The invocation of the Internal Security Act (ISA) to arrest five Hindraf leaders is most deplorable and marks another violation of the pledge by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to promote democracy, uphold human rights and defend the rule of law.
This is because the infamous detention-without-trial Internal Security Act is the very antithesis of the rule of law.
The five detained under the ISA are P. Uthayakumar, M Manoharan, R Kenghadharan, V Ganabatirau and T Vasanthakumar.
If the government has clear and convincing evidence that the five had committed grave offences, they should be charged in court allowing them an open trial and an opportunity to defend themselves instead of being incarcerated under a regime where proof is not necessary at all.
The return of the ISA is another regression of Malaysia to the dark era of human rights violations which can only tarnish the country’s international reputation and image.
#1 by DarkHorse on Sunday, 16 December 2007 - 11:25 pm
“As a Malay leader put it clearly†Jahat sangatkah orang Melayu sampai dituduh melakukan pembunuhan etnik. Jahat sangatkah orang Melayu kalau sekolah aliran Cina dan India masih menerima sumbangan Kerajaan , sesuatu yang tiada bandingan dalam dunia ini— Shamshul Anuar.
Translated it reads:
Are the Malays that evil as to be accused of the horrific crime of ethnic cleansing? Are the Malays that ‘bad’ as to allow Chinese and Tamil Schools to continue to receive government funding – something that has no comparison anywhere else in the world?
This is the sort of strong emotional response that HINDRAF led by their leaders who have since been detained under the ISA, has drawn from among moderate Malays and followers of UMNO. Never the extremists among them. The appeal to emotions is so strong though simply worded, that we would do best not to ignore it. The Malays being a subservient race that has seen worse times not too long ago are not about to lose control! That appears to be the message.
I blame the leaders of HINDRAF (as opposed to their followers) for seeking the racial route, not caring for the consequences to the families of demonstrators caught in the ‘game of chicken’ that they as leaders chose to play with this UMNO led government – a government which left on its own is more likely to implode rather than explode.
Though the issue is racial, one wonders if they should have split ranks from the other races and hold a public rally of their own in the face of strong police warnings after two earlier rallies have torn open wounds which were still raw. Or did their leaders smell blood in the water? I don’t think Kit today a veteran politician that he is, would have gone ahead with the rally with or without police permit. The younger Kit in the late 60s probably would.
HINDRAF in short has given the BN government the excuse they are looking for. I doubt if there would have been this many arrests from among BERSIH supporters had there been no HINDRAF.
It was the HINDRAF leaders who appealed to international opinion through their cries of ethnic cleansing by a government who is obviously guilty of ignoring their demands for fair treatment and reasonable opportunities in the market place.
It was the leaders of HINDRAF who let the genie out of the bottle.
#2 by Edchin on Sunday, 16 December 2007 - 11:45 pm
Did anyone tell you that the land on which the Church of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Puchong previously held freehold status has been changed to 60-year lease? Who knows when this sleight of hand took place!
#3 by limkamput on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 12:24 am
shamshul anuar,
let me just tell you this: for the first time the government woke up and took notice of what is happening to other races in this country. I think we all can’t deny this. It does not matter whether some extreme words were used by HINDRAF or otherwise. We have been whispering for 50 years now through MIC and other so called BN component parties and see what we get. Malaysia was and is meant to be a multiracial, multi-religious, cosmopolitan and dynamic country. Look at us today. What has it become? I guess it is too sensitive for me to say but I think many here know what it is. Umno has always thought that they are magnanimous and caring to the needs of other races. But I think they are blind to institutionalised racism.
#4 by limkamput on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 2:00 am
You talk so eloquently about Malays voting other races into Parliament and State Assemblies. But the motive was never multi-racism. You vote other races because it serves Malay interest well – to continue having complete hegemony in this country while at the same time giving you a multiracial face. Today, Indian Malaysians are fighting for food on the table or roof over their head. Once they attain that, they will be like Chinese Malaysians. But, do you know the grievances of Chinese Malaysians? The problem of Chinese Malaysians is not because they do not have food or roof. The problem is because they cannot achieve their full potential and they have no opportunity to contribute to the betterment of Malaysia.
All important Cabinet posts with substantive power are held by Malays. All (I think all) CEOs of important GLCs and statutory bodies are held by Malays. All Secretaries General and Heads of departments of important ministries and agencies are held by Malays. None of the Vice Chancellor in Public Universities is held by non-Malays. Then what about the Police, the Judiciary, the municipalities, the districts, the armed forces, ACA, and now increasingly the teaching profession. Of course it is easy to say the Non Malays are not interested in the public service. This is just a convenient argument. But let me come back to you later on this. Just to give you some idea how important public service is: one or two large GLCs’ profits are as big as the profits of all companies listed in Bursa Malaysia. This country is rich beyond belief, but where do all the monies go?
Now, since the advent of NEP, who actually were holding positions of power and influence in this country? I am sure all can agree that it is the Malays. Now if after almost 40 years of NEP and there is little success to show (at least that is what you people claim and that is why you need another 100 years may be), who do you want to blame? Ah, may be you want to blame the non-Malays again for sabotaging and for bribing Government official. Well, my argument is that between the receivers and givers, the receivers always have more power. If there are Non-Malays who want to bribe, we must have Malays who are ever willing to receive and in the process the NEP is sacrificed.
Since NEP under the care of Malays has achieved only limited success, can we not let the Non-Malays manage the policy for a period of time? Let us manage important Ministries such as Finance, Trade, EPU, the GLCs, the Judiciary, the municipalities, ACA, and the Audit Department. Since you Malays are concerned with political power, you may retain the police and the armed forces under your care. Let the Malays set the KPIs (key performance indicators) including specific NEP targets. Let the Non-Malays deliver for you the targets you have set. How about it? I am thinking aloud, I am not talking bulls.
#5 by lakshy on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 5:50 am
Guys,
Shamsul has selective attention. May be a problem of the malays. Many pertinent points raised by others are ignored while he goes on and on ad nauseum on selected points.
When he says bn has been fair, he goes by his own standards as he, like umno, considers non-malays as johnny-come-latelys. He does not see non-malays as entitled to equal rights. So whatever little scraps thrown at the non-malays are seen as largesse.
He also does not and and cannot see that pri-bumis such as the kadazan, bidayuh, iban etc have less than the malays, and cannot appreciate the fact that bn/umno have deprived many of them of their rights.
What the rally has done is to wake bn/umno from its stupor. More marginalised groups are going to claim their rights.
But do you really see what is behind all of this? It’s the call of globalisation. While the rakyat can see it coming (heck its alrady here!), some of the people in power, are still in a state of denial. And they can remain in power because of the likes of people like shamsul.
Where is our Multimedia Supercorrridor in comparison to Australia, Korea, etc? We are struggling to deliver broadband at 256k when they deliver 4-8MB to homes. Whats our penetration rate? Do you know that some towns in China have upto 50% of its population using the net? When did China open up?
Do you know the kinds of knowledge work CHina and India have started taking? And we were the ones to first launch the MSC of course, with loads of rakyats money!
#6 by lakshy on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 7:40 am
It is a matter of definition. Despite definitions being given here, some are still unable to or refuse to understand.
Fine lets take the word bumiputra as an example. The root words come from 2 sanskrit words, bumi and putra. They mean Earth/Soil and Son. Hence bumiputra is taken to mean sons of the earth/soil. So tell me who is a bumiputra? The term bumiputra is not defined in the constitution….did you guys know that?
Although Malay is defined, bumiputra was a phrase that was coined much later by TDI. And of course then we had the indigeneous peoples of Sarawak/Sabah coining the phrase pri-bumi! Interesting isn’t it? That means they predate the bumiputras. So what then is the definition of a bumiputra?
Couldn’t one say that all peoples born in Malaysia are Sons of the Soil? It’s a matter of definition isn’t it?
Now the irony is that a person coming from Indonesia can eventually have more rights than a person born here or even several generations born here. So now tell me how did he become a bumiputra? It all goes back to the definition and interpretation.
Now go figure.
#7 by lakshy on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 7:43 am
“There is a huge political vacuum now waiting to be filled. There is a real role today for a movement that could advance the agenda of how we globalize—not whether we globalize. The best place such a movement could start is rural India.
“Both the Congress and its left allies would be risking India’s future if they draw the wrong conclusions from this [2004] election,’ Pratap Bhanu Mehta, who heads the Center for Policy Research in Delhi, wrote in The Hindu newspaper. “This is not a revolt against the market, it is a protest against the state; this is not resentment against the gains of liberalization, but a call for the state to put its house in order through even more reform…The revolt against holders of power is not a revolt of the poor against the rich: ordinary people are far less prone to resent other people’s success than intellectuals suppose. It is rather an expression of the fact that the reform of the state has not gone far enough.â€
This is why the most important forces fighting poverty in India today, in my view, are those NGO’s fighting for better local governance, using the Internet and other modern tools of the flat world to put a spotlight on corruption, mismanagement and tax avoidance. The most important, effective, and meaningful populists in the world today are not those handing out money. They are those with an agenda to drive reform retail at the local level in their countries – to make it easier for the little men and women to register their land, even if they are squatters; to start a new business, no matter how small; and to get minimal justice from the legal system. Modern populism, to be effective and meaningful, should be about reform retail – making globalization workable, sustainable, and fair for more people by improving their local governance, so that the money ear-marked for the poor actually gets to them and so that their natural entrepreneurship can get unlocked. It is through local government that people plug into the system and get to enjoy the benefits of the flattening rather than just observe them.”
