The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi returned from the Kampala Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) and threatened to use the nefarious law, the Internal Security Act (ISA), against peaceful demonstrators — marking a new nadir of the four-year broken pledges by the Abdullah premiership on democracy, human rights, accountability, incorruptibility and preparedness to hear the truth from the people.
Yesterday, Aljazeera reported the controversy in Japan over the Education Ministry’s latest effort to revise school history textbooks on one of the most notorious wartime incidents in Japan, where the Japanese military ordered and sometimes forced the islanders to commit suicide during the US invasion of Okinawa in the closing days of the second world war. There was a peaceful demonstration of more than 100,000 people in Okinawa to protest against the Japanese Education Ministry’s instruction to textbook publishers to edit out all references to the military’s role in the mass suicides.
Abdullah wants Malaysians to have “First-World Infrastructure, First-World Mentality” and not “First-World Infrastructure, Third-World Mentality” and it is time for the government to set the example of such “First-World Mentality” and mindset by accepting the important role of peaceful demonstrations in a first-world developed nation like Japan, United Kingdom, Australia and United States for their citizenry to exercise their democratic rights on freedom of expression and assembly.
What chance and hope of Malaysia becoming a nation with “First-World Mentality” when the government is the worst culprit of having “Third-World” and even “Fourth-World” mindsets, as in threatening to invoke the notorious Internal Security Act?
Many have asked whether mass ISA arrests like the infamous Operation Lalang in 1987, which led to major assaults on the independence and integrity of the judiciary, the emasculation of press freedom and the suppression of a vibrant civil society, is possible under Abdullah’s premiership.
With Abdullah’s threat to use the ISA yesterday, such a scenario now appears more and more likely – and I call on Abdullah to make clear his real stand on democracy, human rights, accountability, incorruptibility and preparedness to hear the truth from the people.
DAP Deputy Secretary-General and MP for Bukit Mertajam, Chong Eng and I were at the Selayang magistrate’s court this morning where some 50 people who had been detained at the Batu Caves Temple on Sunday’s Hindraf demonstration and had been released on bail were waiting to be charged for an illegal assembly.
I met many of them and found that they are mostly respectable and law-abiding Malaysian citizens, business people, technicians, contractors, clerks and even executive and management officers, a group of people who cannot be further from the term “penyangak” used by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz yesterday.
Referring to the Hindraf demonstration, Nazri said:
“Some 20,000 penyangak (crooks) who participated in the rally would not jeopardise our viewpoint of the entire community.”
I am shocked and saddened by Nazri’s language, condemning the 30,000 decent and respectable people who came from all over the country to peacefully and collectively express their cry of desperation for justice at the long-standing neglect and discrimination of their rights as Malaysian citizens.
Who is a penyangak? Kamus Dewan defines “penyangak” as “pencuri, penjahat”.
Does the MIC President, Datuk Seri Samy Vellu and all MIC members of the administration, whether Deputy Minister, Parliamentary Secretary, MP or Senator, agree with Nazri that the 30,000 people who turned up for the Hindraf demonstration on Sunday are crooks and rogues, and that the Hindraf rally was a “gathering of crooks”?
Nazri should apologise unconditionally for this insult, not only to the 30,000 people at the Hindraf demonstration but also to the entire Indian community and Malaysian nation. Samy Vellu and the entire MIC team in the administration should insist that Nazri withdraw the term and apologise for it without any qualification whatsoever.
#1 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 29 November 2007 - 2:08 am
Authentication?? They cannot even authenticate the Lingam Tape! But that is because they don’t want to.
#2 by Godfather on Thursday, 29 November 2007 - 2:11 am
They don’t know the meaning of the word “authenticate”.
#3 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 29 November 2007 - 2:22 am
EARNEST can help with the dictionary definition and should sit on the panel.
#4 by EARNEST on Thursday, 29 November 2007 - 2:33 am
We can all scream and shout and pull our hair out (for those who still have them) and stomp until the cows come home but it’s not gonna work unless Article 10 of the Federal Constitution is amended. The cows are never gonna come home! — undegrad2
Correction:
There is nothing wrong with Article 10 of the Federal Constitution. There is something wrong with Section 27 of the Police Act.
