" MALAYSIA FOR MALAYSIAN "

God Will Protect Me, Says Normala

2011-04-23T04:29:00.000+08:00

God Will Protect Me, Says Normala

2011-04-23T04:27:00.000+08:00

God Will Protect Me, Says Normala

Remember Today.........

2011-02-18T15:58:00.000+08:00

Check out my magazine!

2011-02-18T15:47:00.000+08:00

Check out my magazine!

Will Najib put democracy before party politics?

2011-02-18T15:29:00.000+08:00

Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak is aware that we are observing the Middle East and North Africa. He knows what we are thinking. So he warned us that he would crush any copycat attempts to overthrow his administration.

Echoes of Tunisia’s uprising are reverberating across the Arab world closely followed by Egypt whose regime was the next to be toppled. The world watches with a mix of fascination and horror as repressive regimes in the regions make concessions to their people, like in Jordan. In contrast, Bahrain tries to assert even greater control.

Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak is aware that we are observing the Middle East and North Africa. He knows what we are thinking. So he warned us that he would crush any copycat attempts to overthrow his administration.

He said, “Currently, there are demonstrations and activities to bring down the government by force in certain countries. These things need not happen here. We (the government) will not allow them to happen here.”

According to him, the critical difference between Malaysia and Egypt was that his administration looked after its people and practised its “People First” policies.

He said, “Firstly, we cannot equate what is happening in Egypt with Malaysia because things are very different in the two countries.

“The people will also understand that as long as we put the people’s interest first and understand the desires of the people, they will feel the effects and benefits by the government.”

Najib must take us for fools. Did President President Hosni Mubarak want an uprising in Egypt? Of course not; but it happened, all the same.

Copycat suicides

Perhaps Najib is too busy with important matters like FLOM or is preoccupied with Mohamad Saiful Bukhari Azlan’s semen-covered undergarments. Maybe he is annoyed with the family of Teoh Beng Hock who refused to attend the flawed Royal Commission of Inquiry.

The spark for the longest-running protest in modern Tunisian history was lit when the police stopped an unemployed university graduate, from selling vegetables from his cart to support his family. He was exasperated at the injustice and immolated himself outside the governor’s office.

His desperate act sparked a wave of copycat suicides and street protests over unemployment. One graduate called it “the ritual humiliation of the people” and “a corrupt regime”. The ensuing demonstrations were violently repressed by the police.

The Egyptians were unhappy with terrible living conditions, economic stagnation, unemployment and corruption. They were also angry at political repression and election-rigging.

If Najib thinks there are no parallels between these two countries and Malaysia, then he is in denial.

The Egyptian demonstrations were galvanised by the young, who were mainly students. They communicated with the people using Twitter, Facebook and Google.

Perhaps this is why Najib and his henchmen – Information, Communications and Culture Minister as well as the Home Minister, Rais Yatim and Hishammuddin Hussein respectively – told us that they were drawing up plans to censor the Internet.

Repressive govermentes

Najib would be foolish to do that as Malaysians “socialise” using these cyber methods. Najib might well receive a shock in the next general election results.

In both Tunisia and Egypt, the revolutions did NOT start because they were instigated or motivated by an opposition party.

The uprisings happened spontaneously because the people were fed up with their repressive governments. The reasons were mainly financial. Many were protesting at the rising cost of essentials.

As it is, Najib is already using strong-arm tactics to scare the people. But we need not be surprised because we already live in a police state.

Around midnight of Feb 13, four policemen from the Dang Wangi police station went to the Jinjang home of entrepreneur, Norazimah Mohamad Noor. She was arrested for taking part in a demonstration against price hikes.

Norazimah was charged with illegal assembly, during the “price hike protest” at KLCC in January, 2008. It is also reported that 43 others have also been charged.

This is Barisan Nasional’s warning to the people that if we dare protest or speak out against them, they will hound us.

If Najib is unaware, Malaysians have legitimate concerns about their nation. How are we funding the many “mega projects” like the 100-storey Badan Warisan and the MRT project? Only recently, we are told six RM1 billion offshore patrol vehicles will be acquired.

We also know that in a few years time, the costs of these will have escalated to several times the original price, just like the king’s palace.

In Malaysia, corruption is rife but only the small cases are being solved. The illicit outflows of funds totalling US$291 billion or RM881 billion during the period 2000 to 2009, which the Global Financial Integrity report revealed, did not perturb Najib or his Cabinet.

By: Mariam Mokhtar, FreeMalaysiaToday

Hulu Selangor by-election: A litmus test for both parties!

2010-04-12T00:41:00.003+08:00

The demise of PR MP of Hulu Selangor open yet another test for Pakatan Rakyat government in Malaysia as whole and in Selangor specifically. What the politicians interested is not the mourning on the demise of the late MP, but the focus is more on the selection of candidates and short-listing them. What is more interesting is there is no conclusion as per today's news. Whoever stands for the by-election, it is definitely a litmus test and it will determine the popularity and strength of the winner. Looking at the tract record which was not publish due to biasness of media, PR has favourable chance as the locals are convinced that current Selangor PR government has in many ways has satisfied the "taste-buds" of Rakyat. But, BN with monetary influence might use back-door tactic to influence the voters. What is interesting is the maturity of the Rakyat. They might accept the money but the voting most likely will side the PR.

Whatever way you think...Whatever way you toss the coin..PR has a bright winning chance!!!The party is matters now and not the candidate anymore.....

BUDGET 2010

2009-10-24T10:55:00.000+08:00

PM slashes spending in Budget 2010
Oct 23, 09 4:05pm

Prime Minister Najib Razak slashed government spending in the 2010 budget, moving to rein in a fiscal deficit swollen by stimulus measures aimed at pushing the economy out of recession.
In his maiden budget, Najib promised an ambitious cut in the budget deficit in 2010 from its highest level in more than 20 years, although he provided few clues as to how the reductions would be realised.
The main spending cuts would come from reduced "operating
expenditure" (-13.7 percent), lower food and fuel subsidies (-14.7), a sensitive political issue for an unpopular government, and less money for development spending (-4.5 percent).
Najib also said an extensive fuel subsidy system, extremely popular with the public but a drain on national coffers, would be revamped next year but did not give details of the cuts.
He said the economy would shrink by 3.0 percent this year, less than a 4.0-5.0 percent contraction tipped earlier, but that it could bounce back and post modest growth of 2.0-3.0 percent in 2010.
"Major indicators suggest the economy is on track to recovery," said Najib, who is also finance minister, adding that "Malaysia's economic fundamentals remain resilient, despite the more challenging environment in 2009."
But he said the downturn, which hit Malaysia's export-dependent economy hard, showed it needed to address its long-term competitiveness and shift to a new model "based on innovation, creativity and value-added activities".
"We are now at a critical juncture, either to remain trapped in a middle-income group or advance to a high-income economy," he said.
Najib said Malaysia needed to strengthen domestic demand, lose its reliance on cheap imported labour, and introduce liberalisation measures to enhance competitiveness.
Ambitious spending cuts
The 2010 budget allocation totalled RM191.5 billion - 11.2 percent lower than the revised allocation of RM215.7 billion for 2009.
"This allocation reflects prudence in government spending and gives priority to value-for-money," said Najib, adding that the cuts would not harm public sector delivery.
Operating expenditure will be slashed by 13.7 percent to RM138.3 billion in an unprecedentedly large cut, helping reduce the fiscal deficit from 7.4 percent this year to 5.6 percent next year - much lower than expected.
Wan Suhaimi Saidie, an economist with Kenanga Investment Bank, was cautious about the ambitious move to rein in spending.
"It's a big surprise for me because, in spite of the economic recovery, the government is already consolidating its fiscal deficit by substantially cutting down the operating expenditure as well as reducing development spending," he told AFP.
"My view is that (the cut) will affect the efficiency of the government machinery. My view is that the maximum you can cut is 5.0 percent."
Others were sceptical the target could be met.
"It is good that we see now the government seems serious to address the budget deficit issue," said Azrul Anwar Ahmad Tajudin, senior economist at Bank Islam.
"But the problem is whether we can achieve it or not. It's too huge a reduction," he told Reuters.
Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim applauded the move to cut costs but said he doubted whether it would be achieved, and that the budget did not address rampant corruption which was one of the causes of overspending.
"I have no qualms about the stated pronouncement on the attempt to ensure Malaysia becomes more competitive and reduces waste, but actions speak louder," he said.
New petrol subsidy system
Najib said the government, which was hit with severe criticism over past cuts to petrol subsidies, would implement a "fuel subsidy management system" in early 2010 but gave no further details.
There were promises of lower taxes with 1 percentage point to be lopped off the top 27 percent income tax rate and a vague commitment to study a goods and services tax (GST), which economists say is need to expand the tax net.
According to Najib, the government is "at the final stage" of a study into implementing a long-considered GST to replace the current tax and services tax.
"The purpose of this study is to ensure that if the GST needs to be implemented to stabilise government finances, it will not burden the people," he said.
Average consumer price inflation is predicted at 1.0 percent this year, slower than the forecast of 1.5-2.0 percent by the central bank in March.
Exports are expected to shrink 19.2 percent in 2009, but could rebound to record 5.1 percent growth in 2010, it said.
In his two-hour speech, Najib said emphasis will also be placed on human capital and improving the public sector's efficiency.
"In approach I would not see any major departure in his (Najib's) approach to previous prime ministers," said political analyst Khoo Kay Peng.
"We see the usual tiny populist giveaways alongside catching-up measures."

