Indian head count after Umno's cow-head blunder

While the Indians are hurt over the cow head incident, the community find itself getting star attention in Bagan Pinang.

They could very well be the king maker in the Bagan Pinang by election the date of which is yet to be announced.

Bagan Pinang, in Negeri Sembilan, is a Malay majority area. According to official statistics 57 .6 % of its 14,000 plus voters are Malays. Chinese make up 14.3 %, Indians 25% and others 2%.

To anyone aspiring to be the new YB there, the simple political calculation is – get half of the Malay votes and a solid non-Malay support and the state seat is won. And that calculation seem to favour the Pakatan Rakyat candidate. At least on paper and based on current situation or the political mood so to speak.

The seat was won by the BN through UMNO in the 2008 General election. Azman Mohd Nor beat Pas’s Ramli Ismail by a 2,333 vote majority. Azman passed away recently and by election must be held soon. And it will be a showdown between UMNO and Pas or PKR (but strong possibility a Pas candidate will be representing the Pakatan Rakyat again , just like in the March 2008 GE).

Political observers feel the Pakatan candidate (doesn’t matter Pas or PKR ) is capable of getting at least half of the Malay votes and should garner good support of the Chinese. The UMNO man will be banking on Malay support and a reasonable good showing in Chinese areas. Thus the Indian votes will tip the scale. Hence both candidates will be out to woo the Indians.

Definitely events hundreds of kilometres away from Bagan Pinang will be played out as election issues to win the hearts and minds of the Indians. Thus Penang’s Kampung Buah Pala and the Shah Alam temple relocation issue will be central.

For both the BN and Pakatan Rakyat , Kampung Buah Pala is one issue which is a 50-50 situation i.e. you win some you lose. Votes that is. But the Shah Alam temple relocation issue can see Pakatan getting the votes.

Many Indians are angry and sad over the cow head protest and will throw their support behind Pakatan. After all the Selangor government is a Pakatan administration, one seen as trying to solve a long standing problem. That’s an advantage. But the Selangor government has also been accused by their detractors of kow towing to the demands of the non Malays. Now that can be a disadvantage.

However, many blame UMNO for the cow head incident. And although some of those involved have been charged in court many are not satisfied, eyeing the action suspiciously.

The Bagan Pinang by election is the ninth since the March 8 2008 GE. So far Pakatan has won 7. The BN’s only victory was Batang Ai Sarawak. Out of the 7 by elections in the Peninsula, Kuala Terengganu was the one seat UMNO was defending when by election was held. It failed to keep the seat losing to Pakatan’s PAS candidate.
Now it’s Bagan Pinang . It must and will do all it can to not only defend the seat but to stop the Pakatan’s splendid run thus far.

In Bagan Pinang, racial issues sadly will be used. Accusations will be thrown. Accusations such as one is neglecting one’s own race in favour of others. I pray I am wrong.

While UMNO work on the Malay community, it expect its partners in the BN coalition to deliver the non Malay votes. But the MCA are in crisis . Can they get the job done?

Are they willing to work hard now that they have got problems of their own? The MIC are also seeing internal squabbles among the various camps. And that aside, confidence in the party among the Indian community has eroded. Can they convince the Indians?

But the Pakatan too have its own problems which will be exploited by the opponents. The BN through UMNO are the incumbent in Bagan Pinang. Being incumbent many things are at their disposal. All can be turned into their favour. And one advantage is the big number of postal votes. Traditionally postal votes from the police and Armed Forces go to the BN.
Still its early days. A battle is in store. Interesting and ferocious as well.


comments

Umno, use your herd mentality, carry more cow heads to Bagan Pinang and dig your own grave.

Maybe it isn't wise to count on the postal votes being delivered since Pos Malaysia have to resolve their "delivery system problem"?

A sincere advice to the BP UMNO candidate: - You must understand that the postal votes were a curse, which explains why Azman died and didn't last his full term. He died in retribution for UMNO's crime in using postal votes to cheat the rakyat. Pls don't listen to the C4 guy, he is devil and is no ordinary human being. He can ward off god's punishment temporarily, but not for long. Let's play fair. Reject the postal votes or you suffer the same fate as that of Azman. In fact you may meet your maker faster if you don't take this advice. Be a true muslim

RAPE AND SEXUAL ABUSE OF PENAN GIRLS AND WOMEN IN BARAM, SARAWAK

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Penan Support Group media statement on the Rape and Sexual Abuse of Penan Girls and Women in Baram

The police, it appears, are still in denial. Or at best, are ineffectual.
In September 2008, news broke out that Penan girls, some as young as 10 years, were being sexually abused by logging workers in the Middle Baram area of Sarawak. However, local politicians and the police were quick to dismiss these as mere allegations without any basis.

Such lackadaisical attitudes compelled the Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development to establish a National Task Force comprising ministry officials and women NGO representatives to investigate the ‘allegations’. Aided by local activists in Sarawak, they were able to meet with some of the victims and their families in November 2008.

Ten months later, on 8 September 2009, the report was finally made public. The findings, however, were not surprising – the rapes and sexual abuse did occur and the Penan girls are still vulnerable because of the lack of policing and development in their area.

The police, it appears, are still in denial. Or at best, are ineffectual.

The Associated Press reported that Huzir Mohamed, the head of Sarawak's police criminal investigations department, probed three complaints last year but found "nothing with proper evidence for us to proceed in court." Huzir also insinuated that this was due in part because “the activists did not give specific details to support their claims”.

We take offence to this statement and perception. We maintain that it is the police who have dragged their feet in this matter before back-pedalling on their earlier willingness to work with NGOs on this matter.

For the record, it should be stressed that it was the police who invited us to the meeting with the IGP and other senior police officers at Bukit Aman on 2 January 2009. The police knew they were unable to get the victims and the witnesses to come forward to give information and statements simply because the Penans did not trust the police. Instead, they trusted the NGOs more.

At this meeting, the IGP pledged that Bukit Aman would give its fullest support to a Police-NGO joint investigation mission.

Towards this end, