British Conservative party's Shadow Minister for Education and a
member of the House of Lords Baroness Verma of Leicester today (Dec
8, 2008) hosted a briefing on the plight of minority Indian rights of
Malaysia.
The briefing was held at the House of Lords on behalf of the Friends
of Minority Communities in Malaysia.
The purpose of the briefing was for members of the House of Lords
and House of Commons to obtain a true picture on the plights of the
ethnic minority Indian community in Malaysia.
Baroness Verma had extended invitation to key personalities from
Malaysian as well as from the USA.
The speakers were the Director of Public Policy of the Hindu American
Foundation Ishani Chowdhury, the Director of Centre for Public Policy
Studies (Malaysia) Tricia Yeoh, Human Rights Advocate (Malaysia) P
Waythamoorthy and the editor of Malaysiakini.com K Kabilan.
"This is an important event that emphasizes the need to sustain focus
on a nation that continues to discriminate against the minority Hindu
population by judicial onslaughts, educational impediments and temple
destruction," Ms Chowdhury told the briefing.
"The Malaysian government needs to work with its peaceful and
productive minority community and address these legitimate
grievances. Only then can it ensure true upliftment of its people and
progress as a multi-ethnic nation," she added.
Ms Yeoh said that Indians in Malaysia were excluded from the
mainstream, were mismanaged, and was a misunderstood community.
She said that there were an estimated 40,000 unregistered Indian
children nationwide and as a result they were excluded from
examinations, university, scholarships, access to healthcare,
business and employment.
"The Indian participation in the civil sector has also dwindled in
recent years. Their representation in civil service stood at 7.2% in
2006 and now it is on 2.8%," she said.
Ms Yeoh also touched on the various Malaysian government measures
and efforts to solve the Indian problems.
Kabilan spoke about the plight of the plantation workers in Malaysia,
stating that their condition had largely remained unchanged since
independence in 1957.
"Issues such as wages, housing rights, education and healthcare are
still there," he said.
"In 1941 and then in 1946, there were reports published which stated
that these plantation workers wanted a better wage structure, an
improvement of living quarters, a proper healthcare and a proper
education.
"Malaysiakini did a story on bonded laborers' two years ago and we
found out that these workers were still in want of the same things
which were originally sought in 1941," he added.
He also said that the measures implemented by the government had been
insufficient in addressing the problems faced by these plantation
workers.
Waythamoorthy, who is also the chairperson of the Hindraf, spoke on
the marginalisation of the Indian community for the past 50 years.
"And for speaking up these issues, five Hindraf leaders have been
detained under the draconian Internal Security Act which provided for
detention without trial," he said.
He urged the Baroness to look into the sorry situation of the Indian
community in Malaysia and to influence British politicians to raise
their concerns to the Malaysian government.
"We will continue in highlighting the grievances of this community
in the international arena as the local government is not keen to
meet us and address the issues," he said in the briefing.
Representatives of Civil societies within the UK also attended the
briefing which included Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch,
European Centre for Human Rights Studies, The Law Society of England
and Wales. Community leaders of the local Hindu/Indian community
pledged their support and agreed to take up the matter further with
the European Parliament members.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
A piece of paper does not determine your faith
Religion is a human idea on the relationship between man and the
supreme. There was never an occasion in the history of mankind
where all men and women, worshipped the same God, followed one
doctrine.
This never happened and will never happen. Humans are creatures of
ideas. We have the free will to think and decide what is best for
ourselves. Our ability to imagine can never be governed by any
individual or organisation.
Throughout history, people who shared similar beliefs have
gathered. They introduced rules, rituals and philosophies. This
caused religions to be born.
In this modern world, we are required to state our religion on
official papers. I find it amusing because it does not carry any
weight on an individual's spirituality.
Religion is not similar to race. Religion is about the mind, race
is the physical and cultural characteristic of a human.
Humans have the ability to decide their relationship with God. Just
because someone has stated that he or she follows a particular
religion on official documents, that does not mean that he or she
actualy follows it.
Therefore, in my opinion a piece of paper does not determine your
faith. You may even forcefully change the legal documents of a
person and categorize him under a different religion, but you can
never determine his spirituality. Only an individual knows what
runs in the mind during prayers, chanting of mantra, rituals etc etc
etc. Nobody else will know it except for that particular individual.
Hope the above made some sense. I chose to write my opinion because
there are many organisations out there which are trying to establish
religious rules.
Nobody can determine my spirituality. My way of religion is my
personal choice. It is not necessary for me to follow somebody
elses rules and regulations because this is between me and God.
Regards,
Sharmalan
Seremban.
supreme. There was never an occasion in the history of mankind
where all men and women, worshipped the same God, followed one
doctrine.
This never happened and will never happen. Humans are creatures of
ideas. We have the free will to think and decide what is best for
ourselves. Our ability to imagine can never be governed by any
individual or organisation.
Throughout history, people who shared similar beliefs have
gathered. They introduced rules, rituals and philosophies. This
caused religions to be born.
In this modern world, we are required to state our religion on
official papers. I find it amusing because it does not carry any
weight on an individual's spirituality.
Religion is not similar to race. Religion is about the mind, race
is the physical and cultural characteristic of a human.
Humans have the ability to decide their relationship with God. Just
because someone has stated that he or she follows a particular
religion on official documents, that does not mean that he or she
actualy follows it.
Therefore, in my opinion a piece of paper does not determine your
faith. You may even forcefully change the legal documents of a
person and categorize him under a different religion, but you can
never determine his spirituality. Only an individual knows what
runs in the mind during prayers, chanting of mantra, rituals etc etc
etc. Nobody else will know it except for that particular individual.
Hope the above made some sense. I chose to write my opinion because
there are many organisations out there which are trying to establish
religious rules.
Nobody can determine my spirituality. My way of religion is my
personal choice. It is not necessary for me to follow somebody
elses rules and regulations because this is between me and God.
Regards,
Sharmalan
Seremban.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
CONGRATULATIONS BROTHER BARACK OBAMA !
It is really a proud momemnt for me when I heard the news that Barack Obama had won the US Presidential Election. For the first time, a Black President will occupy the White House. Hats off to the people of America for a wise move! Change is the essence of life. Refuse changing is refuse living. The people of America understood this phenomenon well. I really feel proud of being black after seeing the newly crowned President-Elect giving his victory speech. As human beings history, the first man in this universe was a black and today Obama made everyone of us proud and happy. You have changed the mindset of the world. You have realised your father's dream.You made it my Brother!!! Can Malaysia adopt this mindset???????????????
May be in 1000 years to come provided there is no UMNO in this part of the world.
May be in 1000 years to come provided there is no UMNO in this part of the world.
SOCIAL CONTRACT Vs RACIAL CONTRACT
The Pakatan Rakyat Kedah state government's ruling of imposing a 50%
Bumiputra quota on houses in the state does not help either. Why 50%?
Why even 30%? Should in the first place there even be a quota?
If you have not done so this you should read Zaid Ibrahim's book "In
Good Faith", Zaid has addressed this matter of Article 153 and the
"Social Contract" with great clarity.
What the Kedah state government has done is unconstitutional. Article
8 and Article 153 of the Constitution do not allow this. You just
can't dictate how people run their businesses.
Those who support the imposition of quotas argue that there exists a
"Social Contract" that allows them to do so. But while they mention
this "Social Contract", they fail to mention the terms of this
"contract", what it says, and who is bound by it.
In short, if I am not a party to that contract can I be bound by it?
The contract was entered into by the Malays and the then immigrant
Indians and Chinese; of course it is not really a written contract as
much as a verbal contract and we all know that a verbal contract is
not worth the paper it is written on.
Nevertheless, should Malaysian-born Indians and Chinese who have never
even visited India and China be made to abide to a verbal "contract"
made by their immigrant parents and/or grandparents? How long will
this "contract" run? Will Indians and Chinese 1000 years from now
still be made to abide to a "contract" made in 1957?
There should be a cut-off date. There must come a point of time when
all Malaysians are regarded as equal. How can an Indonesian who
migrated to this country a few years ago be regarded as Bumiputra when
Chinese and Indians who come to this country in the 1400s are still
second class citizens?
Yes, Article 153 accords Malays certain rights and privileges. But
that same Article, and Article 8, do not allow imposing of quotas and
permits which deny Indians and Chinese their rights in favour of the
Malays. This, many people do not seem to understand.
We also seem to have forgotten that the New Economic Policy is a
two-pronged attack. Other than reducing the gap between the different
races it is also about reducing the gap between the rich and the poor.
And this would mean regardless of race.
When we talk about the Malay farmers and fisherman. We do not seem to
realize that there are Chinese farmers and fishermen as well. Poverty
does not recognize race.
It is time that the "Social Contract" be reviewed. A new "Social
Contract" must be drawn up that looks into the SOCIAL structure and
not RACIAL structure that the present "Social Contract" addresses.
Only then can it be called a "Social Contract". If not, then let us
call it what it really is, a "Racial Contract".
The poverty level also needs to be reviewed. The new "hardcore"
poverty level should be RM1200. Anyone earning below RM1200 per month
should be considered poor. That would mean a high percentage of
Malaysians. Then the NEW "Social Contract" should address the needs of
those who live below the NEW poverty level of RM1200.
And the NEW "Social Contract" should no longer be a verbal contract
but chiseled in stone. And it should be a contract to take care of
Malays, Indians, Chinese, Portuguese, Ibans, Dayaks, etc. As long as
you are poor, meaning earning below RM1200 then you are taken care of.
That should be Malaysia's NEW SOCIAL CONTRACT.
Monday, October 13, 2008
My Visit to Stockholm, Sweden.
I was in the city of Malarhojdan which is located 17 minutes away by Tunnelbana from Stockholm, the capital of Scandinavia.I was there to attend the World Dental Congress (FDI)in Stockholmassan in Alvjo which is about 10minutes away by Pendeltag
(Commuter Train). It was a very memorable stay as it was towards the end of
summer(21st Sept to 28th Sept 2008 ). I stayed in an old couple's house. The country look simple no big highways, no traffic jams, 13th Century buildings, no Twin Towers. But they are are 100years ahead of Malaysia in terms of mental development. Can we see Malaysia as what Stockholm today, in 100 years? The answer is :NOT SURE!!
(Commuter Train). It was a very memorable stay as it was towards the end of
summer(21st Sept to 28th Sept 2008 ). I stayed in an old couple's house. The country look simple no big highways, no traffic jams, 13th Century buildings, no Twin Towers. But they are are 100years ahead of Malaysia in terms of mental development. Can we see Malaysia as what Stockholm today, in 100 years? The answer is :NOT SURE!!
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Ahmad Ismail a Racist Bastard !!!
Ahmad Ismail has successfully deviated the entire issue. Now he is saying that he is only defending his race. Who attacked his race for him to defend? For him to defend , he must see someone attacking his race. In his case he is the attacker as well as defender. It is own goal scenario. He is trying to fool the whole country. A stern warning from the Rakayat, "We cannot be fooled anymore my dear". This is not your kampung politics. This is a multinational Malaysia. No one race is superior to the rest.A message to you Ahmad, you are suffering from Inferiority Complex and shall I classified as "Severe Irreversible Inferiority Syndromme"( SIIS ), terminal stage.You are not Hero for Malays but Zero to Rakyat Malaysia.
By: C.T.ZEN
By: C.T.ZEN
Racist Ahmad Ismail Of UMNO Penang
The name Ahmad Ismail has printed an inerasable image in every Malaysian especially in the hearts of non-Malays for his irresponsible remarks that implicate Malaysian Chinese as an " immigrants". This statement will not go well with Malaysia after 51 tears of independence. He is not only racist and arrogant but very dangerous creature that living in Malaysia. He is not fit be in Malaysia as all of us are peace loving Rakyat. He in his press conference on 8th Sept 2008 had blow the racial heat that could destroy the unity of Malaysia. As he is a treat to National Security, ISA should be used immediately to arrest him unconditionally. On top of that Pak Lah and "big mouth" Syed Hamid Albar should consider revoking his citizenship. He is not fit to be a Malaysian. In addition, all those he supported him in the press conference and the guy who tore down Dr.Koh Tsu Koon's potret should be sacked from UNMO immediately.
These measures should be taken as Ahmad Ismail is trying to hide his mistake by pulling in all the innocent Malays and Muslims throughout the country to his defence. This is his mistake and he should defend himself. Don't bring other Malays and Islam into his personal issue. He clearly shows that he is stupid, racist, unreasonable, failed to respect his own BN leader and he potrayed himself as a traitor of Malaysian unity. He should be punished !!!
These measures should be taken as Ahmad Ismail is trying to hide his mistake by pulling in all the innocent Malays and Muslims throughout the country to his defence. This is his mistake and he should defend himself. Don't bring other Malays and Islam into his personal issue. He clearly shows that he is stupid, racist, unreasonable, failed to respect his own BN leader and he potrayed himself as a traitor of Malaysian unity. He should be punished !!!
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
What a dentist can do only a dentist can do.
Saturday February 16, 2008 ( STAR )
I REFER to the letter ‘Dental visits a pain in the pocket’ (The Star, Feb 13). The dental treatment charges in Malaysia are well regulated by the Medical Practice Division, of the Health Ministry under the Private HealthCare Facilities and Services Act 1998 (Act 586).
This act is well supported by Malaysian Private Dental Practitioners’ Association and Malaysian Dental Association.
Dental practitioners’ in the private sector whether they are GPs or Specialists are well trained in this aspect and are supposed to adhere and practise dentistry according to these guidelines.
The healthcare clients (new terminology for patients) have their own rights. Under the Act, they have all the rights to know about the charges and treatment procedures.
If they do not feel satisfied with the dentist, there is the “Grievances Mechanism” in clinics to address the issue under the Act.
The writer also said that the dental surgeons were not well versed in drugs.
The second year of dental course covers pharmacology.
In fact, dental surgeons can treat Upper Respiratory Tract Infection (sore throat) that is a common disease treated by medical practitioners.
The third year covers subjects of general surgery and general medicine.
The syllabus clearly shows that dental surgeons are on par with their medical counterparts.
Another accusation by the writer is that implantologists are not well trained and medical GPs can place implants.
This is a joke!
My sincere advice to him is, please look at your backyard.
There are a lot of illegal and incompetent medical practitioners. Try to rectify that.
We have our own professional body to regulate competency.
In conclusion, I feel the writer was wrong in all his statements and figures.
He was too emotional in expressing his opinion and created an increase in dental phobia among dental patients.
One important phenomenon that everyone must realise is that: “What a dentist can do only a dentist can do.”
Dr NEDUNCHELIAN VENGU,
President,
Malaysian Private Dental Practitioners’ Association.
I REFER to the letter ‘Dental visits a pain in the pocket’ (The Star, Feb 13). The dental treatment charges in Malaysia are well regulated by the Medical Practice Division, of the Health Ministry under the Private HealthCare Facilities and Services Act 1998 (Act 586).
This act is well supported by Malaysian Private Dental Practitioners’ Association and Malaysian Dental Association.
Dental practitioners’ in the private sector whether they are GPs or Specialists are well trained in this aspect and are supposed to adhere and practise dentistry according to these guidelines.
The healthcare clients (new terminology for patients) have their own rights. Under the Act, they have all the rights to know about the charges and treatment procedures.
If they do not feel satisfied with the dentist, there is the “Grievances Mechanism” in clinics to address the issue under the Act.
The writer also said that the dental surgeons were not well versed in drugs.
The second year of dental course covers pharmacology.
In fact, dental surgeons can treat Upper Respiratory Tract Infection (sore throat) that is a common disease treated by medical practitioners.
The third year covers subjects of general surgery and general medicine.
The syllabus clearly shows that dental surgeons are on par with their medical counterparts.
Another accusation by the writer is that implantologists are not well trained and medical GPs can place implants.
This is a joke!
My sincere advice to him is, please look at your backyard.
There are a lot of illegal and incompetent medical practitioners. Try to rectify that.
We have our own professional body to regulate competency.
In conclusion, I feel the writer was wrong in all his statements and figures.
He was too emotional in expressing his opinion and created an increase in dental phobia among dental patients.
One important phenomenon that everyone must realise is that: “What a dentist can do only a dentist can do.”
Dr NEDUNCHELIAN VENGU,
President,
Malaysian Private Dental Practitioners’ Association.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Different Terminology
School:A place where Papa Pays and Son Plays.
Life Insurance:A contract that keeps you poor all your life so that you can die Rich.
Nurse:A person who wakes you up to give you sleeping pills.
Marriage:
It's an agreement in which a man loses his bachelor degree and a woman gains her masters.
Tears:The hydraulic force by which masculine willpower is defeated by feminine waterpower.
Compromise:The art of dividing a cake in such a way that everybody believes he got the biggest piece.
Conference Room:A place where everybody talks, nobody listens and everybody disagrees later on.
Office:A place where you can relax after your strenuous home life.
Yawn:The only time some married men ever get to open their mouth.
Etc.! :A sign to make others believe that you know more than you actually do.
Committee:Individuals who can do nothing individually and sit to decide that nothing can be done together.
Diplomat:A person who tells you to go to hell in such a way that you actually look forward to the trip.
Miser:A person who lives poor so that he can die rich.
Boss:Someone who is early when you are late and late when you are early.
Doctor:A person who kills your ills by pills, and kills you by bills.
By: Jokes of Malaysia
Life Insurance:A contract that keeps you poor all your life so that you can die Rich.
Nurse:A person who wakes you up to give you sleeping pills.
Marriage:
It's an agreement in which a man loses his bachelor degree and a woman gains her masters.
Tears:The hydraulic force by which masculine willpower is defeated by feminine waterpower.
Compromise:The art of dividing a cake in such a way that everybody believes he got the biggest piece.
Conference Room:A place where everybody talks, nobody listens and everybody disagrees later on.
Office:A place where you can relax after your strenuous home life.
Yawn:The only time some married men ever get to open their mouth.
Etc.! :A sign to make others believe that you know more than you actually do.
Committee:Individuals who can do nothing individually and sit to decide that nothing can be done together.
Diplomat:A person who tells you to go to hell in such a way that you actually look forward to the trip.
Miser:A person who lives poor so that he can die rich.
Boss:Someone who is early when you are late and late when you are early.
Doctor:A person who kills your ills by pills, and kills you by bills.
By: Jokes of Malaysia
A small piece of History for our future Generation
Hitler's public relations manager, Goebbels, once said, 'If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.' Looks like that is what Umno has been doing ever since Mahathir a/l Mohamed came into power. This has spawned a new generation of Malaysians who do not know their own history
Once again our government had to wipe out any references to a famous Melaka prince as being Hindu and belonging to the powerful Hindu empire Sri Vijaya. So all of a sudden our museums, school text-books etc. all refer to Parameswara as a Malay prince.
What race ruled or did not rule is besides the point. What is important is not butchering history to create your own truths. You cannot change your race even if you convert - Parameswara could have been responsible for Umno's stupid and false sense of heritage through 'Ketuanan Melayu'. If this is what it is based on, there is no 'Ketuanan Melayu' because the lineage of Melaka Sultans are Indians, not Malays. It is no secret that Parameswara was an Indian and a Hindu prince. It is clear from records that Parameswara never converted to Islam. He was an Indian Hindu who fled Palembang in Sumatra to eventually found Melaka circa 1400 AD and start the entire Malaysian royalty. Malaysia's royalty was and is of Hindu/India origin. On the other hand it was Sri Maharaja who converted himself and the court of Melaka to Islam, and as a result took on the name of Sultan Muhammad Shah sometime after 1435.
The most famous of Indian Hindu Kings were Rajaraja Chola and his son Rajendra Chola who invaded Southern Thailand, Kedah, Perak, Johor and Sumatra about 1000 AD. This is Raja-raja Chola - the Indian/Hindu kings and not Raja Chulan - a Malay king.
But what is really sad is that our children are taught as though Malaysian history suddenly began in 1400 with an Islamic Melaka. Even the Malays themselves are being cheated by UMNO into believing that everything started around 1400. We are also led to believe that the Indians and Chinese first arrived on the shores of Malaysia only in around 1850 as desperate indentured labourers, farmers and miners. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The cultural influences of India in particular, and China, in South East Asia span over 2,000 years, starting perhaps with the arrival from India of the Brahmanical prince/scholar - Aji Saka in Java in AD78, through to Vietnam, Cambodia (Indo China), Thailand, Burma, Indonesia, Bali, Borneo, Brunei and beyond. Malay culture is Indian culture. In fact the whole of South East Asian culture is Indian culture.
The findings at Bujang Valley speak of an ancient Indian/Hindu presence in Kedah. There were Chinese settlements in Pahang and Kelantan around the 13th -14th century and in 12th century in Singapore. The early Brunei Sultanate had a Chinese Queen. One need not ponder at length the implications of Angkor Wat and Borobudur or that 40%-50% of Bahasa Malaysia comprises Sanskrit/Tamil words. But ALL of these are hidden away from the rakyat inc the Malays themselves so the Malays in particular grow up with limited knowledge of their own country and heritage
To illustrate, some of these words are:bumi = boomi
putra = putran
raja = rajah
desa = thesam
syakti = sakthi
kolam = kulam
bahaya = abahya
jaya = jeya
maha = maha
aneka = aneha
nadi = naadi
kedai = kadai
mahligai = maaligai
mantra = manthrum
menteri = manteri
(This list can go on and it is true because Tamil and Sanskrit are about 5, 000 years old)
An extremely important archeological find that pointed to one of the greatest empires in history - the Raja Cholan empire that ruled from the Maldives through India, Sri Lanka and right down to South East Asia found deep in the jungles of Johor a few years ago and made headlines in the mainstream newspapers in 2005, suddenly disappeared from the news…..
The time has arrived for us to record our history as the facts tell us and not as we would like to wish it for. The truth will never hurt anyone. Lies, always will.
Contibuted by: True Malaysian
Once again our government had to wipe out any references to a famous Melaka prince as being Hindu and belonging to the powerful Hindu empire Sri Vijaya. So all of a sudden our museums, school text-books etc. all refer to Parameswara as a Malay prince.
What race ruled or did not rule is besides the point. What is important is not butchering history to create your own truths. You cannot change your race even if you convert - Parameswara could have been responsible for Umno's stupid and false sense of heritage through 'Ketuanan Melayu'. If this is what it is based on, there is no 'Ketuanan Melayu' because the lineage of Melaka Sultans are Indians, not Malays. It is no secret that Parameswara was an Indian and a Hindu prince. It is clear from records that Parameswara never converted to Islam. He was an Indian Hindu who fled Palembang in Sumatra to eventually found Melaka circa 1400 AD and start the entire Malaysian royalty. Malaysia's royalty was and is of Hindu/India origin. On the other hand it was Sri Maharaja who converted himself and the court of Melaka to Islam, and as a result took on the name of Sultan Muhammad Shah sometime after 1435.
The most famous of Indian Hindu Kings were Rajaraja Chola and his son Rajendra Chola who invaded Southern Thailand, Kedah, Perak, Johor and Sumatra about 1000 AD. This is Raja-raja Chola - the Indian/Hindu kings and not Raja Chulan - a Malay king.
But what is really sad is that our children are taught as though Malaysian history suddenly began in 1400 with an Islamic Melaka. Even the Malays themselves are being cheated by UMNO into believing that everything started around 1400. We are also led to believe that the Indians and Chinese first arrived on the shores of Malaysia only in around 1850 as desperate indentured labourers, farmers and miners. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The cultural influences of India in particular, and China, in South East Asia span over 2,000 years, starting perhaps with the arrival from India of the Brahmanical prince/scholar - Aji Saka in Java in AD78, through to Vietnam, Cambodia (Indo China), Thailand, Burma, Indonesia, Bali, Borneo, Brunei and beyond. Malay culture is Indian culture. In fact the whole of South East Asian culture is Indian culture.
The findings at Bujang Valley speak of an ancient Indian/Hindu presence in Kedah. There were Chinese settlements in Pahang and Kelantan around the 13th -14th century and in 12th century in Singapore. The early Brunei Sultanate had a Chinese Queen. One need not ponder at length the implications of Angkor Wat and Borobudur or that 40%-50% of Bahasa Malaysia comprises Sanskrit/Tamil words. But ALL of these are hidden away from the rakyat inc the Malays themselves so the Malays in particular grow up with limited knowledge of their own country and heritage
To illustrate, some of these words are:bumi = boomi
putra = putran
raja = rajah
desa = thesam
syakti = sakthi
kolam = kulam
bahaya = abahya
jaya = jeya
maha = maha
aneka = aneha
nadi = naadi
kedai = kadai
mahligai = maaligai
mantra = manthrum
menteri = manteri
(This list can go on and it is true because Tamil and Sanskrit are about 5, 000 years old)
An extremely important archeological find that pointed to one of the greatest empires in history - the Raja Cholan empire that ruled from the Maldives through India, Sri Lanka and right down to South East Asia found deep in the jungles of Johor a few years ago and made headlines in the mainstream newspapers in 2005, suddenly disappeared from the news…..
The time has arrived for us to record our history as the facts tell us and not as we would like to wish it for. The truth will never hurt anyone. Lies, always will.
Contibuted by: True Malaysian
JOKE OF THE DAY
A little boy wanted RM100 badly and prayed for two weeks
but nothing happened.
Then he decided to write GOD a letter requesting the RM100.
When Pos Malaysia received the letter addressed to GOD,
they decided to send it to the Prime Minister - Pak Lah.
The PM was so impressed, touched, and amused that he
instructed his secretary to send the little boy a RM5.00
bill. Pak Lah thought this would appear to be a lot of
money to a little boy.
The little boy was delighted with the RM5.00 and sat down
to write a thank you note to GOD:
'Dear GOD, Thank you very much for sending the money. However, I
noticed that for some reason you had to send it through
PutraJaya and, as usual, those bastards took away RM95.00.'
but nothing happened.
Then he decided to write GOD a letter requesting the RM100.
When Pos Malaysia received the letter addressed to GOD,
they decided to send it to the Prime Minister - Pak Lah.
The PM was so impressed, touched, and amused that he
instructed his secretary to send the little boy a RM5.00
bill. Pak Lah thought this would appear to be a lot of
money to a little boy.
The little boy was delighted with the RM5.00 and sat down
to write a thank you note to GOD:
'Dear GOD, Thank you very much for sending the money. However, I
noticed that for some reason you had to send it through
PutraJaya and, as usual, those bastards took away RM95.00.'
To the arrogant Mr. Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar
Dear Mr. Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar,
We are not stupid. If you have grounds to say that Raja Petra is publishing "libellous, defamatory and slanderous" stuff, please take him to court and seek legal recourse.
You are supposed to be a lawyer. So please start behaving like one and do not make arbitrary decisions whch are essentially politically motivated. Stop grand standing since it only reflects your personal inadequacies. I have been reading Petra's blog and I know how careful he can be. His comments and analyses are fact based and the information is from impeccable sources.
Your government is increasingly repressive and people of this country are sick and tired of the pontifications of our Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and ministers of the UMNO-led and dominated Barisan Nasional government. One would have thought that Badawi and others including yourself would have learnt something from the March 8, 2008 General Election. But it is quite clear to all of us now that the loss of 5 key states of Penang, Perak, Selangor, Kedah and Kelantan and the two thirds majority in Parliament was not humbling enough.
UMNO was again severely beaten only two days ago in Permatang Pauh when Anwar Ibrahim trounced the Mandarin speaking Ariff Shah of UMNO with a majority of over 15,000 votes. If the election was more open, transparent and free from harassment by the Police and the FRU and UMNO's dirty tricks and threats (using paid agents) with the help of Rashid Rahman and his staff at the Elections Commission, Ariff Shah would have probably lost his deposit! In stead of learning from this latest fiasco, UMNO and the government are flexing their muscle against the Malaysian people.
You cannot win, Mr. Minister, when you take on the people of Malaysia. Please remember this: the winds of change that have hit our shores since March 8, 2008 are unstoppable. You should behave yourself and make sure that you use the power in your hands with a high sense of responsibility. Be accountable. That is my humble advice.
Remember BERSIH, Hindraf and the actions you took in recent months that caused massive traffic jams in Kuala Lumpur including the highway arrest of Anwar Ibrahim by balaclava-clad men of the Police Force, and rectumus politikus (politik jubur) UMNO played in Permatang Puah and the Koran swearing nonsense by Saiful Bukhari, Deputy Prime Minister Najib, and former Menteri Besar of Perak, Tajol Rosli. People put you in office and they can remove you. People are also laughing at the antics of UMNO.
I spent 10 days among people in Permatang Pauh and saw what UMNO with the help of the Police and FRU and Vet 69 personnel, Special Branch,and Military Intelligence and its agent provocateurs were doing. I visited places in Permatang Pauh where you would probably never dare to go. I talked and listened to the hard working ordinary Malaysians in the kampongs.
The message is clear: first, the government is no longer connecting with them, second, UMNO leaders and politicians are corrupt and cannot be trusted, third, they want a change in the leadership of our country and fourth, they no longer believe the mainstream media, tv 1, tv2,and tv3.
Permatang Pauh is a clear sign that people have hand enough of this government. It is time for Badawi and his colleagues to take stock of the government's performance record since 2004 and act. — by Din Merican
We are not stupid. If you have grounds to say that Raja Petra is publishing "libellous, defamatory and slanderous" stuff, please take him to court and seek legal recourse.
You are supposed to be a lawyer. So please start behaving like one and do not make arbitrary decisions whch are essentially politically motivated. Stop grand standing since it only reflects your personal inadequacies. I have been reading Petra's blog and I know how careful he can be. His comments and analyses are fact based and the information is from impeccable sources.
Your government is increasingly repressive and people of this country are sick and tired of the pontifications of our Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and ministers of the UMNO-led and dominated Barisan Nasional government. One would have thought that Badawi and others including yourself would have learnt something from the March 8, 2008 General Election. But it is quite clear to all of us now that the loss of 5 key states of Penang, Perak, Selangor, Kedah and Kelantan and the two thirds majority in Parliament was not humbling enough.
UMNO was again severely beaten only two days ago in Permatang Pauh when Anwar Ibrahim trounced the Mandarin speaking Ariff Shah of UMNO with a majority of over 15,000 votes. If the election was more open, transparent and free from harassment by the Police and the FRU and UMNO's dirty tricks and threats (using paid agents) with the help of Rashid Rahman and his staff at the Elections Commission, Ariff Shah would have probably lost his deposit! In stead of learning from this latest fiasco, UMNO and the government are flexing their muscle against the Malaysian people.
You cannot win, Mr. Minister, when you take on the people of Malaysia. Please remember this: the winds of change that have hit our shores since March 8, 2008 are unstoppable. You should behave yourself and make sure that you use the power in your hands with a high sense of responsibility. Be accountable. That is my humble advice.
Remember BERSIH, Hindraf and the actions you took in recent months that caused massive traffic jams in Kuala Lumpur including the highway arrest of Anwar Ibrahim by balaclava-clad men of the Police Force, and rectumus politikus (politik jubur) UMNO played in Permatang Puah and the Koran swearing nonsense by Saiful Bukhari, Deputy Prime Minister Najib, and former Menteri Besar of Perak, Tajol Rosli. People put you in office and they can remove you. People are also laughing at the antics of UMNO.
I spent 10 days among people in Permatang Pauh and saw what UMNO with the help of the Police and FRU and Vet 69 personnel, Special Branch,and Military Intelligence and its agent provocateurs were doing. I visited places in Permatang Pauh where you would probably never dare to go. I talked and listened to the hard working ordinary Malaysians in the kampongs.
The message is clear: first, the government is no longer connecting with them, second, UMNO leaders and politicians are corrupt and cannot be trusted, third, they want a change in the leadership of our country and fourth, they no longer believe the mainstream media, tv 1, tv2,and tv3.
Permatang Pauh is a clear sign that people have hand enough of this government. It is time for Badawi and his colleagues to take stock of the government's performance record since 2004 and act. — by Din Merican
Thursday, August 28, 2008
HABEAS CORPUS
Habeas corpus is the name of a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention of himself or another person. The writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.
Also known as "The Great Writ," a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a summons with the force of a court order addressed to the custodian (such as a prison official) demanding that a prisoner be brought before the court, together with proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether that custodian has lawful authority to hold that person, or, if not, the person should be released from custody. The prisoner, or another person on their behalf (for example, where the prisoner is being held incommunicado), may petition the court or an individual judge for a writ of habeas corpus.
The right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus has long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. Albert Venn Dicey wrote that the Habeas Corpus Acts "declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty." In most countries, however, the procedure of habeas corpus can be suspended in time of national emergency. In most civil law jurisdictions, comparable provisions exist, but they may not be called "habeas corpus."[2] The reach of habeas corpus is currently being tested in the United States. Oral arguments on a consolidated Guantanamo Bay detention camp detainee habeas corpus petition, Al Odah v. United States were heard by the Supreme Court of the United States on December 5, 2007, and recently by HR 1955 The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2006. On June 12, 2008, the Supreme Court ruling in Boumediene v. Bush recognized habeas corpus rights for the Guantanamo prisoners.
The writ of habeas corpus is one of what are called the "extraordinary," "common law," or "prerogative writs," which were historically issued by the courts in the name of the monarch to control inferior courts and public authorities within the kingdom. The most common of the other such prerogative writs are quo warranto, prohibito, mandamus, procedendo, and certiorari. When the original 13 American Colonies declared independence and became a constitutional republic in which the people are the sovereign, any person, in the name of the people, acquired authority to initiate such writs.
The due process for such petitions is not simply civil or criminal, because they incorporate the presumption of nonauthority. The official who is the respondent has the burden to prove his authority to do or not do something. Failing this, the court must decide for the petitioner, who may be any person, not just an interested party. This differs from a motion in a civil process in which the movant must have standing, and bears the burden of proof.
Also known as "The Great Writ," a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a summons with the force of a court order addressed to the custodian (such as a prison official) demanding that a prisoner be brought before the court, together with proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether that custodian has lawful authority to hold that person, or, if not, the person should be released from custody. The prisoner, or another person on their behalf (for example, where the prisoner is being held incommunicado), may petition the court or an individual judge for a writ of habeas corpus.
The right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus has long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. Albert Venn Dicey wrote that the Habeas Corpus Acts "declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty." In most countries, however, the procedure of habeas corpus can be suspended in time of national emergency. In most civil law jurisdictions, comparable provisions exist, but they may not be called "habeas corpus."[2] The reach of habeas corpus is currently being tested in the United States. Oral arguments on a consolidated Guantanamo Bay detention camp detainee habeas corpus petition, Al Odah v. United States were heard by the Supreme Court of the United States on December 5, 2007, and recently by HR 1955 The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2006. On June 12, 2008, the Supreme Court ruling in Boumediene v. Bush recognized habeas corpus rights for the Guantanamo prisoners.
The writ of habeas corpus is one of what are called the "extraordinary," "common law," or "prerogative writs," which were historically issued by the courts in the name of the monarch to control inferior courts and public authorities within the kingdom. The most common of the other such prerogative writs are quo warranto, prohibito, mandamus, procedendo, and certiorari. When the original 13 American Colonies declared independence and became a constitutional republic in which the people are the sovereign, any person, in the name of the people, acquired authority to initiate such writs.
The due process for such petitions is not simply civil or criminal, because they incorporate the presumption of nonauthority. The official who is the respondent has the burden to prove his authority to do or not do something. Failing this, the court must decide for the petitioner, who may be any person, not just an interested party. This differs from a motion in a civil process in which the movant must have standing, and bears the burden of proof.
Open letter to Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohammad
Dear Dr. Mahathir,
My warm greetings for a person whom I am respecting a lot !!
I was one of your strong supporter who use to write a lot of letters to you, never forget to greet you for your birthdays and wedding anniversaries. And the best part is you never failed to reply my letters despite your heavy schedule as PM at that time. I have read a lot about your cordial relationship with Anwar Ibrahim. He was quoted as staunch supporter of your good self when you were sacked from UMNO in 1970s during Tunku Abdul Rahman's time as PM. You have treated him like your own son. And both of you are gifts of God to Malaysia. But what when wrong until you hate him so badly? I think the conspirators who were jeolous of your relationship with him and fast rising of Anwar provoked these unscruplous human being who were power crazy had outst Anwar with all those malicious and slanderous accusations. But, Tun you always follow your own mind. How you got trapped with their shrewdness?
Dear Tun, The Rakyat of PP44 have made a wise selection in the recent by-election. No doubt it is to reject Pak Lah who is a weak leader. But the overwhelming majority simply shows the undivided support fo Anwar. After you, the only person who can navigate Malaysia towards 2020 is none other than Anwar Ibrahim. Tun, please accept this. I have all the respect for you.
My warm greetings for a person whom I am respecting a lot !!
I was one of your strong supporter who use to write a lot of letters to you, never forget to greet you for your birthdays and wedding anniversaries. And the best part is you never failed to reply my letters despite your heavy schedule as PM at that time. I have read a lot about your cordial relationship with Anwar Ibrahim. He was quoted as staunch supporter of your good self when you were sacked from UMNO in 1970s during Tunku Abdul Rahman's time as PM. You have treated him like your own son. And both of you are gifts of God to Malaysia. But what when wrong until you hate him so badly? I think the conspirators who were jeolous of your relationship with him and fast rising of Anwar provoked these unscruplous human being who were power crazy had outst Anwar with all those malicious and slanderous accusations. But, Tun you always follow your own mind. How you got trapped with their shrewdness?
Dear Tun, The Rakyat of PP44 have made a wise selection in the recent by-election. No doubt it is to reject Pak Lah who is a weak leader. But the overwhelming majority simply shows the undivided support fo Anwar. After you, the only person who can navigate Malaysia towards 2020 is none other than Anwar Ibrahim. Tun, please accept this. I have all the respect for you.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Basic Human Rights Standards for Law Enforcement Officials
All governments are required to adopt the necessary measures to instruct law enforcement officials, during basic training and all subsequent training and refresher courses, in the provisions of national legislation in accordance with the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials as well as other basic international human rights standards applicable to law enforcement officials.
These standards should be made available as widely as possible to the general public and fully respected under all circumstances. They should be reflected in national legislation and practice, and regular public reports issued on their implementation. Exceptional circumstances such as a state of emergency or any other public emergency do not justify any departure from these standards.