SALIENT POINTS
Quick facts
• Malaysia economy to grow 2-3 percent in 2010.
• Per capita income to increase by 2.5 percent to RM24,661.
• Budget 2010 allocations totalled RM191.5 billion, of which RM138.3 billion is for operating expenditure and RM53.2 billion for development expenditure.
• Federal government revenue in 2010 to decline by 8.4 percent to RM148.8 billion.
• Budget deficit at 5.6 percent of GDP compared with 7.4 percent in 2009.

Taxation
• Maximum income tax rate to be further reduced to 26 percent from 27 percent effective from the 2010 year of assessment.
• Personal tax relief will be increased to RM9,000 from RM8,000 effective from the 2010 year of assessment.
• Individual taxpayers to be given tax relief on broadband subscription fee up to RM500 a year from 2010 to 2012.
• Income tax for 2010 based on income derived from 2009 will be allowed to be paid in instalments in five years.
•
• Employees EPF contributions will be raised again to 11 percent on a voluntary basis with immediate effect. However, from Jan 1, 2011 employees' EPF contribution will revert to 11 percent.
• The government proposes existing personal tax relief of RM6,000 for EPF contributions and life insurance premiums be raised to RM7,000.
• Civil servants are eligible to apply for computer loans once in every three years and up to a maximum of RM5,000 from the government once in every five years.
• A five percent tax to be imposed on gains from disposal of real property from Jan 1, 2010.

Credit cards
• There will be no more free credit cards which are currently being used extensively. The number increased from more than two million in 1997 to 11 million as of August 2009, excluding 285,000 charge cards.
•
• To promote prudent spending, a service tax of RM50 a year will be imposed on each principal credit card and charge card, including those issued free of charge.
• There will also be service tax of RM25 a year imposed on each supplementary card.

Fuel subsidies
• To ensure fuel subsidies only benefit targeted groups, the government will implement a fuel subsidy management system in early 2010.

Goods and Services tax
• Government is in the final stage of completing a study on imposing Goods and Services Tax (GST). The rate will be lower than the current sales and service tax.

Approved Permits (AP)
• RM10,000 to be imposed for each AP to open AP holders effective Jan 1, 2010. A portion of the collection will be channelled to the bumiputera development fund in the automotive sector.

Permanent residency
• Simplify permanent residency (PR) applications for those who possess high talents, expatriates will be issued visas within 14 days while male expatriates who marry locals will be automatically conferred PR status.
KEY BUDGET ALLOCATIONS
Infrastructure
• Government to allocate RM9 billion to finance infrastructure projects, with RM4.7 billion for road and bridge projects, RM2.6 billion for water supply and sewerage services, RM899 million for rail facilities, RM820 million for ports and sea services and RM276 milliion for airport projects.
• RM3.7 billion set aside to beef up the security forces, including providing modern and sophisticated equipment for the relevant agencies.
• TNB to spend RM5 billion to implement electricity generation, transmission and distribution projects in 2010.
• Public-private collaborations to include an integrated immigration, customs and quarantine complex in Bukit Kayu Hitam, construction of six UiTM campuses and the development of Matrade centre.
• RM3.5 billion for infrastructure and basic amenities and training programmes and socio-economic projects to support implementation of private sector projects.

Corporate social responsibility
• 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) will establish a corporate social responsibility fund totalling RM100 million as a start to finance community activities.

Tourism
• Government to allocate RM899 million to intensify tourism industry.
• Tax incentives for healthcare service providers who offer services to foreign health tourists with income tax exemptions of 100 percent on the value of increased exports from 50 percent previously.

Health
• RM14.8 billion is allocated to manage, build and upgrade hospitals and clinics.

Agriculture
• Allocate RM137 million to upgrade and improve drainage and irrigation infrastructures in paddy fields involving 180,000 farmers.
• RM70 million to build the Paya Peda Dam Project in Terengganu to increase water supply capacity to paddy irrigation scheme in Besut.
• RM82 million to modernise aquaculture industry and conduct entrepreneurship training scheme for aquaculture breeders with focus on production of fish fry and ornamental fish.
• RM149 million to develop food farming industry such as fruits, vegetables, organic farming, herbs, seaweeds and swiftlet nests.
• RM58 million to develop basic infrastructures for livestock farms and establish supply chains for beef and mutton production.
• A consortium comprising Felda, Felcra and Risda will be established by the end of 2009, with a paid-up capital of RM300 million and with each agency contributing RM100 million.
• Government to provide subsidies, incentives and assistance amounting to some RM2 billion to farmers and fishermen to safeguard their interests.

Small and medium enterprises
• To consolidate 79 SME funds to 33 to simplify access to SME financing to be coordinated by SME Corp.
• An allocation of RM350 million to SME Corp, with RM200 million set aside for SME soft loans, RM100 million for capacity enhancement and the balance for branding and promotion.
• Financial institutions to approve micro-financing in six days and disbursement in four days.
• To allocate RM538 million for implementation of various SME programmes, with RM281 million to state economic development corporations, RM200 million to Tekun and RM57 million for purchase of business premises and infrastructures.

Green technology
• Government to sanction RM20 million to intensify green awareness activities and practise environment-friendly lifestyle.
• Develop Putrajaya and Cyberjaya as pioneer townships in GreenTechnology as a showcase for the development of other townships.
• Establish a RM1.5 billion fund to promote green technology, with a maximum RM50 million financing for suppliers and RM10 million for consumer companies.
• Applications for financing through the National Green Technology Centre to commence on Jan 1, 2010 and 140 companies are to benefit.

Construction
• Building owners obtaining GBI Certificates from tomorrow until Dec 31, 2014 are to be given income tax exemption equivalent to additional capital expenditure. Stamp duty exemption to buyers of buildings with GBI Certificates from tomorrow till Dec 31, 2014.

Regional corridors
• Government will ensure that the five regional corridors - launched during former premier Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's tenure - will be developed according to schedule.

Crime
• Target set to reduce crime index by five percent, including street crimes such as snatch theft and robberies by 20 percent by the end of 2010. Among the measures that will be taken is to increase police presence by providing stations in 50 crime hotspots.

Hardcore poverty
• Government committee to achieve target of zero hardcore poverty in 2010. Five thousand poor households registered with eKasih and 4,000 Orang Asli households to receive aid. Skills training programmes and income generating programmes will be provided. Federal welfare assistance to be distributed on the 1st of each month.
• RM141 million to be allocated for 'Program Lonjakan Mega' scheme to alleviate 5,600 families from hardcore poverty.

Finance
• Double deduction on expenditure incurred in promoting Malaysia as an international financial centre.
• Deduction on expenditure incurred to set up Islamic stockbroking companies.
• To introduce a basic insurance and takaful scheme for motor insurance protection by mid-2010.
• To expand micro insurance and takaful coverage for small-scale businessmen to benefit from coverage ranging from RM10,000 to RM20,000 with a premium as low as RM20 per month.
• Stock market to be further liberalised to enhance efficiency. Liberalise commission-sharing arrangements between stockbrokers and remisiers by allowing flexible brokerage sharing at a minimum rate of 40 percent for remisiers and to have commission-sharing fully liberalised effective January 1, 2011.
• Allowing 100 percent foreign equity participation in corporate finance and financial planning companies.
• Current tax incentives to develop financial services, particularly Islamic finance, extended to 2015. Twenty percent stamp duty exemption on Islamic financing instruments.
• Tax exemption on banking profits derived from overseas operations.
• Effective Jan 1, 2010, government agrees to allow agencies to retain 50 percent of rentals received while the remaining 50 percent will be remitted to the government as revenue.
• Maximum tax rate for cooperatives will be reduced to 26 percent while the fixed tax rate for non-resident individuals will be cut to 26 percent.

Human resources
• Income tax on employment income of Malaysians and foreign knowledge workers residing and working in Iskandar Malaysia will be set at 15 percent compared with the maximum 26 percent for the rest of the country.
• Government to launch a scheme in January 2010 that enables EPF contributors to utilise current and future savings in Account 2 to promote house ownership.
• The government to establish the 1Malaysia Retirement Scheme to be administrated by EPF.

From: Malaysiakini

Malaysian: A true meaning!

2009-09-11T15:19:00.001+08:00

By: Tunku Abdul Rahman's great granddaughter
Sharyn Lisa Shufiyan, 24
Conservationist

“Both my parents are Malay. My mum's heritage includes Chinese, Thai and Arab, while my dad is Minangkabau. Due to my skin colour, I am often mistaken for a chinese.
I'm happy that I don’t have the typical Malay look but I do get annoyed when people call me Ah Moi or ask me straight up "Are you Chinese or Malay"

Like, why does it matter? Before I used to answer "Malay" but now I'm trying to consciously answer Malaysian instead..

There's this incident from primary school that I remember till today. Someone told me that I will be called last during Judgement Day because I don’t have a Muslim name. Of course, I was scared then but now that I'm older, I realise that a name is just a name. It doesn’t define you as a good or bad person and there is definitely no such thing as a Muslim name. You can be named Rashid or ALI and still be a Christian.

I’ve heard of the 1Malaysia concept, but I think we don’t need to be told to be united. We've come such a long way that it should already be embedded in our hearts and minds that we are united. Unfortunately, you can still see racial discrimination and polarisation. There is still this ethno-centric view that the Malays are the dominant group and their rights must be protected, and non Malays are forever the outsiders.

For the concept to succeed, I think the government should stop with the race politics. It's tiring, really. We grew up with application forms asking us to tick our race. We should stop painting a negative image of the other races, stop thinking about 'us' and 'them' and focus on 'we', 'our' and 'Malaysians'.

No one should be made uncomfortable in their own home. A dear Chinese friend of mine said to me once, "I don’t feel patriotic because I am not made to feel like Malaysia is my home, and I don’t feel an affinity to China because I have never lived there..

