang perlu bersetuju dengan konsep ini dan ia dipersetujui datuk nenek moyang mereka ketika kemerdekaan dulu.

"Jadi itulah hakikat kedatangan bangsa Cina, India dan bangsa lain ke Tanah Melayu," tambahnya.

Katanya, apabila terdapat seruan mengubah kontrak sosial dan Perlembagaan, ia mencabar doktrin negara yang menyebabkan keadaan harmoni selama ini.

"Kita tidak pernah halang orang luar yang sudah menjadi warganegara atau belum menjadi warganegara mencari rezeki. Siapa jutawan paling kaya di Malaysia?" katanya.

"Berapa ramai Cina berbanding Melayu? Jadi apa lagi yang mereka mahu? Sekolah Cina ada, sekolah India pun ada.

"Semua itu mereka kecapi yang mungkin tidak kecapi jika mereka berada di negara asal," katanya lagi.

Beliau berkata, konsep syukur itu harus difahami termasuk juga konsep berterima kasih.

"Sebabnya dari segi sejarah, kita lihat contoh bangsa luar apabila masuk ke mana-mana negara, adakah akan diterima sebagai warganegara dengan mudah?

"Tidak akan diterima dengan mudah. Tetapi sejarah membuktikan orang Melayu dengan toleransi yang tinggi, pada 1957 memberikan kewarganegaraan kepada lebih sejuta orang dengan pemberian mudah. Jadi jangan lupa sejarah itu," katanya.

Beliau berkata, sebagai seorang manusia dan warganegara, komuniti bukan Melayu sudah cukup dengan apa yang dinikmati hari ini.

"Saya rasa sudah cukup dengan apa yang mereka kecapi, sudah amat memadai dan sepatutnya diucapkan dengan ucapan terima kasih.

"Tetapi akhirnya sebahagian mereka menghasut supaya mereka dapat lebih, sampai nak ubah konsep negara.

"Mereka cuba mahu runtuhkan Perlembagaan, jadi macam mana Melayu tidak respons? " katanya.

"Melayu akan respons dan membalas jika berasa haknya terancam." – 23 Oktober, 2014.
- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/bahasa/article/melayu-perantau-bukan-pendatang-kata-isma#sthash.2SwnVU9G.dpuf

'Budget focus on bumis not due to racist gov't'

 
Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak's emphasis on the bumiputera agenda during Budget 2015 is not because it's a racist government, said Deputy Finance Minister Ahmad Maslan.

This is to address the bumiputera population which is set to increase to 70 percent in 2020.

The government feels that only if bumiputeras advance, can Malaysia develop, he explained.

"We do not have the intention of being racist. We do not want this issue to arise," he said.

He was speaking at a briefing on GST to some 700 civil servants in Bangi, Selangor.

"However, Malaysia can only advance when 70 percent of its population advances."

"Others (non-bumiputera), they work hard and have managed to move forward, but the 70 percent still lags behind, with most still staying in villages," Ahmad said.

'Rich Chinese, non-bumis reproduce less'


He said that the bumiputera’s composition increased following a drop in the reproduction rate among Chinese and non-bumiputera families when they get rich.
 
The bumiputera meanwhile maintained three to six children in a family.
 
Najib has underlined the bumiputera agenda as one of the seven strategies in his budget speech, and announced plans to help the bumiputera. 
 
Najib said the target of 30 percent bumiputera equity has yet to be achieved, and that the effective control over corporations was only 10 percent.
 
In his Ahmad also took the opportunity to lambast the ‘Rakyat Hakim Negara’ (People the judge of the nation) campaign being held in solidarity with the opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim's sodomy appeal in federal court next week. 
 
He said that it was Anwar as the former finance minister who first proposed the new tax system.
 
"When you talk about 'Rakyat Hakim Negara', that has only happened during national polls.
 
"But on a personal issue (like sodomy II trial), you have to take responsibility in your own capacity, there is no need to involve the rest of the people," said Ahmad, who is also the Umno information chief.
 
He cautioned the people against the campaign to flood the Federal Court next Tuesday for Anwar's final appeal.
 
"Read the judgement of three judges from Court of Appeal, read it. This was the only judgement in the world that I read to find out (the reason of five-year sentence,)" he said.
 
He said he hoped there won't be any chaos on the day of hearing at Palace of Justice, Putrajaya.