All governments should adopt an active and visible policy of integrating a gender perspective into the development and implementation of training and policies for law enforcement officials.
Basic Standard 1:
Everyone is entitled to equal protection of the law,
without discrimination on any grounds, and especially against violence or threat. Be especially vigilant to protect potentially vulnerable groups such as children, the elderly, women, refugees, displaced persons and members of minority groups.
Basic Standard 2:
Treat all victims of crime with compassion and respect,
and in particular protect their safety and privacy
Basic Standard 3:
Do not use force except when strictly necessary
and to the minimum extent required under the circumstances
Basic Standard 4:
Avoid using force when policing unlawful but
non-violent assemblies. When dispersing violent assemblies,
use force only to the minimum extent necessary.
Basic Standard 5:
Lethal force should not be used except when strictly unavoidable
in order to protect your life or the lives of others
Basic Standard 6:
Arrest no person unless there are legal grounds to do so,
and the arrest is carried out in accordance with lawful arrest procedures
Basic Standard 7:
Ensure all detainees have access promptly after arrest to their family
and legal representative and to any necessary medical assistance
Basic Standard 8:
All detainees must be treated humanely.
Do not inflict, instigate or tolerate any act of torture or ill-treatment,
in any circumstances, and refuse to obey any order to do so
Basic Standard 9:
Do not carry out, order or cover up extrajudicial executions or
''disappearances'', and refuse to obey any order to do so
Basic Standard 10:
Report all breaches of these Basic Standards to your senior officer
and to the office of the public prosecutor.
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL REPORT 2008
These standards should be made available as widely as possible to the general public and fully respected under all circumstances. They should be reflected in national legislation and practice, and regular public reports issued on their implementation. Exceptional circumstances such as a state of emergency or any other public emergency do not justify any departure from these standards.
All governments should adopt an active and visible policy of integrating a gender perspective into the development and implementation of training and policies for law enforcement officials.
Basic Standard 1:
Everyone is entitled to equal protection of the law,
without discrimination on any grounds, and especially against violence or threat. Be especially vigilant to protect potentially vulnerable groups such as children, the elderly, women, refugees, displaced persons and members of minority groups.
Basic Standard 2:
Treat all victims of crime with compassion and respect,
and in particular protect their safety and privacy
Basic Standard 3:
Do not use force except when strictly necessary
and to the minimum extent required under the circumstances
Basic Standard 4:
Avoid using force when policing unlawful but
non-violent assemblies. When dispersing violent assemblies,
use force only to the minimum extent necessary.
Basic Standard 5:
Lethal force should not be used except when strictly unavoidable
in order to protect your life or the lives of others
Basic Standard 6:
Arrest no person unless there are legal grounds to do so,
and the arrest is carried out in accordance with lawful arrest procedures
Basic Standard 7:
Ensure all detainees have access promptly after arrest to their family
and legal representative and to any necessary medical assistance
Basic Standard 8:
All detainees must be treated humanely.
Do not inflict, instigate or tolerate any act of torture or ill-treatment,
in any circumstances, and refuse to obey any order to do so
Basic Standard 9:
Do not carry out, order or cover up extrajudicial executions or
''disappearances'', and refuse to obey any order to do so
Basic Standard 10:
Report all breaches of these Basic Standards to your senior officer
and to the office of the public prosecutor.
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL REPORT 2008
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."
PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
SO, ARE MALAYSIAN BN LEADERS REALLY SUPPORTING THE ABOVE DECLARATION??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
SO, ARE MALAYSIAN BN LEADERS REALLY SUPPORTING THE ABOVE DECLARATION??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, August 14, 2008
THE MALAYSIAN MALAY
As you know, I am an avid watcher of Malaysian affairs. I must confess
that lately, Malaysia appears to be failing. Not a day passes by
without more events that clearly highlight Malaysia 's race-religion
fault-line. If things keep going this way, I fear for Malaysia 's
future.
Today, schools in Singapore celebrate Racial Harmony Day. I can
visibly see the joy in the children's faces as they wear their ethnic
costumes and have fun together at school. But in Malaysia - even the
right to choose a religion has become a sensitive, national issue. No
doubt, there are many in Malaysia who hate my liberal views on Islam,
family included. But I will say what I must say openly. I have come to
the conclusion that Malaysia cannot progress any further without first
addressing fundamental questions regarding its identity and soul.
I remember the days when we can laugh at Lat's cartoons on everyday
Malaysian life. But sadly, the Islamic tide has polarised Malaysians.
Some people ask why I should bother about Malaysian affairs since I am
a Singaporean. May I remind Malaysians that it was Tan Siew Sin who
once said that Singapore and Malaysia are Siamese Twins. Should
Malaysia go down - it would hurt the region tremendously. Especially
Singapore ..
Where do you think Malay apostates would head for if Lina Joy loses
her case? Singapore of course! I find the Malaysian Malay to be very
under-exposed. For them, it's all Islam and the NEP and everything
under the sun would sort itself out. I am sorry to say this - but
Islam and the NEP may be the cause of the undoing of the Malaysian
Malay.
There is nothing wrong with religion or affirmative action. But, like
everything else in life, they must be taken in moderation and with a
pinch of salt. A little doubt is good. Unfortunately in Malaysia ,
emotions over Islam have overcome reason. What we see today is the
result of the NEP and Islamisation policies of the past thirty years
or so.
No one owes Malaysian Malays a living. Let me assure you that should
Malaysia fail - the Malaysian Malay will suffer enormously. And
rightly so. After all - they have been pampered with all sorts of
goodies over the years. They cannot now expect more goodies. Perhaps
the day of reckoning for them, is near. Whatever it is, Malaysia had
better wake up to the realities around her. The globalised world of
the 21st century has no NEP to offer the Malaysian Malay. And humans
cannot live by religion alone.
Regards,
Dr Syed Alwi
Singapore
that lately, Malaysia appears to be failing. Not a day passes by
without more events that clearly highlight Malaysia 's race-religion
fault-line. If things keep going this way, I fear for Malaysia 's
future.
Today, schools in Singapore celebrate Racial Harmony Day. I can
visibly see the joy in the children's faces as they wear their ethnic
costumes and have fun together at school. But in Malaysia - even the
right to choose a religion has become a sensitive, national issue. No
doubt, there are many in Malaysia who hate my liberal views on Islam,
family included. But I will say what I must say openly. I have come to
the conclusion that Malaysia cannot progress any further without first
addressing fundamental questions regarding its identity and soul.
I remember the days when we can laugh at Lat's cartoons on everyday
Malaysian life. But sadly, the Islamic tide has polarised Malaysians.
Some people ask why I should bother about Malaysian affairs since I am
a Singaporean. May I remind Malaysians that it was Tan Siew Sin who
once said that Singapore and Malaysia are Siamese Twins. Should
Malaysia go down - it would hurt the region tremendously. Especially
Singapore ..
Where do you think Malay apostates would head for if Lina Joy loses
her case? Singapore of course! I find the Malaysian Malay to be very
under-exposed. For them, it's all Islam and the NEP and everything
under the sun would sort itself out. I am sorry to say this - but
Islam and the NEP may be the cause of the undoing of the Malaysian
Malay.
There is nothing wrong with religion or affirmative action. But, like
everything else in life, they must be taken in moderation and with a
pinch of salt. A little doubt is good. Unfortunately in Malaysia ,
emotions over Islam have overcome reason. What we see today is the
result of the NEP and Islamisation policies of the past thirty years
or so.
No one owes Malaysian Malays a living. Let me assure you that should
Malaysia fail - the Malaysian Malay will suffer enormously. And
rightly so. After all - they have been pampered with all sorts of
goodies over the years. They cannot now expect more goodies. Perhaps
the day of reckoning for them, is near. Whatever it is, Malaysia had
better wake up to the realities around her. The globalised world of
the 21st century has no NEP to offer the Malaysian Malay. And humans
cannot live by religion alone.
Regards,
Dr Syed Alwi
Singapore
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Unruly, uncivilised UiTM Students
UiTM slams MB’s proposal
The report in N23 STAR today that a group of 5000 UiTM students organized a peaceful demonstration in front of Selangor state government’s office is really disturbs me. Few questions disturbed my mind. Is University and College Act 1971 is still valid or only applicable on ad-hoc basis? Is the so-called peaceful demonstration has valid police permit as always been advocated by government? Is the Student Union Chairman/representative Luqmanhakim is matured enough to ask the Selangor MB to apologies and retract the MB’s earlier statement to allow non-bumis to be given 10% of UiTM’s academic seats?
Where are our cultures gone? This small boy hardly now the rules, regulation and history of the nation giving press statement. Can the students allowed to give press statement?
As a former student and also student leader of UM, I am very sure that whatever action taken by the UiTM students are against the University and College Act 1971 and also against the law of police for illegal gathering without a police permit. The definition for illegal gathering according to police in many circumstances before is “without permit”.
Why the police failed to take action?
My simple request is the Students Affair section of UiTM should take proper action against all the students who were involved in the ILLEGAL assembly which has disturbed the public order and national security. Secondly, the police should investigate the matter thoroughly and action should be taken and any wrong doing without favouring any quarters. Only then there will be a real meaning for University and College Act 1971.
Dr.Nedu
Anak Jati Selangor DE.
The report in N23 STAR today that a group of 5000 UiTM students organized a peaceful demonstration in front of Selangor state government’s office is really disturbs me. Few questions disturbed my mind. Is University and College Act 1971 is still valid or only applicable on ad-hoc basis? Is the so-called peaceful demonstration has valid police permit as always been advocated by government? Is the Student Union Chairman/representative Luqmanhakim is matured enough to ask the Selangor MB to apologies and retract the MB’s earlier statement to allow non-bumis to be given 10% of UiTM’s academic seats?
Where are our cultures gone? This small boy hardly now the rules, regulation and history of the nation giving press statement. Can the students allowed to give press statement?
As a former student and also student leader of UM, I am very sure that whatever action taken by the UiTM students are against the University and College Act 1971 and also against the law of police for illegal gathering without a police permit. The definition for illegal gathering according to police in many circumstances before is “without permit”.
Why the police failed to take action?
My simple request is the Students Affair section of UiTM should take proper action against all the students who were involved in the ILLEGAL assembly which has disturbed the public order and national security. Secondly, the police should investigate the matter thoroughly and action should be taken and any wrong doing without favouring any quarters. Only then there will be a real meaning for University and College Act 1971.
Dr.Nedu
Anak Jati Selangor DE.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
YB Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim will be in High Court on 10th Sept.
Today's trial in Session Court Judge Komathy Suppiah has fixed 10th Sept. 2008 as the hearing date for DSAI's sodomy case under Section 377B. Hooray to you Justice Komathy for the job well done.
Anyway, by then DSAI will be YB DSAI or perhaps the PM of Malaysia. Saiful will be "goreng sotong" together will all his UMNO leaders. My only worry is, will the Sungai Buloh Prison is enough to place Bodohwi, Najis and all his playmate.
May Gob bless Malaysia.
Ameen.
Anyway, by then DSAI will be YB DSAI or perhaps the PM of Malaysia. Saiful will be "goreng sotong" together will all his UMNO leaders. My only worry is, will the Sungai Buloh Prison is enough to place Bodohwi, Najis and all his playmate.
May Gob bless Malaysia.
Ameen.
Permatang Pauh Umno wants its chief as candidate
This makes no difference! That's my view and the views of most Malaysians.
Whether BN puts up Pak Lah, Najib, Saiful, Syed Hamid Albar or any other Umno person, the result will still be the same.
Anwar is going to win. Let's not waste public funds on unnecessary campaigns full of slander.
Give Anwar an easy ride. The rakyat's ultimate choice is Anwar for Permatang Pauh and for future PM.
Whether BN puts up Pak Lah, Najib, Saiful, Syed Hamid Albar or any other Umno person, the result will still be the same.
Anwar is going to win. Let's not waste public funds on unnecessary campaigns full of slander.
Give Anwar an easy ride. The rakyat's ultimate choice is Anwar for Permatang Pauh and for future PM.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Racist, bastard and bloody bitch Teacher
Police reports lodged against 'racist' teacher
Two police reports have been lodged against a secondary school History teacher for allegedly uttering racial slurs against Indian students.
The reports, lodged by two students from SMK Telok Panglima Garang last Friday, stated that a female history teacher had allegedly called Indian students ‘keling pariah', ‘Negro' and ‘black monkeys', amongst other derogatory names.
In the report, the Form Four and Form Five student said the teacher purportedly told students during class that ‘Indians came from dogs', Indians are ‘children of prostitutes' and the community is stupid.
They also allege that teacher had said the community youth ‘did not have testicles', ‘always menstruates' and indulged in thuggery and theft.
The teacher in the Hulu Langat school had also purportedly beaten some Indian students and punished them with push ups if they were late for class.
The Form Four student in his report said students were "ashamed and embarrassed" by these incidents.
