Gillian Gibbons, 54, from Liverpool, was jailed by a court on Thursday after children in her class named a teddy bear Muhammad. She was sentenced to 15 days for insulting religion, and she will then be deported.
Thousands of people marched in the Sudanese capital Khartoum to call for UK teacher Gillian Gibbons to be shot. Read full story...
Chong Zhemin, Malaysian Politics, 30 Nov 2007
YouTube Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY-ZfuYSJx8
A true state of "Democracy" in Malaysia video, drawing parallels to the movie "V for Vendetta".
Malaysia Mis-information Minister claims that the General Elelction every 5 years means that we have democracy in Malayisia.
Democracy is more than having elections. Democracy is the freedom to peaceful gathering. Democracy is the freedom of speech. Democracy is the freedom to express opposing views.
There can be no democracy without elections.
But there can also be elections without democracy.
The administration of the Malaysian government is moving towards complete total hegemonic domination which makes it no difference to the dictactorship of Chancellor Adam Sutler in the movie "V For Vendetta".
Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch commented "Prime Minister Badawi claims to be a reformer, but when it comes to holding onto power, he and his party make one set of rules for themselves and another for everyone else."
It's time for political reform in Malaysia. Vote for change.
People should not be afraid of their governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people.
Syed Jaymal Zahiid & Kuek Ser Kuang Keng, Malaysiakini, 30 Nov 2007
via Bersih.org
The Selangor Election Commission (SEC) has struck out the names of 45 'transplanted' voters following complaints from Sekinchan state assemblyperson Ng Swee Lim.
In a letter last Friday, SEC director Jailani Abdul Majid (photo) said SEC held a public inquiry into the matter on Nov 15 after the DAP politician filed five separate complaints about the presence of 49 mystery voters in his constituency.
According to Ng, the SEC decided to allow the remaining four to cast their ballots because the allegations raised by him against them had to be dropped due to technical reasons.
The technical reasons include mistakes like inaccurate information pertaining to their identity card numbers as provided by the complainant.
Same address
The issue first came to Ng's attention when he inspected the supplementary electoral roll for the third quarter of the year.
The supplementary electoral roll consists of the full list of new voters being added to the main rolls.
In the 2004 general election, Ng beat a MCA candidate by a 344 majority to clinch the seat.
Last month, the opposition politician's team found alleged irregularities in two locations—Jalan Radin and Sekinchan Site C—which each had more than a dozen of voters registered to a single address.
According to Ng, in Jalan Radin 16 people changed their address to a shoplot which housed a hair salon, with another person at the address being a new voter.
In Sekinchan Site C, Ng pointed out that 12 new voters were registered to a single-storey wooden house which is currently occupied by a family of four. Another seven voters changed their address to that same house.
Another 13 'mystery voters' were found to be allegedly from nearby constituencies and non-Sekinchan residents.
Loopholes exist
When contacted, Ng expressed satisfaction with the SEC's action but believes that much more must be done in order to close loopholes in election laws.
"There are still flaws in the laws. These flaws allow voters to change their address and therefore their constituency, which means that voters can be moved about easily (by rival political parties) to secure victory in their constituency," he said.
He said the government must "patch up the loopholes" and amend the Election Act. He also called for the removal of "excessive red tape" with regard to filing complaints on election irregularities.
"Elections would be fairer if voters who spot irregular practices can lodge complaints without having to go through a bureaucratic hassle which discourages them from doing so," he said.
A copy of the SEC letter will be submitted to the Coalition for Fair and Free Election (Bersih) to be used as proof, to show EC chairperson Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman that there are irregularities in the election system despite his claim to the contrary.
WASHINGTON — The protesters who took to the streets of Kuala Lumpur a few days ago might have invoked the British Queen's name but it is Uncle Sam who has become the first outsider of note to react to the unprecedented mass rallies in Malaysia.
"We believe citizens of any country should be allowed to peacefully assemble and express their views," a United States State Department official said when commenting on the crackdown of the two street protests in the Malaysian capital this month.
According to AFP, the US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, did not go beyond his succinct statement, but it was seen as an implicit criticism by the US State Department of the Malaysian police's strong response to the rare outpouring of anti-government dissent.
The US comment drew a swift response from Malaysia's de facto Law Minister Nazri Abdul Aziz.
Defending Kuala Lumpur's actions, he said: "What is good for their country is not necessarily suitable for our country. We are a sovereign nation."
Earlier this month, some 30,000 people took part in a rally calling for electoral reforms.
Last Sunday, a rally organised by the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) attracted at least 8,000 Indians. They had asked the British government for compensation for the alleged exploitation of Indian labour when Malaysia was a British colony.
The two rallies were the biggest in a decade and were broken up by police using tear gas, water cannons and baton charges.
Three more public rallies are expected to be held in Kuala Lumpur next month.
On Dec 9, the Malaysian Bar Council will hold its annual Human Rights Day march, which the Coalition for Free and Fair Elections (Bersih) has expressed intent on joining.
Bersih, which had organised the rally calling for electoral reforms, plans to stage a demonstration outside Parliament House two days after this to protest impending constitutional amendments that will raise the age limit of Election Commission members.
The third rally has been organised by a coalition of opposition parties and non-governmental organisations, to protest impending hikes in highway toll charges in several states beginning Jan 1.
On Tuesday, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi warned that he could use the controversial Internal Security Act (ISA) to quell the rallies.
Mr Abdullah said the ISA, which allows for detention without trial, was a "preventive measure to spare the nation from untoward incidents that can harm the prevailing peace and harmony and create all sorts of adverse things".
"ISA will be there. When it is appropriate to use it, it will be used," he said.
In another development, a Hindraf leader, lawyer V Ganapathy Rao, was arrested yesterday just days after being cleared of sedition charges.
Hindraf lawyers said Mr Rao, who was freed on bail after being interrogated by police for several hours, was expected to be charged today with new sedition charges.
A court had earlier ruled that separate charges against Mr Rao and two other Hindraf leaders over speeches made earlier this month had not been properly documented.
The original charges, which carried a punishment of three years imprisonment, related to speeches earlier this month in which the Indian activists criticised preferential treatment for Malays. — AGENCIES
A group of men claiming to be Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) supporters helped themselves to a hearty meal at a restaurant in Brickfields on two consecutive days and left without paying.
The men destroyed furniture and kitchen equipment, causing losses amounting to RM5,000.
The restaurant owner, who declined to be named, said the men claimed to be Hindraf supporters, became aggressive and refused to pay the bill.
Manager R. Velokrishnan, 44, said in his police report that he had not identified Hindraf members as those behind the attacks.
"In our police report, we did not mention Hindraf at all and we did not call the media yesterday (on Tuesday). We don't know from where they got the information," Bernama quoted him as saying at a press conference at the restaurant Wednesday.
A case of misreporting? Misinterpretation? Overzealous finger-pointing? The cops said they will investigate the matter.
Dr Dzulkifli Ahmad, BERSIH.org, 29 Nov 2007
Call it what you may, but I insist that we are living in an 'exciting' moment in our political history! Arguably, 'challenging moment' may be more appropriate. The relentless and realistic optimist in me chooses this term despite knowing full well that we are in the worst of our times where every critical institutions of the state, including the judiciary, are severely compromised. Could we degenerate further? Yes. So what is so exciting? The prospect of reform and change should we wish to pursue.
Doubtless, if the majority of us insist to remain docile and submissive, in a nation that patronizes 'Spectator Democracy', (borrowing from Noam Chomsky), we will all be doomed to the abyss of decadency. But what about the reform? Well, it comes with a price. It will not be on a silver platter.
Never mind the 2 mammoth gatherings of BERSIH and then HINDRAF, happening in quick succession in a course of a month in November. If you're one of those still perplexed, now wondering and insisting that you should know what has become of this distressed nation then you're not alone. You are part of the ground-swell for change and reform. It is increasing slowly yet surely. It is this 'awakening' that is most exciting.
That was precisely the reason why, the organizers of both events insisted that they be given their democratic rights to a peaceful assembly as enshrined in the Federal Constitution (Article 10), so as to inform the public, nay the entire world, of their endless quandary and now their demands. The street is the 'people assembly' where they will be seen and heard albeit not without its risks. That's the price.
These 2 'watershed' events, though seemingly unrelated, bore major similarities on closer examination. They are both offshoots of a regime that has long been in denial. Bottom-line they met with the same fate i.e. in the manner it's been strongly suppressed by the powers-that-be. While BERSIH is all out pressing for electoral reforms before the next 12th General Election (GE), HINDRAF, a Hindu Rights Action Force, calls for empowering the Indian Hindus community by ending both the racial and religious discrimination, perceived against their community.
Under the rubric of national peace and security, coupled with the alleged fear of investors for 'gatherings', participants of both events were greeted with wanton use of force, tear-gas and chemical-laced water. The 'victims' were diabolically demonized as the 'perpetrators', while their predicaments and grouses never saw the light of the day in the mainstream media.
This piece may not be able to champion the cause of HINDRAF as the writer is neither a Hindu nor an Indian. But it doesn't absolve him of the duty and obligation to standup for the rights of his countrymen to express their claims of being victims of injustices, marginalisation and discrimination, through democratic of ways.
That said, the writer, a member of the BERSIH's Steering Committee, is nonetheless going to say his piece on the continued suppression of democracy in this nation, now on the brink of another GE. Should the EC, working hand in glove with the government, choose to be again in denial, the BERSIH's hope for a reform will surely suffer a stillbirth. That shall be a very sad day for Malaysia and Malaysians.
Judging by the Al-Jazeera 30 minute 101 East forum moderated by Teymoor Nabili, one shudders at the thought of democracy be inherited to the heirs of Umnopower. As if admitting what transpired from the earlier interview with the 'semi-literate' Minister of Information was too humiliating for Umno, she wanted an immediate replay, this time with the supposedly younger-brighter brand of Umnopower.
Quite unfortunately, both Khairy and Nazri got it all wrong from the start. The repeat wasn't about who could string proper sentences in English and who couldn't. It is entirely about professing understanding of what constitute 'Electoral Democracy' as opposed to 'Electoral Authoritarianism'. Despite Khairy's overly showy exhibit of his Oxford accent, his acumen wasn't far off from the 'much-to-be-desired' de facto Minister of Law insofar as understanding Democracy 101 is concerned.
This scares many a well-wisher of Democracy including this writer, about what is to become of this nation when power actually changes hands. In stark contrast, the solitary voice of sanity and reason from Malik Imtiaz, the Human Right Lawyer, effortlessly saved the day. That was exciting as it was consoling for the rest of us.
This brings me to the crux of this piece ie that electorates in an electoral process, be whatever system have you, must decide base upon an informed decision. Access to information is so critical and cardinal to democracy. Voters' access to information must not be stifled much as candidates need to have a fair and equitable access to media as to enable him to communicate his policies and conviction to a wider cross section of the electorates.
Anything that compromises the access of voters to information and the contending parties to media has indeed turned the electoral system and the entire election process into a sham democracy. Isn't the media covering opposition activism? Yes, but only for the wrong reasons like featuring them 'rioting' in an 'illegal' and 'outlawed' demonstration.
A truly free and fair press in a democracy informs the public, holds leaders accountable, engenders integrity, stifles corruption and amply provides for a forum to debate on issues of local, national or global concerns by both the government and their critiques or detractors. Are our media assuming that role in anywhere? An emphatic No! It's only keen to 'Manufacture Consent' (borrowing Noam Chomsky's again) to placate grouses and hoodwink the electorates despite their many 'sins of omission and commission' now exposed.
This is the greatest failure and now the debilitating 'Blindspot' of the government. This regime has turned to be their own greatest enemy by shrewdly and 'illegally' overstaying their welcome through fraudulent practices of democracy.
The writer could recall that amongst the 6 demands, strangely by none other than the Chairman of the Election Commission (EC), (now desperately hoping for an extension), was the need for the EC to be "given power to ensure that justice and freedom be accessible to all (contending parties) in both the electronic and print media. He also strongly opined that 'the election laws and regulations are 50 years old and no longer capable of delivering justice to all' (Bernama, Jan 8, 2007).
Many are also unaware that the EC admitted deleting 180,000 voters from the Electoral List following BERSIH's call for Cleansing of the Electoral Roll early this year. In July the EC again admitted 22,433 voters were dropped from the Electoral Roll when the National Registration Department didn't have their names as bona-fide citizens of this country.
The latest admission of the Secretary of the EC that their assistant officers for registration of voters were found to have transferred voters without their consent before July 2002 again largely vindicated opposition claims of massive fraudulent practice in the last GE of 2004. Scary? Scandalous? How many actually voted and put this government in office? God knows. Will we, the entire citizenry, take these punishing and humiliation lying-down again in the next GE?
BERSIH has enumerated 4 short term urgent reforms and a longer-term systemic change that is worthy of this nation. We call upon all Malaysians to standup to the task and challenge of reforming the electoral system so that we could proudly bestow it upon our grand-children a democracy worthy of Malaysia! If we insist to remain pathetically apathetic and remorseless, it wouldn't be too long before our grandchildren inherit a nation with hardly any semblance of a functional democracy and a thread of integrity anymore.
We may be turning in our graves every time they 'curse' at us. God forbids!
Are we ready to do it? Stand-up and be counted! Be an activist of BERSIH!
You surely wouldn't want to miss being part of this exciting political history!
Dr Dzulkifli Ahmad
Director PAS Research Centre
A Member of the BERSIH Steering Committee
Bernama news agency reported that British High Commission did not received any petition from HINDRAF of the rally on Sunday, 25 Nov 2007.
British High Commissioner Boyd McCleary said: "We offered to accept the petition on Sunday but it was not delivered." He did say, however, that the High Commission received "some faxed information" but did not elaborate any further.
Reference:
This is the stuff you won't see in the mainstream media.
Credits: lauwengsan
Credits: lauwengsan
Noticed how the FRU personnel (in red beret) literally panicked when he saw the videographer towards the end of the clip? Seems like a futile attempt to cover up the truth.
Credits: lauwengsan
The Indian chap in this video was apparently pushed and pointed by a plain clothes policeman, who shouted "Bodoh" (stupid).
Credits: lauwengsan
Police harassing patrons of a Nasi Kandar restaurant.
Credits: lauwengsan
Watch for the FRU personnel carrying the machine gun. Looks like the authorities took shooting civilians into consideration.
Credits: lauwengsan
A clear demonstration showing the Police abusing their authority.
Credits: lauwengsan
"Today the Malaysian Government lost votes from all Indians in Malaysia" ... I believe him.
HINDRAF's memorandum to the British Government has come under heavy fire for a number of reasons, one of which was its severe accusations against UMNO.
The rally held on 25th November 2007 may have received support from various quarters under the principle of 'practising democracy', but the memorandum itself has been indirectly characterised as distorted and exaggerated.
The Amanah Raya Berhad has offered to settle a suit by a Hindu woman who could not inherit the insurance monies left by her son who died a Muslim.
Koperasi Angkatan Tentera Malaysia Berhad had an insurance policy taken out on army ranger E.Ragu, 23, who died on 2nd Aug 2000. Ragu had made a trust deed making his mother, M.Rukumony, the beneficiary. The insurance monies was not paid to Rukumony, but instead deposited it in Amanah Raya.
The Koperasi claimed that under the Syariah Law, Rukumony could not inherit the property of her deceased son because she is a non-Muslim.
Reference:
The Prime Minister warned that the government will use the Internal Security Act (ISA) against street demonstrators who threaten national security and disrupt racial harmony if necessary.
Gerakan Mansuhkan ISA (GMI) also condemned a statement by Deputy Internal Security Minister, Johari Baharum, who said the "government has not ruled out the possibilities to use ISA on those who involved in illegal demonstration" (The Sun; 27 November 2007).
From Suaram:
GMI reiterates that the ISA is in total contradiction to all human rights principles, especially the right to be presumed innocent before proven guilty, the right to a fair and open trial, the right to legal counsel and the right to be free from torture. ISA is be indefensible and unjustifiable in any circumstances...
Johari Baharom should be ashamed of his statement, which makes a mockery of the 50th anniversary of Merdeka. The ISA was transformed from the British colonial emergency law that was used to suppress the struggle for Merdeka in the 1940s and 1950s. If this kind of draconian law was used against United Malays National Organization (UMNO) leaders that organized mass rally against the Malayan Union in 1946 and the UMNO's right to freedom of assembly were clamped down at that time, UMNO probably would not have even existed today.
References:
Despite intervention of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam), UPM has suspended 21-year-old Lee Song Yong on for refusing to allow a security guard to inspect his bag in August.
From Lim Kit Siang's blog:
On Aug 22, Lee was stopped by security guards at the university's exit and his notebook was seized on grounds that he was being investigated for being a member of an illegal student organisation.
Lee initially refused to cooperate because the campus officers were not in their uniforms which led to the university accusing him of obstructing its officers from executing their duty.
In the background was the unfair and one-sided rigging of campus student elections, orchestrated by the university student affairs department in cahoots with the campus security personnel.
Should such a minor and trivial matter result in the empanelling of a disciplinary proceeding, where Lee was denied legal representation, leading to his university suspension for six months? Or even the arrogant and contemptuous dismissal of the Suhakam appeal for a suspension of the disciplinary proceedings?
One would have thought from the university's response that Lee was guilty of some heinous crime, like being a member of some militant terrorist student outfit planning to throw bombs in the campus – when it was nothing of the sort whatsoever.
Lee's guilt was being too idealistic and independent-minded in wanting to work for change in the university to foster student activism and academic freedom.
Lim Kit Siang proceeded to slam UPM, Malaysian universities and the Higher Education Minister, stating:
"Malaysian students lack a questioning culture and are too passive – which are not the qualities to propel Malaysia to become a dynamic and responsive knowledge-based innovative economy in the era of IT and globalization.
"Clearly Lee does not fit into this unquestioning, unthinking student mould which was the lament of the IAP, and such students like Lee should be tapped and encouraged instead of being penalized to kill their independent spirits, which will only drive more students to become zombies."
References:
Malaysiakini reported on the innocent bystander whose kneecap was crushed by a policeman during the BERSIH rally on 10 November 2007. MalaysiaToday and HarakahDaily picked up on this and published articles.
HarakahDaily contacted the victim who recounted the horror story of how he was beaten, kicked and stepped on, while receiving insults from the police. The man, identified only as Elyasak, was not even part of the rally and was unfortunate enough to stumble upon the rally as a bystander/observer.
While rally supporters wore yellow as a sign of their allegiance, Elyasak wore black. He also arrived alone and not with any group.
Elyasak suffered a broken kneecap which had to be held together by wire. Recovery would take between 3 to 6 months.
References:
Contact HarakahDaily should you wish to contribute to Elyasak's welfare.
HarakahDaily featured video footage of Dato' Nozula Mat Diah (BN-Paloh) kicking Mohd Zaki Ibrahim (PAS-Kelaboran).
Regardless of the issue at hand, the act of retaliating in anger with the intention to cause grevious hurt is unbecoming of a diplomat.
Sessions judge Zunaidah Mohd Idris granted P. Uthayakumar, 46, his brother Warthamoorty, 41, and V. Ganabati Rao, 34, a discharge not amounting to an acquittal.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Ishak Mohd Yusuf failed to produce the original Tamil transcripts which contained the alleged seditious remarks. Only the Bahasa Malaysia translation was available.
Zunaidah insisted that the transcripts in the original language were required, after which they could be translated to another language by an official translator.
Approximately 1,000 Hindraf supporters cheered the release of the trio outside the Klang sessions court.
Links:
constant_drama, Dramatic Musings (daysofturmoil), 25 Nov 2007
This is going to be a semi-political post that might or might not get me thrown into ISA but I am willing to take the risk because I am pissed off. Indeed, I am.
I have long given up in reading the newspapers and watching the news because in Malaysia, democracy is just a charade and the media is a political propaganda tool. There's nothing more to elaborate there. To keep myself updated what I do is I peruse through these political blogs and read about the news written by bloggers with credibility. Today I stumbled across this over at Malaysians says the darnest things! and it pissed the hell out of me.
Apparently in the Parliament, some exceedingly brilliant gentleman, the representative of Parit Sulong (where?) have nothing to do with his time and nothing to do in his community that he had to point out that mission schools in Malaysia, such as Convent, La Salle and Methodist have crosses and statues representing the Christian faith in them. These crosses and statues must be demolished.
Well no shit Sherlock.
It's called mission schools. Built by the British back when they invaded Malaya.
Also he pointed out that these schools have strong Christian influences and apparently sing "church songs" during school assembly. (FYI: Those are hymns, not songs). And shock and horror!! – apparently Malay-Muslim parents send their children to these school as well!! What is the world coming to?!!
Then his sidekick, an even more incredible genius of a man, the representative from Sri Gading (bitch, again – from where?) have to butt in and mentioned that apparently "a father have alerted him that these missionary schools are not close during Raya". Raya is Eid Mubarak; as in the main festival celebrated by Muslims. Bear in mind, Malaysia is an Islamic nation.
Not closed during Raya? Right...
Ok listen up geniuses, I am a Malay woman. A Muslim-Malay woman and my parents sent me to be educated in SRK Convent Klang and then, oh nooo they didn't stop there. They then sent me to my high school: SMK Convent Klang. That's right bitch, I'm a Convent girl. A Muslim-Malay woman educated the Convent way.
When I went there, there was never a moment where we were made to sing ... what did you called it again ... right "church songs" during assembly. We did read prayers but it was the Islamic prayer that we read weekly at the assembly while the other students who weren't Muslims stood in silence of respect to it. Did they other students have parents alerting the Parliament members about how the have to stand in silence when the Muslims were saying their prayers? No. Perhaps its a little thing called religious sensitivity or maybe because they were shit scared of idiots like you who are in the Parliament talking about Islamic supremacy.
Also calling into the demolishing of the crosses and Christianity artifacts. Where I went to school, we no longer have a church in it. The church have been converted into the hall and where the altar where the people used to pray, a stage have built over it. There were no crosses at all though on the walls where they used to hang, one can see the outline of Jesus Christ. When the school was repainted, all that gone missing. So what is there to demolish? We do have a giant cross in front of the school but it never bothered us. It is a part of the British/Malaya heritage, it is a part of Malaysian history. Demolish that? Demolish a part of our country's history just because you are an uneducated prick that have no religious tolerance?
Fuck you.
You are not above history.
And then about the 'Raya' comment ... Dude, that shit is not just stupid. It is BEYOND stupid, I don't even have a word to comment on that because seriously, you have created a whole new level of stupidity here. What kind of BS is that, that the school is not closed during Raya? You think that there would be no heavy media coverage of that if that ever happened? Stop talking mindless shit. It is embarrassing. If anything at all, Convent gave more holidays. We get day off during Good Friday while the other kids go to their non-mission school. You don't hear no one complaining because who would say no to a day off?
These mission schools, Convent, La Salle and so on and so forth are not just schools. They are historical landmarks that have been around before Malaysia achieved her independence, back when she was Malaya instead of Malaysia. The fact that they have Christian identity is undeniable because the title itself is 'mission schools'. Demolishing them or trying to hide their identity is stupid because the very act itself is telling us to turn our back on history. The fact that so-called Parliament members have to make up stories to make these schools as if it is out there to convert students are false and unfounded. Further more it is also offensive and hurtful for those who have been in those walls and know such accusations are false.
The Constantly Dramatic One is all about school pride after all.
Religion is a set of beliefs. You choose what to believe. Just because you think your religion is better than other peoples' does not give you the right to condemn and push your religion onto them.
Last time I checked, we promote this country to the outside world as a country where people of different races live harmoniously and without conflict. Last time I checked, we are a country that is proud of our religious diversity and sensitivity. Last time I checked, this country wasn't run by a bunch of idiots with the Taliban-mentality.
But we all know that's all bullshit right?
The Star reported the arrest of 3 Hindraf (Hindu Rights Action Force) leaders under the Sedition Act.
The arrested were:
Sim Kwang Yang, Malaysiakini, 24 Nov 2007
via BERSIH.org
Two weeks after the Bersih march for electoral clean up on Nov 10 in Kuala Lumpur, the mainstream media is still immersed in a frenzy of discussion about the merit and demerit of the event. This is a clear sign that the political establishment must have felt jolted out of their complacent comfort zone by the massive show of defiance against all the threats of arrests and reprisals.
To call the noise bandying about in the mainstream media a "discussion" is a bit of a misnomer. Often, the deluge of opinions from politicians, commentators, and even letter-writers were a monologue issuing forth from one side only. It has been nothing but a monologic declaration of displeasure, gall, anger, and condemnation. You hardly hear anything from the Bersih people in self-defence.
It is a sad state of affair that our national media has degenerated into an instrument for dominant political power to engage in shadow boxing, but what else is new in Malaysia? This is the sort of things that justify the action of the Bersih alliance: without a free press, our elections cannot be free and fair.
My friend Wong Chin Fatt has written a paper describing Malaysia as an electoral one-party state. It is a form of soft totalitarianism, where one political party rules almost absolutely, even though elections are held one every so often.
A rare voice of reason
Fortunately for us, our brand of totalitarianism is slightly better than that in Burma, North Korea, or even China. Even in our mainstream press, you still hear the rare and odd voices of reason and critical independence.
One such voice is A Veera Pandiyan, the Deputy Editor of the New Media. In his article entitled "Media needs to be effective" appearing in his column Along the Watch Tower in the Star on Nov 22, he quoted profusely and aptly from George Orwell and concluded as follows:
"Coming back to predicament faced by the local media, the crux of the matter revolves round the misconception that journalists should report only the "good news" rather than focus on 'negative angles.'"
"What is the true valuation of the Malaysian media? Generally, it has been accused of mostly performing a quasi-public relation role."
"Critics claim that this has led to a shortage incisive intelligent debates and the elevation of the most mundane nonsensical arguments to absurd levels of respectability."
(When I read this, I immediately recalled how the "most mundane nonsensical arguments" of the information minister and the de facto law minister in recent weeks have been elevated to "absurd levels of respectability".)
Pandiyan then went on to conclude:
"To go back to the basics, the principle of journalism is to provide information to the interest of the public. To be an effective watchdog, it must act friendly or fierce as and when the need arises."
"Its role is crucial for the creation of a well-informed society in which people can discuss issues openly and make the wisest decision."
"In the final analysis, a country is judged by the credence of its news coverage. As such, the trustworthiness of the media should be the concern of all – from political leaders, academics, educationists, and social activists to the man-in-the-street – instead of being a plight of its practitioners. All must share the blame if the media's credibility is allowed to go to the dogs."
He ended his article with a quotation from Orwell: "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
Very well said indeed! By his criteria, our national media has gone almost all the way to the dogs!
A king for all Malaysians
Another voice of reason is Tunku Abdul Aziz, a former advisor to the UN secretary general on ethics. He wrote a commentary on the Bersih march entitled "Wrong to link the king to demo", which was published in the NST on Nov 18. Though he concluded that the government would do well to pay heed to the demand of Bersih as contained in the petition presented to the king, he insisted that the king should not have been dragged into politics.
Here, I beg to differ. I do not think that presenting the petition to the king on Nov 10 at the national palace is an act of sabotaging the relationship between the king and the prime minister.
The institution of the Malaysian king is an integral part of our body politics. Together with the upper and the lower houses, the king constitutes the Parliament. Until the former PM initiated the constitutional crisis in the 80s, all bills passed by both houses of Parliament had to be signed by the king to become law. Besides being the symbolic head of Malaysia's sovereignty, the king is also the fountain of justice.
As constitutional monarchs, our kings do not have executive powers, and they act in the public sphere entirely on the advice of the prime minister. (Even this point could be debated.) That does not mean that the king is a mere puppet.
In choosing to accept the petition presented by Bersih, the king has shown his self-image as a king for all Malaysians. Of course, the king cannot tell the PM to clean up the poll as Bersih has demanded; he has no such powers.
Naturally, the institution of the king is above party politics. But the king is not above playing a public role as the sovereign sensitive to reasonable voices from his subjects. That ought to be part of his duty. The PM is the one who politicises the institution of the royalty, by the allegation that the opposition parties had dragged the king into partisanship. This PM is increasingly like the former PM in making "the most mundane and nonsensical arguments' at times.
Legal positivism
Where I disagree radically with Tunku Abdul Aziz concerns his view that "What is legally indefensible cannot be morally or ethically right."
His position is best described in jurisprudence as legal positivism, to which I think most Malaysian lawyers would subscribe. I propose that this matter of the relation between law and morality is much more complex than that, and has engaged Western societies since the time of Socrates. The Nuremberg Trial of German wartime criminals after WW2 ended did spark off another round of very acrimonious debate among politicians, legal practitioners, and great thinkers in the teaching of jurisprudence.
In brief, legal positivism believes that a law is a law, and has to be obeyed absolutely, as long as it is enacted according to due process of law. Their opponents, the Natural Law theorists, argue that a law is never just a law. It is either a good law, or a bad law. A bad law may be legislated legally, but it may be unjust and immoral.
To obey unjust laws blindly then makes a citizen into an accessory in the perpetuation of injustice. Since a law can be immoral, and it cannot be changed by an unjust government, then a just person will have to disobey the law peacefully, without doing violence to anybody.
The perfect example of an unjust law is the body of regulations that discriminate against the Blacks in the US. Civil disobedience was the principle weapon in the hands of Martin Luther King in the Civil Rights Movement that changed much of the political landscape in the US in the 1970s.
In short, the police should not treat the Bersih or other group of "illegal" protesters in the same way as they ought to treat the Mat Rempits, as Tunku Abdul Aziz suggested. The reductive comparison masks the complexity of the law.
In a land saturated in injustices, such as Burma or Pakistan, what is legally indefensible may be morally just indeed!
The core question to be asked is this: is our nation still living in a never-ending state of Emergency so that the laws and regulations banning public assembly of citizens can be justified?
My answer is no. You may disagree. So let us engage in a reasonable debate.
By the way, I should clarify that this question should not be settled by the Inspector General of Police alone, since we are not living in a police state. This question is for "political leaders, academics, educationists and social activists to the man-in-the-street" (Pandiyan's words) so that "people can discuss issues openly and make the wisest decision."
Then, we will be taking the first tentative step on the long and winding road towards a First World mentality.
HINDRAF (Hindu Rights Action Force) will be holding a peaceful demonstration in front of the British High Commission this coming Sunday (25th November 2007). The authorities have refused to give permission for this assembly and has been deemed as "unlawful".
HINDRAF lawyers have appealed for a permit citing Article 10 of the Federal Constitution that states the right to assemble peacefully without arms.
Despite threats from the authorities and a series of roadblocks to scare away the protestors, HINDRAF claims that the assembly will still go on, with or without approval from the authorities.
HINDRAF intends to submit a petition of 100,000 signatures to Queen Elizabeth II at the British High Commission. HINDRAF also claims that the government marginalised the Indian community.
MIC President Dato' Seri S. Samy Vellu has denied the allegations.
PoliceWatchMalaysia reported:
Police Crackdown on peaceful assembly begins
We have received numerous phone calls that the police have placed roadblocks at Taman Ahmad Dato Razali, Ampang, Shah Alam, Sungai Besi, Kajang, Puchong, Bukit Raja, Bukit Tinggi, Klang, Kg Pandan, Pandan Indah, Kg Cheras Ampang, Jalan Duta – kala and her family of 4 from Rawang were denied entry into Kuala Lumpur City and Bukit Mertajam, Penang.
The Kapar post office refused to accept a courier consignment addressed to Hindraf.
References:-
A group of journalists were called "dogs" by police while at a murder scene. Apparently the cop even went to the extent of threatening to release the police dogs on the journalists to shoo them away. Read more.
A group of university students submitted a memorandum to the Public Complaints Bureau (BPA) claiming that they are being subjected to 'intimidation' by their respective universities. The memorandum, submitted yesterday, included written testimonials from four students who claimed that they suffered various forms of harassment because of their political beliefs. The students were from Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) and Universiti Malaya (UM).
R. Nadeswaran, theSun, 21 November 2007
Just after Kuala Lumpur hosted the Commonwealth Games in November 1998, an announcement was made to the effect that eco-tourism in Selangor will be revived in a big way with the regreening of the Paya Indah Wetlands Sanctuary.
"Not long ago, there was hardly any wetland left. It was close to annihilation by a vast variety of human activities. But it is making a return, thanks to some hard, dedicated work. Located in the Kuala Langat district, the 3200ha wetland sanctuary has shaken off the detritus left behind by sand, tin and clay mining activities, and blossomed again into something close to its natural splendour," the New Straits Times then reported.
When it opened three years later, the then Malaysian Wetlands Foundation (MWF) chief executive officer Muralee Menon was quoted as saying the sanctuary's proximity to the Kuala Lumpur International Airport will bring foreign tourists in droves.
A viewing deck atop a hillock gives one the opportunity to gaze over the shimmering Petaling Lake, Driftwood Lake and the Main Lake. "We are thinking of converting the tin dredge on Petaling Lake into a museum of sorts," Menon was quoted as saying. The cost was then estimated at RM4 million but today, nine years later, the cost has ballooned to RM68 million (plus a few outstanding creditors and lawsuits), and the sanctuary is closed. There's a bail-out in process but everyone is interested in finding out why it failed and how taxpayers' money went down the drain. Menon was the sole signatory to some of the cheques, which although not illegal, was not a prudent practice, said financial experts.
Menon has more or less disassociated himself from the project including its failure and losses, declining comment by saying: "They can say anything they want."
But he has not gone into hibernation or hiding as many CEOs of failed projects have done. He maintains a high profile and is the advisor to the Cabinet Committee on Sports and is said to be setting a cancer hospital in Subang.
But it's not as issue of Menon or any other individual. It's an issue of getting down to the bottom of the project and how it ended up in the current mess. Our system and some of our administrators have a tendency to sweep everything under the carpet and our citizens seem to have short memories, forgetting such issues after a short period of time, by being distracted by yet another scandal.