Malaysians urged to demand AG’s accountability

Kit Siang says the opaqueness of Gani and his office cannot be maintained in a democracy.

FMT

KUALA LUMPUR: DAP Parliamentary Leader Lim Kit Siang today issued a clarion call to Malaysians to demand that the Attorney-General’s Chambers submit to public scrutiny for its accountability.

In a media statement referring to AG Abdul Gani Patail’s announcement on Sept 9 that his office would review the sedition charges against academic Azmi Sharom and others, Lim noted that seven weeks had passed “but nothing has been forthcoming on the outcome of this review, or whether such a review has taken place.”

He said the opaqueness of the AG and his office “is not maintainable in a modern democratic country committed to accountability and good governance principles.”

He urged Malaysian citizens and their representatives in Parliament to demand that the AG’s Chambers “submit to public and parliamentary scrutiny for accountability”.

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

The DAP leader also referred to former AG Abu Talib Othman’s criticism of Gani’s Sept 9 statement.

“Is he admitting that he was not fair and transparent when the accused were first charged, and that is why he is reviewing the cases now? Maybe he should clarify,” he quoted Abu Talib as saying.

Lim said Gani, more than failing to clarify, had allowed the sedition blitz to continue.

Contrasting the sedition charges against opposition leaders and activists with the apparent immunity of Perkasa chief Ibrahim Ali despite his call for the burning of Bibles, Lim said Gani was “fuelling the worst crisis of confidence in the nation’s history over the role and powers of the Attorney-General as a result of his silence over the escalating controversy”.

Serious questions

He said the AG’s failure to provide an “acceptable explanation that there has been no arbitrary abuse of the AG’s prosecutorial discretion … has raised serious questions as to whether he is committed to upholding the rule of law and to act as guardian of the public interest”.

Lim also quoted from a letter from former Court of Appeal judge K C Vohrah that the Star published today.

He said Vohrah expressed “the legitimate nagging concerns in many minds”.

Vohrah called for the review and withdrawal of sedition cases based on three considerations:

The Sedition Act is an oppressive law and that many jurists and scholars consider sedition (based on common law seditious libel) as obsolete. Seditious libel came during a period when the divine right of rulers was not only accepted but believed to be necessary;

That once a person is charged for an offence under the act, looking at the state of case law in Malaysia, there is no defence that can normally be taken for offences, say, under the Penal Code or other acts creating offences. So it appears there can be no defence even of truth, lack of intention, presence of an innocent or honourable intention, absence of consequent harm, or even a lack of possibility or potential for consequent harm.

That the AG before exercising his discretion whether to charge a person for sedition must ignore pressure from any quarter, political or otherwise, the noisy and the cantankerous, and the well-meaning and well-intentioned groups (who have not seen the oppressive implications of the law), and focus on whether it is reasonable to charge such a person in the context of all relevant circumstances in an age of “disagreement in ideas and belief on every conceivable subject” which are the essence of our life in modern Malaysia pushing on for developed status in 2020.

Ridhuan Tee, won’t you please shut up?

Integration does not mean an ethnic community has to give up its cultural identity.

FMT

Perhaps we can forgive his occasional pandering to Umno interests. Perhaps even a slip of the tongue here and there. But the constant attention grabs of columnist and alleged scholar Ridhuan Tee Abdullah have just become tiresome and downright irritating. Not content with throwing tantrums over civil society’s lack of concern when he was under investigation for sedition, Ridhuan is back to rant about vernacular schools and, of course, the “ultra kiasuness” of Malaysia’s Chinese community.

Please, please, just shut up already.

I say this out of an earnest yearning for Mr Tee to learn to hold his tongue and perhaps apply more diligence in his study of the Quran instead of spouting empty rhetoric under the guise of being ethnically Chinese. Every time he opens his mouth, or pens a column, all he does is drive a bigger wedge between Malaysians, as if we didn’t already have enough wedges to deal with.

It seems like he must have an opinion on everything, and his opinion will always lead back to, surprise, someone being “ultra kiasu” (usually Chinese). If there ever was a perfect illustration for the Malay proverb “kacang lupakan kulit”, it would have to be Ridhuan Tee Abdullah.