"She told the Indian students to stand up and said she wanted to test how we would react to the word ‘keling pariah'.
"We said we did not like it and she raised her voice and repeatedly called us ‘keling pariah' and wrote the words on the blackboard," his report stated.
Ministry awaiting report
According to the Star, Coalition of Malaysian Indian NGOs secretary Gunaraj George said the exposure to such verbal abuse will only breed hatred and racial polarisation in schools.
"No one in his or her right frame of mind would have said these things. Given this, the best option would be for the teacher to be assigned to a desk job and not be allowed to be near youngsters anymore," he was quoted as saying after handing in the police reports to the school authorities.
Deputy Education Minister Dr Wee Ka Siong reportedly said the schoolteacher might be sacked if the allegations are proven to be true but is awaiting an official report before taking any action.
Meanwhile, the school when contacted, said they were not permitted to give a statement as the matter is currently being investigated by the police.
Its headmaster Nordin Bin Saad is on leave and was not available for comment.
Tamil dailies today reported that about 1,000 angry parents and members of the public gathered at the school yesterday to show their anger against the teacher.
Two police reports have been lodged against a secondary school History teacher for allegedly uttering racial slurs against Indian students.
The reports, lodged by two students from SMK Telok Panglima Garang last Friday, stated that a female history teacher had allegedly called Indian students ‘keling pariah', ‘Negro' and ‘black monkeys', amongst other derogatory names.
In the report, the Form Four and Form Five student said the teacher purportedly told students during class that ‘Indians came from dogs', Indians are ‘children of prostitutes' and the community is stupid.
They also allege that teacher had said the community youth ‘did not have testicles', ‘always menstruates' and indulged in thuggery and theft.
The teacher in the Hulu Langat school had also purportedly beaten some Indian students and punished them with push ups if they were late for class.
The Form Four student in his report said students were "ashamed and embarrassed" by these incidents.
"She told the Indian students to stand up and said she wanted to test how we would react to the word ‘keling pariah'.
"We said we did not like it and she raised her voice and repeatedly called us ‘keling pariah' and wrote the words on the blackboard," his report stated.
Ministry awaiting report
According to the Star, Coalition of Malaysian Indian NGOs secretary Gunaraj George said the exposure to such verbal abuse will only breed hatred and racial polarisation in schools.
"No one in his or her right frame of mind would have said these things. Given this, the best option would be for the teacher to be assigned to a desk job and not be allowed to be near youngsters anymore," he was quoted as saying after handing in the police reports to the school authorities.
Deputy Education Minister Dr Wee Ka Siong reportedly said the schoolteacher might be sacked if the allegations are proven to be true but is awaiting an official report before taking any action.
Meanwhile, the school when contacted, said they were not permitted to give a statement as the matter is currently being investigated by the police.
Its headmaster Nordin Bin Saad is on leave and was not available for comment.
Tamil dailies today reported that about 1,000 angry parents and members of the public gathered at the school yesterday to show their anger against the teacher.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Special Lesson For BN Representatives on Democracy
Democracy is a system of government by which political sovereignty is retained by the people and exercised directly by citizens. In modern times it has also been used to refer to a constitutional republic where the people have a voice through their elected representatives. It is derived from the Greek word dimokratia , "popular government" which was coined from dēmos, "people" and kratos, "rule, strength" in the middle of the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens.
In political theory, democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. Even though there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy . The first principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties.
There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others. However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated to avoid an uneven distribution of political power with balances such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule is able to accumulate power in a way that is harmful to democracy itself. The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government it is possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the "tyranny of the majority". An essential process in representative democracies are competitive elections, that are fair both substantively and procedurally. Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests.
Popular sovereignty is common but not a universal motivating philosophy for establishing a democracy. In some countries, democracy is based on the philosophical principle of equal rights. Many people use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include additional elements such as political pluralism, equality before the law, the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances, due process, civil liberties, human rights, and elements of civil society outside the government. In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a supporting attribute, but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the dominant philosophy is parliamentary sovereignty (though in practice judicial independence is generally maintained). In other cases, "democracy" is used to mean direct democracy. Though the term "democracy" is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to private organizations and other groups.
Democracy has its origins in Ancient Greece. However other cultures have significant contributed to the evolution of democracy such as Ancient Rome , Europe, and North and South America. Democracy has been called the "last form of government" and has spread considerably across the globe. Suffrage has been expanded in many jurisdictions over time from relatively narrow groups (such as wealthy men of a particular ethnic group), but still remains a controversial issue with regard to disputed territories, areas with significant immigration, and countries that exclude certain demographic groups.
Forms of democracy
1) Reresentative Democracy
Representative democracy involves the selection of government officials by the people being represented. The most common mechanisms involve election of the candidate with a majority or a plurality of the votes.
Representatives may be elected or become diplomatic representatives by a particular district (or constituency), or represent the entire electorate proportionally proportional systems, with some using a combination of the two. Some representative democracies also incorporate elements of direct democracy, such as referendums. A characteristic of representative democracy is that while the representatives are elected by the people to act in their interest, they retain the freedom to exercise their own judgment as how best to do so.
2) Parliamentary democracy
Parliamentary democracy where government is appointed by parliamentary representatives as opposed to a 'presidential rule' by decree dictatorship. Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised by delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review, checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the people.
3) Liberal democracy
A Liberal democracy is a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities.
4) Direct Democracy
Direct democracy is a political system where the citizens participate in the decision-making personally, contrary to relying on intermediaries or representatives. The supporters of direct democracy argue that democracy is more than merely a procedural issue (i.e., voting). Most direct democracies to date have been weak forms, relatively small communities, usually city-states. However, some see the extensive use of referendums, as in California, as akin to direct democracy in a very large polity with more than 20 million in California, 1898-1998 (2000).
In Switzerland, five million voters decide on national referendums and initiatives two to four times a year; direct democratic instruments are also well established at the cantonal and communal level. Vermont towns have been known for their yearly town meetings, held every March to decide on local issues.
5) Socialist Democracy
Socialist thought has several different views on democracy. Social democracy, democratic socialism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat (usually exercised through Soviet democracy) are some examples. Many democratic socialists and social democrats believe in a form of participatory democracy and workplace democracy combined with a representative democracy.
Within Marxist orthodoxy there is a hostility to what is commonly called "liberal democracy", which they simply refer to as parliamentary democracy because of its often centralized nature. Because of their desire to eliminate the political elitism they see in capitalism, Marxists, Leninists and Trotskyists believe in direct democracy implemented though a system of communes (which are sometimes called soviets). This system ultimately manifests itself as council democracy and begins with workplace democracy.
6) Anarchist Democracy
The only form of democracy considered acceptable to many anarchists is direct democracy. Some anarchists oppose direct democracy while others favour it. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon argued that the only acceptable form of direct democracy is one in which it is recognized that majority decisions are not binding on the minority, even when unanimous. However, anarcho-communist Murray Bookchin criticized individualist anarchists for opposing democracy, and says "majority rule" is consistent with anarchism. Some anarcho-communists oppose the majoritarian nature of direct democracy, feeling that it can impede individual liberty and opt in favour of a non-majoritarian form of consensus democracy, similar to Proudhon's position on direct democracy.
7) Iroquois Democracy
Iroquois society had a form of participatory democracy and representative democracy. Iroquois government and law was discussed by Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. Because of this, some scholars regard it to have influenced the formation of American representative democracy. However scholars who reject multiculturalism disagree that the influence existed or was of any great importance.
8) Sortition
Sometimes called "democracy without elections", sortition is the process of choosing decision makers via a random process. The intention is that those chosen will be representative of the opinions and interests of the people at large, and be more fair and impartial than an elected official. The technique was in widespread use in Athenian Democracy and is still used in modern jury selection. It is not universally agreed that sortition should be considered "democracy" due to the lack of actual elections[citation needed].
9) Consensus democracy
Consensus democracy requires varying degrees of consensus rather than just a mere democratic majority. It typically attempts to protect minority rights from domination by majority rule.
10) Interactive Democracy
Interactive Democracy seeks to utilise information technology to involve voters in law making. It provides a system for proposing new laws, prioritising proposals, clarifying them through parliament and validating them through referendum.
In political theory, democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. Even though there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy . The first principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties.
There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others. However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated to avoid an uneven distribution of political power with balances such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule is able to accumulate power in a way that is harmful to democracy itself. The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government it is possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the "tyranny of the majority". An essential process in representative democracies are competitive elections, that are fair both substantively and procedurally. Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests.
Popular sovereignty is common but not a universal motivating philosophy for establishing a democracy. In some countries, democracy is based on the philosophical principle of equal rights. Many people use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include additional elements such as political pluralism, equality before the law, the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances, due process, civil liberties, human rights, and elements of civil society outside the government. In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a supporting attribute, but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the dominant philosophy is parliamentary sovereignty (though in practice judicial independence is generally maintained). In other cases, "democracy" is used to mean direct democracy. Though the term "democracy" is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to private organizations and other groups.
Democracy has its origins in Ancient Greece. However other cultures have significant contributed to the evolution of democracy such as Ancient Rome , Europe, and North and South America. Democracy has been called the "last form of government" and has spread considerably across the globe. Suffrage has been expanded in many jurisdictions over time from relatively narrow groups (such as wealthy men of a particular ethnic group), but still remains a controversial issue with regard to disputed territories, areas with significant immigration, and countries that exclude certain demographic groups.
Forms of democracy
1) Reresentative Democracy
Representative democracy involves the selection of government officials by the people being represented. The most common mechanisms involve election of the candidate with a majority or a plurality of the votes.
Representatives may be elected or become diplomatic representatives by a particular district (or constituency), or represent the entire electorate proportionally proportional systems, with some using a combination of the two. Some representative democracies also incorporate elements of direct democracy, such as referendums. A characteristic of representative democracy is that while the representatives are elected by the people to act in their interest, they retain the freedom to exercise their own judgment as how best to do so.
2) Parliamentary democracy
Parliamentary democracy where government is appointed by parliamentary representatives as opposed to a 'presidential rule' by decree dictatorship. Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised by delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review, checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the people.
3) Liberal democracy
A Liberal democracy is a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities.
4) Direct Democracy
Direct democracy is a political system where the citizens participate in the decision-making personally, contrary to relying on intermediaries or representatives. The supporters of direct democracy argue that democracy is more than merely a procedural issue (i.e., voting). Most direct democracies to date have been weak forms, relatively small communities, usually city-states. However, some see the extensive use of referendums, as in California, as akin to direct democracy in a very large polity with more than 20 million in California, 1898-1998 (2000).
In Switzerland, five million voters decide on national referendums and initiatives two to four times a year; direct democratic instruments are also well established at the cantonal and communal level. Vermont towns have been known for their yearly town meetings, held every March to decide on local issues.
5) Socialist Democracy
Socialist thought has several different views on democracy. Social democracy, democratic socialism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat (usually exercised through Soviet democracy) are some examples. Many democratic socialists and social democrats believe in a form of participatory democracy and workplace democracy combined with a representative democracy.
Within Marxist orthodoxy there is a hostility to what is commonly called "liberal democracy", which they simply refer to as parliamentary democracy because of its often centralized nature. Because of their desire to eliminate the political elitism they see in capitalism, Marxists, Leninists and Trotskyists believe in direct democracy implemented though a system of communes (which are sometimes called soviets). This system ultimately manifests itself as council democracy and begins with workplace democracy.
6) Anarchist Democracy
The only form of democracy considered acceptable to many anarchists is direct democracy. Some anarchists oppose direct democracy while others favour it. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon argued that the only acceptable form of direct democracy is one in which it is recognized that majority decisions are not binding on the minority, even when unanimous. However, anarcho-communist Murray Bookchin criticized individualist anarchists for opposing democracy, and says "majority rule" is consistent with anarchism. Some anarcho-communists oppose the majoritarian nature of direct democracy, feeling that it can impede individual liberty and opt in favour of a non-majoritarian form of consensus democracy, similar to Proudhon's position on direct democracy.
7) Iroquois Democracy
Iroquois society had a form of participatory democracy and representative democracy. Iroquois government and law was discussed by Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. Because of this, some scholars regard it to have influenced the formation of American representative democracy. However scholars who reject multiculturalism disagree that the influence existed or was of any great importance.
8) Sortition
Sometimes called "democracy without elections", sortition is the process of choosing decision makers via a random process. The intention is that those chosen will be representative of the opinions and interests of the people at large, and be more fair and impartial than an elected official. The technique was in widespread use in Athenian Democracy and is still used in modern jury selection. It is not universally agreed that sortition should be considered "democracy" due to the lack of actual elections[citation needed].
9) Consensus democracy
Consensus democracy requires varying degrees of consensus rather than just a mere democratic majority. It typically attempts to protect minority rights from domination by majority rule.
10) Interactive Democracy
Interactive Democracy seeks to utilise information technology to involve voters in law making. It provides a system for proposing new laws, prioritising proposals, clarifying them through parliament and validating them through referendum.