Taken from Thomas Friedman’s “The World is Flat”, pp 551
#8 by DarkHorse on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 7:50 am
My mother-in-law is an Indian of Portuguese descent (several generation remote) and she is classified as ‘bumiputra’ and gets to enjoy the ‘favoured class’ treatment when she applies for bumiputra allocated shares.
#9 by burn on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 8:07 am
feel sorry for one guy, who still like to compare about bangsa.
even god himself will tell him that we are all the same. no one is above each other, but yet one bangsa still think they are above all… luckily, dia tak kata, dunia ni kita punya, sure jahanam terus!
#10 by dawsheng on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 8:12 am
Shamsul, we all know why you are here trying to justify the use of ISA on the Hindraf 5. Whether you are sent here by your political master or you do it out of own political beliefs, you will be naive to think the readers here will agree with your arguments, may I add all the point you raised here were in fact known but discarded by right thinking Malaysians here. You gotta be just putting in words here if you know what I mean, we need facts and follow by actions. Yes, you or your political master must have realized how important it is to justify Hindraf 5 arrest, and you choose to come in here knowing this blog has an international audiences, (except for some kiddy arguments here) most of the comments here is taken seriously by all readers, but the point is, this blog has considerable influences and impacts that will shape public and international opinions about the political reality in Malaysia, you know that and that’s why you came in trying to justify the used of ISA, and when that failed to convinced us you attacked Lim Kit Siang as outdated politician? Is that all you can do? Why don’t you go back to where you belong and rot there, if there’s anything you can do to help is speak against the abusive and corrupt regime of Abdullah, but clearly you are part of it.
#11 by dawsheng on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 8:28 am
Who is the silent majority Shamsul? What are they? Since when silent can be take as an agreement?
#12 by undergrad2 on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 9:16 am
Dawsheng,
Don’t let yourself be drawn into behaving like those BN MPs in Parliament who would try to shout down Kit every time he stands up to exercise his freedom of speech!
On the contrary this political blog though opposition in nature needs the likes of Shamshul who shows courage here by dropping by to post his comments knowing that his opinion on the issues would attract the wrath of most of the members here – not Members of Parliament or MPs but members of Kit’s Blog or MKBs.
Let us not behave like dogs in the manger.
Diversity of opinions, if for no other reason but for its diversity, should be welcome so long as they are made with respect to the others who may not share the same opinion.
#13 by lakshy on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 9:19 am
The temples in Puchong and elsewhere as well as the Churches are built by money from the believers, not from gomen money which is my and your taxed income!
Look I pay taxes, and it pays for construction of mosques, but not temples? Is that justified? Heck it pays the salaries of the muftis who condemn other races publicly (perak mufti). Chee-sin!
I pay to the temples, but I dont get tax deduction for it! And do you know that when we pay taxes and our money which is earned working in Malaysia to develop malaysia further and after it is taxed and we pay donations for the temples we get no tax rebate? Do you know that? Why is it different for the malays/muslims?
For muslims whatever zakat you pay is deducted from your payable tax. So whose money is used more for the admin of the country?
I think the kadazans/ibans/bidayuh etc should take up this issue. Why dont they get public/gomen aid to build their places of worship? I mean not the mosques, I mean for their other beliefs! They are bumiputra in the true sense of the word. Why the difference in treatment for this class of bumiputra? Or are there classes of bumiputra? Different rights for different classes of bumiputra?
Did you know that for Sarawak, a person for whom both his/her parents are indegenous natives of Sarawak bumiputra is one whose parents are both
#14 by lakshy on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 9:25 am
The temples in Puchong and elsewhere as well as the Churches are built by money from the believers, not from gomen money which is my and your taxed income! It is really pathetic to thump ones chest and claim to be fair when a church or temple is being built to say the gomen is fair. On the other hand you have temples being torn down. Excuse me, at best the gomen only provides alternative site to build a temple. It takes money to rebuild a temple from the ground. Where is this money coming from? there is no compensation paid for the rebuilding so it will take time to generate enough funds to build a temple on an alternative site. kapish?
Look I pay taxes, and it pays for construction of mosques, but not temples? Is that justified? Heck it pays the salaries of the muftis who condemn other races publicly (e.g. perak mufti). Chee-sin!