I know some baby Nyonya friends who can trace their lineage back hundreds of years. I'm a fourth generation Malaysian.. If I am Bumiputra, why can’t they be, too? Clearly I have issues with the term.

I think the main reason why we still can’t achieve total unity is because of this 'Malay rights' concept. I'd rather 'Malay rights' be replaced by human rights. So unless we get rid of this Bumiputra status, or reform our views and policies on rights, we will never achieve unity.

For my merdeka wish, I'd like for Malaysians to have more voice, to be respected and heard. I wish that the government would uphold the true essence of parliamentary democracy. I wish for the people to no longer fear and discriminate against each other, to see that we are one and the same.

I wish that Malaysia would truly live up to the tourism spin of Malaysia truly Asia. Malaysians to lead - whatever their ethnic background. Only ONE NATIONALITY -MALAYSIAN. No Malays, No Chinese, No Indians - ONLY MALAYSIANS. Choose whatever religion one is comfortable with.

MERDEKA

MERDEKA

MERDEKA

The End of Civility?

2009-09-11T10:48:00.002+08:00

A MASTERPIECE BY MARINA MAHATHIR

I had to remind myself many times that this was happening during Ramadan, when we are enjoined to exercise restrain. Did these people then go home and eat since surely their puasa was batal'd?

I grew up in Kedah and Kedahans, while not an overly formal people, put great store on courtesy and manners. Known for being gentle people, we were governed by many rules on how we behaved and spoke, particularly to our elders.

For instance, it was considered extremely impolite to refer to ourselves as 'saya' (I) when speaking to family members (including extended family members). 'Saya' was considered so formal as to be snobby, even arrogant. (The extremely informal 'aku' however was beyond the pale; you only use it among very close friends who are allowed to call you the very rough 'hang'). Correctly speaking, you have to refer to yourself always by name, or at least the diminutive version of it, or, as some very traditional Kedah women would, as 'Che' (pronounced 'Chek', not 'Chay') though this is considered very 'manja'. Thus you would say, "Che tak tau la sapa mai tadi pasai Che tak dak kat rumah." (I don't know who came just now because I was not home.)

Similarly, having to name one's parents posed great difficulties to the well-brought up Kedahan. Our parents' names were sacred, not to be bandied about. Perhaps it was a way of teaching us not to be arrogant about our family and origins. But if asked what our parents' names were, the reaction was often a certain amount of blushing and hand-wringing before a tiny voice finally whispered their names.

This was the way I grew up. And to this day I treat my elders with respect, even when I don't like them too much. I may now find it easier to refer to myself as 'saya' when I speak to someone in KL though I tend to retreat to the English 'I' when I can. Also, even 12 years after receiving my award from the Sultan of Selangor, I cannot bring myself to introduce myself by my title nor sign off anything but the most formal of letters with it.It's the Kedah way and what my parents taught me.

Not to say that Malays from other states are any less polite. We stick to many rules of courtesy. One of those I like is calling someone older than you 'Kak' or 'Abang' or 'Makcik/Aunty' or 'Pakcik/Uncle'.I still inwardly cringe when a young person calls me by my name although I have made it a rule that if they're over 25, they don't have to call me Aunty. And those who do call me Aunty aren't allowed to shout it out too loudly in public. But it's nice when, unbidden, young people easily address you as Kak or Aunty as a show of respect. It also tells you a lot about their upbringing.

Why am I talking about upbringing? It's really been prompted by that video I posted yesterday on the Shah Alam dialogue-turned-fracas. Over the years I have become aware that civility is really becoming uncool. People are rude everywhere, whether on the roads, in shops (you know, the ubiquitous and automatic 'no stock' without even bothering to look) or on the phone. Most of it is shrugged off as the daily irritations of city life and frankly sometimes on a bad day I can be curt too.

But one of the occasions in which I am never impolite is in a meeting. Over the years I have been in numerous meetings/dialogues/conferences/consultations, whatever you want to call them. They can be tedious, boring, frustrating and annoying. But it's never served anyone well to be rude in them. I have faced very vocal opponents in several meetings and have never yielded to the temptation of shouting back at them. In fact the louder they get, the calmer I become. My philosophy is, just because a point is shouted doesn't make it a better argument.

Which is why when I watched that video it was clear to me that those people had no intention of having any dialogue at all. What dialogue is there when all one person can say (or rather shout repeatedly) is 'Bangang!'. One bespectacled man takes the mike and starts off speaking normally enough and then suddenly spins into some sort of hysterical dance, much like a child stamping its foot when it doesn't get something it wants. Another man, in a songkok to denote piety perhaps, grabs the mike behind the panel and starts shouting incomprehensibly. Someone else apparently took off his shoes and showed it to the MB. Did his mother teach him that?

But the 'star' is the young man with the ponytail who is a tubby hurricane unto himself, shouting, waving, jumping up and down, rushing the panel, all the while not uttering a single comprehensible word that might advance his argument. I can almost picture how he drives his car.

I had to remind myself many times that this was happening during Ramadan, when we are enjoined to exercise restrain. Did these people then go home and eat since surely their puasa was batal'd?

It still puzzles me what the reason for not having the temple in their neighbourhood is. I was following the whole session on Twitter and apparently one woman claimed that having the temple there would cause house prices to fall and crime rates to rise. The logic of that escapes me. In my neighbourhood, there is a mosque, a temple and a church within shouting distance of one another and there is no problem, apart from the traffic jams and indiscriminate parking on Fridays. Although crime is a problem in my area, it can't be attributed to the presence of places of worship, and house prices have risen to ridiculous levels.

I did start to wonder though, is there no mosque in Section 23? Would they rather there be a mosque where the temple is to be? If so, why put it in a factory area?

Even so, what trouble would a temple bring except from these people themselves? In what way does it intrude into their lives? And as a friend pointed out, if being in the majority is the excuse not to have a place of worship of a minority faith, then there would be no mosques in America or Europe.

But back to the behaviour of these people, this is the most troubling part of it. These are the people on whom the government and the police base their arguments for not allowing demos or for using the ISA, notwithstanding the allegations that these are pro-BN people and that most probably they will never be hauled up. These are the examples pointed to when people say that demos can't be allowed because people can't control their emotions and behave rationally. These are the people held up as 'typical' Malaysians, a notion I find extremely insulting.

Even more ironically, these are the very same people who insist that we must keep the ISA, because they assume that everyone must behave like them in situations like this. That, just because they can't be trusted to discuss anything in a civilised manner, nobody else can either. They see the world entirely as mirrors of themselves, no matter how ugly that reflection. Or perhaps it's a distorted mirror they are looking at, where all their reflections come out beautiful.

We know that there are many people out there perfectly capable of intelligent, calm and rational discussion. In fact our culture dictates that that's how we conduct ourselves. Only a few people are predisposed to acting like neanderthals, whose idea of a good 'dialogue' is when the outcome has been predetermined to their advantage. Make no mistake, these types transcend race. But in this case, it is clear that the ugly ones are those who claim to represent my race and religion. I'm sorry but I refuse to be represented by them.

But the trouble is, the excuse for maintaining harsh laws will be these people. Just because a small number of people don't know how to behave, the rest of us are the ones who will have to suffer.

Already the Malaysian Comunications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) has asked for these videos to be taken down. I suspect it's because it makes Malays look bad. Could there be a sense of shame after all? But the official excuse is that Indians will get offended. Well I'm sorry la, but every decent right-thinking Malaysian is offended, not just Indians. And for that decency, we are going to be punished.

God help us, Malaysia.

By:Marina Mahathir - Sunday, 06 September 2009 16:48
(Marina Mahathir is the daughter of Dr. Mahathir, our ex-PM)

LAGU HUJAN: SUDIRMAN ARSHAD

2009-06-18T12:21:00.002+08:00

Hujan Hujan yang turun bagaikan mutiara
Berkilau bersinar berkerdipan
Subur menghijau bumi terbentang
Dan bayu berpuput lembut
Cinta yang bersemi Diwaktu hujan turun
Menyirami ketandusan hati
Dan hujan turut mengiringi
Engkau pergi...
Selembut hujan bercurahan
Begitulah cinta ini
Semesra bumi yang disirami
Begitulah hati ini
Hujan yang turun bersama air mata
Bersama pedih, bersama rindu
Kau datang dan kau pergi jua
Rindu lagi

Lagu : Kau akan kembali: SUDIRMAN

2009-06-18T12:02:00.003+08:00

Aku terima berita dari mu
Kau akan kembali seperti yang diduga
Bertahun berlalu kau berada dirantauan
Kau akan kembali ke pangkuan ibunda

Sawah terbentang dan padi menguning
Daun nyiur melambai angin timur membelai
Riak air di kali bagaikan bersedia
Membasuhi tubuh mu dari debuan kota

Sayup-sayup terdengar merdu suara seruling
Mendendangkan lagu anak desa
Kau pergi dahulu keranan dah jemu
Kau telah impikan satu hidup baru
Pahit manis seorang kembara
Segalanya telah kau rasa

Desa nan permai setia menunggu
Tiada bezanya seperti masa dulu
Namun kami semua tiada pernah jemu
Segalanya indah selalu

A GRAVE DISTORTION OF THE MALAYSIAN CONSTITUTION

2009-06-17T12:48:00.004+08:00

In a written judgment by Justice Nik Hashim Nik Rahman, the Federal Court empowers the Election Commission (EC) to over-rule the Speaker over the resignations of the three ‘independents’ in Perak and declares these assemblymen continue to stay as assemblymen.

This judgment, released on June 15 - 67 days after the oral judgment was given by the panel of five judges on April 9 - is flawed on two scores.

