Malaysia's ISA: Limitless Power

 

In a civilised society where democracy is practised, ISA has breached the basic human rights of legal defence before being proven quilty. Under ISA, a person is proven quilty without trial. Who will be detained under ISA? Basically anyone who is anti-government will be qualified for it. This Act has unlimited power to use on any persons who are branded as endangering national security. When there are evidence of armed weapons being used by the offenders, it will truly affect national security. What I see from recent detention of 5 Hindraf leaders are politically motivated. Hindraf leaders are struggling for human rights by peaceful street demonstration and called for international support from India. There is no endanger of national security except loss of reputation that Malaysia is facing racial crisis. Again, the world see Malaysia as a country which is not truly practising democracy but in name only - on the lips of national leaders wanting to dominate the people years after years. Now 50 years have gone-by BN Alliance is still holding to power.  

 

Archived from Human Rights Features

Malaysia's ISA: No limits

The Internal Security Act (ISA) in Malaysia has taken on the dimensions of the feared bogeyman that mothers threaten unyielding children with. Any opposition to government policies is being seen as a good case for invoking the ISA. The excuses have begun to verge on the whimsical. The implications are ominous.

 

In September 2002, Malaysian Deputy Home Affairs Minister Zainal Abidin Zin suggested the newest possible use of the ISA, one that the Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammed would no doubt have prescribed himself. According to Mr. Zainal Abidin Zin the ISA would be used "as a last resort" against "extremists" and "chauvinists" who oppose and give a "racial" twist to the government's new policy of using English to teach Mathematics and Science in schools. He was supplementing Dr Mahathir's statement, warning "extremist groups", ostensibly opposing groups of Chinese educationists against "playing with fire".

 

A Chinese educational association had been at the forefront of protests against the new plan for a variety of reasons; nevertheless, it had also called for public deliberations on the matter, emphasising that the demand was linked to school education in general and should not be classed as an ethnicity-specific issue. The association also objected – quite rightly – to the Prime Minister's use of the word "extremists."

 

Under the ISA, a person may be detained by the police for up to 60 days without trial for an act which "prejudices the security" of the country. After 60 days, the detention can be extended for a period of two years, with the approval of the Minister of Home Affairs. It can then be renewed for successive two-year periods. A detainee can thus expect to remain in detention indefinitely.

 

During the first 60 days of detention, detainees are allowed no family visits and no access to legal counsel. If a further two-year detention is approved, they are taken to the infamous Kamunting Detention Centre, where they are held in isolation in small, poorly ventilated cells.

 

The ISA has certainly covered a lot of ground. Passed in 1960 as a law intended to deal with a perceived communist threat, it has long been used for a host of offences unrelated to 'communist threats' or, for that matter, to internal security. More than four decades later, it continues to trample on the human rights of Malaysians. Those previously detained under the Act include political activists, religious minorities such as Shias, journalists, student leaders, traders, academicians, NGO activists and, most recently, 10 persons accused of spreading "rumours" of bomb attacks via email. The recent ISA arrests of alleged 'rumour-mongers' has led to a heightened fear that the authorities will use this as an excuse to increase police surveillance of the Internet.

 

One of the most recent and high profile cases has been that of six activists, all of whom have been accused of plotting to overthrow the government by "militant" means. Dr Badrulamin Bahron, Mohamed Ezam Mohamed Nor, Tian Chua, Sari Sungib and Lokman Noor Adam, all leaders of the opposition Keadilan party, and Hishamuddin Rais, a columnist and filmmaker, were arrested in April 2001 in a move seen as a politically-motivated attempt to stifle dissent. No evidence to support these allegations was ever made public.

 

On 6 September 2002, the Federal Court heard the habeas corpus application of five ISA detainees – Tian Chua, Hishamuddin Rais, Sari Sungib, Mohamed Ezam Mohamed Nor, and one Raja Petra Raja Kamaruddin who had been arrested earlier. The court ruled that their initial 60-day detention made under section 73 of the ISA was unlawful and that the police had acted in bad faith in detaining them. However, the decision did not result in the immediate release of the detainees as the judges further held that a separate habeas corpus application had to be filed since the decision did not affect the two-year detention order made by the Home Minister, even though the latter order was made pursuant to recommendations made by the police.

 

Of these five, Mohamed Ezam Mohamed Nor was convicted of an offence under the Official Secrets Act and is now serving a two-year jail term, while Raja Petra Raja Kamaruddin had been released before the expiry of the initial 60-day detention period.

 

In an unashamed display of disregard for the judiciary and the rule of law, Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister Abdullah Ahmed Badawi said the activists would not be released because the government had ordered their detention on the basis of valid security concerns. "I read the reasons why they must be detained, and I am aware that the questions that were asked during the period were also questions relevant to security matters and not just a case asking about personal questions," Mr Badawi said.

 

This is not borne out by the Federal Court ruling. The judge stated that "clearly, from the affidavits which it highlighted above, the questions that were asked were more on the appellants' political activities and for intelligence gathering." In refusing to revoke the detention order, Mr Badawi clearly demonstrated that he considers himself above the law.

 

Lawless Acts

 

In Dr Mahathir's Malaysia, and particularly with regard to ISA-related cases, the judiciary has in several instances toed the government line. The judicial process was wilfully subverted, for example, in the Anwar Ibrahim case. The trial that eventually led to a six-year prison sentence for the former deputy prime minister was widely seen as unfair to the defendant. The defence lawyers were hounded by arbitrary accusations of contempt of court, and failed to receive protection from the court against intimidation and harassment by the police. The prosecution, at the end of its case, was allowed to amend the charges, denying the defendant the opportunity to refute the original charges of sexual misconduct.

 

The government's contempt for the judiciary is brilliantly captured in the following statement by Dr Mahathir, made in 1988 in the context of amendments that effectively undermined the judiciary's power to review and interpret legislation passed by Parliament. The Prime Minister said the amendments were required because "the courts have decided that in enforcing the law, they are bound by their interpretations and not by the reasons for which Parliament formulated these laws… when a judge feels he has to first prove his independence, then justice takes a back seat."

 

And to prove their independence, judges "often bend over backwards to award decisions in favour of those challenging the government," he added.

 

Fifteen years on, little has changed. In the few cases in which the courts rule in favour of "those challenging the government", all the government has to do is ignore the ruling.

 

But now, Dr Mahathir is unwilling to take even that chance. In an interview with the BBC on 12 November 2002 he stated that decisions to hold suspects under ISA should not be questioned in courts of law. He added that the ISA would be amended to prevent the judiciary from interfering with the executive's decisions on national security matters.

 

Such a move will practically paralyse an already emasculated judiciary. It would also deprive current detainees of any remaining chances of challenging their detention. A drastic increase in the number of detentions under ISA may also be expected.

 

Ghostly Group

 

By way of its contribution to the 'war against terror', the government has detained under the ISA a number of persons allegedly having links to the invisible, but apparently extremely dangerous, Malaysian Mujahidin Group, or KMM. The KMM, the government claims, is an "international terrorist organisation that is attempting to topple the government and establish an Islamic state by force."

 

Since January 2002, about 42 persons have been arrested under the ISA for alleged links with the KMM, bringing the total number of suspected militants arrested since the crackdown against them from last year to 74 persons, out of which only two persons are known to have been released. According to the official Malaysian Human Rights Commission, or SUHAKAM, there are 113 persons being detained under the ISA at the Kamunting Detention Camp. The whereabouts of the more recent arrested persons are unknown, as the police have detained them in secret locations .

 

No evidence has been brought to show that the shadowy KMM actually exists. The government claims it is a secret organisation but refuses to say how it got wind of it. No specific acts or activities have been ascribed to it. No evidence moreover has been brought to show that it has links with Al Qaeda or with other groups in the region. Police claimed some of the detainees had received training at a military camp of the separatist Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) in the Southern Philippines. But the Inter Press Service reported that the MILF had denied having links with the 'KMM'. No foreigners were allowed into their camps, the news service quoted the MILF as saying.

 

Many remain in detention for their 'KMM' links. And, with the increasing pressure on countries to demonstrate their willingness to cooperate with the 'war on terror' and the attack in Bali closer home, the Malaysian government is unlikely to allow the 'KMM' to fade away easily.

 

In December 2002 the ISA review board made recommendations for the release of the pro-reform ISA detainees. It also recommended that the government either repeal the ISA or amend it to include international human rights standards, such as the right to a fair trial. Similar recommendations made in the past have gone unheeded. In the post-Bali situation, this latest set of proposals is likely to meet the same fate.

 

- Human Rights Features

 

 

Government is taking the first step to clean up the Judiciary

The Royal Commission of Enquiry has been formed last Wednesday (Dec12, 2007) to investigate into the authenticity of the VK Lingam video clip scandal. Every witnesses for the persons named in the video have to come forward to record the statements independently. Even the then Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathiar Mohamad have to present himself for his statement on the criteria for appointment of judges during his tenure.

 

The five-member Royal Commission is headed by former Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor. It also comprises former Court of Appeal judge Datuk Mahadev Shankar, former chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Steve Shim, former Solicitor-General Puan Sri Zaitun Zawiyah Puteh and Suhakam Commissioner Prof Emeritus Datuk Dr Khoo Kay Khim. 

 

PKR adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said "The terms of reference of the Royal Commission unfortunately fall short of a broad mandate to initiate a comprehensive investigation into the crisis facing the judiciary, which was widely demanded by the Bar Council, NGOs, and other institutions of civil society."

 

"Witnesses who heard a senior lawyer brokering the appointment of judges over the phone will come forward and testify before the Royal Commission of Enquiry into a video clip linked to the judiciary" he said yesterday.

Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang is to move a motion on Monday objecting to the terms of reference for the commission and the appointment of former Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor as commission chairman. 