Let’s appreciate the irony of Tee’s use of “ultra kiasu” for a moment. He often uses this to refer to Chinese whom he perceives as more “cina than China”, whereas Tee often attempts to be more Malay than a Malay himself. Sweet, delicious irony in the form of an identity crisis if there ever was one. And yet he has the cheek to offer himself up as a “guide” for non-Malays to better understand the Malay people.

Here’s the catch: the only way anyone ever succeeds in understanding someone else is by facing him and engaging with him, which usually leads to a realisation that there are other ways of looking at and understanding this world. We don’t learn anything about each other through harangues and diatribes spouted by people like Ridhuan, who expects non-Malays to lend a ear to him while he consistently and constantly refers to them as “ultra kiasu tribes” or “ultra kiasu groups”.

Damage to the nation

Wong Chun Wai once said that Tee suffers from an identity crisis, and I’m tempted to concur. Ridhuan, you can’t change who you are and who you are born as. But why the need to spout divisive rhetoric, seemingly without realizing the damage you’re causing us as a nation? Your words will not bring us together as Malaysians. Look at your comment on Thaipusam, for example: “A sea of people of one colour only, as if there are no other colours in this country.”

Congratulations. You hurt the feelings of an entire people that day, as if they don’t figure at all in your daily life.

One could suppose this is Ridhuan indulging in a form of intellectual blackface, wearing a Malay mask as he writes and then stripping it off to assert that he is still of Chinese ethnicity when questioned. Despite claims that he never claimed to be Malay (genetically impossible considering his ethnic background), he certainly writes from a perspective that suggests he wishes that he could lay claim to the privilege.

Integration does not necessarily mean the loss of cultural identity. It does not mean that the dominant culture oppresses or represses that of the minority in the name of “unity” but assimilates it as part of the whole. That has been the guiding principle for most Malaysians throughout our history, and despite the hubbub and noise caused by extremists, for the most part we have integrated and accepted our different cultures as part of a greater whole, Malaysian culture.

I am proud to call myself a son of this country. I am a third generation Malaysian Chinese raised in the capital city of our country. I went to a kebangsaan school that hosted all the colours of Malaysia and do not speak a word of Chinese outside basic greetings and some food names. Most of my friends are Malay, across the strata from the liberal through the apolitical to the conservative. And I have found that they respect my cultural inclinations the same way they expect to be given respect in how they conduct their lives.

We have debated about religion with no animosity and shared a teh tarik together afterwards while laughing over football. I have been to their houses for Raya, and shared cakes my mother baked with them. Nothing, as far as this life here in Malaysia has shown me, has pointed to this idea that the Chinese need to give up their identity to be Malaysian. In fact, our identity is Malaysian because this is the only homeland we have ever known or will ever know, and the only culture we are familiar with.

Ridiculous suggestion

Your disingenuous assertion that we want to get rich so we can die in China is possibly the most ridiculous suggestion I have ever heard. I’m sure you know as well as I do that in China we are barely regarded as “true” Chinese anymore, and I believe China’s culture would be so alien to me that I would pack my bags and head back home to Kuala Lumpur not long after touching down in my so-called “motherland”.

I believe I speak for the majority when I say that Malaysia is my motherland and will be till the day I die, no matter where life may yet take me. This is my home, and has been my family’s home for three generations, and I will not accept the idea that I am “ultra kiasu” or somehow less Malaysian because I do not ape Malay culture. I am who I am, and that is Malaysian.

So Ridhuan, please, enough already. Stop driving a wedge between us the peoples of Malaysia for some obscure reason that only you and God know. As I said before, integration does not mean the loss of identity. With your position, you should be able to spread a message of wasatiyyah, a message of unity and not division. One could even argue that with one leg in your ethnic roots and the other in the majority religion of this country, you should be a bridge in the gaps, that it is your responsibility to be that bridge.

If you can’t, and instead insist on spreading your message of hate—and I’m sure you’ve heard this—“Much silence and a good disposition, there are no two things better than these.” (al-Bukhari)

Gani Patail fuelling worst crisis of confidence in nation’s history over the role and powers of Attorney-General

Lim Kit Siang Blog

The Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail is fuelling the worst crisis of confidence in the nation’s history over the role and powers of the Attorney-General (AG) as a result of his silence over the escalating controversy over non-prosecution of Perkasa President Ibrahim Ali for his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible on the one hand and the sedition blitzkrieg against scores of Malaysians who did not make incendiary statements to create a climate of fear on the other.