First, the court has misinterpreted the Constitution to wrongly declare the EC – instead of the Speaker – as the authority to decide whether a resignation in the legislature should be accepted.

Second, even if the court is correct in giving the EC the role of the final arbiter in respect of resignations in a legislature (which is decidedly wrong in law), the court has no business to declare the three 'independents' remain as assemblymen.

The kingpin of the court’s argument is Article 36(5) of the Perak Constitution, which reads: "A casual vacancy shall be filled within 60 days from the date on which it is established by the Election Commission that there is a vacancy.

"Pouncing on the word "established" as conferring an executive power to deliberate on the legality of the resignation of a legislator, Nik Hashim asserts that "the Election Commission has the right to enquire into any matter relating to the purported resignation."

He further states that "Under Article 35 of the Perak Constitution, the Speaker’s role is limited to receiving the written resignation letter of the assemblyman and forwarding the same to the Election Commission, which will then by its own procedure determine whether a casual vacancy has arisen or not". (Article 35 reads: "A member of the Legislative Assembly may resign his membership by writing under his hand, addressed to the Speaker.").

If Nik Hashim's interpretation of the Constitution is correct, hasn't our poor Speaker been reduced to a mere messenger boy for the EC whenever a resignation in the Assembly or dispute arising wherefrom crops up?

Founding fathers not dim-witted

Surely our founding fathers and the crafters of our Constitution, which is built on the principle of separation of power, could not be so dim-witted as to allow such piece of nonsensical legislation to slip through their fingers?

Actually there is nothing wrong with the legislation. The problem is with the interpreter of the constitution. Nik Hashim has obviously misconceived the real function of the word "established".

Interpreting it out of context, he conjures up powers to the EC that are not intended and non-existent in the Constitution.

Any experienced reader of the constitution should be able to discern that Clause 5 of Article 36 of the Perak Constitution was intended to stipulate that a casual vacancy must be filled when it arises, and that it must be filled within a certain period.

The word “established” is used in the context of defining the 60-day period within each the vacancy must be filled, and not to be used as implying the granting of executive power to the EC to micromanage the mechanism of an act of resignation in a legislature.

If it is intended that the EC be given such an important function as manager and final arbiter of resignations in a legislature, is it conceivable that the crafters of the our constitution had camouflaged it in such cavaliar fashion, and not expressly spelling out the details under a separate clause?

In fact, it is equally inconceivable that our founding fathers could have agreed to such provision due to its fundamental contradiction with the doctrine of separation of power.

In Malaysia, and in fact in legislatures all over the democratic world, it is always the Speaker who scrutinises and acts upon the resignation of a legislator, and should there be any dispute which the Speaker could not resolve, the Assembly will act as the final authority to settle the outstanding issues.

In the worst scenario where criminality is alleged, such as forged signature or undue coercion, the aggrieved party can always seek redress through the courts. But under no circumstances should the EC involve itself in any such matter which is deemed the exclusive domain of the assembly, outside the jurisdiction of not only the EC but also the courts. The latter could only come in, if there is incidence of criminal elements.

EC’s hollow authority

Nik Hashim may be technically correct when he rules that “the Election Commission is the rightful entity which establishes if there is casual vacancy of the State Legislative Assembly seat”, but such function to “establish” vacancy is a hollow authority – a mere formality to announce a vacancy upon notification from the Speaker of a resignation, as the bulk of action in a resignation takes place at the Speaker’s end, not at the EC.

When the Speaker receives a letter of resignation, he scrutinises its authenticity, and satisfies himself that the resignation is genuine before accepting it. And upon his notification to the EC to this effect, the legal act of resignation is deemed complete. And since the EC has no legal power under the Constitution or any law to undo this resignation, it should treat the Speaker’s notification as legal command to fulfill his constitutional obligation to declare a vacancy and a by-election date.

In the Perak case, the EC had clearly acted ultra vires the constitution when it rejected the Speaker’s decision and refused to conduct by-elections.

The current Federal Court judgment endorsing such unconstitutional act has caused a grave distortion to our Constitution and opened the floodgate for potential interference by EC into issues of resignations in our legislatures including parliament.

This judgment must therefore be promptly reversed through a judicial review to avert permanent damage to our system of government under the principle of separation of power.

I have said at the beginning of this article that the Federal Court has no business to declare that the status of the three ‘independents’ be maintained as assemblymen. This is due to the fact that this court hearing is just to interpret the meaning of the Constitution pertaining to the EC’s power in respect of the resignation of a legislator, and not to look into the legality of the specific act that the EC had taken in respect of the resignations of the three ‘independents’ in the Perak Assembly. As such, the Federal Court has no legal basis to make declarations that the assemblymen status of the three ‘independents’ be maintained. That decision is up to the High Court in Ipoh, where such litigation is still on going.

BY: KIM QUEK FOR MALAYSIAKINI, 17TH JUNE 2009

'World's oldest blogger' dies in Spain at 97.

2009-05-25T22:54:00.004+08:00

MADRID: A Spanish great-grandmother who billed herself as the "world's oldest blogger" and who gained a global following on the Internet, died on Thursday, 22nd May, 2009 at the age 97, local officials and reports said.

Maria Amelia Lopez, who was introduced to the world of blogging by one of her grandchildren, used a mix of humor and nostalgia to recall life during the long dictatorship of Francisco Franco and give her take on modern life.

"Today it's my birthday and my grandson, who is very stingy, gave me a blog," she wrote on her first post on amis95.blogspot.com on Dec 23, 2006.

Her blog quickly soared in popularity after the media reported on it, having seen more than 1.5 million hits.- AFP

Story of May 13, 1969

2009-05-16T16:41:00.001+08:00

Story by Thomas Lee ( Taken from Malaysiakini )

I was one month short of my 21st birthday on May 13, 1969, and I will never forget how I was escorted safely home by some Malay men when I had to pass through the Malay section of Lorong Selamat (the Macalister Road end) in Penang on my way home on my Vasper scooter. One of them even rode pillion on my scooter to ensure I was not attacked. The riot was not racial. It was the poor Malays being told by Malay politicians that the rich Chinese caused them the economic suffering, and the poor Chinese being told by Chinese politicians that the powerful Malays in government caused them to suffer. The riot was triggered off by the then massive suffering of both the poor Malays and poor Chinese. Who to blame? Not the Malays. Not the Chinese. But the happy-go-lucky ‘tidak apa’ government of the day, which didn't have any concrete plans and policies to uplift the quality of life of the poor Malays and poor Chinese. That's what I believe May 13 was all about. By the way, May 13 is also my wedding anniversary.

ZEN AND THE ART OF BLOGGING

2009-05-12T10:31:00.004+08:00

When I was growing up, I wanted to be Grasshopper, the character in David Carradine’s TV series ‘Kung Fu’.

Grasshopper was child imbued with immense interest in learning about what life means and how to create himself. The conversations between the master and the student intrigued me.

My interest in the philosophy of martial arts, drawn from the teachings of the masters of the Shaolin Temple, led me later in life to also study Oriental Literature and Philosophy, reading great works such as ‘The Dream of the Red Chamber’, ‘The Tale of Genji’, and ‘The Pillow Book of Sei Shonagon’.

I watched numerous kung fu movies and wanted to also be like Bruce Lee, the man who synthesised Western and Eastern philosophy into an advent garde form of martial arts.

Reading Buddhism in one of those periods of my spiritual enrichment and encountering works such as ‘The Zen of Motorcycle Maintenance’ and ‘The Dancing WuLi Masters’, I found the idea of deconstructionism and psychology of awareness even before I plunged into the study of social semiotics in my years in New York City.

Zen Buddhism’s most famous advocate in the West is Richard Gere, the American actor who is deeply involved in the campaign for a free Tibet. Gere often speak with the Dalai Lama in making the world aware of the persecution of the Tibetans by the Chinese government.

Awareness is a key principle of the teaching of the Buddha. Siddhartha Gautama is a quintessential example of a human being who discarded the garment of nobility and elitism and came down to earth and explored the bare-nakedness of alienation and dehumanisation.

From a prince to a pauper he evolved in the final days transformed into a philosopher. His struggles against the demons called Mara and his exploration of the self as powerful cause and effect of existence itself - and how wisdoms like pearls will emerge out of deep meditations on the fate of humanity - all these have become a life history example of how one can be at peace and harmony with the universe.

Cyberspace is a world of Maya with Mara shooting arrows at the enlightened ones. One has to be a Shaolin master in order to fight these demons and to continue to evolve into one piece into wise individuals.

Paid cyber-troopers in the Malaysian ‘Mahabharata’ of this millennium is a feature of this perpetually fragmented world. The industrial model has collapsed. The Malaysian monarchical state is in trouble. The Perak plague is a beginning of the Balkanisation of this Asian despotic state we are attempting to reconstruct.

Fight the demons
In cyberspace, bloggers are playing the art of making others aware of issues and in the process hopefully impart wisdom. Bloggers are artists practising the art of harmonising truth, realism, and activism.

Truth and falsehood multiply endlessly in cyberspace. At the centre of the personhood of the blogger lie awareness and the Zen-ness of the master’s craft. It is the awareness of what to do with truth and falsehood and the subjectivities and reflectivities in between that determine whether the blogger is fighting the Maras the Buddha fought, or has become one of the Maras.

In cyberspace, bloggers are educating, whether it is education for peace or for war. The more popular the blogger, the greater the impact of the message. The blogger is a weapon itself - in the whole enterprise of waging war or waging peace.

In the political scene, Malaysia is being deconstructed by bloggers. It is a natural progression of the anarchic nature of the Internet. No politician is safe. You can neither run nor hide in cyberspace. It is a Matrix of the Maya world we inhabit; a world of the Maras that attacked Buddha and of the masses that stormed the Bastille.