"The appointment of Haidar and the restricted terms of reference are disappointing and a great letdown for Malaysians who had looked forward to a new chapter for the judiciary and administration of justice," he told a press conference at the Parliament lobby.  

Lim claimed Haidar was not acceptable or suitable because of his role in the 1988 judicial crisis over the sacking of Tun Salleh Abas as Lord President and two Supreme Court judges, Datuk George Seah and the late Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman Pawanteh.  

The King (Agong) consented to the establishment of the Royal Commission of Enquiry with effect from December 12, 2007.  The commission has three months to complete its work. 

The commission's terms of reference are: 

> To enquire and ascertain the authenticity of the videoclip; 

> To enquire and identify the speaker, the person he was speaking to and the persons mentioned in the conversation; 

> To enquire and ascertain the truth of the content of the conversation; 

> To determine whether any act of misbehaviour has been committed by persons identified or mentioned in the clip; and 

> To recommend appropriate action against those found to have committed any misbehaviour. 

Noting that the commission was established under the Commissions of Enquiry Act, Haidar said that it could subpoena witnesses and take evidence under oath. 

"It is a balanced team", said Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz in describing the five members of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the videoclip of a senior lawyer allegedly brokering the appointment of judges.  "This was so, because one of the members was a woman and two were on the earlier three-man independent panel to verify the authenticity of the clip", he said last Thursday (Dec13, 2007)

It was naïve for Nazri Aziz to assert that the Commission is a balanced team just because it comprises of a woman and two men from the earlier independent panel of inquiry. Where does it make sense? The question posed should be "Is it truly an independent team?" A balanced team means members forming the Commission, are well represented by former Chief Judges from the Federal Court, Court of Appeal, and High Court of Sabah & Sarawak who are free from the involvement of 1988 judiciary crisis. Members should be man or woman of integrity, no conflict of interest, good past conduct and accepted by all parties. A woman member is actually imbalance in the composition, why not 2 women and 3 men in the five-member Commission? But it is more than composition of genders rather than members' integrity.

But the integrity of Haidar is under question because of his previous role in favoring with the government for self interests and personal gains, to sack the former Lord President of Malaya Tun Salleh Abas (TSA). For truly independent Royal Commission of Enquiry, any other former Chief Judges except Haidar can be nominated to be chairman of the Commission. All members of the prior three-man independent panel of inquiry headed by Haidar should be excused themselves when they failed in the bid to produce any result from their investigation.

Now the whole world is watching as how well this Royal Commission of Enquiry will be able to carry out the tasks effectively with the power vested in them to subpoena for any witnesses deem necessary.

 

Comments on Writ of Corpus filed for Hindraf leader Manoharan

The Star Online Friday December 14, 2007
MYT 6:47:28 PM

Writ of habeas corpus filed for Manoharan

IPOH: A writ of habeas corpus for the release of lawyer M. Manoharan from detention under the Internal Security Act (ISA) has been filed.

DAP national chairman Karpal Singh, who is acting as lawyer for the detainee, said the application was filed at 4.30pm at the High Court here Friday.

The High Court here fixed next Wednesday to mention the case, in which the Internal Security Minister and head of the Kamunting detention camp have been named as respondents.

Karpal Singh said the two-year detention order issued by the Internal Security Ministry was unconstitutional and invalid.

He said the detention order was not done in accordance with Section 73 of the ISA, which requires police investigations and recommendations to be given to the Internal Security Minister within a period of 60 days before a detention order is issued.

During the 60-day period, he said, a detainee would be allowed to put up his defence before the Minister made a decision on the detention order.

Manoharan, who was detained at 2pm on Thursday in Kuala Lumpur, is already put under a two-year detention order, which was handed to his wife V.N.S Pushpaneela when she visited Manoharan at the Kamunting detention camp in Taiping Friday morning.

"For the first time in the legal history of the ISA in Malaysia, a two-year detention order has been issued against a detainee without the initial 60-day period," said Karpal Singh.

"The order made by the Minister is defective," he added.

Manoharan and V. Ganabatirau, who are DAP members, are among five who were detained under the ISA on Thursday.

The other three are lawyers P. Uthayakumar and R. Kenghadharan, and Hindraf coordinator T. Vasanthakumar.

Earlier at 10.30am yesterday outside the gates of the Kamunting detention camp in Taiping, Karpal Singh was denied entry to visit the detainees as their lawyer.

Comments:

At onset there is accusation of Hindraf leaders of being linked with terrorist organization and now the ISA is invoked on those leaders concerned. The detention of 5 Hindraf leaders for the peaceful struggle of Indians' rights, has violated the human rights of freedom of expression.

Rightly no one is above the law. But the police are doing the biddings of the government to arrest and detain those Hindraf leaders reportedly involved in the accusation of ethnic cleansing and snatching of Indian corpse to bury according to Islamic rite. Racial riots and killings of ethnic Chinese and Indians in Malaysia is a fact and not a cover-up. For instance the Racial Riots on May 13, 1969 was due to agenda of Malay politicians when the Chinese minority had upset the UMNO-led Alliance by denting its two thirds majority and its control of Selangor state was threatened. Certainly there was much celebrating among the mainly Chinese opposition parties at the election result, which angered Malay politicians who sensed their political dominance was under threat.

The findings was based on the book entitled "Declassified Documents on the Malaysian riots of 1969" by Dr. Kua Kia Soong, the principal of New Era College, is based not directly on Malaysian sources but on now-open British documents held at the Public Records Office in Kew Gardens, near London. These consist of contemporary British diplomatic and intelligence reports which suggest that the riots were not spontaneous acts of communal violence, as is constantly alleged by UMNO, but were fanned by Malay elements, with support from the army and police, wanting to discredit the accommodating prime minister and impose a much more rigorous Malay agenda. One British document concluded that the goal was to "formalize Malay dominance, sideline the Chinese and shelve Tunku."

The official Malaysian government version of events was that the riots were sparked by Opposition parties "infiltrated by communist insurgents" following huge opposition gains in the election. Although the UMNO-led Alliance, the predecessor of the Barisan National, retained an overall majority, it lost its two thirds majority and its control of Selangor state was threatened. Certainly there was much celebrating among the mainly Chinese opposition parties at the election result, which angered Malay politicians who sensed their political dominance was under threat.

In any event, the Tunku effectively stepped aside as emergency powers to rule by decree were (temporarily) placed in the hands of a National Operations Council headed by his deputy Tun Abdul Razak – father of current deputy prime minister Najib Abdul Razak. The Tunku remained prime minister until September 1970 but had little authority any more. In 1971 he also stepped down as president of UMNO after virulent criticism by the Malay "Young Turks," headed by Mahathir Mohamad, the future Prime Minister. The same year the government enunciated the New Economic Policy and began aggressive affirmative action programs to advance the economic and educational level of Malays.

Now the snatching of Indian corpse is referring to the controversial case involving Article 121 (1A) burst upon the Malaysians' consciousness when the High Court on 28.12.2005 in the case of Kaliammal a/p Simnasamy v Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan (JAWI) and 2 others (commonly known as the Moorthy case) took the view that it lacks jurisdiction and the power of judicial review over a Syariah court decision. Briefly, in this case, the applicant who is a Hindu, married one Moorthy a/l Maniam who was also a Hindu, on 25.11.1995. Upon his demise the applicant claimed that her late husband had never told her of his new faith and that he was in fact practicing the Hindu faith at all times. With a view to resolve the impasse the Federal Territory Islamic Council filed an ex-parte application to the Syariah court and obtained an order therefrom which inter alia declared that the deceased was a Muslim at the time of his death, that the deceased was to be buried according to Islamic rites and that the deceased had never renounced his faith in Islam.

Meanwhile the widow also applied to the High Court Kuala Lumpur for inter alia, a declaration that the deceased was a Hindu. Unfortunately by the time her application was heard the Syariah court had already made its decision. The High court dismissed her application on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction by virtue of Article 121(1A).

The widow is a non-Muslim. Thus she is not entitled to appear before the Syariah court since paragraph 1 of the State List expressly states that Syariah courts 'shall have jurisdiction only over persons professing the religion of Islam.. '. At the same time Article 121(1A) is a hurdle for her to cross when seeking remedy in the civil court. Hence, based on the decision of the High court she appears to have no forum for redress. The widow is appealing to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the High court.

In the straight forward case of Moorthy that the widow had testified that his husband Moorthy who hiked Mt. Everest with a Malaysian team was not a practicing Islam as his true faith at the time of his death. The fact that the widow had testified that Moorthy was a practicing-Hindu should have entitled the case to come under the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. Now faith of a person is changeable and not bound on papers. If paper-like faith cannot be challenged by his life-style and real life practices, then that kind of faith is "dead".

In 1997 M. Magendran and N. Mohandas become the first Malaysians to summit Mount Everest; Maniam Moorthy , a member of the Malaysian Army, is also a member of their team, though he did not reach the summit. Records of the Malaysian Armed Forces state that he embraced Islam on 11 October 2004 and filed an application with his superiors to be registered as such on 8 March 2005; however, his military identity card was never modified to reflect this change of religion or his reported new Muslim name of Mohammad Abdullah.

Despite his conversion to Islam, Moorthy remained uncircumcised, still took part in Hindu festivals, ate pork, and drank alcohol; he appeared on television on 31 October 2005, being interviewed about his celebration of Deepavali. On 11 November 2005 , he fell from his wheelchair, injuring his head and entering into a coma from which he would never recover. Moorthy died at 11.10 am on 20 December 2005 in the Intensive Care Unit of the Kuala Lumpur Hospital. He was only 36 at the time of his death.