But Paya Indah was built with the people's money and money from well-wishers who believed in re-creating a sanctuary, which is sadly lacking in this part of the country.
So, what next? We just write off RM68 million as "bad debts" or "business failure" and carry on with life as if the money was not spent? If we do this, it will be another saga of the "Malaysian malaise".
Similarly, shouldn't someone be bothered about the RM17 million (plus other expenses for field upgrading, accomodation, etc) spent on the World Youth Cup in September?
We were told that RM17 million was the "bidding fee" (whatever that means) and the tournament was supposed to be part of the Visit Malaysia Year programme. But judging from the crowd which turned up at the various stadiums to watch the matches, it was nothing more than the equivalent of five busloads of locals.
So, why did we have to spend that kind of money? Firstly, it is not a "recognised" tournament in the same class as the World Cup or the Asian Cup or the World Under-21 championships. Secondly, it was an inter-club tournament and more importantly, did it bring any benefits to the country or the game?
Even at the launch of the tournament, the youth and sports ministry was in the know about the pitfalls in venturing into such a tournament, but then, someone had already signed on the dotted line, committing the government.
Now that it has been proven to be a complete flop, no one has said anything except that the spin-doctors have moved into over-drive, claiming that the "coaching clinics conducted by the towns have benefitted youngsters". Pure bunkum! What can you teach in a two-hour session or in two one-hour sessions?
But does anyone care how our money is spent? No, it's not their money — it is OUR money through the taxes we pay. And yet we are told that we cannot question their wisdom on how OUR money should be spent.
So what do we do? Just sit back and cry over the bad and costly decisions made? That's precisely how they want us to conduct ourselves! Doing or saying anything more would lead to you being branded as an anti-national or unpatriotic, and they take pride in labelling you so. And the majority, who has no courage to stand up to such nonsense, will be cowed into submission. Others will have to carry on regardless, even if they challenge you to stand in the next elections.
R. Nadeswaran is concerned that millions are being spent on wasteful projects and that no one is being held accountable for such abuse and misuse of money and power. He can be reached at citizen-nades@thesundaily.com
Malaysiakini, 22 Nov 2007
via BERSIH.org
A Bar Council team which consisted, among others, of lawyers from the Human Rights Committee and the Kuala Lumpur Legal Aid Centre was commissioned to monitor the gathering on Nov 10.
Up to 40 volunteers broke up into seven teams which were to be stationed at the following 'hotspots': (1) S Complex, (2) Masjid Negara, (3) Central Market, (4) Masjid Jamek, (5) St Mary's Church by Dataran Merdeka, (6) the flagpole at Dataran, and (7) the Jalan Tun Perak/Tuanku Abdul Rahman intersection. As Dataran was cordoned off, teams (5) and (6) moved to the vicinity closest to them.
Our terms of reference were to monitor the gathering which was an exercise of the peoples' right to freedom of assembly and expression. We adopted a non-interventionist approach, seeking only to accurately document that which occurred. After the clashes around Masjid Jamek and Jalan Raja Laut, we followed the crowd towards Istana Negara to witness the culmination of the event.
At about 5.30pm, we conducted a feedback session, and thereafter, some lawyers joined the Bar's Urgent Arrest Team at the Police Contingent Headquarters to deal with the detention of those arrested at the gathering. The Team stayed till about 11.00pm when it was confirmed that all detainees had been released.
Some observations follow.
If the size of the participants at the Bar's Walk for Justice (about 2,000) is used as a gauge, the crowd at the Bersih gathering was easily 20 or 30 times more than those at the Walk. It was not a mere 4,000 or 10,000. A good means of estimation would be to count the number of those who arrived in the buses. This may be verified with the organisers.
The numbers arrested at the gathering were far less than those who participated in the event. We documented only 34 arrests, definitely not 245 as recently reported. Of those detained, 5 had to be treated in hospital for cuts, bruises, abrasions and one had a broken leg.
By about 2.00pm, the crowds were forced to gather at different areas as Dataran Merdeka was sealed off by barricades and heavy police presence. Main routes to Istana Negara were also blocked. This caused heightened tension and inconvenience in city areas.
Well disciplined
With the assistance of hundreds of stewards from PAS' 'Unit Amal', it is noted that the crowds were disciplined and well-behaved. Apart from sloganeering and attempting to walk to Istana Negara, there were no provocative acts, physical or otherwise, with the intent to create disorder. On one occasion for example, we saw a steward seize a political banner which was being carried by a group while they were walking to Istana Negara.
At Masjid Jamek, human chains were formed by the stewards to demarcate the crowds from the FRU lines. This ensured that there was a clear gap between the FRU and the crowds, and further to avoid close confrontation. Despite this, the FRU decided to forcefully disperse the crowds by dispensing chemically-laced water and throwing tear gas. Water was fired at the crowds and not above them, while gas canisters were lobbed a few at a time into the crowds. No prior warnings were heard. Helicopters were flying dangerously low, and it drowned out much communication.
In international human rights law, several principles are well-established. These have been adopted by Suhakam in its 'Report of Suhakam Public Inquiry Into the Incident at KLCC on 28 May 2006':
As opposed to interfering or impeding peaceful gatherings, the authorities have a duty to adopt positive measures to facilitate the exercise of one's rights of peaceful assembly and expression (da Leben v Austria). This may include assisting to control the traffic and providing a safe space for the gathering to take place.
Using force
Inconvenience caused to the public does not make an assembly a non-peaceful one (G v Germany). Suhakam rightly pointed out in its 'Report of Suhakam Public Inquiry into the November 5th Incident at KESAS Highway' that a gathering is still peaceful even if there are speeches and shouting at the same.
The authorities may only interfere if the conduct of the participants is such that harm is caused or likely to be caused to other persons and property, and others are provoked to violence (Steel v United Kingdom).
Further, Suhakam has recommended that should there be a need to use force, such use of force should follow five progressive stages: verbal persuasion, unarmed physical force, force using non-lethal weapons, force using impact weapons and finally, deadly force.
Malaysia is a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Yet, we still have some way to go in understanding our international obligations. If our citizens are to be treated with the respect we deserve, Malaysia needs to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights today.
The police must also re-visit their mode of operation, and take a second look at Suhakam's recommendations. In particular, our country needs to discard the 'Licensing Model' in the Police Act, 1967 and move towards a 'Co-operative Model' in relation to peaceful assemblies where the police and organisers work together to facilitate the same, rather than constantly struggling with each other.
Fan Yew Teng, EnglishSection.com/Harakah, 19 November 2007
In the remaining months of the year in which we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of Merdeka and the 44th anniversary of the formation of Malaysia, and to reflect on the meaning of nationhood, it is perhaps important and necessary to examine some of the more persistent myths upon which UMNO, the predominant party in the ruling coalition for the past 52 years, grew and deceived — and are still deceiving — the populace, particularly the Malays.
For a start, after 61 years, UMNO is still unashamedly the political party which claims to unite and represent all the Malays. Hence, the misnomer the United Malays National Organisation, always in English, however much you might want to remind them of their claim to be champions of Bahasa Malaysia and Malay nationalism.
Most Malaysians who have been around for the past quarter of a century would very likely know or remember the interesting power struggles within UMNO during the Mahathir years (1981 - 2003). The Mahathir — Tengku Razaleigh contest for the UMNO presidency in 1987, which spilled over into the deregistration of UMNO itself, the fights between Team A and Team B backed by the then ailing former primer ministers Tunku Abdul Rahman and Hussein Onn, the massive 'Operation Lalang' crackdown on dissidents, and the highly sensational and controversial sacking of the top judge, Lord President Tun Salleh Abbas. And then, 10 years later, Mahathir's sacking and subsequent arrest of the then deputy prime minister, Anwar Ibrahim.
However, up to this very day, many Malaysians in general and many UMNO members and supporters in particular are woefully ignorant of the tensions and undercurrents among the earlier generation of UMNO leaders.
One of the enduring myths that has dominated UMNO all these years is that its founding fathers — or at least the early leaders — were all self sacrificing and had always put party unity — and by extension, national unity — before personal interests.
The truth, however, is more complicated.
May 1946. UMNO is born, as a movement of many Malay organisations and groups against the Malayan Union, a constitutional arrangement created by the returned British colonial masters after the Second World War.
Dato Onn Jaafar of Johore became the man of the moment after the British decided to withdraw the Malayan Union scheme, to be later replaced by the Federation of Malaya constitutional arrangement. UMNO, as a confederation of Malay organisations throughout Malaya and Singapore, was triumphant. But there were already problems of disunity.