Malaysia will continue to be destabilised by bloggers - for the better - in her evolution towards the establishment of a just republic or a republic of virtue as the French ideologues of the 18th century would say.

Politicians and pirates of the Malaysian Caribbean, ones who stole from the poor to give to the rich, are in constant fear of bloggers - especially of the Zen bloggers. The Zen blogger, like the messiah on twitter is one who does not speak ill of others in cyberspace but makes people ill by invading the inner spaces of those who abuse power and by oppressing others.

Like a Rumi poem, the Zen blogger takes the middle path in spreading a message of peace through deconstructionism. But deconstruct, the blogger must. Through right thought, right action, right conduct, and right blogging, the blogger must make others aware of what life ought to be. In Malaysia, what ought to be has become what we are wrought to be. This means we have evolved from a nation of tolerance in the 1970s to a nation of totalitarianism in the 21st century.

Like the WuLi masters and Little Grasshopper, the blogger must know how to dance when given a sword. Like Bruce Lee, he must know how to harmonise the philosophies and create a lethal art of war in his or her work in waging peace.

Only when blogging is an art and science of educating for peace and not a dance of death in Dante’s Inferno, not when bloggers can be bought and sold for millions of ringgit by owners of the production of falsehood, that we can see the Zen and the art of blogging at play.

Bloggers must journey into the self and fight the demons within. You must, as the Sufi teachers would say, be skilled in journeying from the levels of Shariat, Tarikat, Hakikat, and Makrifat - the levels of outer and inner consciousness that define the harmonious self.

For, essentially, as bloggers we answer to our inner conscience. And ultimately, we are a republic unto ourselves, in a world in which the state is still a necessary evil.

Bloggers - beware and be aware.

By: Azly Rahman.

Press Statement by Member of Parliament Klang Charles Santiago in Klang on 18th April 2009.

2009-04-18T16:03:00.001+08:00

It is appalling to read Utusan Malaysia run a frontpage article titled “Bangkitlah Melayu”, urging the Malays to rise against the other races who are allegedly demanding way too much. But maybe the answer lies in the fact that the paper is linked to the ruling UMNO.

Although at first glance the verbal diarrhea by Datuk Ibrahim Ali, the Member of Parliament of Pasir Mas seems to pour cold water on Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak’s 1Malaysia concept, the lines blur upon careful scrutiny.

If Najib is serious about getting rid of racist language that strife to divide the Malaysian society even further, then he should formally put an end to the affirmative action policies which have only lined the wallets of the ruling elite.

But, on a different note, mere rhetoric by Ibrahim, Utusan Malaysia and other UMNO members would not help achieve Najib’s call to Malaysians to break away from their “ethnic prison”.

Picking up on Najib’s statement after chairing his first cabinet meeting, I urge the premier to act sternly on Utusan Malaysia, which practices obsequious journalism to pander to the whims and fancies of its UMNO bosses.

The country is facing enough economic problems without a whole new franchise cashing in with their bully–boy tactics. Najib’s top job and concern should be about the economy, which is handicapped by rising unemployment and declining demand.

The effect of massive job loss may increase the national unemployment rate, which currently sits at 3.5 percent, to 4.5 percent. The country’s manufacturing sector recorded a 26.1 per cent decline in sales in February. The Malaysian Institute of Economic Research, a government-linked think tank, has said that the country’s export-driven economy would shrink 2.2 percent this year, more than the government and central bank are forecasting.

Bursa Malaysia Bhd early this week reported a net profit decline of 63 per cent from RM 42.1 million a year ago to net profit of RM 15.5 million in March of this year largely due to the decline in equities trading revenue

Malaysia’s GDP grew just 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter from a year ago, as exports continue to drop due to sagging global demand.

Utusan, Ibrahim Ali and Najib should be aware that pushing the racial line when the country’s economy is sliding fast would not help the people. These groups should strive instead to promote an enabling environment for every Malaysian, especially the poor.

Specifically, Najib’s slogan should not be persuasive language used to hoodwink the people even further. He is after all not competing to win the best slogan title against former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad who chanted Bersih, Cekap, Amanah and his one-time blue-eyed boy Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s “Work With Me, Not For Me.

In short, we do not need mere political slogans, racist rhetoric and bigotry. The country needs to focus on the economy.

Charles Santiago

Member of Parliament, Klang

016-6267797

மதமாற்ற விவகாரம்: இந்து சங்கம் அமைச்சரவை உதவியை நாடுகிறது

2009-04-18T15:57:00.003+08:00

தாயாரின் அனுமதியின்றி வலுக்கட்டாயமாக மூன்று இளங்குழந்தைகள் ஈப்போவில் மதமாற்றம் செய்யப்பட்ட விவகாரத்தில் இந்து சங்கத் தலைவர் எ. வைத்திலிங்கம் புதிய அமைச்சரவையின் உதவியை நாடியுள்ளார்.

“இப்பிரச்னை துணைப் பிரதமர் முகைதின், பிரதமர்துறை அமைச்சர் கோ சூ கூன் மற்றும் மனிதவள அமைச்சர் எஸ். சுப்ரமணியம் ஆகியோரின் கவனத்திற்கு கொண்டுவரப்பட்டபின், இது ஒரு கடுமையான பிரச்னையாகக் கருதப்படுகிறது”, என்று அவர் ஓர் அறிக்கையில் கூறியுள்ளார்.

இப்பிரச்னையைக் கையாள்வதற்கு கோ, சுப்ரமணியம் மற்றும் இஸ்லாமிய விவகாரங்களுக்கு பொறுப்பேற்றுள்ள பிரதமர்துறை அமைச்சர் ஜமில் கீர் பகாரும் ஆகியோர் அடங்கிய குழு ஒன்றை துணைப் பிரதமர் முகைதின் அமைத்துள்ளார் என்றாவர்.

“இதற்கிடையில், சம்பந்தப்பட்ட அனைவரும் அமைதி காத்து இப்பிரச்னைக்கு நியாயமான தீர்வு காண உதவுமாறு இந்து சங்கம் வேண்டுகோள் விடுக்கிறது. நீதிக்காகப் பிராத்னை செய்வோம்”, என்று வைத்திலிங்கம் கூறினார்.

வயது ஒன்றிலிருந்து பன்னிரண்டு வயதுடைய மூன்று குழந்தைகளை அவர்களுடைய தகப்பனார் முகமட் ரிட்ஜுவான் அப்துல்லா ஏப்ரல் 12 ஆம் தேதி அக்குழந்தைகளின் பிறப்புப் பத்திரங்களை மட்டுமே முன்வைத்து மதமாற்றம் செய்தார். குழந்தைகளைத் தன்னுடைய பாதுகாப்பில் வைத்துக்கொள்வதற்கான உத்தரவைப் பெறுவதற்கு ஷரியா நீதிமன்றத்தில் மனு தாக்கல் செய்துள்ளார்.

அக்குழந்தைகளின் தாயார், எம். இந்திரா காந்தி, 35, அவருடைய குழந்தைகள் இந்து மதத்தைப் பின்பற்ற அனுமதிக்குமாறு கோரியுள்ளார்.

தற்போது, அத்தம்பதிகளின் இளையமகள் பிரசன்னா திக்சா, முகமட் ரிட்ஜ்வானுடன் இருக்கிறார். இதர இரண்டு குழந்தைகளும் - தேவி தர்க்ஷிணி, 12, மற்றும் காரன் தினேஷ் - தாயார் இந்திராவுடன் இருக்கின்றனர்.

இஸ்லாமிய இலாகா அதிகாரிகள் அவ்விரு குழந்தைகளையும் எடுத்துக்கொண்டுபோய் விடுவார்கள் என்ற அச்சத்தில் அந்த பாலர்பள்ளி ஆசிரியர் தன்னுடைய உறவினரிடம் தஞ்சம் அடைந்துள்ளார்.

அமைச்சரவைக்குழு என்ன செய்ய முடியும்?

அடுத்த வாரம் குழந்தைகளை தாயாரின் பொறுப்பில் விடுவதற்கான மனு தாக்கல் செய்யப்படும். பின்னர் மதமாற்றம் சம்பந்தமான விசயங்கள் கவனிக்கப்படும் என்று இந்திராவின் வழக்குரைஞர் எ. சிவநேசன் கூறினார்.

“இம்மாதிரியான விவகாரங்களில் நீதி கிடைப்பதில்லை.”

“நான் பலரைப் பார்த்திருக்கிறேன். அவர்களுடைய வேதனைகளைப் பார்த்திருக்கிறேன், குறிப்பாக முஸ்லிம் அல்லாதவர்களின் வேதனையை”, என்று அவர் மலேசியாகினியிடம் கூறினார்.

அமைச்சரவைக்குழுமீது தமக்கு நம்பிக்கை இல்லை என்று சிவநேசன் கூறினார்.

” புதிய குழு என்ன செய்யப்போகிறது? மூவர் அடங்கிய குழு அமைக்கப்பட்டதன் மூலம் அக்குழு பிரச்னையை எப்படி தீர்க்கப்போகிறது”, என்று அவர் வினவினார்.

மதமாற்றம் செய்ய விரும்புகிறவர் இஸ்லாமிய இலாகாவில் தனது மதமாற்றத்தைப் பதிவு செய்துகொள்வதற்குமுன் அவர் சிவில் சட்டப்படி செய்து கொண்ட திருமணம் சம்பந்தப்பட்ட அனைத்து விவகாரங்களையும் முறையாக செய்து முடித்துவிட்டது கட்டாயமாக்கப்படுவதின் வழி மாற்றங்கள் கொண்டுவரப்பட வேண்டும் என்று சிவநேசன் கூறினார்.