I pay to the temples, but I dont get tax deduction for it! Do you know that when we pay taxes and our money which is earned working in Malaysia to develop malaysia further and after it is taxed and we pay donations for the temples we get no tax rebate? Do you know that? Why is it different for the malays/muslims?
For muslims whatever zakat you pay is deducted from your payable tax. So whose money is used more for the admin of the country?
I think the kadazans/ibans/bidayuh etc should take up this issue. Why dont they get public/gomen aid to build their places of worship? I mean not the mosques, I mean for their other beliefs! They are bumiputra in the true sense of the word. Why the difference in treatment for this class of bumiputra? Or are there many sub-classes of bumiputra? Different rights for different classes of bumiputra?
Did you know that for Sarawak, only a person for whom both his/her parents are indegenous natives of Sarawak is classified a Bumiputra. There is no reference to religion. So a Malay who goes to Sarawak from West malaysia, would not qualify for bumiputra rights in Sarawak? One wonders…
#15 by lakshy on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 9:43 am
LIncoln’s Great speech at Gettysberg comes to mind:-
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
#16 by ktteokt on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 9:46 am
Claiming democracy and then committing what they have committed is equivalent to slapping their own face in front of the whole world.
#17 by lakshy on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 10:09 am
When you have control of 92% of Parliament can it be democratic?
I guess it can be if the MP is allowed to vote according to his beliefs and his conscience? But we have all seen what happened in our Parliament to Shahrir who was once the BBC chairman when he supported the opposition motion. or What happened to Sothi when he spoke up against the de-recognition of some Russian Medical Uni?
So where are the rights of the minority or even the majority protected in such a situation? Only the rights of the MP’s from bn and the big guns are protected.
Why do I say this? What happened to Jasin MP and his close one eye? What happened when he showed that his vandetta against teh Customs dept was because he did not get the Merc Benz of his choice? I for one dont even know the difference between the Mercs.
What happened to the Bocor MP’s?
What about the food for aid scam that involves people in high office?
What about the supply of centrifuge parts to a libyan company?
Why no query about misuse of funds for the PKFTZ?
Why no query about purchase of weapons/arms through a small company?
So are the majority’s interests being protected when we have a 92% majority? 2/3rds would be too much as they can amend any law and get away with crime. No government must be given more than 55%. There must be proper checks and balances so that a democracy can work for the rakyat.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely!
#18 by DarkHorse on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 10:30 am
“Look I pay taxes, and it pays for construction of mosques, but not temples? Is that justified?â€
The way to seek ‘change’ cannot be through our courts but the polls. Why? Because the grievances expressed fail to raise any constitutional issues.
For as long as Islam is the “official religion of the federation’ (and no other religion is mentioned) and for as long as there are Articles like 12 (2) mosques will continue to receive government funding. No such funding as referred by you is provided for under the Constitution. That is not all. For as long as there are Articles like Article 153 there will continue be a constitutional basis for NEP type policies.
The solution? The solution would be to change the government through the electoral process and put another party in control of Parliament – not just majority control but with two-thirds majority control – and then amend the Federal Constitution of 1957 to delete the offending provisions.
The best solution, and the only solution in my opinion, is to make our Constitution completely secular and separate church (read: mosque) from state.
Can we do that?
#19 by DarkHorse on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 10:33 am
“When you have control of 92% of Parliament can it be democratic?”
Some people refer to democracy as the tyranny of the majority over the minority.
#20 by lakshy on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 11:08 am
Look back at the intention behind the clauses:- (Taken from Wiki)-
The Reid Commission reported that Tunku Abdul Rahman and the Malay Rulers had asked that “in an independent Malaya all nationals should be accorded equal rights, privileges and opportunities and there must not be discrimination on grounds of race and creed.” At that time, Tunku Abdul Rahman was the leader of the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), which led the Alliance coalition. Eventually the Alliance would become the Barisan Nasional and Tunku Abdul Rahman later became the first Prime Minister of Malaysia. When succeeding to the UMNO Presidency, Tunku had expressed doubts about the loyalty of the non-Malays to Malaya, and as a result, insisted that this be settled before they be granted citizenship. However, he also stated that “For those who love and feel they owe undivided loyalty to this country, we will welcome them as Malayans. They must truly be Malayans, and they will have the same rights and privileges as the Malays.”[3]
The Commission found the existing privileges accorded to the Malays included the allocation of extensive Malay land reservations. In addition, the Commission discovered quotas for admission to the public services with a general rule that “not more than one-quarter of new entrants [to a particular service] should be non-Malays.” Operation quotas existed in regard to the issuing of permits or licences for the operation of certain businesses “chiefly concerned with road haulage and passenger vehicles for hire.” In addition, there existed “scholarships, bursaries and other forms of aid for educational purpose” where preference was given to Malays.[2]
Although the Commission reported it did not find opposition to the continuance of the existing privileges for a certain length of time, it stated that “there was great opposition in some quarters to any increase of the present preferences and to their being continued for any prolonged period.” The Commission recommended that the existing privileges should be continued as the “Malays would be at a serious and unfair disadvantage compared with other communities if they were suddenly withdrawn.” However, “in due course the present preferences should be reduced and should ultimately cease.” The Commission suggested that these provisions be revisited in 15 years, and that a report should be presented to the appropriate legislature (currently the Parliament of Malaysia) and that the “legislature should then determine either to retain or to reduce any quota or to discontinue it entirely.”[2]
#21 by lakshy on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 11:13 am
Tunku declared they will have the same rights and priveleges as Malays. Couldn’t some then say they have been decieved after so many years?