A person is saved by faith and not by works. Hence the public declaration of his cerebration of his previous faith in Hinduism should have renounced himself as a Muslim. It was an erroneous judgement by the High Court who was likely a Muslim and for fear of repercursion from the Muslim community. It was strange for Moorthy to embrace Islam and then return to his former faith in less than a year. In any event, Moorthy was not a Muslim by the way he lived at the time of his death. No matter what he had signed on October 11, 2004 would become void as he was living up to the faith of Islam. It had been a disgrace to Islam to bury him as a Muslim when he did not live as one. So the media reports in India that Indian corpse was snatched and buried as Muslim was true.

On another note, no one can understand the reluctance of the Army and religious authorities to inform this Everest hero who helped the first two Malaysians to climb Mount Everest, the tallest mountain in the world. Are they worried that the opposition from family members would affect his new-found faith. That should not be the case as his faith should be strong enough to withstand all pressure, including that of his family.

The failure of High Court to pass sound judgement is recalling the scandal of VK Lingam video clip who was brokering and fixing the appointment of Judges. Judges were appointed by recommendation of the CJ to PM with no independent commission to assess the integrity of the judge and his experience. It has affected the perception of the family members and the Indian community towards the authorities. It has been commented that Islam is a religion of imprisonment and not a religion of freedom.

Anyone is free to embrace it but to renounce it means you may die by the sword for the disgrace to leave Islam. On one hand Quran says there is "no compulsion in a religion" but on the other hand, it tells believers to kill the infidels and submit them to pay tax or convert them to Islam. Of course when reading the Quran in the right context, it was written during the period of peace at the initial stage and subsequently during wars led by the founder. But there is no time and dating of the verses in the Quran of which the "scripts" or revelations were rearranged by the Caliphs during the compilation into a book or Quran. In any event, there is abrogation of verses in Quran. So it is best to consider those verses depicting violence to be abrograted and practise true Salam or Islam.

Reference:

December 21, 2005 22:24 PM

Mount Everest Climber's Wife Applies To Court To Claim His Body

KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 21 (Bernama) -- The wife of Mount Everest climber M. Moorthy, who died Tuesday, filed for a court order Wednesday to claim his body from the Kuala Lumpur Hospital (KLH).

Kaliammal Sinnasamy, 30, of Taman Tun Teja, Rawang, filed the originating summons at the Appellate and Special Powers Court registry through Messrs A. Sivanesan & Co.

She is asking the court to order the KLH Director to hand over the body of Murthy, 36, who is said to have embraced Islam, for a Hindu burial.

Besides the KLH Director, she named the Federal Territory Islamic Affairs Department (Jawi) Director and the Malaysian government as respondents.

She is also seeking an injunction to restrain the Jawi Director from claiming Moorthy's body from the hospital pending the disposal of the case by the court.

She also wants a declaration that her husband was not a Muslim but a Hindu who observed the Hindu customs before his death and that all documents regarding his conversion to Islam are unlawful and null and void.

In her affidavit in support of the suit, Kaliammal said she did not know that her husband had converted to Islam as stated by Jawi because he was a devout Hindu.

She said that before his death, Moorthy was paralysed from the waist down after an accident during training at the Sungai Udang military camp, Melaka, in 1998.

He fell from his wheelchair on Nov 11 and was admitted in a coma to the Selayang Hospital. He was later transferred to the KLH.

Kaliammal claimed that she was informed by Moorthy's colleague, Mejar Shukri Yahya, that Moorthy had embraced and that if anything happened to him, the Islamic religious affairs department would take care of the body.

The family's lawyer, M. Manoharan, said the summons was filed with a certificate of urgency for the High Court to hear the case quickly and the court would fix the hearing date Thursday.

Tuesday, the local press reported that a fracas broke out at the KLH mortuary when the former army commando's family was unable to claim his body after several of his former colleagues from the Malaysian Armed Forces wanted to claim the body for a Muslim burial. His former colleagues claimed that he embraced Islam last year and changed his name to Mohammad Abdullah.

Moorthy died at the KLH's intensive care unit at about 11.10am, Tuesday after being transferred from the Neuro Ward when he had breathing difficulty.

He joined the armed forces in 1988 and was part of the 10-member Malaysia Everest 1997 team, two of whom reached the peak of the world's tallest mountain on May 23 1997.

Meanwhile, his family is still waiting at the hospital to claim his body.

His brother, Linggam, 25, said Kaliammal had been looking after Moorthy since 1998 and was at his bedside when he died.

He said another brother, Sugumaran (Muslim name Ghani) embraced Islam after marrying a woman from Sabah several years ago.

-- BERNAMA

Comments: Contempt of Parliament by Malaysian Police

It is rather disgusting to hear that there is abuse of police powers to conduct arrest within Parliament's compound in Malaysia when the people whom had voted for PM, came to deliver the Memorandum to him for consideration. PM had denied the rights of the people to meet him or deliver memorandum to him about their grievances. Earlier, one read that he has "Big Ears" and willing to listen to people's suggestion and petition. Now he used ISA to detain HINDRAF leaders and authorised the arrest of protestors at the Parliament. Shame on those who authorised such defilement of the parliament (powerhouse of the lawmakers).

 

 

===================================
Posted by Wong Ho Leng on December 12, 2007 at 16:20:06: at Sarawak Talk

Contempt of Parliament

When Parliament (be it Federal or State) is in session, it is a contempt to serve any court process on the Members (of Parliament) in the Parliamentary precincts. It is also contemptuous to effect arrest in the Parliamentary precincts.

Yet this happened yesterday, with the police arresting 29 people in the Parliamentary precincts.

The sanctity of Parliament and the honour and dignity of the MPs are effectively blown away by the arrest.

Those arrested included political leaders from the Opposition Parties as well as activists from the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (BERSIH).
Some of those arrests were made in the presence of Parliamentary Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang who subsequently lodged a protest in Parliament against the abuse of police powers.

This must be the most shameful episode in the annals of Malaysian Parliamentary history, and the Prime Minister and the Inspector-General of Police must be held accountable.

Those arrested were in Parliament to present a Petition to the Speaker against a proposed constitutional amendment, being a proposal that would extend the retirement age for Election Commission officers, likely allowing its current Chairman Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman to stay in the role during polls expected next year.

The Petition complained that Abdul Rashid's service is continuously marred with recurring electoral frauds and manipulations and is not fit for the job and must go immediately.

The arrestees were alleged to have defied a Court Order which restrained them from entering Parliament to present the Petition.

In the event that the arrestees had breached the Court Order or any law in the country, there is nothing to stop the police to effect arrest when they had stepped outside the Parliamentary precincts.

The precincts of Parliament includes the Parliament building and the surrounding land and building under the jurisdiction and care of Parliament. It includes such spaces as the car park. It will not include land outside its gate.

The laws clearly prohibit any arrest in the Parliamentary precincts. If the Police could blatantly ignore the laws prohibiting arrest in the Parliamentary precincts, then there is every reason to believe that they would breach laws outside it. No wonder the former IGP could smack a panda-eye out of Anwar Ibrahim when he was brought to the uppermost sanctum of the police headquarters at Bukit Aman.

All righteous and law abiding Malaysians should register a strong protest against the blatant and shameful abuse of the law and police powers.

All Malaysian voters should also send a signal to the BN MPs who steadfastly declined to give support to Kit Siang's Motion in Parliament to release those whose arrests were effected illegally. That shows the class of the BN politicians.

In the event that the Government does not consider Parliament as a mere scrap of paper, it should have annulled the arrest forthwith. It denied itself the opportunity.

Yet Abdullah was reported as telling the Opposition Parliamentary Leader, Lim Kit Siang, that the arrest would not be allowed in the Parliamentary chambers, but outside it would be allowed.

The Government propaganda machine will do all things possible to justify the police action, but the fundamental issue will remain – the police cannot arrest in the precincts of Parliament.

Trees lining the streets were posted with copies of a Court Order obtained by the police that banned campaigners from Parliament.

How could the Court issue an Order restraining persons who are unspecified will be questioned by the legal fraternity. It is believed that when the Court Order is unspecific, it is susceptible to the challenge that it is void.

Also, it defies logic that an Order could issue to restrain anybody from going to Parliament to hand over their grouses to the MPs whom they had voted. Since when has the Parliament been reduced to a forbidden ground to citizens who had grouses?

The Prime Minister should walk the talk and listen to the voice of the people containing those grouses.

The arrest against people with grouses may be interpreted as a harassment against leaders from the Opposition and a sustained crackdown on Government critics. The arrest is not only a blatant contempt of Parliament but a blatant indictment against democracy and freedom of expression in Malaysia.

Arresting those who legitimately demand for Fair and Clean Election is an indictment against Fair and Clean Election.

If there is a din of freedom and honour left in the BN Government, it should purge the contempt of Parliament and nullify the arrest forthwith. The Prime Minister should undertake that such embarrassing episode in the county will not be repeated.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that he was willing to sacrifice public freedom to maintain national security. "Public safety above all", said the Star, the BN mouthpiece.

All Malaysians should ask whether presenting to the Parliamentarians a Petition, containing mere words in a few sheets of paper, was threatening the safety of Malaysians, or whether the demand for a clean and fair election had become an impediment to national security.

What Malaysians saw was the police resorting to elaborate measures to stifle the BERSIH campaigners. It blocked all roads to Parliament, causing traffic chaos in Kuala Lumpur. Then, instead of containing and solving crime, more than 400 police surrounded the Parliament to block the electoral reform campaigners.

By making arrest in the Parliamentary precincts against harmless campaigners, the police had violated the highest and most sacrosanct institution of the country.

How can the police violate the sanctity of Parliament with impunity?
Such a brute display of immoral and illegal force and unmitigated abuse of constitutional propriety cannot and must not be tolerated!