“இரு தரப்பினரும் மதம் மாறினால், பிரச்னை இல்லை. ஆனால், ஒருவர் மதம் மாறி இன்னொருவர் மாற விரும்பவில்லை என்றால், அவர்களுடைய குழந்தைகள் 18 வயதை அடைந்து அவர்கள் தாங்களாகவே ஒரு முடிவு எடுப்பதற்கு அனுமதிக்க வேண்டும்”, என்று அவர் மேலும் கூறினார்.

சர்ச்சைக்குரிய பிரச்னை

சிவில் சட்டப்படி திருமணம் செய்துகொண்ட முஸ்லிம் அல்லாதவர்களின் மதமாற்றம் - ஒருவர் மதம் மாற விரும்புவதும் இன்னொருவர் மறுப்பதும் - எப்போதும் பெரும் சர்ச்சையை கிளரிவிடுகிறது. ஏனென்றால் இது சம்பந்தப்பட்ட சட்ட நிவாரணங்கள் தெளிவற்றவைகளாக இருப்பதுடன் முஸ்லிம் தரப்பிற்கு மட்டுமே சாதகமாக இருக்கிறது.

2006 ஆம் ஆண்டில் தங்களுடைய குழந்தைகள் யாருடைய பொறுப்பில் இருக்க வேண்டும் என்பது குறித்து இந்து மனைவி ஆர். சுபாஷினிக்கும் முஸ்லிமாக மாறி முகம்மட் சாபி என்ற பெயர் கொண்ட டி. சரவணனுக்கும் இடையிலான சட்டப் போராட்டம் பிரசித்தி பெற்றதாக இருந்தது.

முகம்மட் சாபி தன்னுடைய மனைவியை விவாகரத்து செய்வதற்கும், குழந்தைகளை தன் பொறுப்பில் வைத்துக்கொள்வதற்கும் ஷரியா நீதிமன்றத்தின் தீர்ப்பை நாடினார்.

இதன் பின்னர், தன்னுடைய பிரிந்துவிட்ட கணவர் ஷரியா நீதிமன்றத்தில் தொடர்ந்துள்ள நடவடிக்கைகளுக்குத் தடை விதிக்கக்கோரி சுபாஷினி செய்து கொண்ட மனு உச்ச நீதிமன்றம் வரையில் ஒவ்வொரு கட்டத்திலும் நிராகரிக்கப்பட்டது.

2007 ஆம் ஆண்டில், நாட்டின் உச்ச நீதிமன்றம் அரசமைப்புச் சட்ட விதி 12(4) இன் கீழ் ஒரு குழந்தையின் மதமாற்றத்திற்கு பெற்றோர்களில் ஒருவரின் ஒப்புதல் போதுமானது என்று தீர்ப்பளித்தது.

ஆனால், இந்த வழக்கில் சம்பந்தப்பட்ட இரு குழந்தைகள் யாருடைய பொறுப்பில் இருப்பது என்பது பற்றி தெளிவான தீர்ப்பு அளிக்கவில்லை. அது குறித்து கணவனும் மனைவியும் அவரவர் சம்பந்தப்பட்ட சட்ட அடிப்படையில் நடவடிக்கை எடுக்கலாம் என்று தீர்ப்பளித்தது.

இப்பிரச்னை பலதடவைகளில் எழுப்பப்பட்டபோதிலும் அரசாங்கம் இது குறித்து மௌனமாக இருந்து வந்திருக்கிறத

மை அல்மா மேட்டர்

2009-04-18T13:10:00.007+08:00

High School Klang
SMK Tinggi Klang

Motto : Probitas Et Fides (Loyalty and Integrity)
Established : 1928
School Type : Government Secondary school

Session : Double
Enrollment : 1843
Grades : Form 1 - Form 6
Location : Jalan Meru, Selangor, Malaysia

District : Klang

Colours : Green, Yellow, White

High School Klang, also known as Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Tinggi Klang or SMK Tinggi Klang for short, is a government secondary school located in Jalan Meru about one km away from the Klang town centre in Selangor, Malaysia. It is a male-only school from Form 1 to Form 5. At the Sixth Form level, where students take their STPM, the classes are mixed.

History

High School Klang was originally named Temporary English School and was open to students in the town of Klang on January 14, 1928 with the beginning of the academic school year.

The main school block was opened by the Sultan of Selangor on March 20, 1930. Since then the school has expanded to accommodate its ever increasing student population.
In 1941, the Klang High School was used as the headquarters of the Medical Auxiliary Service for Klang. There were two doctors assisted by 52 nurses. The school reopened after the WWII having been used as a military hospital by the British Military Authority.

After Malaysia's independence, it was known as Sekolah Tinggi Klang or by its acronym S.T.K. By the end of 1990s, the name was changed in accordance with Ministry of Education regulations to its current name.

School buildings

The school has nine blocks. The blocks are named below, with the date each came into use:

• 1928 – Hostel block. Later used as the laboratories (Block B)
• 1930 – Main block (Block A)
• 1948 – Block H and I
• 1961 – Afternoon session laboratories (Block F)
• 1969 – School Library
• 1972 – Biology, physics and chemistry laboratories (Block D)
• 1980 – Physics and chemistry laboratories with the staff room (Block C)
• 1982 – Block E
• 1991 – New block for sixth form classes

School Song

Probitas Et Fides

O God almighty, we give thee thanks
For our school, the High School Klang
And for the teachers who daily guide us
With answers to questions asked
Onward the spirit of close fellowship
And towards others in friendship and love
May we never be found wanting
The great courage of living and striving
Dear High School Klang
Our High School Klang
Thee our dear Alma Mater
Forward to serve we go now
May we love thee forever more

Long live the king(makers)!

2009-04-18T12:22:00.004+08:00

I have always thought of Muhyiddin Yassin as a reasonable, restrained and urbane Umno leader; in fact, he used to be one of my favourite cabinet ministers.

When he ascended to the exalted position of deputy prime minister, I was a touch worried that he might just be the new face and the new voice that Umno and BN need to regain the support of the voters who had swung en masse to the opposition coalition in the last general election.

My worry turned out to be both unfounded and unwarranted. Within a week of assuming the second highest office in the land, the public statement of the new DPM has shown that he is just like the past Umno and BN leading lights - arrogant, insensitive and quite removed from reality.

When MIC boss S Samy Vellu made disgruntled noises about not getting enough ministerial appointment, Muhyiddin practically told him to shut up, and Samy Vellu dutifully complied.

This little bit of melodrama played out in front of a national audience must have entrenched the belief among many Indian voters that MIC is indeed a subservient serf to their Umno masters in the BN coalition, and therefore no longer worthy of support.

Soon after, while reflecting upon the results of the by-elections in the two Bukit, Muhyiddin opined aloud that the Chinese voters were ungrateful or “unappreciative”.

This is evidence that the new DPM is very much the prisoner of the kind of Umno racial narrative that used to be both popular and effective in those Mahathir years. Unfortunately for BN, this kind of vocabulary has outlived its shelf life.

The Chinese electorate throughout Malaysia have changed. The unexpected election results of March 8, 2008 have opened their eyes to new political possibilities in Malaysia. They have tasted the nectar of change, and their ravenous hunger for greater and more fundamental change has grown. Just note their increased support for PAS and PKR in the two Bukit.

This talk of Chinese being ungrateful must have touched a raw Chinese nerve throughout our fair land. Instead of apologising for his insensitive remark, Muhyiddin blamed it on the media, as BN ministers are wont to do. This must have riled up the media fraternity, even if they keep quiet, as mainstream journalists are wont to do.

The new MCA boss Ong Tee Kiat was silent on the DPM’s insensitive remarks against Chinese voters, displaying to a national audience once again that indeed MCA is subservient to Umno in all things Chinese, and they do not deserve support from the Chinese community in the next election.

Finally, Muhyiddin more or less warned the Chinese people on the peril of seeing themselves as king-makers.

The ramification of such a seemingly innocent statement had to be played out in the ultra-right Malay press: if the non-Malay people become king-makers, the Malays are in danger of losing their Ketuanan Melayu and their grip on political power will be loosened. The existence of the Malay race would be threatened on their own homeland.

The clarion call for the Malays to rise and unite is only to be expected.

Political narrative aimed to spook non-Malays

That is the sort of political narrative that could frighten the non-Malays into voting for the BN in the past. I doubt it will do the trick now in our new Malaysia. It will probably whip up the appetite of the Chinese and the Indians for change even more.

Given the Malay voting trends in the two Bukit, it is also unlikely that this scare tactic aimed at the Malay masses can generate the usual communal panic as it used to do.

Even when Anwar Ibrahim was still spending his enforced vacation in Sungai Buloh, I had predicted that the Chinese and the Indian voters could play the role of king-makers in national politics.

As soon as PKR and PAS could split the Malay votes in the urban and the rural constituencies, the minority Chinese and Indian voters in the mixed and even the Malay-majority seats could determine the outcome of a contest between Umno and PKR or PAS.

There is nothing wrong with the Chinese and the Indians playing the king-maker role. The only casualty will be the idea of Ketuanan Melayu and Umno. This new found significance of the two minority ethnic groups will not be a threat to the Malays, because they will need to vote alongside those Malays who believe in the new collective ideology of Ketuanan Rakyat.

Thanks to people like Ong Kian Ming and Wong Chin Huat, we now have very professional empirical analysis of past election results, constituency by constituency, and even polling stream by polling stream.

The latest addition to such collection of meticulous election researcher is Kenny Gan. His recent letter to Malaysiakini entitled 'Can East Malaysia again save BN in 2013' is particularly sobering for watchers of Malaysian politics.