As a matter in fact, even before UMNO was established, Dato Onn had faced some hostility from some influential Malay leaders in his home state of Johore. There were some strong differences between Dato Onn and Dato Abdul Rahman bin Mohd Yasin, a pre war Johore Treasurer in regard to the behaviour of Sultan Ibrahim over the MacMichael Treaties (for the Malayan Union).
Dato Abdul Rahman and some other Malay leaders in Johore had thought that Dato Onn was being too kind towards the Sultan. His two sons, Sulaiman and Dr Ismail (later Tun Dr Ismail) had refused to join UMNO until after Dato Onn's resignation as UMNO president in 1951.
More serious was the withdrawal of the Persatuan Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM), the Malay Nationalist Party, from the UMNO confederation at the UMNO meeting in Ipoh on 29 and 30 June, 1946. Ostensibly, the withdrawal was due to differences over the UMNO flag. But, as Firdaus Haji Abdullah points out in his book Radical Malay Politics, "behind this issue, there were serious and substantive disagreements over policy."
The PKMM's proposal for the symbol was defeated by one vote. After a lengthy speech by Ahmad Boestamam, he and all other PKMM representatives and supporters walked out. The Malay left had broken ranks with UMNO. At the same meeting, and for the same reason, the Persatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Junior Malaya also withdrew from UMNO.
In mid 1947, when it was proposed to turn UMNO into a political organisation and that affiliate member organisations should dissolve themselves and merge completely into UMNO, the move was opposed by several organisations which, apart from the fear of losing their identity, were established long before UMNO itself. Moreover, there were organisations whose leadership were drawn from the working class rather than the aristocracy and the English educated administrative group.
Thus, the Singapore Malay Association, the Sabak Bernam Malay Association and Saberkas of Kedah (which had some radical and 'socialist' orientation), chose to remain as associate member organisations only rather than dissolve themselves. The Perikatan Melayu Kelantan and the Kesatuan Melayu Johore withdrew completely from UMNO.
More serious splits were to come.
In February 1950, mainly to draw away support from the Hizbul Muslimin, the Muslim Party formed during the second week of March 1948, UMNO formed a body within itself called the Persatuan Ulamak Sa-Malaya. Haji Ahmad Fuad, Dato Onn's friend, became the leader of this body.
(Consider for a moment the irony and hypocrisy of UMNO leaders who now say that politics and religion shouldn't mix)
In June 1951, however, the Persatuan Ulamak Sa-Malaya teamed up with another Islamic group consisting of former adherents of the Hizbul Muslimin, at the former's meeting in Kepala Batas, Penang. At this moment, the Persatuan Ulamak Se-Malaya decided to change its name to Persatuan Islam Sa-Malaya,to be known in short as PAS.
Another shock was waiting for UMNO. After UMNO had rejected Dato Onn's proposal to open UMNO to the non Malays and transform it into a Malayan political party, he resigned formally from UMNO on 26 August, 1951. His position was taken over by Tunku Abdul Rahman, then an unknown deputy public prosecutor.
After Merdeka in 1957, the public perception of the Tunku as prime minister and Abdul Razak as his deputy was that their relationship was one of great harmony. Some even characterised it has a father and son kind of relationship. But it was only valid for a while.
For none other than the Tunku himself had exploded the myth that his relationship with Razak was as harmonious as commonly believed. Writing in the 29 August 1983 issue of The Star (and later reproduced in his book Contemporary Issues in Malaysian Politics), the Tunku related a telling incident in this vein: "Once at the Residency, Khalid Awang Osman, the former High Commissioner to India, mentioned in front of Tun Razak that he (Razak) would have to wait for a long time before he could become the Prime Minister. I could see the shocked surprise on the face of Tun Razak. As it happened, after that day I noticed his attitude took a change."
Well, well, from the horse's mouth, so to speak. The myth of an almost perfect political and working relationship was, well, just a myth. In an article published in The Star on 20 February 1978, the Tunku said that Asiaweek's M.G.G.Pillai had alleged in the 17 February 1978 issue of that magazine that "many political figures still insist privately that the Tunku stepped down unwillingly in 1970 and that he was in fact pushed aside by Tun Abdul Razak."
The Tunku commented: "As regards the late Tun Razak pushing me aside, he made no attempt openly to do so but it must be admitted that he felt a bit small to be my deputy for so long, and being an ambitious man, he would no doubt have liked to take over as prime minister. Only those around him wanted to take over dramatically and with a blare of trumpets."
It may be true that Tun Razak made no attempt openly to push the Tunku aside. But did he make any attempt secretly to do so? And who were those around Razak?
Mahathir, Musa Hitam, Harun Idris, Syed Jaafar Albar? And some other UMNO extremists or ultras?
It is interesting to note that the Tunku, in reference to what Khalid Awang Osman said, as mentioned earlier, had added: "I took the remarks as a joke, but soon after things began to happen."
What things began to happen?
Well, in an interview with Asiaweek, published on 10 May 1985, exactly 16 years to the day after the fateful general elections on 1969, the Tunku actually blamed Tun Razak and other colleagues for his political downfall. In relating the charged atmosphere just before the 1969 general elections, the Tunku said: "It started when one of them (alleged communists) was killed near the airport, and they asked for a funeral procession to bury the dead. I would never have allowed that. But I was not there. I was away campaigning. But my colleagues, who were trying to make trouble for me, gave permission, and so when the communists carried the body, they stopped at every corner to harangue the people, to curse the government, to curse me..."
Responding to further questioning, the Tunku actually said that "My deputy allowed it", meaning the procession.
To another question, the Tunku said: "I couldn't have stayed on. To stay, you have to be sure of the loyalty of your friends and colleagues. I wasn't sure. In fact I was very, ah, frustrated with the behaviour of some."
The Tunku had often said that he wanted to be the "happiest prime minister in the world" — but how could he be happy when some of his friends and colleagues wanted to stage a coup against him?
In order to get rid of the Tunku politically, some criminal elements and over ambitious leaders in UMNO orchestrated the bloody May 13 Massacre which killed a few hundred Malaysians, maimed a few hundred more other Malaysians, burned down a few hundred shophouses and homes and looted some of them and burned scores of cars and other vehicles. All crimes against humanity.
No inquiry after 38 years. Who says law is law? Why then no rule of law as far as the May 13 Massacre is concerned? Why is this continued rape of law being allowed? In whose interests?
And what about other UMNO crimes against humanity like the Memali Massacre in the mid 1980s? When will there be an accounting? Where is the transparency? And where is the much talked about integrity? Including the integrity of the law?
Democracy...Malaysian style:
101 East - Interview with Khairy Jamaluddin, Nazri Abdul Aziz, Malik Imtiaz Sarwar:
Part 1:
Part 2:
Centre for Independent Journalism, 17 November 2007
The Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) is concerned about the use of violence to prevent journalists from doing the work. Yesterday, a photographer from the Chinese daily, Guangming Daily, Kok Chun Seng alleged he was assaulted by members of the Malay political party, UMNO, while covering a press conference organised by an opposition Member of Parliament at his constituency in Cheras, Kuala Lumpur.
According to a report in the New Straits Times (17 November 2007), Koh, 27 claimed he was attacked for taking pictures of two UMNO members who had an argument with the Cheras MP Tan Kok Wai (from the Democratic Action Party) during a press conference held at a multipurpose hall in Kuala Lumpur on the alleged abuse of funds by UMNO. Tan had said that UMNO had misused the funds by building party service centres instead of a hall for the public. Several UMNO members confronted Tan, accusing him of trespassing on “private property”. They then prevented Kok from taking photo of the incident, one man punched him on his ear and another from the group punched him again when he tried to calm the situation. According to a Malaysiakini.com news article, Kok lodged a police report and he will submit photos of the attack later.
We are deeply concerned about the physical risks that journalists are coming under in recent times in discharging their duties. Just last week, two journalists from a local Tamil daily, Malaysian Nanban, have come under physical and verbal threats, allegedly over articles they have written. There are also anecdotes of individual journalists who receive verbal indirect threats for their coverage on specific topics like illegal logging. However, few journalists make these attacks public as they perceive them as part and parcel of their job hazards. There are few avenues available for journalists to seek recourse except by lodging police reports, and fewer still result in the cases resolved or action taken.
CIJ condemns the use of violence against journalists by any party, be it the state or non-state actors including political party members and individuals. Instead, they should respect the role of the media in reporting the truth in public interest. The media, as a watchdog of those in power, must be allowed to operate in a safe environment. We hope the police will investigate these cases thoroughly and bring to justice those who bring about harm to journalists.
CIJ calls for:
Gayathry Venkiteswaran
Executive Director
Centre for Independent Journalism
For more information, call 03 4023 0772 or 016-3123478.