No Government should deem a petition presentation as a show of violence or threat to national security. Malaysians of today have sufficient sanity to treasure and nurture peace. It is a fundamental right they demand, in any event.

12/12/2007

COMMENTS: Postmortem of the 1988 judicial crisis

Posted by Postmortem of the 1988 judicial crisis on December 06, 2007 at 14:25:28: at Sarawak Talk

Diarist, Daim, Mahathir owe it to the public to shed light on the mystery surrounding the controversy

by Datuk George Seah
Aliran Monthly Vol 25 (2005): Issue 3

In hindsight, Acting Lord President Tan Sri Hamid Omar seemed to be interfering or countermanding the Order of the Supreme Court!

Datuk George Seah

Tun Salleh Abas, the former Lord President of the Supreme Court of Malaysia, in his book "May Day for Justice" opined, "I have no doubt - and few would now disagree - that it was the UMNO saga that led to my destruction as a Judge."

We all know that the High Court Judge Harun Hashim declared UMNO illegal even though no such relief was claimed by any of the parties in the proceedings before him. The plaintiffs, the UMNO 11, merely sought a declaration that the election of the President of UMNO was null and void on the simple grounds that there were more than 40 illegal members present from unregistered UMNO branches at the time of voting and the winner won by 43 votes. Who was responsible for the participation of these illegal members?

"Diarist" should shed some light

Some 15 years later, following Justice Harun's death, an obituary appeared in the New Straits Times (5 October 2003). The following is an extract which makes fascinating reading in hindsight:

"After Harun declared UMNO illegal, he only sought the Diarist's opinion on what was next. The Diarist speculated and also told Tun Salleh Abas what could happen in the event they (my emphasis) persisted in their plan to have a full court hearing of the UMNO's case.

"Tun Daim Zainuddin had intimated to the Diarist the Government's plan. They were simultaneously alarmed, sceptical and rather naive. The rest is history.

"... Harun made more personal history by handshakes than by his judgments or what he wrote. The irony is that though Harun rarely gave a written judgment, he became a prolific columnist after retirement."
In the construction of ambiguous legal documents (save for certain exceptions), the Court does not consider the subsequent actions of the party or parties. But in interpreting human conduct the activities of the party or parties following the event is highly relevant and material.

We know that soon after declaring UMNO to be an illegal organisation Justice Harun was promoted to be a Judge of the Supreme Court of Malaysia. (Note the Diarist's observation of Harun as a Judge of the High Courts: Harun made more personal history by handshakes than by his judgments or what he wrote. The irony is that ... Harun rarely gave a written judgment.)

Harun SCJ was nominated as a third member of the Kota Baru session of the Supreme Court in July 1988 by Acting Lord President Tan Sri Abdul Hamid in spite of the fact that more senior Judges like Tan Sri Mohd Azmi, Tan Sri Abdoolcader and Tan Sri Wan Hamzah were available.

Following his retirement from the Supreme Court Judge, Harun was given an academic appointment in the International Islamic University, which he held until his sudden death in a heart attack.

This background information raises some interesting questions:
Why did Justice Harun approach the Diarist after the Court case?
Was the Diarist privy to some information as to what would happen following the High Court decision declaring UMNO as an illegal society?
Perhaps the Diarist may care to shed some light on these pertinent questions.

The other intriquing matter alluded to in the conversation the Diarist reported to have had with Tun Daim Zainuddin, who was UMNO Treasurer deserves our attention. It seems that even before the UMNO 11 appeal was heard by the Full Bench of nine Judges of the Supreme Court, the Government had already devised a contingency plan. It would be interesting to know what the plan was for the sake of posterity and who was behind the plan.

Mahathir's cryptic remarks

Another interesting revelation was unearthed following the retirement of Tun Mahathir Mohamad, when he was interviewed about his retirement by a journalist who wanted to know:

"Does that mean you are much happier now?" Tun replied, "Well, happy in a way, not happy in another way. Sometimes, certain things were done in a way they should not have been done or certain things done should not have been done."

"What are the certain things?" the journalist asked.

No, I don't want to tell (smiles)," replied Tun.

But without the Tun's explanations one can only speculate what the "certain things" are that "were done in a way that should not have been done"!

Haidar's Dilemma

Lastly, there was the interview given by the retiring Chief Judge of the High Court in Malaysia, Tan Sri Justice Haider Mohd Noor, which was published in the New Straits Times (7 November 2004). The retiring Chief Judge was reported to have said:

"As for the most memorable moment in his career, he cited the impeachment of former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas in 1988. As the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, I was very much informed of the action taken. At the tribunal against the five judges of the Supreme Court, I was the star witness.

"It was a very tough time for me because on one side, Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman Pawan Teh was threatening me with contempt if I did not follow his order, and on the other side, Tun Hamid Omar was assuming the power of LP and directed me to act otherwise.

"When I was called up, I said that I was only a civil servant and it was not for me to question the Acting LP's order. Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman said he could cite me for contempt and I said if I had to go to jail, I would."

Readers would recall that Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor was the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Malaysia during the 1988 Judicial Crisis.

Immediately after the removal of Lord President Tun Salleh Abas and senior Supreme Court Judges Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman and Datuk George Seah in 1988, Tan Sri Haidar was appointed a Judge of the High Court in Borneo. He returned to the High Court in Malaya and was elevated to the Court of Appeal and subsequently to the Federal Court before his appointment as Chief Judge of the High Court in Malaya.

Supreme Court vs Acting Lord President

Tan Sri Haidar's statement that he had to make a choice — between the instructions given to him by Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman and the contrary instructions given by the Acting Lord President, Tan Sri Hamid Omar — poses a very fascinating constitutional question: Which instructions should take precedence?

At that point of time, it is relevant to note that Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman was giving his instructions in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of a specially constituted 5-member Supreme Court of Malaysia. These instructions were in fact tantamount to an Order of the Supremen Court — whereas Acting LP Tan Sri Hamid Omar was only giving administrative directive to his Chief Registrar. Acting Lord President Tan Sri Hamid Omar's instructions did not and could not by any stretch of the imagination amount to an Order of the Court or perceived as having similar or equal weightage. Contempt of Court postulates as an Order of the Court and not as instructions of another Judge of the Supreme Court who is not sitting as a Judge in the Supreme Court.

In my opinion, contempt of court can arise only when an Order of the Court is disobeyed. The Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court cannot take it upon himself that the administrative directive of the Acting Lord President can override the Order of the Supreme Court. It is something very basic.

The directive of another Judge of the Supreme Court cannot supersede the Order of the Supreme Court. It is prudent to note that even the Lord President is not accorded any special privilege to override or exempted from this rule — leave alone an Acting Lord President!

Which order should have prevailed?

Contrasting the two instructions in this way there is no doubt whatsoever, whose instructions should have taken precedence, namely and without any fear of doubt the instructions given by Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the 5-member Supreme Court of Malaysia should have prevailed.

Tan Sri Haider, as Chief Registrar, had no right to question the legality of the 5-member Supreme Court. As Chief Registrar, his duty was merely to carry out the Order of the Supreme Court — and nothing less! Instead Tan Sri Haidar preferred to comply with the administrative instructions of the Acting Lord President rather than obey the instructions given to him by the Presiding Judge of the 5-member Supreme Court.

In hindsight, Acting Lord President Tan Sri Hamid Omar seemed to be interfering or countermanding the Order of the Supreme Court! This episode will no doubt, make an interesting academic article on Malaysian constitutional law for law students.

Please support our work by buying a copy of our print publication, Aliran Monthly, from your nearest news-stand. Better still take out a subscription now. If you prefer to read our web-based edition, please support our work and make a donation.

Now tell us what you think in fewer than 250 words. Your comments may be published in the Letters section of our print magazine, Aliran Monthly.

=============================================

 

COMMENTS:

 

From my perspective, there is no integrity for Tan Sri Haidar to be the key witness in the impeachment trial of former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas in 1988. Firstly he was under threat from his boss, Acting Lord President so as to obey him. Failing which is amounting to contempt of court, a wrong notion in his mind to enable him to be a fair witness. "A statement made under compulsion or threat should not be admissible as valid evidence. The witness should be impeached following this revelation of threat of contempt by his own admission.

 

Quote

Tan Sri Haidar's statement that he had to make a choice — between the instructions given to him by Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman and the contrary instructions given by the Acting Lord President, Tan Sri Hamid Omar — poses a very fascinating constitutional question: Which instructions should take precedence?

Unquote

 

Tan Sri Haidar had ulterior motive to expel former Lord President Salleh Abas and collaborate with the Acting Lord President, Tan Sri Hamid Omar. When they succeeded to impeach Salleh Abas, Tan Sri Haidar had rooms for promotion. Another aspect is that the Acting Lord President Tan Sri Hamid Omar has conflicting interest in this legal case. He would stand the chance to be Lord President when Salleh Abas had been successfully expelled. To err is human and perfect is divine. Only God is perfect and good all the times.

 

By the own words of Abas Salleh, that he regretted to severe the link with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of UK. Sometimes, arrogrant will bring his own destruction! Why he did not maintain the link with the Privy Council when the politics in the country was then most uncertain with whatever ideas that could be conjured to achieve their objectives. The presence of 40 illegal voters in the UMNO party was already a bad impression. It seems that HCJ Harun was "doing a favor" for Dr. M to declare UMNO 11 as illegal society. On what basis? Just because of not more than 40 illegal members present from unregistered UMNO branches at the time of voting. It was a strong blow to justice; when seeking justice, the party was instead declare as illegal and "forced" to be dissolved. It paved the way for the victory of Dr M to be secured when the UMNO 11 left with no political party to fight for. However Dr. M quickly started a new party known as UMNO Baru as a President of the party.