The following is his speculation of what the next general election would look like:

“There are 51 non-Malay majority seats, 44 mixed seats and 70 Malay-majority seats in the Peninsula. A non-Malay majority seat is defined as having less than 50% Malay voters, a mixed seat from 50% to less than 66% and a Malay-majority seat equal to or greater than 66% Malay voters.

“Based on the current voter sentiment, BN will be expected to lose all 51 non-Malay majority seats. Based on 30% non-Malay support and not more than 60% Malay support, BN should theoretically lose all 44 mixed seats too.”

At the end of his analysis, Kenny Gan has this to conclude:

“So BN's tally in the Peninsula is nine mixed seats and 45 Malay-majority seats making a dismal total of 54. Can the East Malaysian states save BN this time?”

Again, the spotlight is turned onto the two powerful blocs of parliamentary seats in Sarawak and Sabah. With BN federal power in doubt, the Chinese and the non-Malay indigenous voters would now have a different set of political parameters to consider when casting their votes.

The Chinese-majority seats in those two eastern states are especially gullible to the Pakatan Rakyat assault. The tone of the campaign and the issues raised would be considerably different from past elections.

The Sarawakian and Sabahan Chinese voters may just decide to emulate the fine example set by their ethnic counterparts in the Peninsula, and vote en masse for the Pakatan Rakyat candidates. Those few Chinese seats may just be king-makers again in a hung Parliament in 2013.

Horse trading involving Sabah, Sarawak

Another possibility is that once the dust has settled in the 2013 general election, and the BN and Pakatan have more or less similar number of seats in Parliament, there would be intense horse trading involving Sarawak and Sabah MPs. The torrid history of politics in those two states has shown that political loyalty can be bought and sold to the highest bidder.

Bought or sold, such MPs would be toxic assets to the political coalition which they would choose to belong at the end of the bargaining session, so I am not so excited about this prospect. But it does illustrate that Malaysian politics cannot be business as usual as it was done before 2008. Many new variables have crept into the confused equation.

The same unknown variable has also crept into the 70 Malay seats in the Peninsula.

According to Kenny Gan, there are 70 Malay-majority seats in West Malaysia, of which 25 were won by PKR and PAS in 2008.

Gan has defined a Malay seat as one where there are 66% or more Malay voters. If the results in Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau are an indication, the Umno base support cannot exceed 57%.

Again, in a keen contest, the 34% or less king-maker in those Malay majority seats may just want to try switching their political allegiance from BN to Pakatan. The end game in national politics would then be anybody’s guess.

How the Chinese, Indian, and “other” ethnic voters will vote in the next general election depends on how our political drama plays out before the entire national audience.

They are watching with great interest, slowly realising perhaps that for the first time, the so-called minority ethnic groups suddenly have power to change the destiny of politicians and that of the country far out of proportion with their numerical strength.

The new ruling class within Umno and BN are obviously oblivious to this new development. They are stuck in the time-capsule of their old paradigm and talking in the antiquated language of race and violent threat.

That is why Muhyiddin talked and behaved as he did. He is just adding another nail to the closing coffin. We should encourage him to do more of the same.

Written in Malaysiakini by:SIM KWANG YANG was MP of Bandar Kuching in Sarawak between 1982 and 1995. He can be reached at kenyalang578@hotmail.com.

Perak crisis: Judges have let Najib down

2009-04-18T11:57:00.002+08:00

The Federal Court decision that Perak speaker V Sivakumar did not have the right to suspend BN Menteri Besar Zambry Abd Kadir and his six cabinet members is a perverse judgment.

It is perverse because it is a decision that was made in blatant defiance of Article 72 (1) of the Federal Constitution which says, "The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court".

The judges of the Federal Court have failed the people and the government of this country when they chose to ignore the law of the Constitution of Malaysia. In other words, the judges have refused to do justice according to law.

Incidentally, ultra vires does not mean "outside the law". It means "outside one's jurisdiction, beyond the scope of one's power or authority".

And we may ask, who is the Federal Court to say what is beyond the jurisdiction of the speaker when the supreme law of the country says that "the validity of any proceedngs in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court".

Don't these judges realise that they have actually done a disservice to the government of the day? Perhaps they have never heard of the Taff Vale case.

In 1900, the English House of Lords, which is the highest court in the land just as our Federal Court is the highest court in this country, handed down an outrageous decision which was unpopular to the common people of England.

Voters threw out gov’t after judges erred

The judges of the House of Lords by their judgment had unwittingly done a great disservice to the Conservative government of the day because in the general election of 1906, it was toppled by a landslide.

The case which was the cause of the fall of the Conservative government was Taff Vale Rly Co v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants.

It is best that I let Lord Denning take up the story from his book ‘Landmarks in the Law’:

“There was the great Taff Vale case. To understand it, you must know that the trade unions were virtually friendly societies. The members paid their subscriptions into a fund, out of which benefits could be paid to members if they were ill or out of employment.

“Now in the Taff Vale case, the railwaymen's union called a strike at the railway station at Cardiff. The men left work and set up peaceful pickets so as to persuade others not to go to work. The trains could not run, and the company lost money. The railway were advised to bring an action against the union itself, seeking an injunction and damages. The Court of Appeal threw out the action.

“But the House of Lords, in a startling judgment, overruled the Court of Appeal. They issued an interlocutory injunction against the trade union itself, restraining it from setting up the pickets, and said that the railway company could recover damages which could be enforced against trade union funds.

“Later, at the trial itself, the damages were assessed at £23,000 and that sum was paid out of the funds of the trade union. £23,000 in 1900. What would that be now?

“In the eyes of trade unions, that was an outrageous decision. It meant that the railway company could take all the funds subscribed by the members so as to meet the damages. It meant that, in future, a trade union could never call a strike, else it would be in peril of losing all its funds. It meant virtually the end of trade unions. As GM Trevelyan says in his History: 'It struck at the very heart of trade union action'.

“That case had immense political consequences. At the general election of 1906, there came into being a new political party. It was the Labour party. They ran a host of candidates themselves. They pledged complete immunity for trade unions. Many of the Liberal candidates gave the same pledge.

“The result of the general election was like an earthquake. Liberals had 397 seats. The new Labour party had 50 seats. The Conservatives only 157. It was a sweeping victory for the trade unions.

“Parliament immediately passed the Trade Disputes Act 1906. It is probably the most important Act ever put into the Statute Book. It reversed all the judicial decisions against trade unions. The Taff Vale case was overruled. No trade union could thereafter be sued for damages for any wrongs done by its members. Its funds were unassailable."

I think the message of the Taff Vale case to our judges of the Federal Court should be clear enough. The electorate may decide, just as the voters did in 1906 England to throw out the Conservative government, to use the power of their vote to unseat the BN government in the next general election because they do not trust the judges.

What if speaker ignore court decision?

Poor Najib Abdul Razak, our new prime minister, it is the judges who have let him down. Unfortunately it would be the prime minister who has to carry the baby, but not the irresponsible judges who did all the damage by not administering justice according to law.

The law, in the present context, is the Federal Constitution, in particular, Article 72 which states:

7 (1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.

(2) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof.

(3) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything published by or under the authority of the Legislative Assembly of any State.

Suppose Sivakumar were to ignore the declarative decree of the Federal Court, what then?

Clause (2) of Article 72 of the Federal Constitution says that "No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof'.

The Federal Court can say anything they like but the speaker is not liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the legislative assembly.

The order of the Federal Court seems to me to be a ‘brutum fulmen’, which in Latin means "ineffectual thunderbolt” - an action which is loud but ineffective.

Written by: NH Chan

NH CHAN is a former Court of Appeal judge famous for his ‘All is not well in the House of Denmark’ comment regarding judicial corruption. He was then referring to High Court’s commercial division which was located in Wisma Denmark, Kuala Lumpur. The quote is based on Shakespeare’s ‘Something is rotten in the state of Denmark’. He now lives in Ipoh.

Voting by proxy

2009-03-03T15:47:00.006+08:00

A look at the role and limitations of a proxy.

A PROXY allows a person who is entitled to attend and vote at a meeting, to appoint another person to attend the meeting and vote on his behalf.

According to the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, the word “proxy” means the authority given by one person to another to do something for him when he cannot do it himself. The word “proxy” also refers to a person who has been given authority to represent someone else. The subject of proxy votes most frequently arises in the context of meetings of companies and societies. However, there is no common law right to a proxy. Such a right only exists where it is provided by law or contractually agreed to.

Whilst the subject of proxies is relevant in the context of meetings, it is more likely to impact upon meetings of companies and societies. Companies are entities where traditionally individuals associate for the objective of making profits for themselves. Their activities are regulated by the Companies Act 1965. Societies are usually associations of seven or more like-minded persons who come together in pursuit of some common interest.

Companies

In the case of the Companies Act 1965, there is a statutorily provided right for a member of a company to appoint another person to attend company meetings as a proxy. Such a person can have the same rights as a member at the meeting. This right is restricted to the proxy voting in a poll (he must be a member), an approved company auditor or a person approved by the Registrar in any particular case. It is permissible for the company to frame its Articles of Association to have provisions which either restrict the rights of the proxy holder when attending the meeting or put him almost in the same position as a shareholder.

A proxy is appointed by an instrument in writing, in accordance with the articles. There are two forms of proxy: a general proxy which appoints a person to vote as he thinks fit, having regard to what is said at the meeting, and a special proxy appointing a person only to vote for or against a particular resolution.

The Companies Act 1965 requires that when notices are sent out calling for a meeting, the notice must state the right of the member to appoint a proxy. To what extent the proxy can then act has been discussed earlier.