Monday, July 21, 2008
INTERNAL SECURITY ACT ( ISA )
The Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA) (Malay: Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri) is a preventive detention law in force in Malaysia. The legislation was inherited by Malaysia after it gained independence from Britain in 1957. In essence, it allows for the arrest of any person without the need for trial in certain defined circumstances. Malaysia is one of the few countries in the world whose Constitution allows for preventive detention during peacetime without safeguards that elsewhere are understood to be basic requirements for protecting fundamental human rights.
History
Preventive detention first became a feature of the then Malaya in 1948 primarily to combat the armed insurgency of the Malayan Communist Party. The Emergency Regulations Ordinance 1948 was made, following the proclamation of an emergency, by the British High Commissioner Sir Edward Gent. It allowed the detention of persons for any period not exceeding one year. The 1948 ordinance was primarily made to counter acts of violence and, conceivably, preventive detention was meant to be temporary in application. The emergency ended in 1960 and with it ended the powers contained in the that ordinance as it was repealed. The power of preventive detention was however not relinquished and in fact became an embedded feature of Malaysian law. In 1960 itself, the government passed the Internal Security Act under Article 149 of the Malaysian Constitution. It permitted the detention, at the discretion of the Home Minister, without charge or trial of any person in respect of whom the Home Minister was satisfied that such detention was necessary to prevent him or her from acting in any manner prejudicial to national security or to the maintenance of essential services or to the economic life in Malaysia. The ISA is one of the most controversial Acts enacted under Article 149 of the Malaysian Constitution.
Section 8(1) of the ISA provides that ‘(i)f the minister is satisfied that the detention of any person is necessary …’ then s/he may issue an order for his/her detention. The three grounds given in Section 8(1) upon which the order may be based is where a person has acted in any manner prejudicial to the:
a) security of Malaysia or part thereof; or
b) maintenance of essential services; or
c) economic life.
The power to detain seems to be restricted by Section 8(1) to a period not exceeding two years but the restriction is really illusionary because, by virtue of Section 8(7), the duration of the detention order may be extended for a further period not exceeding two years and thereafter for further periods not exceeding two years at a time. The extension to the detention order may be made on the same ground as those on which the original order was based or on different grounds.
In delivering the judgment of the Court, Steve L.K. Shim CJ (Sabah & Sarawak) in Kerajaan Malaysia & 2 Ors. v Nasharuddin bin Nasir (2003) 6 AMR 497 at page 506, has accepted that under Section 8 of the ISA the Minister has been conferred powers of preventive detention that ‘can be said to be draconian in nature’ but nevertheless valid under the Malaysian Constitution. In addition, preventive detention is also now allowed by the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 and the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969. The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) has recently recommended that the ISA be repealed and replaced by new comprehensive legislation that, while taking a tough stand on threats to national security (including terrorism), does not violate basic human rights.
Article 149 of the Constitution of Malaysia under which a person may be detained is characterised by subjective language. Such terms as ‘substantial body’, ‘substantial number’, ‘cause to fear’, ‘excite disaffection’, ‘promote feelings of ill-will and hostility’, all embody wide areas of discretionary interpretation.
Article 151 of the Malaysian Constitution gives to any person detained without trial (under the special powers against subversion) certain administrative rights. By the terms of Article 151 the authority, on whose order a person is detained, shall, as soon as may be, inform the detainee of the grounds of detention and the allegations of fact on which the order is based. The detainee shall also be given an opportunity within three months, of making representations against the order to an Advisory Board . The Advisory Board as the name implies is not a court. Its determinations are also mere recommendations that the government is under no obligation to accept. It may also be handicapped in its deliberations by the discretionary power of the government to withhold facts, the disclosure of which would, in the executive’s opinion be against national interest.
Any person may be detained by the police for up to 60 days without trial for an act which allegedly threatens the security of the country or any part thereof. After 60 days, one may be further detained for a period of two years each, to be approved by the Minister of Home Affairs, thus permitting indefinite detention without trial. In 1989, the powers of the Minister under the legislation was made immune to judicial review by virtue of amendments to the Act, only allowing the courts
History
Preventive detention first became a feature of the then Malaya in 1948 primarily to combat the armed insurgency of the Malayan Communist Party. The Emergency Regulations Ordinance 1948 was made, following the proclamation of an emergency, by the British High Commissioner Sir Edward Gent. It allowed the detention of persons for any period not exceeding one year. The 1948 ordinance was primarily made to counter acts of violence and, conceivably, preventive detention was meant to be temporary in application. The emergency ended in 1960 and with it ended the powers contained in the that ordinance as it was repealed. The power of preventive detention was however not relinquished and in fact became an embedded feature of Malaysian law. In 1960 itself, the government passed the Internal Security Act under Article 149 of the Malaysian Constitution. It permitted the detention, at the discretion of the Home Minister, without charge or trial of any person in respect of whom the Home Minister was satisfied that such detention was necessary to prevent him or her from acting in any manner prejudicial to national security or to the maintenance of essential services or to the economic life in Malaysia. The ISA is one of the most controversial Acts enacted under Article 149 of the Malaysian Constitution.
Section 8(1) of the ISA provides that ‘(i)f the minister is satisfied that the detention of any person is necessary …’ then s/he may issue an order for his/her detention. The three grounds given in Section 8(1) upon which the order may be based is where a person has acted in any manner prejudicial to the:
a) security of Malaysia or part thereof; or
b) maintenance of essential services; or
c) economic life.
The power to detain seems to be restricted by Section 8(1) to a period not exceeding two years but the restriction is really illusionary because, by virtue of Section 8(7), the duration of the detention order may be extended for a further period not exceeding two years and thereafter for further periods not exceeding two years at a time. The extension to the detention order may be made on the same ground as those on which the original order was based or on different grounds.
In delivering the judgment of the Court, Steve L.K. Shim CJ (Sabah & Sarawak) in Kerajaan Malaysia & 2 Ors. v Nasharuddin bin Nasir (2003) 6 AMR 497 at page 506, has accepted that under Section 8 of the ISA the Minister has been conferred powers of preventive detention that ‘can be said to be draconian in nature’ but nevertheless valid under the Malaysian Constitution. In addition, preventive detention is also now allowed by the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 and the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969. The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) has recently recommended that the ISA be repealed and replaced by new comprehensive legislation that, while taking a tough stand on threats to national security (including terrorism), does not violate basic human rights.
Article 149 of the Constitution of Malaysia under which a person may be detained is characterised by subjective language. Such terms as ‘substantial body’, ‘substantial number’, ‘cause to fear’, ‘excite disaffection’, ‘promote feelings of ill-will and hostility’, all embody wide areas of discretionary interpretation.
Article 151 of the Malaysian Constitution gives to any person detained without trial (under the special powers against subversion) certain administrative rights. By the terms of Article 151 the authority, on whose order a person is detained, shall, as soon as may be, inform the detainee of the grounds of detention and the allegations of fact on which the order is based. The detainee shall also be given an opportunity within three months, of making representations against the order to an Advisory Board . The Advisory Board as the name implies is not a court. Its determinations are also mere recommendations that the government is under no obligation to accept. It may also be handicapped in its deliberations by the discretionary power of the government to withhold facts, the disclosure of which would, in the executive’s opinion be against national interest.
Any person may be detained by the police for up to 60 days without trial for an act which allegedly threatens the security of the country or any part thereof. After 60 days, one may be further detained for a period of two years each, to be approved by the Minister of Home Affairs, thus permitting indefinite detention without trial. In 1989, the powers of the Minister under the legislation was made immune to judicial review by virtue of amendments to the Act, only allowing the courts
MORE ON DNA
After reading a lot articles and report on DNA in local media, I feel it is right time for me to give an account of two mothers whose DNA did not match the DNA of their children.
Lydia Fairchild, an unemployed mother of three children living in Washington State, had her DNA and that of her children tested as part of the routine procedure of applying for welfare assistance. When the results didn’t match, Fairchild was denied government assistance and accused of committing welfare fraud. She protested that some mistake must have been made, but a CPS worker told her, “Nope. DNA is 100 percent foolproof and it doesn’t lie.” Another worker told her, “You know, we’re able to come get your kids any time.”
Fairchild received a summons to appear in court to have her children taken away. Before the case was resolved, however, she gave birth to another child. A court officer was present to take DNA samples from her and from the baby. When the two didn’t match, she was accused of being a paid surrogate.
The case was finally resolved when Fairchild’s attorney read in a medical journal about a similar case in Boston where a woman whose DNA did not match that of her children was found to have a rare condition called chimerism, caused by the fusion of two fertilized eggs in the womb. The woman, in effect, was her own twin. The DNA of her blood did not match the DNA of other body tissues. Fairchild was able to keep her children after further testing proved that she also was a chimera.
Lydia Fairchild, an unemployed mother of three children living in Washington State, had her DNA and that of her children tested as part of the routine procedure of applying for welfare assistance. When the results didn’t match, Fairchild was denied government assistance and accused of committing welfare fraud. She protested that some mistake must have been made, but a CPS worker told her, “Nope. DNA is 100 percent foolproof and it doesn’t lie.” Another worker told her, “You know, we’re able to come get your kids any time.”
Fairchild received a summons to appear in court to have her children taken away. Before the case was resolved, however, she gave birth to another child. A court officer was present to take DNA samples from her and from the baby. When the two didn’t match, she was accused of being a paid surrogate.
The case was finally resolved when Fairchild’s attorney read in a medical journal about a similar case in Boston where a woman whose DNA did not match that of her children was found to have a rare condition called chimerism, caused by the fusion of two fertilized eggs in the womb. The woman, in effect, was her own twin. The DNA of her blood did not match the DNA of other body tissues. Fairchild was able to keep her children after further testing proved that she also was a chimera.
The truth will Prevail
How Reliable Is DNA Testing of YFZ Families?
Among the vicious rumors circulated regarding the FLDS families in Texas is the claim that DNA testing was necessary to determine which children belonged to which parents because the parents had been uncooperative when they were questioned and the children, having been raised communally, didn’t even know who their parents were. Although CPS couldn’t seem to understand or to get its records straight, the parents were truthful during questioning and provided the requested information numerous times.
When the rulings by the Third Court of Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court finally allowed parents to gather up their children, no parents had any difficulty identifying their children, and the resulting joyful reunions showed that the children also knew exactly where they belonged. Now that results from the DNA tests ordered by Judge Barbara Walther are coming in, a natural question to ask is how reliable or useful those test results are likely to be.
Most people assume that DNA identification is virtually infallible, and it is true that such tests generally have a high level of reliability. However, mistakes have been made with tragic consequences. As reported in Forensic-Evidence.com, a British case in February of 2000 shows the fallacy of relying too heavily on DNA evidence.
A suspect whose DNA had been placed in the national data base years earlier when he was accused of hitting his daughter in a family dispute was arrested for a burglary because it appeared that his DNA matched samples collected at the crime scene. At the time of the burglary, the man was living 200 miles away from the site and because of advanced Parkinson’s disease was unable to drive and was barely able to dress himself. Still police argued that he had to be the culprit because the chance of an error in the DNA match was only one in 37 million. The man was arrested and spent four months in jail before his solicitor was able to demand a retest, which showed that when additional markers on the DNA molecules were considered, there was not a match.
Another two cases were reported in FirstPost on November 2, 2006:
“In 2004, a woman fingered by DNA as a murderer proved to be a rape victim whose DNA had ended up on clothing in an Australian forensic lab. Last year in the US, a man accused of a sex crime turned out to have received bone-marrow from the true culprit, thus giving him a similar DNA fingerprint.”
The same article mentioned that the inventor of DNA fingerprinting, Sir Alec Jeffreys, now feared that his invention was undergoing “mission creep” and that with the power of the government to take DNA from anyone arrested for a recordable offense and to store it indefinitely, the UK was being turned into a nation of suspects.
The following is from an article by Robert D. McFadden first published August 15, 1989, and reprinted in the New York Times of July 4, 2008:
“In a case with possibly important implications for scores of criminal and paternity cases across the nation, a Bronx judge ruled yesterday that sophisticated genetic tests that had linked a murder suspect to a victim were not scientifically reliable.
“The decision was believed to be the first serious challenge to DNA ‘fingerprinting,’ a technique for analyzing genetic material, like blood, semen, skin or hair, to identify its source. The technique has been used in at least 80 cases of murder and rape in 27 states, and many scientists and lawyers have assumed the tests were infallible.
“In yesterday's ruling, the judge held that DNA tests could be used to show that blood found on the suspect's wristwatch was not his. But the judge said other DNA tests that purported to show it was the victim's blood were flawed and would not be admissible as evidence at the trial, which he scheduled for Sept. 11.”
Another article from Forensic-Evidence.com also calls into question the reliability of DNA results in the courtroom:
“In the recent case of Crawford v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0683-99-1, the Court of Appeals of Virginia held, on September 19, 2000, that instructing the jury that DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing is deemed a reliable scientific technique and thus recognized under the laws of Virginia was improper when DNA evidence was used to prove a person’s identity.”