 

HCJ Harun must be be a good talker but poor in writing judgment "The irony is that though Harun rarely gave a written judgment, he became a prolific columnist after retirement." Instead Harun was given an academic appointment in the International Islamic University. But he was judged by God for his bad deeds by his sudden death in a heart attack. So one must never be too greedy for power and selfish gains. Sudden death is lurking for those who never fear God's wrath.

 

Comment: SUPP Stunt on Land Again

It seems that SUPP is smart to act outside the DUN and never speak up for landowners affected by Section 47 of the Land Code while inside the DUN. What a hypocrite?

 

 

================================
Posted by Wong Ho Leng on December 09, 2007 at 14:12:49:

SUPP Stunt on Land Again

The SUPP announced yesterday that it had formed a task force to look into s.47.

The SUPP is the only political party in Sarawak which enjoys the distinction of being slow in recognizing the plight of the people. In this case, 34 years! Hence, only now, it decided to form a task force.

But, when you are a part of the Government, what task force is needed?

Hundreds of parcels of land at Matang, Kuching, had been imposed under s.47 land Code since 34 years ago. For 34 years, these landowners cannot fully develop or deal with their land. Being under s.47, the price of the land will be generally less than the market value. In the event of a sale, the purchasers will have to sign a document saying that he acknowledges that the compensation will be according to the price as and when the land was imposed under s.47.

The Land Code clearly provides that in the event of acquisition, the compensation will be based on the price of land at the time that the land was imposed under s.47, not the current market price.

Numerous cases had been brought to Court, challenging the inadequacy of the compensation. In almost all cases, the landowners had failed in Court who also ordered them to pay huge costs to the Lands and Surveys solicitors. Yet, these cases did not seem to jolt the SUPP leaders, though, it must be said, many of these challengers were SUPP leaders, members or supporters.

The SUPP ADUNs had even said in the Dewan Undangan Negeri in the 1990's that the insufficient compensation for land imposed under s.47 was unconstitutional. These SUPP leaders had been forced to withdraw what they said soon after they had said them in the Dewan. In one case, the ADUN was not allowed to contest in the 1996 State elections.

The SUPP joined the BN Government in 1970. Those hundreds of parcels of land at Matang were gazetted for development (whatever manner it was defined) in 1974. Hence, it was done when SUPP was a part of the Government. Yet, they did not know it!

Yesterday, the SUPP announced that the task force will visit the land, collect data, and then submit them to the Party which will discuss it and then forward to the Cabinet for deliberation.

Between 1996 and 2001, the DAP had said in the Dewan that all s.47 must be uplifted if the land were not acquired within 3 years.

The SUPP ADUNs then, including Batu Lintang's Chan Seng Kai, had tried to outdo the DAP, and had suggested that if the subject land was not acquired within 2 years, then s.47 must be uplifted. Three or Two Years, we had seen no need to quarrel.

These statements in the Dewan did not seem to suggest that the SUPP was unaware of the problems associated with s.47.

When I moved a Motion in the Dewan in November 2006 I had said that in view of computerization which should have brought about greater efficiency, s.47 must be uplifted if the subject land was not acquired within 2 years.

There were spates of statements in and outside the Dewan Undangan Negeri. The general policy was uttered several times by Awang Tengah, with echoes of assurances from the SUPP ADUNs and Ministers, of course, that s.47 will be uplifted if the land is not acquired within 2 years.

What has become of this policy? Those hundreds of parcels of Matang land, still under s.47 despite the lapse of 34 years, shows that the Government is not serious in its policy to uplift s.47 within 2 years. Worse, it brought to light the ignorance and incompetence of the SUPP on the plight of the people. Of course, that incompetence applies to generally the BN Parties.

Landowners at Matang should not be hoodwinked by these SUPP gimmicks of ground zero visitation or data collection. These data are collectable in minutes from the gazette notices.

The SUPP said its task force would be looking into the plight of the Matang land only. Quite obviously, it was only because those landowners, out of sheer frustration, had recently brought their plights to Alan Sim, the candidate designate for Bandar Kuching.

Nothing will justify lack of action this time, and hence, since the Parliamentary election is right around the corner, the SUPP decided to form the task force.

It is an election gimmick true and true, for the sake of election in Kuching.

The task force is formed with a view to show that the SUPP is championing the rights of the landowners. Yet, the SUPP and none of the BN Parties supported my Motion in November 2006, only because the Chief Minister told them in the Dewan not to give their support. Yet, outside the Dewan, the SUPP and other BN leaders claimed that the s.47 will be reviewed every 2 years.

Apart from Matang, there were thousands of parcels of land in Sarawak which are still under s.47 despite the fact that the gazette notification had been there since more than 10, 15 or 20 years ago.

That was why we also saw the handing out of land titles during the SUPP meeting yesterday. This was what I had called a popularity show. The BN had equated this as a function of the Government, and therefore it would legitimize the SUPP Ministers using Government cars and chauffeurs, at the expense of the tax payers.

These election stunts must be exposed. The people are smarter nowadays, and will not stand to be hoodwinked.

Let's hope that things are moving and done. The people's interest is paramount. Since the BN Government thought that it is caring, then the s.47 and other land problems ought to be solved soon. If not, the people can give the BN Government the Broom Award during the election time.

9/12/2007

HINDRAF has no terrorist link - it is a peaceful group in Malaysia!

It is good and right for HINDRAF leaders to challenge Badawi for the slanderous public statements that HINDRAF is possibly linked to terrorist group. The main aim is political  assassination of HINDRAF Group and to disband it in the country.

 

It has bad repercussions from these perspectives. ISA will be invoked any time. If the allegation is true, there is a ground for it. Often times, it is merely a cover-up to disband it when the group is getting influential. Maybe in next election HINDRAF party will challenge MIC. But looking at Anwar's case of political suppression by imprisonment, Hindraf leaders will be facing similar path too. DPM has made it clear to the public.

 

But ISA should not be used when the country is not in a state of "emergency". It is an abuse of powers. The public statements of the BN government has not given Hindraf leaders a chance to hold a diplomatic talk. Why is BN so aggressive with Hindraf? The accussation of Hindraf as linked to terrorist group is merely a ground for the government to suppress them when it has received enquiry from New Dehli, India about the Hindus status in the country.

 

 

Sunday December 9, 2007

 

No to fanatics

LANGKAWI: Be prepared to face the consequences - this is the warning given by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak to the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf), which he described as an extremist group. 

The Deputy Prime Minister said the group would be subjected to the same law that had been taken against other militant, extremist and fanatic groups. 

India has distanced itself from the group after the Government said it had links with terrorist organisations. 

MIC president Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu says the Prime Minister has the absolute right to invoke the Internal Security Act (ISA) against Hindraf leaders. 

The Government must carry out thorough investigations into the activities of Hindraf, Umno Youth chief Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein says. 

 

 

=============================================

 

In Reply to : Crackdown on Bersih: Mat Sabu, Tian Chua and 12 others posted by Why they don't dare to arrest Anwar and LKS ? on December 09, 2007 at 13:36:52:

09/12: Ethnic Indian leader lodges police complaint against M'sia's PM

Posted by: raja petra

'We have got zero links with terrorism. We have got zero links with LTTE. We do not support violence. We are a non violent group,' said Mr Uthayakumar

AN ethnic Indian leader filed a police report on Saturday against Malaysia's prime minister, the attorney general and police chief for claiming his protest group has possible terrorist links.

'These allegations' I just laugh at them,' P. Uthayakumar told reporters after lodging the criminal report against Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and the others at a police station in a Kuala Lumpur neighborhood.

Also included in the complaint are Law Minister Nazri Aziz and the state-controlled media.

Mr Abdullah, Attorney General Abdul Gani Patail and Inspector General of Police Musa Hassan have claimed in public statements that Mr Uthayakumar's Hindu Rights Action Force, or Hindraf, is being investigated for possible ties to terrorism, including the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam of Sri Lanka.

The LTTE has been branded a terror group by the United States and European Union.

'We have got zero links with terrorism. We have got zero links with LTTE. We do not support violence. We are a non violent group,' said Mr Uthayakumar, a human rights lawyer, outside the police station.

A dozen supporters gathered around him holding portraits of India's independence leader and icon of nonviolence, Mohandas K. Gandhi.

'I have never met anyone from LTTE in my life,' he said.

The government has stepped up its crackdown on Hindraf since it organized a rally by Malaysia's ethnic Indians on Nov 25 to protest the community's economic plight and alleged racial discrimination by the Malay majority government.

At least 20,000 people participated in the unprecedented protest, which has triggered fears of ethnic unrest in this multiracial country.

On Friday, the government revoked the license of Hindraf Enterprise, a company set up by the group to receive donations.

The state Companies Commission of Malaysia said Hindraf Enterprises was conducting unlawful business 'prejudicial to national security and public order'.

Indians form eight per cent of Malaysia's 27 million people and are at the bottom of the social and economic scale. Malays make up about 60 per cent and control the government. Ethnic Chinese are 25 per cent and dominate business.

Hindraf is demanding equality and fair treatment for Indians, saying an affirmative action programme that gives preferential treatment to Muslim Malays is tantamount to racial discrimination.

'They have gone overboard when they say we have links with terrorism. They are trying to divert the issue' of Indian grievances, Mr Uthayakumar said.

He said he feared the government would use the allegation to arrest him under the Internal Security Act, which allows indefinite detention without trial.

In the police complaint Mr Uthayakumar accused Mr Abdullah and the four other parties of making 'false, malicious seditious, criminally defamatory, racially inciting and inflammatory statements'.

Such a complaint is usually followed by a police investigation. Criminal charges are then filed by the police against the accused if necessary.

Mr Uthayakumar said he does not expect the police to take his complaint seriously. But he said he did it as a symbolic gesture, and challenged the government to produce evidence within 24 hours to show he has terrorist links.