#22 by lakshy on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 11:20 am
In the memo that was to be handed by them to the british High Comm on 25th November, there was no attack made against the Malays. This was twisted by umno.
the terms used are poor, suppressed, underclass Indians some of whom are living under slavery conditions under umno controlled malaysian government.
Please read the memo before talking about it. Dont just swallow what is dished out by the bn media apparatus.
#23 by lakshy on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 11:22 am
“The Reid Commission had specified the intent of Article 153 to be addressing the imbalance between the Chinese and Malays in terms of economic equity.”
If this is true, then the Indians have more than been marginalised. Their rights have been trampelled upon.
#24 by jus legitimum on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 11:26 am
Dear Shamsul,don’t harp on the Hindraf’s claim of ethnic cleansing.It was pointed out by Saudara Lim that the claim was just a misnomer or exaggeration.But does the making of that claim by Hindraf ( and later it has been proven baseless) justify retaliation and emotional backlash by the majority as represented by you?
Concerning the requirement of Mandarin by certain firms,I think the firms concerned need to do business with China or they may have a large clientele made up of Mandarin speaking people.Surely it is only natural they should prefer to hire those who are also proficient in Mandarin.Mind you,you can be a Malay or any other races as long as you know the language.Sometimes I wonder why after 50 years of independence,there are very few Malays who are able to converse in Chinese.Of course we do not deny the fact that there are about 60000 Malay students studying in SRC in the country.Being a multi racial and multi lingual society,the opportunities to learn each other’s language abound.Just like almost all of us can speak and write Bahasa.I guess the Malays lack the willingness to learn it .Our leaders at the most only can utter a few hardly comprehensible words in Chinese dialect like Hockkien during MCA or Gerakan organised functions.If the leaders do not set example,we do not expect the people to follow.However the newly elected Prime Minister of Australis Ken Rudd can put to shame on our leaders as he can even communicate with Chinese leaders like Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao without the aid of an interpreter.
#25 by dawsheng on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 11:41 am
‘Diversity of opinions, if for no other reason but for its diversity, should be welcome so long as they are made with respect to the others who may not share the same opinion.’
he came here, he voiced out and he has been treated like a gentleman. we go out, we voiced out but they treated us like animals, they uses isa and put us in jail.
#26 by dawsheng on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 11:45 am
‘Let us not behave like dogs in the manger.’
i did not demolished the hindu temples.
#27 by lakshy on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 11:53 am
In their 18 point memo, they also do not attack the malays. Do read it.
They do call for affirmative action for all poor Malaysians! Minimum wage for all Malaysians. Independence of Judiciary, AG, Police, Suhakam etc which will be for all malaysians.
Homeless Malaysians to be provided affordable homes.
Transparency from the gomen on affirmative action plans showing education places, licenses, scholarships, grants, loans, permits, licenses, opportunities etc by publishing the same in the official website of the Government of Malaysia.
These would be for the benefit of all malaysians.
Now when or how does that make them a terrorist organisation?
They do ask for protection of hindu temples etc which are also provided for under the Reid Commission. They do ask for an investigation by a Royal Commission on the Kg Medan incident.
They do ask for race and religion based discrimination to be stopped and ask for a special Race Relations Commission Act 2007, an Equal Opportunities Commission Act 2007 and a Freedom of Religion Commissions Act 2007 be passed.
They call for a Stop to the victimization and direct discrimination by the Police and all other state authorities of the Indians.
They did also ask for 20 Opp voices in Parliament from the Indian community, and 20% of top posts in Govt to be reserved for Indians for the next 15 years. They also ask for full funding for all tamil schools. I think the 20 Opp voices is good. No matter who is in govt, these guys can still vote according to principles, and with their conscience. Not according to party lines.