Zaharom Nain explores the world of blogging in Malaysia. Bloggers are providing a real alternative to the mainstream media and countering the distortions and unravelling the propaganda. No wonder the authorities are sitting up and taking notice.
Whatever the myth and cheap talk about greater media freedom since 2003, the reality is that the mainstream Malaysian media, with a few notable exceptions, have been emasculated over the past thirty years or so through political buy-ups and undemocratic laws. And this pattern continues.
This has been abetted by ongoing processes of socialisation — aimed at cowering future and present media personnel. This is happening in the tertiary educational institutions training potential journalists and broadcasters and in the numerous media organisations.
Into this sad and pathetic media scenario have come the 'new media' of the internet. And with it have come blogs, or more specifically, socio-political blogs — the most recent thorn in the side of not only much of the Malaysian mainstream media, but also their political masters.
For the still-uninitiated, blogs are essentially web journals that can serve to provide commentary on a variety of topics or act as personal diaries. Blogs also have the ability to allow readers to leave comments, hence are interactive.
Although blog search engine, Technorati, tracked more than 71 million blogs worldwide in May this year, Malaysian bloggers are still a relatively small community — but definitely growing.
Indeed, blogging is evidently the latest urban, largely middle-class, phenomenon in Malaysia. And this has raised hackles among certain quarters, mainly in the BN coalition.
Over the past year, they have been at pains to impose legislation on blogging and to submit the Internet as a whole to greater government control. It appears they would like to punish critical and outspoken commentators on the internet, particularly sociopolitical bloggers, for not dancing to their tune.
First it was Jeff and Rocky...
Knocked about left, right and centre over the past few months, a number of these Malaysian bloggers, nonetheless, appear to have rolled with the punches and come storming back.
Four recent incidences, three occurring just over the past month, illustrate the extent to which the new media — especially blogging — have come under the scrutiny of the authorities.
It arguably began with prominent bloggers, Jeff Ooi and Ahiruddin Atan ('Rocky'), being sued by the New Straits Times Press for defamation in January this year.
The law suits, the first of their kind in Malaysia, galvanised much of the blogging community in Malaysia and spawned the Bloggers United campaign to defend bloggers and freedom of expression.
Much of the mainstream media, on the other hand, either remained muted or had a field day publishing comments by BN politicians and other 'authority' figures. These officials admonished 'irresponsible blogging' and the 'subjective reporting' of events by 'unprofessional' bloggers. They often sanctimoniously assumed that mainstream Malaysian journalists are, somehow, more trained, professional and, of course, objective.
And then came Nathaniel...
The assault on bloggers continued, certainly more insidiously, on the evening of 13 July 2007 when Parti Keadilan Rakyat staff member, Nathaniel Tan, was arrested at his office by the Special Branch and detained for four days under the Official Secrets Act (OSA).
Nathaniel, in his account of his arrest and detention on his blog states that the reasons for his arrest remain rather hazy since it certainly was more of a fishing expedition than an arrest based on evidence.
His 'crime', such as it was, was apparently that of being suspected of having access to state secrets, namely documents relating to corruption allegations made on his blog not by Nathaniel himself, but by an anonymous commentator.
Nathaniel believes that the whole exercise of detaining him was simply meant to intimidate him and others. It is difficult to disagree with him, given the way he was treated.
Followed by Raja Petra and wife...
More recently, on 25 July 2007, Raja Petra Kamaruddin was summoned to the Dang Wangi police station in Kuala Lumpur and interrogated for eight hours. This was after Umno Information Chief and former Selangor Mentri Besar, Muhammad Muhammad Taib, had lodged a police report against Raja Petra's hugely popular website, Malaysia Today.
The police report lodged by Muhammad — now immortalised by Raja Petra in his blog as 'this ex-Mentri Besar with two Muhammad's in his name' — reportedly cited a blog entry in Malaysia Today on 11 July that had allegedly insulted the King, degraded Islam and incited ethnic hatred and violence.
Not surprisingly, no official charge has thus far been levelled against Raja Petra. Soon after, however, in yet another farcical episode involving our 'law enforcers', Raja Petra's wife, Marina, was 'interviewed' by the police. During the 'interview', she reportedly cited sharia law in refusing to answer their questions, presumably leaving more than one potential 'interviewer' speechless.
... and a Wee uproar
The fourth, and certainly more widely reported, incident, indicating the importance that authorities are now placing on the Internet, was the brouhaha surrounding the Negaraku amateur rap video.
The creator of the video, Wee Meng Chee or Namewee, a Malaysian communications undergraduate in Taiwan, had had the temerity to do a rap version of the national anthem, Negaraku-ku. He added narrative criticising some government policies and the Malay community and placed the clip on the popular video sharing website, YouTube.
The backlash was absolutely amazing, with accusations of treason and of the desecration of the flag and national anthem being hurled against him. This was on top of the more predictable ones of sedition and sowing ethnic discord. With hindsight, while these accusations were quite predictable, the death threats against his family members were really quite barbaric and uncalled for.
We can assert that the Negaraku-ku video was certainly not a product of good taste, much thought or maturity (but, hey, he's only in his twenties). But when we recall recently having had much older political 'leaders' spouting even more racist bile and wielding the keris while threatening to bathe it in the blood of particular ethnic communities, the shock, anger and horror expressed by many of these politicians at Negarakuku begin to ring terribly hollow, their ongoing hypocrisy coming across clear as day.
Indeed, when the seeds of (ethnic) discontent have been sowed through the imposition of ethnic quotas in almost all spheres of life, and politicians constantly preach the supremacy of one ethnic community over another, surely it would be downright ridiculous and plain stupid not to expect responses from those negatively affected. Responses such as Wee's, for example.
Notwithstanding the hypocrisy, it is quite obvious that the attacks on Wee have come about at a time when patriotic fervour has been whipped up to fever pitch as the 50-44 celebrations take place. It's a time when even eating a cake decorated as a Jalur Gemilang is apparently not kosher.
Prelude to the election
And it is also quite obvious that the focus on bloggers and the Internet at this present moment is primarily due to the general election around the corner. After all, experience tells us that part of the process of preparing for the general election here is to make sure that all possible curbs on dissident voices are in place.
In this context, socio-political blogging represents a relatively new challenge to the state. With ongoing media control, these bloggers are indeed a welcome development for many, even if the authorities are uneasy with them.
Their contribution lies in the fact that they provide added — if not alternative — information. They help to carve that space to expand on democracy in a country that's slowly being starved of it.
Granted, there's a need to be responsible and not defame; there's a need to obey the law. But, by the same token, surely laws are meant to protect the wronged and not for use as a tool of intimidation.
Seeing through the myths
It is also a bit rich for the authorities and their puppets in the mainstream media to accuse bloggers of 'sensationalism' and 'irresponsible reporting' when we see blatant examples of such reporting in the daily tabloids. The distortion of Wee's replies to critics of his video by a local Malay tabloid is a perfect example.
Indeed, the problem with notions of 'objective' and 'responsible' journalism in Malaysia is that such notions have become synonymous with being non-critical of the BN juggernaut. Hence, when Jeff Ooi was a member of the Gerakan party, his 'objectivity' was never questioned. But when he recently switched to the DAP, suddenly one mainstream English newspaper raised the question of whether he could remain 'nonpartisan'.
Indeed, being critical, as socio-political Malaysian bloggers constantly are these days, is often enough equated by the authorities with being anti-Malaysia and, wait for it, 'anti-development'.
But, thankfully, many Malaysians are beginning to see through these myths and mystification.
In this regard, socio-political bloggers of all shades like Raja Petra, Nathaniel Tan, Malik Imtiaz, Amir Muhammad, Jeff Ooi, Marina Mahathir, and, yes, Aliran's own Anil Netto, provide the necessary counter to much of the spin, especially with the elections looming.
And despite all these years of 'Merdeka', the harassment and intimidation by the bully boys will, no doubt, continue, on the pretext of protecting our 'sensitivities' and, more importantly, 'the national interest'.
With this in mind, perhaps Nathaniel Tan's closing comments on his four-day detention will help us (and surely even the bully boys) comprehend the spirit of these Malaysian socio-political bloggers — quite often young and not-easily intimidated by obsolete and barbaric strong-arm tactics.
Any assumptions that my experience will dissuade other activists and citizens of conscience from exerting all (their energy) in upholding their responsibilities to their parents, their children, and to all of Malaysia are sadly, sadly misplaced.
Thierry Rommel, an Belgian envoy from the European Commission told Reuters that Malaysia was still living under a state of emergency. He also referred to the 1969 Emergency Ordinance and the Internal Security Act (ISA). Both allow detention for years without trial.
Rommel's statement came after the BERSIH rally held on 10 November 2007. Reuters was requested to withhold publication of his comments until after he had left the country.