He has also threatened to sue the government leaders for defamation to seek 10 million ringgit (S$14.4 million) in damages.

'Extremist group'

Earlier on Saturday, Malaysia's Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak had called Hindraf an extremist group whose actions have gone overboard to the extent of threatening national security.

'Hindraf has exceeded the limits, many people say Hindraf has gone beyond the tolerable limit...they have violated the law,' he said.

Mr Najib however, said the government was leaving it to the relevant authorities to take appropriate action as provided for under the law against Hindraf leaders and supporters.

'If there are evidence Hindraf is involved in violence and terrorism, the government will not hesitate to take harsh action,' he told a press conference on the final day of the five-day Langkawi International Maritime and Aerospace 2007 Exhibition.

Mr Najib said the warning was not only confined to Hindraf but also to all extremist groups, be they Izlamic, Christian or Hindu religious groups.

COMMENTS: 15-17th General Election High Risks in Malaysia

Badawi Administration has shown many weaknesses through the recent Hindraf, BERSIH and Bar council street demonstrations. In the political arena, those with upper hand will gain control. The lesser political opponents will be an advantage to the ruling government. I would say the 12 ^th GE will be held to avoid former DPM like Anwar to create much strife with the BN government. If Badawi is prepared to face the political foe, then the GE will be postponed till Anwar is back to politics in full force.

 

Najib or Nazri will be next successor for Badawi (to follow the R.A.H.M.A.N. principle). For Anwar, he would be the successor of Tun Dr. M, but history tells us that the post was wrongfully taken away from him. With the recent scandal of VK Lingam video clip or fixing the appointment of judges, it is likely the trial on Anwar was not carried out without government's interference. Hence the task of "fair and justice" is merely words on the lips and far from the truth.

 

Whatever may be the outcome of next GE, the rights of the Chinese community must be preserved and practised without fears. The quiet Indians have shown their full colors to the whole world. Now the Chinese should stand up in Parliament and speak out loud and clear. The New Economic Policy (NEP) is a "torn in the flesh" which sounds good to distribute the wealth of the rich to the poor but its main intention is to preserve the rights of the Malays to enjoy special rights over the Chinese and Indians.

 

"OT" from Sarawak Talk has posted a good article on the general overview of Malaysian politics of those eyeing for PM post.

 

===============================

15/16/17 GE High Risk
Posted by OT on December 09, 2007 at 12:37:57

It is a critical time between the exchange of Badawi Administration and this former UM NO strong man (now the spiritual leader of PKR).

If Anwar miss 12th G.E. (that to be held before 31st March 2008 ), the implications could be:

1. Badawi Administration is WEAK (lacking of confidence)
2. Anwar will miss a 5 years term that before he can face off Badawi (who is now 68 years old).

Aftermath

1. Badawi Administration is expected to continue his leader (as according to Tan Sri Rashid who predicted BN will continue ruling this country).

2. Badawi will be 73 years old (before 13 G.E) and he is or may not continue his leadership for Malaysia . If he passed the baton to Najib / Nazri (R.A.H.M.A.N.) before 13th G.E., he is then wisely avoid to face ANWAR in the Parliament (assuming both Badawi and Anwar win this coming election respectively.)

3. Najib / Nazri will become the successor of Badawi. If he is Najib, who is now 54, (by then he will be 59), I think Najib will begin his long ruling leadership like Mahathir before he steps down.

I predict, he will choose to stay until 75 (provided BN is still in government).

His assistance can be Nazri or Hisham. I think he will hand pick Hisham who is now 45.

4. When Najib passed his baton to Hisham, he will become the 7th PM of Malaysia by the age of 65. He may pick KJ as his assistance (provided this man willing to become Hisham assistant 'forever').

Assuming Hisham wishes to become the 7th PM until 75-80, and he passes his baton to KJ.

5. KJ will become the 8th PM at the age of (70-75), I feel KJ is very unlikely to accept this !

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF THIS IS THE RULES?

1. During 12-13th/14th G.E., Mahathir may be completely 'quite'. This can affect the remaining power from his faction.

2. There is only possibility to choose either Hisham or KJ to be the 7th or 8th PM of Malaysia , so, UM NO is very likely to enter HIGH RISK internal conflict in 15th/16th/17th G.E.

Which is also the greatest challenge of UM NO leadership in BN.
(that directly affect the continuity ruling of BN for Malaysia).

So, I foresee 15th/16th/17th G.E. will enter into HIGHLY CRITICAL period. (Of course, Badawi may not be there any longer, he is more worry of his present situation).

Unfortunately, Hisham and KJ age are too close, both are potential future leader of Malaysia (7th / 8th PM), but only one of them can success.

This is the biggest problem coming along the way. Good luck.

 

Who is truly speaking for the minority Chinese population in Sarawak?

I came across the article by Wong Ho Leng in reply to Alan Sim of Kuching and would take the opportunity to comment the prevailing situation in Sarawak. Did SUPP or the DAP really represent the Chinese to fight for the rights to live long in the land? The marginalization of the Chinese is a reality and not a baseless accusation. If one read the Article of 143 of Malaysian Constitution or commonly known as Malaysian Social Contract by Singapore PM Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, there is erosion of rights for the minority Chinese population in the country.

The Malaysian Constitution was drafted on the basis of a report from the Reid Commission. The commission, which had been formed to lay the groundwork for a Constitution in the run-up to Malaysia's pending independence, released the report in 1957 as the Report of the Federation of Malaya Constitutional Commission 1957 or The Reid Commission Report. The Reid Commission reported that Tunku Abdul Rahman and the Malay Rulers had asked that "in an independent Malaya all nationals should be accorded equal rights, privileges and opportunities and there must not be discrimination on grounds of race and creed. "

It spells out the equal rights for the Chinese, Ibans, Kadazan, Lun Bawangs and natives in the interior of Sarawak, one must be dissatisfied that this rights have been left out for the non-bumiputeras. Regarding the Land Code in Sarawak, it is the most vital for the Chinese in the State to own a permanent lands and footings in the country. But one can see that it is never amended to safeguard the Chinese who are mainly dwelling in the urban and own shop houses, residential premises and lands.

Unfair Delineation of Constituencies

Strategies like delineation of more constituencies in Malays or Melanau polluted areas to ensure majority of seats and reports of "transplanted" voters practice are all unfair play of the current electoral system. For instance in Sarawak, the total number of seats in non-Malays constituencies is less than that of the Malays constituencies even though the population in those non-Malays constituencies like Kuching, Sibu and Miri warranted to delineate to 2 or more smaller constituencies. Instead one sees the Malays constituencies at the coastal areas like Daro, Dalat, Matu & Mukah having sparse population are a separate constituency. It does not make sense when a constituency with a population of 5,000 people needs a State Assemblyman while another constituency densely populated by 15,000 people is only represented by one State Assemblyman. The weightage of the votes from the Chinese seems to be lesser in value and the Assemblymen for densely populated constituencies does not get a higher pay for his task. This is not a fair play of the electoral system and payment of wages for the assemblymen. Since the delineation of rural and coastal constituencies is to serve the people effectively, then delineation of constituencies of non-Malays constituencies in the cities will serve the same purpose in term of people to assemblyman ratio.

The Amended Land Code

The lease lands in Sarawak are mainly for 60 years period. Why the State government or the BN component party such as SUPP has not represented the Chinese to alter the Land Code to ensure automatic renewal of up to 99 years. Some lands are with lease period of perpetuity such as 999 years. But most lands estimated at 90% in Sarawak are merely 60 years lease. Upon expiry of one generation, the second generations have to pay high land premium of around 25% of the land. That is pretty high premium. If the breadwinner in the household can live up to 90 years, he would be facing financial difficulty to pay the land premium.

Let's say one buy the house at age of 30 years and by 90 years, the land lease shall expire. Where to find the money to pay the land lease premium when one is in old age and deprive of income? Now if he passed away at younger age, it is also a financial burden for the children to choke up the large sum of money to pay the land lease premium. Let's say the land and buildings costs is RM300,000.00 in year 2007 and the land is worth 45% of the total price or RM135,000.00. In another 60 years, the land market value may rise by RM2,000 per year. Land in Kuching City has seen drastic bloom in market price during the last 10 years. Hence the estimated increase in land price of RM2,000 per year is a reasonable figure. So the market value of the land after 60 years may be around RM255,000.00 and 25% of the land market value is lease premium of RM63,750.00!

Do not be selfish to care for our own selfish gains and ignore the hardship for our children in the future. If we do not fight for our rights and privileges today, in the near future, the all the property will belongs to the State government and the Chinese and Ibans will toil and toil to make the ends meet. Even nowadays we feel the pinch of hardship after the petrol price hike.

Sarawak goes easy on land lease rates

The Star Online, May 27, 2007

BY STEPHEN THEN

MIRI: The Sarawak Government has revised its policy guidelines for land lease premium rates, which were a heated issue in the state elections last year, leading to the Barisan Nasional losing eight state seats.

Under the new policy, announced by state Public Utilities Minister Datuk Seri Awang Tengah Ali Hassan yesterday, premium rates for leased land in the various categories have been reduced, with 25% of the market value as the minimum rate in all categories.

Lease owners can also now decide if they want to renew for 60 years or 99 years and pay 30% of the market value. They would be allowed to renew the leases at anytime, instead of the current practice of five years before expiration.

They would also be allowed to pay the premium over a 10-year period instead of one lump sum payment.

"The Barisan Nasional government has come up with the new policies in the hope that it will satisfy the people. The land lease issue was used extensively by certain quarters against the government.

"The government has always been very concerned about the welfare of the people. We believe that the changes will both meet the needs of the people and also take into account the interests of the government," he told reporters here.