This memo is dated 12th August addressed to PM who then says he was never approached by them. pm…..wake up and get your act together. Procrastination can be a great evil.
#28 by lakshy on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 2:03 pm
In today’s papers, the pm is promising Equal Education for All. Of course he has no plan for it, and is just making another one of his many promises.
He admitted that what the government had done before this may not be enough. So after admitting he has not done enough, does he even feel any shame or remorse for having jailed the 31 +5? And does he announce their release? After all he is admitting that their cause and claim has merit!
And his promise, “I can assure you that we will continue to do more in future”. Who is going to buy your words pm? Words only. Its a bit late for that. Action speaks louder than words. You need to act. And that does not mean getting NST to run some stories on Indians or you carrying an Indian child for a photo op. Shame on you, being so opportunistic! And you claim to be a pm of all malaysians. I beg to differ as your actions point otherwise.
#29 by lakshy on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 2:41 pm
Why were they arrested? Because they had thrown a dare to the AG and IGP to withdraw allegations that theya re linked to terrorists. That notice expires today. Note that in the court proceedings all allegations about terrorist links have been stricken out by the judge. Yet the link to terrorism is leaked out to the papers by you know who.
Failing to get a retraction from the AG and IGP, they intend to sue them for damages. That notice expires today. I sure hope they have someone ready to file their claim and file it in the courts.
So thats why these guys were arrested and under ISA no less.
#30 by SIMPLYJUSTICE on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 6:31 pm
Dear Friends,
GET READY, THE PARLIAMENT WILL BE DISOLVED NEXT WEEK .
PROOF TO BN THAT THE PEOPLE ARE INCHARGE .
#31 by limkamput on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 6:55 pm
he came here, he voiced out and he has been treated like a gentleman. we go out, we voiced out but they treated us like animals, they uses isa and put us in jail.
Well said. Imagine how many Malays we have to enlighten? Racism is an institution and most Malays are genuinely blind to it.
#32 by limkamput on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 7:28 pm
The best solution, and the only solution in my opinion, is to make our Constitution completely secular and separate church (read: mosque) from state. Can we do that? DarkHorse
I think we should try, it is difficult, but we should try. This is what politics is all about. We participate in party politics not just to be in opposition. The oppositions should harbour ambition some day they too could be in power to put forth its agenda and policy. It is a long way off for Malaysia, but one just has to look at Australia and how the major policies on environment and work choices are changed overnight when labour came into power.
#33 by kcb on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 7:34 pm
After going through the various postings, I think that there is at least one thing we could learn from Shamshul Anuar. It doesn’t matter whether we agree with his views or whether what he had raised are factually correct, but I admire the manner he had carried himself: gentle, no strong or abrasive words used, no name-calling, no personal attack or hurling of insults, despite the position he is in.
#34 by prelude3372 on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 7:40 pm
Saudara Shamsul,
Just a few points….
Why Hindraf leaders chose not to tell the Indians about surau being demolished in Selangor. I told my indian friends about surau being demolished( illegally built) . They stared at me. The response is this “We do not know this ..
About why Hindraf did not highlight that land was given to relocate the temple……
Please find a malaysiakini interview by Uthaya titled “I’m not a racist”….in case you can’t “find” it or too “busy”….these are some of the extracts….
Malaysiakini: Why didn’t Hindraf raise the issue of that surau the was also demolished and show you are not racist?
Uthaya :Because the surau was already replaced with a bigger surau, fully funded by the government. It is a non-issue. [...] Until today, none of these groups – political parties, NGOs or even Umno – have said anything (about the fact).that no Hindu temple has been given government land or is fully funded by the government. There is zero. Nobody talks about it. But to me Hindu temples being relocated next to sewerage tanks – that is ethnic cleansing a la Malaysia. Every three weeks, a temple is demolished. If you don’t call it ethnic cleansing, what is it then? In Bosnia, you kill people. (But ethnic cleansing) a la Malaysia is worse because you are living and suffering on a day to day basis.
To find out the truth……..dig the X File….or maybe you might need the help of Mulder and Scully……but than “the Cigarette-Smoking Man” might be here too……..
#35 by liaw3003sc on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 8:30 pm
Yes, I fully agreed with kcb comments on Shamsul. We should have more Malays like him. I believe he is opened to receive new inputs and may change his mindset. Salute to you Shamsul, my fellow Malaysian!
#36 by DarkHorse on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 8:46 pm
To: Lakshy
Point taken.