Reuters:
...Malaysia's "Bumiputra" policy of affirmative action, which favours majority ethnic Malays, distorted trade because it allowed the government to award state contracts to Malay businesses without clear, competitive tender procedures. It also fostered corruption...
Malaysian minister interviewed on Kuala Lumpur (Bersih) protests.
This is how it looked on Zam's side.
LOL!!! We always knew Zam was an idiot. :D
New Straits Times, 13 Nov 2007
The illegal rally in Kuala Lumpur last Saturday took centre stage in Parliament yesterday as Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Mohd Nazri Aziz and opposition leader Lim Kit Siang traded barbs.
At the height of the exchange, Nazri declared that the organisers had lost their marbles or kepala wayar putus, and that the gathering was the work of pondan (cowards).
COMMENT: I will be quite amazed if there should ever be a day when Nazri actually speaks like a diplomat rather than a clueless prick.
"To use a term popular with youngsters these days, they are all suffering from kepala wayar putus (all their cables have snapped)," he said.
Nazri said there was no other way to describe the rally organised by Bersih (a non-governmental coalition asking for free and fair election) and opposition political parties.
"How can we say that there is no fairness? I can understand if (Datuk Seri) Anwar Ibrahim (Parti Keadilan Rakyat adviser) loses in an election and says afterwards it is not fair. In this case, he (Lim) has won and yet he says it is not fair," he said when replying to Che Azmi Abdul Rahman (BN-Kuala Nerus) during question hour.
Nazri said the gathering was a ploy by the opposition to create excuses for their imminent defeat at the next polls.
"They are going to lose, and they are going to lose badly. When this happens, they can blame the Election Commission for not being fair (in holding the elections)... this is the work of pondan."
Lim's rejoinder was to remind Nazri and the government to take the issue seriously.
"The gathering was in regard to the shortcomings of the electoral lists and the postal votes which is unfair," he argued.
Lim said the government's position on the gathering was peculiar considering its stand on similar issues on democracy in the region.
"We can be sympathetic to the protest by Buddhist monks in Myanmar. Why is the Barisan Nasional afraid when it comes to justice in this country? Is it because they are hypocrites?" Lim asked.
Nazri shot back that it was not right to compare Malaysia with Myanmar.
He said the Buddhist monks were demonstrating for the restoration of democracy in a country where its people were being oppressed.
"Here there is democracy. It is practised through elections," Nazri said.
C.A. Zulkifle, BERSIH.org, 12 Nov 2007
KOTA BARU: The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) has defended the behaviour of police during Saturday's protest march in Kuala Lumpur.
It said no illegal arrests were made and police reacted only when they were challenged physically during the protest.
Human Rights Commissioner Datuk N. Siva Subramaniam said the police only moved to quell the protests when the crowd got rowdy.
"Suhakam monitored the entire protest from morning till evening. I think it was on most accounts a peaceful demonstration and police reacted accordingly," he said after a human rights dialogue with the people here.
The demonstration, organised by the Coalition for Free and Fair Elections (Bersih) which called for more transparency in the next general election, caused major traffic jams throughout the Klang Valley.
Subramaniam added that Suhakam would propose to the Government to have a system to allow for peaceful demonstrations in the country as it was part of freedom of expression.
He said that the proposal would be forwarded to the Government in light of unhappiness expressed by certain quarters over their rights to hold demonstrations in the country.
The system calls for peaceful demonstrations to be held in open areas, far from urbanised zones and the organisers have to ensure that the law is not breached.
It also calls for ample notice to be given to the security authorities to ensure there would be no untoward incidents, Subramaniam said.
Suhakam vice-chairman Tan Sri Simon Sipaun said he received complaints that when Barisan Nasional holds a demonstration, no action is taken.
"I think a system to conduct a peaceful sense of demonstration can be looked at. One which does not disrupt the daily lives of residents and far away from urban settings," he said.
Mentri Besar Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, who also attended the dialogue, said human rights was a basic democratic right, so the Government should go ahead and allow peaceful demonstrations and that action should be taken only when the protesters throw stones or injure people.
Bernama, 11 Nov 2007 6:56 PM MYT
KUALA TERENGGANU: Kementerian Pelajaran mengeluarkan satu garis panduan paras siling berhubung kadar bayaran tambahan yang akan dikenakan terhadap pelajar berikutan langkah kerajaan memansuhkan semua yuran di sekolah bantuan kerajaan mulai sesi persekolahan tahun depan.
Ketua Pengarah Pelajaran, Datuk Alimuddin Mohd Dom berkata garis panduan itu hanyalah rujukan untuk pihak sekolah membuat penetapan kadar bayaran tambahan yang akan dikenakan kepada pelajar.
"Kementerian meminta penetapan (bayaran tambahan) itu dilakukan melalui perbincangan pihak sekolah dengan PIBG. Kita telah beri garis panduan harga siling bayaran tambahan itu contohnya untuk MSSM (Majlis Sukan Sekolah-sekolah Malaysia) RM2 dan insuran diri RM1.50.
"Jika pendapatan ibu bapa agak rendah, mereka (pihak sekolah dan PIBG) boleh tetapkan harga lebih rendah lagi dan mereka juga boleh kecualikan ibu bapa yang tidak mampu membayar termasuk golongan miskin serta ibu tunggal dengan memohon kepada Pengarah Pelajaran Negeri," katanya kepada pemberita selepas merasmikan Ekspo Pendidikan Terengganu 2007 di Pusat Dagangan Terengganu (TTC) di sini.
Difahamkan garis panduan itu telahpun dihantar kepada semua Jabatan Pelajaran Negeri (JPN) minggu lepas untuk diedarkan kepada semua Jabatan Pelajaran Daerah (JPD) dan sekolah supaya mereka dapat membuat pilihan terhadap Sistem Pakej Bayaran Tambahan yang akan dilaksanakan itu.
Alimuddin berkata garis panduan itu dikeluarkan bagi memastikan jumlah bayaran tambahan yang dikenakan tidak membebankan para ibu bapa khususnya yang berpendapatan rendah.
Sementara itu, mengikut salinan pekeliling yang diterima daripada JPN Terengganu, Sistem Pakej Bayaran Tambahan itu dikategorikan kepada tiga pakej iaitu A, B dan C untuk sekolah rendah, menengah, mengikut jenis sekolah, lokasi sekolah, bilangan murid dan status sosial ekonomi masyarakat setempat.
Sekolah kategori Pakej A adalah sekolah dalam sosio ekonomi yang tinggi dan majoriti ibu bapanya terdiri daripada kumpulan peniaga besar atau kakitangan awam kumpulan profesional.
Bagi sekolah rendah yang berada dalam kategori ini, harga siling bayaran tambahan antara lain meliputi bayaran kokurikulum, kertas ujian dalaman dan sukan sekolah adalah sebanyak RM38.50, manakala bagi sekolah menengah pula sebanyak RM55.50.
Sekolah dalam Pakej B iaitu sekolah yang berada dalam kawasan sosio ekonomi sederhana dengan majoriti ibu bapa terdiri daripada kumpulan peniaga sederhana atau kakitangan awam kumpulan sokongan, harga siling bayaran tambahan yang ditetapkan adalah RM30.50 bagi sekolah rendah dan RM44.50 bagi sekolah menengah.
Sekolah yang dikategorikan Pakej C adalah sekolah yang berada di kawasan sosio ekonomi rendah dengan majoriti ibu bapa terdiri daripada kumpulan peniaga kecil, bekerja sendiri, pekerja ladang atau kakitangan awam kumpulan sokongan II, sekolah kawasan pendalaman, dan sekolah kurang murid.
Bagi kategori ini, bayaran siling yang ditetapkan adalah RM23.50 bagi sekolah rendah dan RM33.50 bagi sekolah menengah.
Menurut pekeliling itu, pihak sekolah diminta memilih satu pakej bayaran tambahan berkenaan dengan mengambil kira persekitaran sekolah, pandangan guru-guru serta PIBG.
Setiap sekolah mestilah menubuhkan Jawatankuasa Khas Penentuan Bayaran Tambahan yang dianggotai oleh wakil guru-guru, ibu bapa dan dipengerusikan oleh pengetua atau guru besar untuk memilih pakej yang sesuai.
Semasa pembentangan Bajet 2008 oleh Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi di Dewan Rakyat pada 7 September, Yuran Khas di semua sekolah kerajaan dan sekolah bantuan kerajaan dimansuhkan.
Dalam perkembangan lain, Alimuddin memberi jaminan bekalan buku teks sekolah adalah mencukupi dan akan dihantar ke sekolah-sekolah sebelum sesi persekolahan bermula. — BERNAMA