#5 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 29 November 2007 - 2:55 am
EARNEST,
If you were a student of constitutional law, like Jeffrey is, you’d know that many of the Articles especially those pertaining to our ‘fundamental liberties’ are heavily qualified. Article 10 is just one of many. You gotta read the entire Article 10 – and not just sub-clause 1 of the Article. I don’t have a copy of the Constitution with me right now.
#6 by EARNEST on Thursday, 29 November 2007 - 2:59 am
Undegrad2,
You need to have greater courage and a stronger sense of conviction in effecting changes for the better. You must be prepared to suffer to a certain extent. You may need to be prepared to die for your cause. Try to emulate Godfather and historical revolutionaries.
#7 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 29 November 2007 - 3:04 am
It has nothing to do with courage.
I’m just giving my opinion on the law and your comment that Sec 27 of the Police is null and void because it contravenes the supreme law of our land which is the Federal Constitution of 1957.
I agree with you that in the event of a conflict between subsidiary legislation and the Federal Constitution of 1957 which is the supreme law of the land, then the latter prevails – and the former to the extent that it is in conflict, would not only be voidable but void.
#8 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 29 November 2007 - 3:06 am
Do you think the Constitution is supreme or Parliament?
#9 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 29 November 2007 - 3:09 am
“You may need to be prepared to die for your cause. Try to emulate Godfather and historical revolutionaries.” EARNEST
What good is a dead terrorist?
Godfather is buy terrorizing posters with his preoccupation with playing ball and refusing to go to sleep.
#10 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 29 November 2007 - 3:09 am
ooops busy not buy
#11 by EARNEST on Thursday, 29 November 2007 - 3:22 am
Just google…
Article 10 of the Constitution of Malaysia guarantees Malaysian citizens the right to …..freedom of assembly… Unlike comparable provisions in constitutional law such as the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article 10 entitles citizens to such freedoms as are not restricted by the government, instead of absolutely guaranteeing those freedoms.
• (b) all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and
without arms;
[ • Parliament may by law impose â€â€
• (b) on the right conferred by paragraph (b) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, or public order; ] This part may be deleted soon. Read above.
That is all to it, regarding qualifications.
#12 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 29 November 2007 - 4:06 am
EARNEST,
What do think this phrase mean
” such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security…or public order?
#13 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 29 November 2007 - 4:15 am
Compare Articles in our Federal Constitution relating to ‘fundamental liberties” to the ambit of the First Amendment of the U.S> Constitution which reads
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
#14 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 29 November 2007 - 4:37 am
Look no further than Wikipedia on the subject
“Article 10 is a key provision of Part II of the Constitution, and has been regarded as “of paramount importance” by the judicial community in Malaysia. However, it has been argued that the rights of Part II, in particular Article 10, “have been so heavily qualified by other parts of the Constitution, for example, Part XI in relation to special and emergency powers, and the permanent state of emergency that has existed since 1969, that much of [the Constitution's] high principles are lost.”[5]“
#15 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 29 November 2007 - 4:45 am
Legislation like the Sedition Act, Printing Presses Act, Police Act, Internal Security Act etc are good law. They are not null and void for having contravened provisions within our Federal Constitution of 1957.
If the Sedition Act , for example, is null and void ultra vires the Constitution YB Kit’s counsel would have filed for the writ of habeas corpus in the mid 80s – since his detention under a law which contravenes the Constitution is null and void.
Hope that clarifies.
#16 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 29 November 2007 - 4:51 am
Please do not even begin to compare to the U.S. Constitution.
In the case of the United States, the U.S. Congress cannot even begin to pass such laws to restrict religion, free expression and free press and assembly: First Amendment.
#17 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 29 November 2007 - 5:07 am
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution starts with the words “Congress shall make no law…” whereas our Article 10 starts with the words “(1) Subject to Clauses (2), (3) and (4)..”
What does that tell us??
#18 by Godfather on Thursday, 29 November 2007 - 7:44 am
The Americans are not very good in English ??