But may I ask you what has the REID Commission post-Independent recommendations got to do with the Federal Constitution of Malaya 1957 as a document after it has been passed into law? Was there a review by the REID Commission after Independence in 1957? Are you suggesting that their recommendations have the force of law? You lost me here!
Your quarrel appears to be with the national ‘consensus’ reached during the negotiations which proposals were adopted and passed into law and became the Federal Constitution of Malaya 1957 the precursor of the present Federal Constitution of Malaysia 1957.
All those are but pages of history. Those are ‘yesterday’ issues. Fast forward fifty years later, many feel that the Federal Constitution of 1957 has been amended numerous times that it has little resemblance to the original document – which embodied that national ‘consensus’ that you spoke of, and which you disagree with.
Am I not right so far?
You made an interesting observation on an issue which belongs more to the area of political theory and history rather than constitutional law i.e. when a single political party has almost complete control of the country’s national legislature, the government can no longer lay claim to it being a ‘democratic’ one. But that’s what democracy is about i.e. the rule of the majority by the majority for the whole. Critics warn of the danger of slipping into tyranny and the tyranny they speak about would be the tyranny of the majority over the minority. Here we are moving from political thoughts, history and into philosophy. I have no wish to go there!
The only hope of moving closer to the kind of pre-1957 national ‘consensus’ you would personally like to see is through the electoral process i.e. by putting into power the political party which best represents your views to run the government. It is likely to be a coalition of parties rather than one single party and the process is never easy because it is all about compromise.
#37 by DarkHorse on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 9:00 pm
Dawsheng: “He (Shamshul Anuar) came here, he voiced out and he has been treated like a gentleman. ”
Do you call telling a visitor to this blog: “Why don’t you go back to where you belong and rot …” treating him “like a gentleman”? If you do then there may be others who would like to reciprocate your ‘gentlemanliness’.
#38 by dawsheng on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 10:54 pm
well, it is hard to be nice when truth hurts init. if something is rotten it is rotten man.
#39 by undergrad2 on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 11:15 pm
In that case it is never a more opportune moment than now to remind ourselves of what KIT said earlier:
“There is only one person who is gleefully following the descent of this blog – the Information Minister, Zainuddin Maidin who will be able to tell the world that Malaysians are just “goblok†and do not have the maturity to handle freedom of expression, whether cyberspace or terrestrial.”
#40 by dawsheng on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 11:21 pm
my dear shamsul, if you really cares, let us strive for a malaysian malaysia. ok?
#41 by ktteokt on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 12:16 am
If Indians are opportunistic, then what are the Malays?
#42 by Count Dracula on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 12:54 am
Ktteok,
You don’t want to go there!
#43 by EARNEST on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 3:16 am
limkamput,
I would like to withdraw a dated comment I made about you, which was reproduced by DiaperHead above, apparently not with the best of his intentions, because it was no longer valid, and in fact grossly unfair to you in the light of later development, especially after my first-hand experience and realization of the double standards of civility being practised earlier, prior to 16/12/07. I am sorry.
From the beginning after reading about your great debate with Cambridge brat, I had no doubt about the essence of your contributions despite the mob attacks against you. You did hold your ground very well indeed.
I believe you are vindicated by YB Lim’s comment in the current thread reproduced below:
START:
I feel proud that in the ensuing 50-odd postings, there have been exemplary civility – that we can agree to disagree, however vehemently, without being disagreeable. I want to commend in particular limkamput for his contribution.
Let us move on EARNEST from 16/12/07 6.32.22 am and together build a blog which can be a byword for strong but civil opinions. – Kit]
END:
#44 by Colonel on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 3:33 am
Get over it!!! Why is there a need to re-visit the issue?
#45 by Colonel on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 3:35 am
You can exchange e-mails. The rest of us would like to move on.
#46 by DarkHorse on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 6:28 am
As a Malay leader put it clearly†Jahat sangatkah orang Melayu sampai dituduh melakukan pembunuhan etnik. Jahat sangatkah orang Melayu kalau sekolah aliran Cina dan India masih menerima sumbangan Kerajaan , sesuatu yang tiada bandingan dalam dunia iniâ€â€ Shamshul Anuar.
Translated it reads:
Are the Malays that evil as to be accused of the horrific crime of ethnic cleansing? Are the Malays that ‘bad’ as to allow Chinese and Tamil Schools to continue to receive government funding – something that has no comparison anywhere else in the world?
This is the sort of strong emotional response that HINDRAF led by their leaders who have since been detained under the ISA, has drawn from among moderate Malays and followers of UMNO. Never the extremists among them. The appeal to emotions is so strong though simply worded, that we would do best not to ignore it. The Malays being a subservient race that has seen worse times not too long ago are not about to lose control! That appears to be the message.