Awang Tengah said for land used to build residential homes and recreation grounds, the lease premium would be 25% of the market value, in both urban and rural areas. The old rate was between 25% and 50% of market value.

For commercial and industrial land, the new lease premium would be between 25% and 40% of market value, compared to the previous rate of between 25 % and 61%.

As for agricultural land, the rate would be 25% of market value or not more than RM10,000 per 0.4ha, whichever is lower in urban areas, 25% or not more than RM5,000 per 0.4ha, whichever is lower in sub-rural zones, and RM200 per 0.4 ha for rural areas.

Awang Tengah said the rates would be negotiable in cases in which the lease owners were poor, adding that the state government would decide on a case-by-case basis.

He said the renewal rates would be calculated based on prevailing market value at the time of application and not based on the original price of the land.

==================================

Reply to Alan Sim
Posted by Wong Ho Leng on December 07, 2007 at 19:15:46:

Alan Sim is the SUPP Youth Chief, and the candidate designate for the SUPP/BN for Bandar Kuching in the 2008 Parliamentary election.

My attention was drawn to Alan Sim's write-up in his blog under heading "My Thoughts @ SUPP Youth CC Meeting!"

Alan Sim was proud that he spoke "in great length on several issues" when he chaired the SUPP Youth Central Committee meeting.

I would like to answer Alan and challenge him in the issues raised by him.

(1) "Dwindling Political Influence"

Alan said of the dwindling Chinese political influence in this country:

"I guess we all must realise that the Chinese population in this country has seen a declining trend since our independence 50 years ago with our population now stands at only 25%."

The "age" of this country aside, is Alan trying to tell us that though they are BN component Parties, the SUPP and other Chinese Parties are not conferred equal status in the BN big family?

Alan then said:

"At the moment, there are only 20 out of the 219 parliamentary seats which are predominantly Chinese while at the state level, there are only 15 Chinese majority seats out 71."

Alan, who helped to cause this imbalance? Who condoned this inequality in delineation in electoral boundaries? With the DAP complaining inside and outside Parliament about manipulation in electoral delineation, why has the SUPP not uttered a word in support against this imbalance?

The DAP has opposed inside and outside Parliament that the voting weightage has been very unfair to the Chinese. In many Chinese majority areas, the number of voters is 4 or 5 times more than many non-Chinese areas. A non-Chinese vote is 4 to 5 times more valuable than a Chinese vote. What has the SUPP to say on this?

(2) "Splitting up the Chinese"

Alan said:

"So, what I am trying to say is simple. The DAP is splitting up the Chinese when what we should do is to be united."

This "simplicity" borders on illogic and stupidity. If Alan subscribes to what he said, I feel sorry that the SUPP has a Youth leader in him. Worse, the SUPP has found a candidate designate in him.

Just because we contest in elections, so we are "splitting up the Chinese"? What sort of political maturity is this!

When you say that the DAP split up the Chinese, have you ever examined that we actually obtained more than 50% of the votes in those 12 seats contested by us in the May 2006 election? Do you realize that we secured a lot more Chinese votes than the SUPP?

So, how can we be accused of "splitting up the Chinese"?

Alan, can you be really honest to tell us who split up the Chinese? Before answering with embarrassment, please listen to the tape of what Robert Lau said in your own Party function in Bintulu. Robert Lau mentioned that someone split the Chinese, but mind you, he did not mention the DAP. He named your own members and branch leaders in Sibu!

Perhaps the SUPP leadership should all learn to be mature and humble, and not to view the world from the desk, and worse, while wearing the myopic lenses!

(3) "Be United"

Alan said "what we should do is to be united". Has SUPP propagated unity? On the issue of the appointment of the Mayor in Kuching, the first round of party bickering broke out. This, you called "unity"?

Then there was the 2nd round of party bickering. Your leaders spent time and energy, not in solving the people's problem, but to gun down your own leaders, including an Assistant Minister from your Party. Your Party leaders in Sibu and Sarikei wanted to fire the Party President etc. Your Party split into Team A and Team B. This, you called "unity"? So, what is "disunity" in the SUPP's dictionary?

When you say that we should be united, have you ever examined the SUPP? Has your Party and leadership led by example?

Even the Chief Minister reminded the SUPP in the Dewan Undangan Negeri that "internal bickering would not benefit anybody". Alan, weren't you seated in the Dewan when the Chief Minister made this statement?

Your Party leaders held meetings to "tussle" with Dudong branch after its registration was accepted by the Registrar of Societies. Your party leaders abused power and used Government cars to attend the meetings. Six resolutions were passed, and one of them was to demand that the signboard of Dudong branch be dismantled. Alan, do you know that this goes against the very grain of Chinese culture that it is taboo to dismantle a signboard? Yet, you proudly talked about unity!

(4) Representation to Fight

Alan said:

"That is why it is very important that we must have representation in the Government to fight for our welfare and rights."

Alan, when you are a part of the Government, do you have to "fight for … welfare and rights"?

If you are a respected member-party of the coalition which forms the Government, do you have to kneel and kawtow and beg for this and that as favours?

"Welfare and rights" are not favours, are they?

The Government is supposed to look after the welfare and rights of the people. Yet, you mean to tell us that despite the fact that SUPP has representation in the Government, it still has to "fight" for welfare and rights?

Let's say, on annual allocation of financial grants to Chinese and Missionary schools in Sarawak . Isn't that part of the "welfare and rights" of Sarawakians? What has your Party done to "fight for our welfare and rights"? A sham and a shame, isn't it?

The Dewan Undangan Negeri Sarawak had rejected my motions to move for financial grants to these schools 5 times. PKR, on its part through Dominique Ng, had his motions rejected 4 times. When told that Motions involving finance have to be endorsed by the Minister charged with the portfolio, ie, the Minister of Finance, Dominique said he had written twice to your Soon Koh, the Minister of Finance II. But has the Minister from your Party endorsed or supported it? No! Has any of your party leadership moved similar Motions like this? No! Have your Party Ministers pressed for these financial grants or for fair treatment of Chinese and Missionary schools in the Cabinet? No! yet, this is what you called "we must have representation in the Government to fight for our welfare and rights."

Let's say, on use of Chinese language. Before the SUPP joined the Government in 1970, Chinese language was allowed to be used in the Dewan Undangan Negeri. To use the Chinese language is our rights. What has happened to this Chinese language after the SUPP joined the Government? Can you check your Party history and tell us what had the SUPP done? So, wasn't it equally your Party's responsibility to restore the right to use Chinese language in the Dewan Undangan Negeri?

But what had your Party done when the DAP proposed on 20th November 2007 in the Dewan that the Chinese language be allowed to be used in the Dewan? Weren't you and your other political secretaries seated in the Dewan when your SUPP colleagues and Ministers blasted the DAP for making this proposal?

Can you tell us whether you had said anything outside the Dewan to support our proposal to allow Chinese language in the Dewan? Need you be reminded that your Ministers blasted us for stirring up communal issue which may flare into confrontation? Can you tell the people of Sarawak whether you would agree with your Party Ministers and backbenchers that by proposing the use of Chinese language in the Dewan, we were stirring up sensitive issue?

Do you have the moral fibre to suggest to the people of Sarawak that in view of the emergence of China, the Chinese language is acceptable to be used in the Dewan Undangan Negeri?

(5) Opposition Can't Do Anything

Alan said:

"There is no point to shout when the Opposition can't do anything at all."

Do you know the different and distinct roles played by the Government and the Opposition? Maybe go read a few books on Government and democracy.

Who was shouting? Maybe you can give just a little murmur, but an honest one, to your voters and the people in Sarawak your stance on the use of Chinese language in airports and in the Dewan?

Since you said "the Opposition can't do anything at all", maybe you can also give us a little murmur what you or your Party have achieved on financial grants to Chinese and Missionary schools in Sarawak? Afterall, you are the Government and therefore you should have the powers and ability to do all and everything!

Maybe you can also give a murmur, but an honest one, what you and your Party have achieved in matters concerning s.47 on the poor rakyat's land? Since you seem to imply that the Opposition can't do anything but the Government can do everything, can you let us know why s.47 is still imposed on massive land in Matang since 34 years ago? This s.47 was imposed after your Party joined the Government. Since when had your Party done anything to these land?

Now that these landowners have come to see you, and since your Party is in the Government and can therefore do everything, and since you have the added advantage as the Political Secretary to the Chief Minister, and therefore easily able to gain access to the Chief Minister, can you guarantee that all those s.47 will be uplifted before the Parliamentary election?

And, there are also massive land in Sibu, Miri, Bintulu and elsewhere in Sarawak , where s.47 had been imposed more than 10 or 20 years ago. What has your party and BN done? As a part of the Government, wouldn't you think that the "welfare and rights" of the people are paramount? Yet, is it the Opposition which "can't do anything at all" or is it your Party which "can't do anything at all"?

(6) Well Done, BN Backbenchers

Alan said:

"I must say the existing young BN backbenchers have done their work tremendously well. They are very vocal at times on certain Government policies which may not benefit the people."

Can I ask you which "existing" BN backbenchers have done tremendously well? Can you name them? Who knows, your assistance is needed for these "good ones" to be appointed to be Ministers and Assistant Minister? You may know that there are so many of your Ministers and Assistant Ministers who need to be replaced.

Let's see how well have you backbenchers performed. You ought to know because you ought to be seated in the Dewan during the proceedings. From your party, your backbencher (Jerip) said that the land issue was not an issue at all. Did he do well? Pelawan called me "Che Meh" (Hokkien - meaning blind). Did he do well? Opar shouted "NO" to our proposal for automatic and unconditional extension to land titles. Did he do well? Pujut helped submitted a Memorandum to Awang Tengah at the Miri Airport asking for reconsideration of the industrial tariff when the cabinet had approved (unanimously) for its hike. Has he done well? Your Batu Kawa. What had he said for the people that had enabled you to say that he had done tremendously well?