#19 by Ms. Chindian on Thursday, 29 November 2007 - 10:36 am
I
S imply
A rrest
not Internal Security Act
#20 by ALtPJK on Thursday, 29 November 2007 - 12:30 pm
Undergrad2,
regarding your post of November 29th, 2007 at 03: 06.00 above -
“Do you think the Constitution is supreme or Parliament?”
At this point in time, the fact that the Constitution had been amended at least 600 times over the last 50 years is testament to the validity of your question. It is well known that constitutional scholars had said “there is no doubt the spirit of the original document has been diluted and… the current Constitution bears only a superficial resemblance to its original model”.
Are there any other Commonwealth countries, deriving their Constitutions from the wisdom of constitutional experts of the entire British Commonwealth, that have faced a similar necessity to make such numerous amendments? I wonder!
Possibly as a result of Article 159 and various other ‘open’ Articles , numerous draconian Acts have come to existence thanks to the long line of BN administrations who, having enjoyed successive 2/3 majority, were either opportunistic or sufficiently brazen to ram the amendments through Parliament.
Are there still anymore ‘check and balance’ mechanisms in the Constitution left ‘untweaked’?
If there aren’t anymore and at the rate events are unfolding, with AAB now in between a rock and a hard place and threatening to use what many bloggers have described as ‘unthinkable’, we may well witness the last vestiges of whatever liberties initially guaranteed in the 1957 Constitution coming to its undeserved and premature best before date. In which case then, we the wary (and I mean only the wary) rakyat will be in between a rock and a hard place (seems to be a popular catch-phrase now, yeah?). Sadly then, your question may no longer be a question….
#21 by Man_of_Honour on Thursday, 29 November 2007 - 5:56 pm
It seems, UMNO (U Must Not Object) government are getting more and more arrogant. Even Samy also scared of them. Ka Ting? Where is Ka Ting? Ha? Ha? Now AAB want to use ISA to silence those who Object! See? U Must Not Object!
Ministers are telling news overseas like BBC, CNN and Al Jazzera that malaysia is a democratic country! That government allow people to voice out their views… AAB, ZAM, Syed Hamid all said that when interviewed. I just wonder if they have brain? Logically, they have. But never did they use it!
Like Digi’s motto : :Time To Change. Opposition=Always the smarter choice.
#22 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 29 November 2007 - 9:00 pm
“It is well known that constitutional scholars had said “there is no doubt the spirit of the original document has been diluted and… the current Constitution bears only a superficial resemblance to its original modelâ€Â. ALtPJK
The current Federal Constitution 1957 is a ghost of its former self. Even the spirit has left it.
#23 by EARNEST on Friday, 30 November 2007 - 2:36 am
Undergrad2,
It is my conviction that among other reasons a law exists because it helps society to function more smoothly. Laws are made for people and not the other way round.
Section 27 of the Police Act requiring police permit in order for a rally to be considered legal originated from the May13 incident, which according to declassified information from London was a coup against Tunku’s aristocracy by Malay capitalists. It was a a “short term expediency” which contributed to our “long term misery” — borrowed from limkamput. Now, 38 years later, we keenly feel that it has not helped society to function more smoothly. Therefore it is my conviction that there is no reason for its existence, even if my argument that since it contravenes the constitution, it is null and void may appear unsound to some of you.
By the way, my argument is strictly confined to the purpose of the police permit under section 27 — and should not be extrapolated to include the whole police Act, Sedition Act, Printing Presses Act, Internal Security Act — as to why I am not worried about whether a rally is legal or otherwise if police permit is not granted arbitrarily. Police arrests and court sentences do not change my conviction. We must dare to defend our constitutional rights.
#24 by akarmalaysian on Friday, 30 November 2007 - 3:14 am
hahahaha…look whos calling who a crook…damn…nazri ur just a big fart in UMNO…and probably one of the biggest and dumbest crook among others.i wonder whn this idiot will ever say the right things.just the kind of dumbass minister we need in this government.