The problem with many DNA identifications is not that the science itself is flawed but that there is a very real chance of human error in gathering the samples, maintaining the records, and performing the tests.
Britain seems to have had more than its share of problems with the use of flawed DNA testing in court cases. As reported in the Times Online of February 11, 2008, Judge Anthony Hayden, QC, revealed serious mistakes made by DNA Diagnostics, a firm that bills itself as “the world’s largest and most experienced private DNA testing laboratory…[performing]…3 out of 4 private DNA paternity tests in the United States.” The company admitted losing from its case files vital identification details in 122 paternity cases so that the findings could not be relied upon.
Judge Hayden also said that Anglia DNA, a second British company, provided misleading results in a case involving the welfare of eight children. The company reported that two of the children likely were half-siblings; however, testing by a third company showed no relationship. When Anglia DNA retested the children, they admitted their error but blamed their mistake on unclear instructions from the lawyer, claiming that they had not been told to consider the possibility that none of the children were related.
The UK maintains a list of government-approved testing services. As a result of these cases, the Ministry of Justice, after a review of paternity testing services, had to remove half of the companies from its approved list because they lacked up-to-date evidence that they met the minimum criteria. Although the U.S. has regulations on laboratories, it has no such list of government-approved testing services and may be in a condition every bit as serious as the UK.
Problems with DNA testing in this country have been found even in government facilities. As recently as one year ago the Massachusetts State Police laboratory was involved in a scandal concerning the mishandling of DNA evidence over the past twenty years. Robert Pino, the DNA database administrator, was fired, but investigation by the U.S Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General found that problems went far beyond Pino’s incompetence. In examining the laboratory’s computerized database, it was determined that incomplete genetic profiles had been entered in 12 cases out of a sample of 100.
In the YFZ case, CPS workers and others have been notorious for jumbling information and reaching unfounded conclusions. Several of these incidents are documented in Marie Musser’s Day by Day Events of the YFZ Ranch Raid. She records under date of April 8 that while she was staying at the Fort Concho Stables, Texas Rangers arrived to serve papers. She received papers for Marie Musser, but when she read them, she found that the last name on the papers was Barlow and that all of the children listed were girls. Marie has three boys.
On April 13 she relates how CPS decided the mothers’ ages according to their own convenience. A 35-year-old mother was not permitted to see an attorney because she appeared to be under 18, but when the older boys were taken away, she was suddenly of age so that her 11-year-old son could be taken. On April 14 a mother with a two-month-old baby was loaded on the bus with mothers of children 5 years old and older. Other ladies who had previously been denied access their attorneys because they looked too young were declared to be of age and sent away with the other mothers. Many YFZ mothers could tell similar stories of incomplete or jumbled records and children unaccounted for.
CPS may have been justifiably confused at times by the sheer number of mothers and children and by the similarity of names. But who is to say that many of the same mistakes were not made in gathering the DNA samples?
Considering these factors, as well as the lack of legal justification for requiring DNA samples in the first place, the test results are, at best, questionable evidence.
Among the vicious rumors circulated regarding the FLDS families in Texas is the claim that DNA testing was necessary to determine which children belonged to which parents because the parents had been uncooperative when they were questioned and the children, having been raised communally, didn’t even know who their parents were. Although CPS couldn’t seem to understand or to get its records straight, the parents were truthful during questioning and provided the requested information numerous times.
When the rulings by the Third Court of Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court finally allowed parents to gather up their children, no parents had any difficulty identifying their children, and the resulting joyful reunions showed that the children also knew exactly where they belonged. Now that results from the DNA tests ordered by Judge Barbara Walther are coming in, a natural question to ask is how reliable or useful those test results are likely to be.
Most people assume that DNA identification is virtually infallible, and it is true that such tests generally have a high level of reliability. However, mistakes have been made with tragic consequences. As reported in Forensic-Evidence.com, a British case in February of 2000 shows the fallacy of relying too heavily on DNA evidence.
A suspect whose DNA had been placed in the national data base years earlier when he was accused of hitting his daughter in a family dispute was arrested for a burglary because it appeared that his DNA matched samples collected at the crime scene. At the time of the burglary, the man was living 200 miles away from the site and because of advanced Parkinson’s disease was unable to drive and was barely able to dress himself. Still police argued that he had to be the culprit because the chance of an error in the DNA match was only one in 37 million. The man was arrested and spent four months in jail before his solicitor was able to demand a retest, which showed that when additional markers on the DNA molecules were considered, there was not a match.
Another two cases were reported in FirstPost on November 2, 2006:
“In 2004, a woman fingered by DNA as a murderer proved to be a rape victim whose DNA had ended up on clothing in an Australian forensic lab. Last year in the US, a man accused of a sex crime turned out to have received bone-marrow from the true culprit, thus giving him a similar DNA fingerprint.”
The same article mentioned that the inventor of DNA fingerprinting, Sir Alec Jeffreys, now feared that his invention was undergoing “mission creep” and that with the power of the government to take DNA from anyone arrested for a recordable offense and to store it indefinitely, the UK was being turned into a nation of suspects.
The following is from an article by Robert D. McFadden first published August 15, 1989, and reprinted in the New York Times of July 4, 2008:
“In a case with possibly important implications for scores of criminal and paternity cases across the nation, a Bronx judge ruled yesterday that sophisticated genetic tests that had linked a murder suspect to a victim were not scientifically reliable.
“The decision was believed to be the first serious challenge to DNA ‘fingerprinting,’ a technique for analyzing genetic material, like blood, semen, skin or hair, to identify its source. The technique has been used in at least 80 cases of murder and rape in 27 states, and many scientists and lawyers have assumed the tests were infallible.
“In yesterday's ruling, the judge held that DNA tests could be used to show that blood found on the suspect's wristwatch was not his. But the judge said other DNA tests that purported to show it was the victim's blood were flawed and would not be admissible as evidence at the trial, which he scheduled for Sept. 11.”
Another article from Forensic-Evidence.com also calls into question the reliability of DNA results in the courtroom:
“In the recent case of Crawford v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0683-99-1, the Court of Appeals of Virginia held, on September 19, 2000, that instructing the jury that DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing is deemed a reliable scientific technique and thus recognized under the laws of Virginia was improper when DNA evidence was used to prove a person’s identity.”
The problem with many DNA identifications is not that the science itself is flawed but that there is a very real chance of human error in gathering the samples, maintaining the records, and performing the tests.
Britain seems to have had more than its share of problems with the use of flawed DNA testing in court cases. As reported in the Times Online of February 11, 2008, Judge Anthony Hayden, QC, revealed serious mistakes made by DNA Diagnostics, a firm that bills itself as “the world’s largest and most experienced private DNA testing laboratory…[performing]…3 out of 4 private DNA paternity tests in the United States.” The company admitted losing from its case files vital identification details in 122 paternity cases so that the findings could not be relied upon.
Judge Hayden also said that Anglia DNA, a second British company, provided misleading results in a case involving the welfare of eight children. The company reported that two of the children likely were half-siblings; however, testing by a third company showed no relationship. When Anglia DNA retested the children, they admitted their error but blamed their mistake on unclear instructions from the lawyer, claiming that they had not been told to consider the possibility that none of the children were related.
The UK maintains a list of government-approved testing services. As a result of these cases, the Ministry of Justice, after a review of paternity testing services, had to remove half of the companies from its approved list because they lacked up-to-date evidence that they met the minimum criteria. Although the U.S. has regulations on laboratories, it has no such list of government-approved testing services and may be in a condition every bit as serious as the UK.
Problems with DNA testing in this country have been found even in government facilities. As recently as one year ago the Massachusetts State Police laboratory was involved in a scandal concerning the mishandling of DNA evidence over the past twenty years. Robert Pino, the DNA database administrator, was fired, but investigation by the U.S Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General found that problems went far beyond Pino’s incompetence. In examining the laboratory’s computerized database, it was determined that incomplete genetic profiles had been entered in 12 cases out of a sample of 100.
In the YFZ case, CPS workers and others have been notorious for jumbling information and reaching unfounded conclusions. Several of these incidents are documented in Marie Musser’s Day by Day Events of the YFZ Ranch Raid. She records under date of April 8 that while she was staying at the Fort Concho Stables, Texas Rangers arrived to serve papers. She received papers for Marie Musser, but when she read them, she found that the last name on the papers was Barlow and that all of the children listed were girls. Marie has three boys.
On April 13 she relates how CPS decided the mothers’ ages according to their own convenience. A 35-year-old mother was not permitted to see an attorney because she appeared to be under 18, but when the older boys were taken away, she was suddenly of age so that her 11-year-old son could be taken. On April 14 a mother with a two-month-old baby was loaded on the bus with mothers of children 5 years old and older. Other ladies who had previously been denied access their attorneys because they looked too young were declared to be of age and sent away with the other mothers. Many YFZ mothers could tell similar stories of incomplete or jumbled records and children unaccounted for.
CPS may have been justifiably confused at times by the sheer number of mothers and children and by the similarity of names. But who is to say that many of the same mistakes were not made in gathering the DNA samples?
Considering these factors, as well as the lack of legal justification for requiring DNA samples in the first place, the test results are, at best, questionable evidence.
The history repeating in Malaysia
The Dreyfus Affair was a political scandal which divided France from the 1890s to the early 1900s. It involved the conviction for treason in November 1894 of Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a young French artillery officer of Jewish background who was in advanced training with the Army's General Staff. Alfred Dreyfus was sentenced to life imprisonment which he began to serve in solitary confinement on Devil's Island in French Guiana.
Two years later, in 1896, the real culprit was brought to light and identified: a French Army major named Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy. However French high level military officials dismissed or ignored this new evidence which exonerated Dreyfus. Worse, French military counter-intelligence officers fabricated false documents designed to secure Dreyfus' conviction as a spy for Germany. They were all eventually exposed, in large part due to a resounding public intervention by Emile Zola in January 1898. The case had to be re-opened and Dreyfus was brought back from Guiana in 1899 to be tried again. The intense political and judicial scandal that ensued divided French society between those who supported Dreyfus (the Dreyfusards) and those who condemned him (the anti-Dreyfusards).
All the accusations against Alfred Dreyfus were eventually demonstrated to be baseless. Dreyfus was exonerated and reinstated as a major in the French Army in 1906. He later served during the whole of World War l, ending his service with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.
We the rakyat of Malaysia fully hpoe that the history will repeat in Malaysia and justice will prevail for our de facto PM DSAI.
Two years later, in 1896, the real culprit was brought to light and identified: a French Army major named Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy. However French high level military officials dismissed or ignored this new evidence which exonerated Dreyfus. Worse, French military counter-intelligence officers fabricated false documents designed to secure Dreyfus' conviction as a spy for Germany. They were all eventually exposed, in large part due to a resounding public intervention by Emile Zola in January 1898. The case had to be re-opened and Dreyfus was brought back from Guiana in 1899 to be tried again. The intense political and judicial scandal that ensued divided French society between those who supported Dreyfus (the Dreyfusards) and those who condemned him (the anti-Dreyfusards).
All the accusations against Alfred Dreyfus were eventually demonstrated to be baseless. Dreyfus was exonerated and reinstated as a major in the French Army in 1906. He later served during the whole of World War l, ending his service with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.
We the rakyat of Malaysia fully hpoe that the history will repeat in Malaysia and justice will prevail for our de facto PM DSAI.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Najib worse off with two-year transition
At first glance, it would seem that Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak should be happy at Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's announcement that he would hand over power in the middle of 2010. But dig a little deeper and you would find that the announcement actually only further cements the precarious political situation that Najib finds himself in.
British Prime Minister Harold Wilson famously said that 'one week is a long time in politics'. As we've seen lately, a lot can transpire within just a few days. Two years can be an eternity in political terms.By announcing a firm schedule for stepping down, Abdullah has bought himself some time. This removes some of the pressure from those within Umno who want him to commit firmly to passing the baton to Najib.It also gives him ample time to rebuild his support base as well as provide ample time for Najib's enemies – be they from de facto PKR leader Anwar Ibrahim's camp or from Abdullah's camp – to further weaken the already embattled DPM.Nothing that Abdullah has said and done post-election has indicated that he's willing to step down from his current position as Umno president or PM. If he genuinely wants to step down, he could easily do so in December at the Umno General Assembly. He doesn't have to wait two years.The reason he gives for wanting to wait until 2010 is that he has unfinished business – ostensibly the reforms that he had promised to institute. Given that he failed to institute any major reforms in four years when he had the biggest mandate in history, it's hard to imagine that it's possible for him to achieve anything in two years in his weakened state. So that rationale is just plain disingenuous.Unlike his predecessor Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who is very much is own man and left office more or less on his own terms, Abdullah seems very much like a PM who is hanging on to power with the aid of his inner coterie.