You want me to name the others too from the SUPP? What about your other BN colleagues?

What are the Government policies which may not benefit the people which your BN backbenchers had been vocal at? Maybe you can just name one or two of such policies?

For these policies which may not benefit the people, what is the result after your BN backbenchers have been vocal?

No wonder you used the word "existing backbenchers". So you are not totally satisfied with the performance of your former BN backbenchers? Remember your comrade Daniel Ngieng when he was serving for Bukit Assek? He proposed in the Dewan in 2005 that the premium for lease extension be fixed at 25%. The Government accepted this rate. So, had he done well?

(7) Deliver Results

Alan said you "we need is representation in the Government who can both speak up for the people at the same time deliver results".

On the above issues, and there are more, can you tell us what results have been delivered?

What is the fate of the Memorandum through Pujut? I had helped you to ask. You won't like to know the results. The industrial tariff hike had not been reduced. That is the result your Party delivered?

Is the SUPP going to deliver us a 3rd round of volcanic Party-bickering after the Parliamentary election?

( Communal Issues

Alan said we must "stop harping on communal issues if we want to be competitive and compete with the outside world".

Do you include the usage of Chinese language in this category also? At least your Party Minister said that this was a communal issue. Tell us whether the use of Chinese language in the Dewan Undangan Negeri would impede competition with the outside world?

(9) Oil Price Hike

Alan also said that "the oil price hike has definitely burnt a hole in everyone's pocket".

So, what has your Party done on this? Don't you think Sarawak deserves better from oil and gas pumped from underneath our own feet?

As a part of the BN Government, your Party leader had been harping that it has its own style of negotiation with the federal Government to increase the royalty which now stands at a pathetic 5%. What own style? Or was it "No style"?

Have you read your former President Datuk Amar Stephen Yong's book, A Life Twice Lived, on his discourse about the pathetic 5% oil royalty? Before he left this world, he spoke to me about his displeasure that his men (meaning who?) had not done enough on this issue. Nothing was changed since the day he wrote his book. So, this is the result the SUPP delivered with the representation in the Government?

The Chief Minister was recently reported as saying that he was happy with the 5% royalty. So, how has your Party leader negotiated with the Federal Government in the light of what was said by the Chief Minister?

The failure to deliver, as described in Stephen Yong's book, continued.

Has your party ever voiced out against oil price hike? Will you and your Party voice out against oil price hike after the Parliamentary election?

You said you would propose that the Government "improve on our public transportation system not only in KL but other major cities in the country". So, you would admit that not much had been done outside KL despite the Federal Government's promise that the savings from the subsidy will be used to improve transportation in the country?

What have you said on this issue between 28th February 2006 and yesterday?

(10) Education

Alan said he "spoke at length on education issue which is close to everyone's heart."

It is good that you spoke on it. If you aspire to be a political leader, please do continue to work for everybody.

Have you spoken out on the imbalance of intake that had caused so many students who achieved meritorious results to be kept outside the door of the local public universities?

Why could Sarawak students be accepted into Harvard University but not good enough for local public universities?

Were there scholarships given out based not on results but race?

What is your stance on more Australian universities in Sarawak ? Your Party Minister Soon Koh had told the Dewan last year that two Australian universities in Sarawak are enough. "Three could be disastrous". What is your stance on that? What could be disastrous if students are able to study in a third or fourth university from Australia?

I am glad that the SUPP Youth helped "hundreds of local students to step into local public universities" but have you ever told them the standard of our universities? How employable would these students be after they graduate?

On the home front, did you ever tell them that UNIMAS does not make it into the 2007 Webometrics Ranking (WR) of 3,000 Premier Universities when even the newer University Malaysia Sabah sits at 2969 in the WR ranking?

What is your stance on the Independent Chinese schools? Don't you think it is high time that their certificates be recognized by the Government? What has taken the Government, of which the SUPP is part, to give them due recognition?

I believe that every political party has a role to play to ensure the survival of our schools, and no less the Chinese schools which have not received equal treatment from the BN Government. But what has the SUPP and yourself done to redress this imbalance?

With increasing Chinese population, we have decreasing number of Chinese schools. You have representation in the Government. You promised the delivery of results. What are the results?

Your Party almost became an expert in moving or relocating Chinese schools. But is this the best solution? Isn't it a better solution to demand the Government to give fair treatment to all schools in the country?

Do you know how many Chinese schools have been closed in Sarawak alone? What plans are there in the SUPP to revive these schools in densely populated residential areas?

(11) Mother Tongue Education

Alan said:

"As for the teaching of Science and Mathematics in English, I still believe that it should be reverted [back] to using mother tongue, in this case Mandarin."

Yeah. I have the same belief. I had stated my belief since day 1 when it was hastily implemented when Mahathir suggested it.

The SUPP had always claimed Mahathir as the mega brilliant Prime Minister of Malaysia. Being mega brilliant, how could his policy on teaching of Science and Mathematics be wrong? And worse, it runs contrary to your belief!

Since when did you hold the belief that this education policy was wrong? Did you express it to your leaders? No less to Mahathir himself?

However, as a part of the Government, your Party is guilty in agreeing to implement it 5 years ago.

Since you said that it is still your belief, surely, you would not sit quietly still since the Government has implemented this education policy against your belief! Apart from stating this in your blog, can you give a murmur what had you done before the system was implemented? It has been years now since the system of teaching was implemented, if you had not sat quietly still, can you let the people know what had you and your party done? And, what was the result?

On the other hand, if you can sit quietly still though against your belief, how can the people entrust you on other issues?

(12) Crime

Alan said:

"Next, I spoke on crime where I made it loud and clear that Sarawakians no longer feel safe and we want the police to get down to work immediately".

I presume this message was "loud and clear" to your Youth Section. Did you make it "loud and clear" to the police and the general Sarawakians?

Is that all you can do? When police conducted forums in Sarawak in April this year, did your party leaders participate in them, at least by attending and asking the Police to "get down to work immediately"?

Can you tell Sarawak whether any of your Party leaders were connected to triads and gangsterism? Who are the Deputy Federal Minister, state cabinet Minister and ex-MP who are said to be connected to triads? What would you do if they were connected?

Your Party leaders play ostrich to the serious crimes and said they did not believe that triads and gangsterism is even serious, especially in Sibu! You want me to name them for you so that you can "murmur" to them that it is not your "belief"?

More than some of your Party leaders cum Ministers had said that it was safe to walk in the streets in Sibu, whereas the people in Sibu would share your view that "Sarawakians no longer feel safe".

You want the words of your former Youth Chief? He said in the Dewan Undangan Negeri sitting in May 2007, "If you go around Sarawak, I am sure you find people "alive and well" enjoying themselves at night."

Do you agree that as a part of the Government, you do not wait until a person is no longer "alive and well" before taking action?

Alan said: "I propose the mandatory whipping for convicted snatch thieves which I had submitted to the Parliamentary Select Committee which sat in Kuching in 2004."

May be that was a good proposal. But 3 years had passed. Has your proposal been accepted at all? Has snatch thefts increased or reduced? How many have been prosecuted in Court? Are there enough prosecutors properly trained to prosecute crimes?

Whereas I accept that you had made proposal on snatch thieves, I may also let you know that I had made proposal for different categories of sexual crimes. Yes, I can let you know that my proposals, which was a DAP proposal, had been accepted.

(13) Civil Service

Alan also said:

"On the civil service, I also talked at length on the need to have more Chinese youth to be in civil service to reflect a balance proportion."

I am glad you recognized the imbalance. And, uou are the Political Secretary to the CM. Have you spoken to him on this? Have you spoken to the PM on this? What is the result? Isn't it still imbalance?

The SUPP has been in Government for 37 years. The number of Chinese in the civil service had decreased significantly. May be you had been concerned and had spoken about it before, but since when have you and your Party spoken seriously about it? By seriously, I mean, you and your Party had been able to push the federal and state Government to see your points and remedy the imbalance. It was overdue, right?

(14) Action Speaks Louder, especially when you are Government

I had raised only some issues to reply to Alan Sim. The SUPP will see that they had not done enough for the community it hopes to serve. The SUPP has not been effective, and it has practically little say in the Government. Not because its representation in the Government is inadequate, but because its Party leaders do not have the courage to speak the "truth".

A cabinet decision has to be made collectively. A simple vote of "No" will mean that a Government policy, even if suggested by the most powerful leader, will not be carried. The appointment of Chong Teck Hsiung as the Mayor for Kuching was a classic example, and Michael Manyin, for the first time yesterday, let us know that his appointment was the unanimous decision of the Cabinet. But the SUPP had not admitted this.

The issue of lease extension and the high premium, including the "forfeiture" of the balance of the term if the lease holders apply to renew now, is all the work of a unanimous decision in the Cabinet.

As the Youth Chief, Alan Sim should know how the Government works. It is no use talking in a blog what he believes in. He should make sure that the Party believes what the people believe. The mandate comes from the people. The people are the Masters. Has the SUPP served the Masters? Not in my book, and I am sure my belief is shared by many more than what Alan Sim may think.

As a part of the Government, do everything that a Government ought to do.

DAP is important. It provides the checks and balance. We have done well, because we operate and speak without fear or favour. Unlike the SUPP, we dare to speak the truth. We are not "politikus". We can never be belittled. We have enjoyed and will continue to enjoy popular support, despite the uneven playing field caused by money politics in Sarawak. We have popular support, and we even gathered more than 60% of the votes in certain constituencies, So, it is a sin to accuse us of splitting the Chinese. Politicians who are worth the salt must talk sense.

8th December, 2007