#25 by akarmalaysian on Friday, 30 November 2007 - 3:25 am
p/s: our dear mr PM…if ur talking abt 1st world mentality to us malaysians…we suggest u take a good look at ur son in law 1st b4 u talk abt “mentality” just to save ur “muka” or maybe u dun knw wats the difference whn one acts worse than a monkey.
#26 by EARNEST on Friday, 30 November 2007 - 3:56 am
EARNEST can help with the dictionary definition and should sit on the panel. — Undergrad2
If I were to sit on the RCI panel, I would engage the services of some of you, including Cambridge brat, Jeffrey, limkamput, undergrad2, DarkHorse, Godfather, etc., etc.
Besides helping with dictionary definition, we will include entrenching our rights to a fair trial as the most important term of reference.
Contrary to what you think, there are such things as biased judges, compromised judges and corrupted judges. Judges are not above criticisms, as postulated by Lord Rusell as follows:
- the judgment of Lord Russell of Killowen, CJ in the Queen v. Gray [1900] 2 QB 36, 40 as follows:
“Judges and Courts are alike open to criticism, and if reasonable argument or expostulation is offered against any judicial act as contrary to law or the public good, no Court could or would treat that as contempt of Court.â€Â
As proof, read below a stinging remark by a Federal Court Judge against a biased High Court Judge who did not bother to base his judgment on evidence:
START:
John Lee vs Henry Wong [1980] Part 3 Case 11 [FCM], p. 119, MT Chang FJ held:
26. The learned trial judge on the evidence before him came to the conclusion that John Lee “recklessly (and) without an honest belief in the truth, with the intention of insulting the Plaintiff and in publishing those Words, was actuated by malice.†With respect, the learned trial judge had not referred to the evidence. Otherwise, he could have only come to an opposite finding that not only had John Lee an honest belief in the truth of what he said, he also had the evidence before him for it. And he had also used words that in the context could only be regarded as more temperate than the action of the respondent deserved.
END:
If the RCI include “Entrenching our rights to a fair trial” in the light of the above possibility as a term of reference, hopefully recommendations could be made to prevent the above history from repeating itself, otherwise the above scenario will go on, and on. You, your relatives or your friends may be the next victims.
Your written submissions do not include any documentary evidence included in your affidavits filed in court. If a biased judge does not bother to look at your evidence and merely bases his/her judgment on your oral and written submissions, the above scenario may happen.
Do not assume that there is no rot in the judiciary, and take for granted that you will be given a fair trial, at the session court or high court level. Usually, the Appeal courts and Federal Courts are fairer for obvious reasons. But, do not be too optimistic about the final outcome. If the lower court judges refuse to give you their written grounds for judgment, you could be waiting until you die for the appeal process. Your documents filed in court can go missing and can be tampered by unknown persons paid by your opponents. This had been highlighted in the NST on 27.3.2007. This may happen to you if your opponents in court have connections and/or are rich and powerful.
Some judges do not give a damn to Article 7 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, as follows:
Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 provides:
“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.â€Â
Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 provides:
“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.”
#27 by DAPHNE on Friday, 30 November 2007 - 10:53 am
What EARNEST said makes sense, and I support him for what he said.
#28 by Godamn Singh on Friday, 30 November 2007 - 7:57 pm
Earnest!
You don’t know what you’re talking about – maybe age is finally catching up! Are you surfing the net from an old folks home?? They really ought to consider putting some controls like blocking access to the old and mentally disabled.
#29 by ngahc on Saturday, 1 December 2007 - 11:51 am
ISA should be equally apply to the UMNO general assembly and the famous son-in-laws..No one is above the laws!
#30 by EARNEST on Saturday, 1 December 2007 - 12:55 pm
Godamn Singh,
Be serious. The integrity of the judiciary is a very important and urgent matter.
Please grow up quickly, and help us restore the integrity of our judiciary. Stop the rot in the judiciary, if not for yourself, at least for our children’s sake.
Do not oppose for the sake of opposing me. Okay, I withdraw what I said earlier that you could be a 10 year old kid. I am sorry if I have offended you.
BTW, how old are you? I am curious because sometimes you appeared to be 10 years-old, sometimes 50 years-old, basing on what you wrote.