Societies

When it comes to societies, there are no provisions in the Societies Act 1966 for the appointment of a proxy to attend and vote at meetings.

As stated earlier there is no common law right to vote by proxy. In the case of societies, such a right to appoint a proxy and the extent to which the proxy holder can act would need to be provided for in the constitution, which is the contract between the society and the members, and the members inter se.

The constitution of the society is a document created and adopted by its members. It is also a document endorsed and registered with the Registrar of Societies. If the members have not chosen to give themselves such a right, then it does not exist.

In some cases the constitution of a society may say that a member can only vote at a meeting if he is present. Some organisations may impose additional conditions to allow members who are personally present to vote. But whatever the situation, such a clause would make it clear beyond doubt that there can be no proxy voting.

Committee meetings

Another aspect to consider is whether proxies can be given by an absent committee member to another to make decisions at committee meetings.

“Committee” here refers to a group of persons elected by the members of an organisation at a general meeting, to manage the organisation. Such a committee may in different situations and organisations be referred to as a board of directors or a council. Its role is to administer the organisation and execute its policies.

Whether decisions can be made at such committees through voting done in part by proxies, depends on the constitution. If this is not provided for, then no proxy can be given and it would be wrong to rely on it.

If the provisions of the Companies Act 1965 are carefully looked at, it will be noted that the power of giving proxies is for voting at the meeting of members only and not at the board level. There is no such thing as proxies at board meetings.

I am inclined to take the view that there cannot be proxy voting at committee meetings. This is because of the different nature and purpose of a general meeting compared to a committee meeting. Different considerations are involved here.

At a meeting of members which is a general meeting, the member is voting for himself. He can decide which way he is going to vote even before attending the meeting or listening to what is being said. This is reflected in the format of the proxy form where he can direct the proxy to vote for or against a resolution. A committee member’s role is different. Committee members are chosen by the general body to act in the best interest of the organisation. Such a member has to cast his vote in the interest of the society, instead of personal interest.

This he does by taking part in the deliberations of the committee at its meeting, considering contrary views expressed during the meeting and then casting his vote. A person who gives a proxy would not in such a situation be meeting the requirement of making an objective judgment with regard to the matter being considered.

Thus if a proxy were allowed, it would mean that the person giving the proxy pre-directs the voting by doing so without proper consideration. If he leaves it to the person to whom the proxy is given, then he is delegating his responsibility to someone else. This is not what he was elected to do.

Using a proxy in such circumstances in the absence of a specific would be tantamount to abdication of responsibility. How then, it may be asked, can the absent member’s vote be brought into consideration? The way out is to provide for the appointment of an alternate.

If a particular member cannot attend, the alternate member can attend and participate in making the decision. This is common in board of directors’ meetings where alternate directors are often appointed. And this is also an option for societies.

Written by : Bhag Singh

HOUSE OF LORDS BRIEFING ON THE PLIGHT OF MALAYSIAN ETHNIC INDIAN

2008-12-13T14:23:00.002+08:00

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.

A piece of paper does not determine your faith

2008-12-09T15:05:00.002+08:00

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.

CONGRATULATIONS BROTHER BARACK OBAMA !

2008-11-05T16:39:00.004+08:00

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.

SOCIAL CONTRACT Vs RACIAL CONTRACT

2008-11-05T10:20:00.004+08:00

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.

My Visit to Stockholm, Sweden.

2008-10-13T17:02:00.002+08:00

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!!

Ahmad Ismail a Racist Bastard !!!

2008-09-09T17:52:00.000+08:00

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

Racist Ahmad Ismail Of UMNO Penang

2008-09-09T10:57:00.003+08:00

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 !!!

What a dentist can do only a dentist can do.

2008-09-03T15:30:00.001+08:00

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.

Different Terminology

2008-08-30T15:36:00.001+08:00

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

A small piece of History for our future Generation

2008-08-30T15:34:00.002+08:00

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

JOKE OF THE DAY

2008-08-30T15:26:00.001+08:00

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.'

To the arrogant Mr. Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar

2008-08-30T15:22:00.002+08:00

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

HABEAS CORPUS

2008-08-28T15:34:00.001+08:00

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.

Open letter to Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohammad

2008-08-28T11:58:00.003+08:00

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.

Basic Human Rights Standards for Law Enforcement Officials

2008-08-22T17:38:00.002+08:00

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

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

2008-08-22T17:13:00.004+08:00

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??

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE MALAYSIAN MALAY

2008-08-14T14:34:00.002+08:00

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

Unruly, uncivilised UiTM Students

2008-08-13T12:12:00.000+08:00

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.

YB Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim will be in High Court on 10th Sept.

2008-08-07T15:50:00.000+08:00

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.

Permatang Pauh Umno wants its chief as candidate

2008-08-07T11:56:00.000+08:00

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.

Racist, bastard and bloody bitch Teacher

2008-08-05T16:26:00.000+08:00

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.

Special Lesson For BN Representatives on Democracy

2008-07-26T09:43:00.000+08:00

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.

INTERNAL SECURITY ACT ( ISA )

2008-07-21T16:24:00.000+08:00

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

MORE ON DNA

2008-07-21T15:48:00.000+08:00

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.

The truth will Prevail

2008-07-21T15:32:00.000+08:00

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.

The history repeating in Malaysia

2008-07-21T15:09:00.000+08:00

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.

2008-07-11T11:37:00.000+08:00

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.

UMNO and the Government ?

2008-05-19T13:44:00.000+08:00

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!!

2008-05-19T13:25:00.000+08:00

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?

2008-05-19T11:19:00.000+08:00

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!!!

Ketuanan Rakyat!!

2008-05-19T10:42:00.000+08:00

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.

Excessive and unnecessary use of Public Fund!!

2008-05-15T15:23:00.000+08:00

Putrajaya, what is the relevant when some the rakyat can't even get proper daily meal. Public fund was used lavishly to fullfil the so called leader of the country's own need. Why should we spent so much money to build up such a glory filled capital city when the poor Dusun people in Kg. Lumagar can afford only tapioca for lunch. Is the country meant for the rakyat or for the elected representatives. These so called leaders are behaving in moronic way in Parliament house. And all they deserve is nice capital city called Putrajaya. The entire sytem of Malaysian government should be reorganised and every cent spent should be accounted for. A special committe to oversea the public fund spending should be formed independantly and members should be the public who is actually paying the salary of the so called leaders of the country. Only then we can see the accountable and transparent. For the time being, we are still in the primitive level in terms of running the country. Buck up!!!

Double standard Education system

2008-05-14T10:08:00.000+08:00

It is really sad story that the government under the pretext of Meritocracy, imposing double standard in selecting students for overseas renown universities. It was reported not long ago that the students with 9As will be offerred PSD scholarship for education at the choice of the students in overseas universities. But things are nota s promised. It was merely a political speech and promise but irresponsible minister of officers of higher strata. Where is the justice? Where is the equality? where is the meritocracy policy? In Malaysia things will be only in papers and promises by these political jargons are words written on the surface of water which will disappear instantly.

For that matter, selection of students into local varsities does not follow the real meritocracy system as they always claimed.A Non-Bumiputera student who has gone through the tough Form 6 education will be put to compete with a bumiputera student who is from Matriculation. In Matriculation course, the student will be taught by the same teacher who set the exams question and mark his performance. Whereas in Form 6, teacher X will teach him, Mr.Y will set the questio and Mr.Z will mark his papers. And worse thing is the Majlis Peperiksaan Malaysia will determine the grades of the students according to the graph. To make things worse, the MPM members are mostly or shall I say 100% are Bumiputera employees. will there be justice in the system?

My conclusion is the entire education system in Malaysia should be revamp and don't let the douyble standard concept invade into the education system. It is bad for country and future generation. Think carefully!!

Loyalty to King and Country.

2008-05-13T15:54:00.000+08:00

To all the rakyat, always remember Rukunegara and we will not go wrong. The recent controversy with regards to YB Karpal Singh's statement that he shows disrespect to the Perak Royalty and also the entire cMonarch System of Malaysia. Something really smell fishy somewhere. The same UMNO guys including Pak Lah and AG who condenmed the appointment of Terengganu MB and Perlis MB were not subjected for sedition and treason at all. The learned AG, who is supposed to refrained from political discussion put his brainless head to comment some nonsensical input into the politically motivated and charged discussion. Aren't he aware of the SeditionAct and Treason? My dear rakyat, please always aware that the current political situation will confuse everyone of you. Be rational and alert always.

Malaysia for Malaysian!!

2008-05-13T15:06:00.000+08:00

With the current post Election Tsunami, those politicians who lost the election are jobless and as they always lived in public glory, they prefer to be blogger. One of the classical example is Saudara Khir Toyo. He was anti-blogger once upon a time but he is a blogger himself now. This is typical chameleon attitute of a politician; transforming the self according to situation and place.

I will be happy if these guys could do good things to the rakyat by being blogger. Unfortunately, they are trying to show their skin colour as politician while being a blogger. But they forget to understand that the rakyat is not stupid anymore. The voted selflessly crossing the religious, ethnicity and racial border to be known only as Malaysian. I should congratulate our Rakyat for being so wise. Syabas!! To all of you. The politicians under the pretext of boggers trying very hard to blow the racial fire and we the rakyat must aware the consequences of carried away with their ulterior motives. At the end of the day they will use the concept of Divide and Rule which is the remnant of the Colonialization Era to manage us. One thing for sure; they will fail tremendously. To my Muslim and Non-muslim friends, be one and always one. After all, all of us share the same ancestors, Adam and Eve. Lets unite and strive for the betterment of our motherland, Malaysia. MALAYSIA BOLEH !!!