I blame the leaders of HINDRAF (as opposed to their followers) for seeking the racial route, not caring for the consequences to the families of demonstrators caught in the ‘game of chicken’ that they as leaders chose to play with this UMNO led government – a government which left on its own is more likely to implode rather than explode.
Though the issue is racial, one wonders if they should have split ranks from the other races and hold a public rally of their own in the face of strong police warnings after two earlier rallies have torn open wounds which were still raw. Or did their leaders smell blood in the water? I don’t think Kit today a veteran politician that he is, would have gone ahead with the rally with or without police permit. The younger Kit in the late 60s probably would.
HINDRAF in short has given the BN government the excuse they are looking for. I doubt if there would have been this many arrests from among BERSIH supporters had there been no HINDRAF.
It was the HINDRAF leaders who appealed to international opinion through their cries of ethnic cleansing by a government who is obviously guilty of ignoring their demands for fair treatment and reasonable opportunities in the market place.
It was the leaders of HINDRAF who let the genie out of the bottle.
#47 by lakshy on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 7:13 am
Lets say a contract or agreement has been made. Then many years down the road, there is a dispute. Although one goes back to the wording of the contract, the intention or meaning behind the wording is also important.
#48 by lakshy on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 7:15 am
The intent is even more important when situations change over time. In such a case some events or situations that may have been present at the time of signing the agreement may no longer apply, 50 years down the road. It is then that the intent plays and important role.
Of course, if the clause is amended, then its a different matter!
#49 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 8:24 am
“Lets say a contract or agreement has been made. Then many years down the road, there is a dispute. Although one goes back to the wording of the contract, the intention or meaning behind the wording is also important.†lakshy
Our Federal Constitution of 1957 is much like the contract you referred to. For there to be a contract there must be consensus ad item (to use the Latin term) or simply consensus. The consensus that you refer to would be the ‘underlying social contract’ that is so often mentioned these days.
The draftsman when drafting the Constitution cannot be expected to foresee every situation and every outcome and so when a dispute arises as to the meaning of various provisions in our Constitution, the courts when interpreting would need to look to the intent of Parliament when it first passed the law. Judges cannot substitute the intent of Parliament with their own. When it is vague and gives rise to conflicting interpretations it would have to be amended by Parliament.
There is however one crucial difference. The Constitution is a living document and it evolves with the passing of time through amendments.
Article 8 may state today “All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law….and except as expressly authorized by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination….â€
Who knows what the Constitution will be like in 20 years’ time?
#50 by shamshul anuar on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 6:34 pm
Dear readers.
I refer to some comments with regards to my view. That is my style. I believe I can get the message across without words such as ” Chee sin” or calling someone “Mahafiraun”. I was brought up in a culture that promotes “kind word is more powerful than four letter word”.
Why I mentioned about the allegation “ethic cleansing” done by Hindraf. To show that any good intention to raise the grievance of any community does not have to sklander another community.
Of what good is Hindraf is doing if what it succeeds is only waging war vs the Malays( by proudly telling the world that its enemy is UMNO). Whatever it did or its defence, it incites hatred vs Malays. Any govt would have to react in this matter.
I never deny problems facing Indians, Chinese, Bidayuh, or Malays or Orang Asli. In fact, many Malays have cautioned PM that unbridled immigration of low skilled foreign labours create so much problems esp to the poor. The wage was madly supressed. A factory in Sec21 Shah alam gave a daily salary RM19 to Myanmarese after local refuse to work as the salary is ridiculously low.
And many do not realize that subtle adverstisements promoting fairness as a epitome of beauty. Why on earth we are allowing such a blatant manipulation of pride and dignity in our midst when we really know that there are many beautiful black coloured people.
Hindraf claimed to want to bring the attention to its cause. What it may not realize ( or realize) is that it paints Malays and UMNO as being very cruel. Do not you expect any response from the Malays.Even my mere words invites many scathing remarks. Imagine when you lied to the world and accuse Malays of sanctioning ethnic cleansing.
And I am not even an UMNO member. I am just a Malaysian, not a Datuk or Tan Sri. Whatever mistakes by UMNO, at least from the bottom of the heart, all of us know it does deliver. Someone ridicule me when I reminds them of its magnaminity. They scorned at me. Just imagine if UMNO “advises” the Malays not to support Indian politicians. Then one day we will wake and realize that there will be no Indian in Parliament .
Maybe then we will realize that we are missing. As for readers, I will only try( if I have time) to reply if their remarks have no insulting or four letter word. I mean no disrespect to all of the readers. But I believe it is an effort of futility to response should the other party refuses to maintain a minimun standard of decency.