Announcement is to buy Abdullah time.
That is why we believe the two-year timetable is just a tactic to buy him time. There are too many people in his camp who have too much to lose if Abdullah is no longer PM and they will use this two-year time frame to shore him up simultaneously while working to weaken his deputy. Najib was already in a beleaguered position before the transition date announcement. His name had been mentioned in one statutory declaration, later retracted, and his wife, Rosmah, in another. He had also admitted having a private meeting with the alleged victim in the Anwar sodomy case, before the police reports were made. All this has tainted his image badly.Since two years is a long time, it is possible for Najib to rehabilitate himself somewhat. If no one comes up with proof of his or Rosmah's involvement in the Altantuya Shaariibuu case; if no one can directly link him to the sodomy allegations; he can somewhat salvage his reputation.But even then, it doesn't mean he will take over from Abdullah. Mahathir has already said that Najib will not become PM in 2010 because some forces close to Abdullah will topple him by then. We more or less agree with that assessment.Given that Najib surely knows Abdullah's underlying motive for this announcement – he may be timid but he's not stupid – what can he possibly do to fight back? The answer is nothing much.He is a man battling two fronts – on one flank stands Anwar who blames him for the sodomy allegations and on the other flank stands Abdullah's camp, who recognise Najib for what he is – the most serious threat to Abdullah's position.It is hard to imagine that he would be able to make any political moves against Anwar. Any explicit moves on Najib's part would be perceived as him taking an active role in the political 'conspiracy' against Anwar. Furthermore, he might not have control of the instruments of power which can be used to threaten or silence Anwar, at least when it comes to his attacks on Najib.The person who has access to these levers of state power, Abdullah, has shown that he is more than happy to sit back and his two biggest rivals – Anwar and Najib – to battle it out with each other.
Najib’s hands are tied
There's no much Najib can do against Abdullah either. Because an handover schedule has been announced, he no longer has any excuse to challenge him during the Umno General Assembly in December.The best that his people can do is to tacitly support a potential challenger to Abdullah – either Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah or Muhyiddin Yassin – so that Abdullah would get embroiled in a bruising battle for survival.Abdullah would probably prevail given the powers of incumbency but he would emerge even further weakened than he is now. But even this is not a politically attractive option. There are risks. What if either Razaleigh or Muhyiddin wins? There goes any hope for Najib to become PM.In short, Najib is now a man with very few options. And that is why we say that the firm timeline for handing over power – though on the surface might seem like a win for Najib – is actually bad news for him.
At first glance, it would seem that Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak should be happy at Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's announcement that he would hand over power in the middle of 2010. But dig a little deeper and you would find that the announcement actually only further cements the precarious political situation that Najib finds himself in.
British Prime Minister Harold Wilson famously said that 'one week is a long time in politics'. As we've seen lately, a lot can transpire within just a few days. Two years can be an eternity in political terms.By announcing a firm schedule for stepping down, Abdullah has bought himself some time. This removes some of the pressure from those within Umno who want him to commit firmly to passing the baton to Najib.It also gives him ample time to rebuild his support base as well as provide ample time for Najib's enemies – be they from de facto PKR leader Anwar Ibrahim's camp or from Abdullah's camp – to further weaken the already embattled DPM.Nothing that Abdullah has said and done post-election has indicated that he's willing to step down from his current position as Umno president or PM. If he genuinely wants to step down, he could easily do so in December at the Umno General Assembly. He doesn't have to wait two years.The reason he gives for wanting to wait until 2010 is that he has unfinished business – ostensibly the reforms that he had promised to institute. Given that he failed to institute any major reforms in four years when he had the biggest mandate in history, it's hard to imagine that it's possible for him to achieve anything in two years in his weakened state. So that rationale is just plain disingenuous.Unlike his predecessor Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who is very much is own man and left office more or less on his own terms, Abdullah seems very much like a PM who is hanging on to power with the aid of his inner coterie.
Announcement is to buy Abdullah time.
That is why we believe the two-year timetable is just a tactic to buy him time. There are too many people in his camp who have too much to lose if Abdullah is no longer PM and they will use this two-year time frame to shore him up simultaneously while working to weaken his deputy. Najib was already in a beleaguered position before the transition date announcement. His name had been mentioned in one statutory declaration, later retracted, and his wife, Rosmah, in another. He had also admitted having a private meeting with the alleged victim in the Anwar sodomy case, before the police reports were made. All this has tainted his image badly.Since two years is a long time, it is possible for Najib to rehabilitate himself somewhat. If no one comes up with proof of his or Rosmah's involvement in the Altantuya Shaariibuu case; if no one can directly link him to the sodomy allegations; he can somewhat salvage his reputation.But even then, it doesn't mean he will take over from Abdullah. Mahathir has already said that Najib will not become PM in 2010 because some forces close to Abdullah will topple him by then. We more or less agree with that assessment.Given that Najib surely knows Abdullah's underlying motive for this announcement – he may be timid but he's not stupid – what can he possibly do to fight back? The answer is nothing much.He is a man battling two fronts – on one flank stands Anwar who blames him for the sodomy allegations and on the other flank stands Abdullah's camp, who recognise Najib for what he is – the most serious threat to Abdullah's position.It is hard to imagine that he would be able to make any political moves against Anwar. Any explicit moves on Najib's part would be perceived as him taking an active role in the political 'conspiracy' against Anwar. Furthermore, he might not have control of the instruments of power which can be used to threaten or silence Anwar, at least when it comes to his attacks on Najib.The person who has access to these levers of state power, Abdullah, has shown that he is more than happy to sit back and his two biggest rivals – Anwar and Najib – to battle it out with each other.
Najib’s hands are tied
There's no much Najib can do against Abdullah either. Because an handover schedule has been announced, he no longer has any excuse to challenge him during the Umno General Assembly in December.The best that his people can do is to tacitly support a potential challenger to Abdullah – either Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah or Muhyiddin Yassin – so that Abdullah would get embroiled in a bruising battle for survival.Abdullah would probably prevail given the powers of incumbency but he would emerge even further weakened than he is now. But even this is not a politically attractive option. There are risks. What if either Razaleigh or Muhyiddin wins? There goes any hope for Najib to become PM.In short, Najib is now a man with very few options. And that is why we say that the firm timeline for handing over power – though on the surface might seem like a win for Najib – is actually bad news for him.
Monday, May 19, 2008
UMNO and the Government ?
The resignation of former PM and UMNO President Tu Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, clearly show that there is a peet fire in UMNO. The is lost of confidence in Pak Lah and Najib. Pak Lah who is self appointed sleeping beauty and Najib who has created Cyclone Najib ( Not Cylone Narqis ), alsways showed their weakness in the process of running the country. Their decision on handling HINDRAF issue, temple demolition, Terengganu incident and many more to name, clearly shows their political immaturity and self-centered attitude. A lot of issues are still pending. C4 usage, who authorised? Judges illegal appointment, indelible ink issue etc all put the goverment which is controled by UMNO at stake. The Rakyat has lost the confidence. Police force is heavily used for the benefit of ruling government to intimidate the public. Education sytem is corrupted and double standard sytem is used in awarding seats in the university. The divide and rule concept is still used to cheat the rakyat. Where we are leading? Until unless a "surgeon" is appointed to operate and remove the cancerous disease of Malaysia, we will die prematurely. May God Bless my Nation.
UMNO's stability in stake!!
The resignation of former PM and UMNO pResident Tu Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, clearly show the there is peet fire in UMNO. The is lost of confidence in Pak Lah and Najid. Pak Lah who is self appointed sleeping beauty and Najib who has created Cyclone Najib ( Not Cylone Narqis ), alsways showed their weakness in the process of running the country. Their decision on handling HINDRA issue, temple demolition, Terengganu incident and many more to name clearly shows their political immaturity and self-centered attitude. A lot of issues are still pending. C4 usage, who authorised? Judges illegal appointment, indelible ink issue etc all put the goverment which is controled by UMNO at stake. The Rakyat has lost the confidence. Police force is heavily used for the benifit of ruling government to intimidate the public. Education sytem is corupted and double standard sytem is used in awarding seats in the university. The divide and rule concept is still used to cheat the rakyat. Where we are leading? Until unless a "surgeon" is appointed to operate and remove the cancerour disease on Malaysia, we will die prematurely. May God Bless my Nation.
What is Seditious Act?
Under Section 3(1) of the Sedition Act those acts defined as having a seditious tendency are acts:
(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any ruler or against any government;
(b) to excite the subjects of the ruler or the inhabitants of any territory governed by any government to attempt to procure in the territory of the ruler or governed by the government, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any state;
(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or of the ruler of any state or amongst the inhabitants of Malaysia or of any state;
(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia; or
(f) to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of part III of the Federal Constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution.
But is Malaysia, what ever you say or write against the government is seditious and whatever the seditious remark from government is immune to the abovesaid act. That's Malaysia. MALAYSIA BOLEH!!!
(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any ruler or against any government;
(b) to excite the subjects of the ruler or the inhabitants of any territory governed by any government to attempt to procure in the territory of the ruler or governed by the government, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any state;
(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or of the ruler of any state or amongst the inhabitants of Malaysia or of any state;
(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia; or
(f) to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of part III of the Federal Constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution.
But is Malaysia, what ever you say or write against the government is seditious and whatever the seditious remark from government is immune to the abovesaid act. That's Malaysia. MALAYSIA BOLEH!!!
Ketuanan Rakyat!!
Penggunaan ketuanan Melayu dan Ketuanan Rakyat pada hemat saya adalah definisi istilah yang diguna dalam konteks yang berbeza, namun dalam konteks di Malaysia kedua-duanya digunakan dan sedang diaplikasikan sekarang ini sekalipun. Pada hemat saya selagi kita menggunakan demokrasi ala Raja berpelembagaan kedua-dua istilah ini tetap diguna dalam konteks dualism. Ketuanan Melayu dengan Raja-raja Melayu sebagai ketua yang tidak diganggu gugat oleh sistem demokrasi sekalipun. Sebagai contoh sama ada BN menang atau PR menang Raja adalah tetap raja dan tiada siapa yang boleh mencabar. Raja berada di luar gelanggang sebagai pemberi anugerah kepada sesiapa yang menang dalam pertandingan di dalam gelanggang.Sedangkan ketuanan rakyat jelas adalah menunjukkan sistem demokrasi pada bahagian yang lain dalam konteks Malaysia. ini bermaksud rakyat merupakan tuan dalam negara demokrasi, mereka yang menentukan siapa yang berhak untuk menjadi ketua mereka. Sebab itu, dalam konteks demokrasi, ketua yang dipilih oleh rakyat sewajarnya tidak boleh sombong dan bongkak kerana mereka dipilih oleh rakyat. begitu juga harta negara adalah harta rakyat melalui kutipan cukai dan hasil bumi negara dan bukanlah harta milik orang yang dipilih oleh rakyat. Justeru, dalam konteks ini jelas sebenarnya rakyatlah tuan dan pemimpin adalah hamba kepada rakyat. Ini kerana rakyat yang memilih dan rakyat yang mewakilkan harta mereka untuk digagihkan secara amanah untuk kesejahteraan mereka kembali. Satu contoh yang paling mudah difahami seperti seorang kaya yang memilih seseorang untuk mewakilinya bagi menjalankan perniagaannya. Orang kaya itu berhak memilih siapa yang dikehendakinya, kemudian dibuat perjanjian mulut atau penjanjian rasmi bagi melaksanakan tanggungjawab orang diwakilkan itu. sudah tentu orang kaya adalah tuan sedangkan orang diwakilkan walaupun dia mengurus siang dan malam, tetap harta yang diuruskan adalah harta orang kaya tersebut. harta dia hanyalah gaji yang diberikan oleh orang kaya tersebut. Pada masa ini, jika orang orang diwakili sudah mula naik tocang dan menggunakan harta tuannya tanpa amanah, rasuah, pecah amanah, khianat dan menganggap harta tuannya seperti hartanya sendiri. pada masa ini adakah orang kaya itu dianggap bersalah jika membuang orang diwakilkan itu dan digantikan dengan orang lain yang lebih telus, amanah, berdidikasi dan bertakwa.Berdasarkan contoh di atas, dalam konteks negara demokrasi, rakyat adalah ketua yang memilih dan memiliki harta negara sedangkan orang yang dipilih yang diberi nama dengan YB, Tan Sri, Datuk atau sebagainya sebenarnya hamba kepada orang yang memilih mereka. Adakah salah bagi tuan (rakyat) untuk membuang hambanya yang dah naik tocang, menggunakan harta rakyat macam harta sendiri, boros, tidak amanah, khianat kepada bangsa, agama, budaya dan bahasa rakyatnya, sombong, bongkak, pengrasuah, kronisme, nepotisme dan bermacam-macam lagi. Sebab itu kedua-dua istilah "ketuanan Melayu dan Ketuanan Rakyat" adalah diguna dalam konteks negara kita yang disayangi ini.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