This is because the continued absence of satisfactory accountability and acceptable explanation that there have been no arbitrary abuse of the AG’s prosecutorial discretion as highlighted by the decision not to prosecute Ibrahim Ali despite the threat to burn the Malay-language Bible and the mass sedition blitzkrieg have raised serious questions whether the Attorney-General is committed to uphold the Rule of Law and to act as guardian of the public interest.

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

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

As the former AG said:

“To charge a person is a very serious matter at it affects the accused’s credibility, standing and dignity.

“It will put the accused in an emotional turmoil. Even, if the prosecution withdraws the charge later, the damage is done.”

The former A-G said during his tenure, he only consented to charges being framed if there was “90% evidence to secure conviction”.

He said charges were also framed based on applicable law, fairness and public interest consideration without influence by a third party.

Talib said Gani’s statement that he would review the charges only gave the impression the decision to charge the accused was made without careful and serious consideration of all the available facts.

“Is he (Gani) admitting that he was not fair and transparent when the accused were first charged, and that is why he is reviewing the cases now? Maybe he should clarify.”

Gani had not only failed to clarify, but had allowed the “white terror” regime of sedition investigations and prosecutions to continue unabated – even pressing for the continuation of sedition trials despite Azmi’s successful application on Oct. 13 to challenge the constitutionality of the Sedition Act in the High Court, an outcome which would affect all sedition cases.

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

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

The present status quo of opaqueness from public and parliamentary accountability of the Attorney-General and his Chambers is not maintainable in a modern democratic country committed to accountability and good governance principles – and MPs and Malaysians must demand the AG’s Chambers submit to public and parliamentary scrutiny for accountability.

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

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

Vohrah wrote:

“I had been with the A-G Chambers for 16 years in the 70s and early 80s and the protocol for dealing with parliamentary questions was strict. An answer had to go through many layers of scrutiny and approval before being sanctioned by the A-G for release. What has happened to the strict procedure in the A-G Chambers?

“Admittedly the A-G Chambers in my days was, and more so now is, never idle as the volume of problems that come to the chambers for legal opinion is enormous.

“But in matters relating to parliamentary questions, truthful and accurate statements of law are expected in the august body of Parliament as the A-G is the ultimate adviser of the government in legal matters.

“There needs to be a re-think probably of the protocol relating to answers to parliamentary questions especially in criminal law matters, and the decision on the law should be for the A-G Chambers and nobody else, except for the courts.”

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

He continued: “And any perception that the A-G when exercising such powers, is biased, selective or acts under ministerial pressure or pressure from any group will bring disrepute to the office of the A-G and cause grave misgivings as to the fair administration of the legal system. And when mistrust arises in regard to the exercise of such powers it would be to the discredit of the Government.”

Vohrah called for the review and withdrawal of cases where persons have already been charged based on three considerations:

(1) The Sedition Act is an oppressive law and that many jurists and scholars consider sedition (based on common law seditious libel) as obsolete. Seditious libel came during a period when the divine right of rulers was not only accepted but believed to be necessary; rulers who dispensed laws were above questions and criticism of rulers was considered sinful as well as unlawful.

(2) That once a person is charged for an offence under the Act, looking at the state of case law in Malaysia, there is no defence that can normally be taken for offences, say, under the Penal Code or other acts creating offences. So it appears there can be no defence even of truth, lack of intention, presence of an innocent or honourable intention, absence of consequent harm, or even a lack of possibility or potential for consequent harm. Prove the utterance of words as “seditious” (defined circularly and widely) and there is no defence to the utterance. Very oppressive in the 21st century. And to think this is the law in Malaysia, a democratic country.

(3) That the A-G before exercising his discretion whether to charge a person for sedition must ignore pressure from any quarter, political or otherwise, the noisy and the cantankerous, and the well-meaning and well-intentioned groups (who have not seen the oppressive implications of the law), and focus on whether it is reasonable to charge such a person in the context of all relevant circumstances in an age of “disagreement in ideas and belief on every conceivable subject” which are the essence of our life in modern Malaysia pushing on for developed status in 2020.

Will Gani Patail heed the voice of reason and sanity of an eminent Malaysian jurist, speaking for the overwhelming majority of thinking and reasoned Malaysians?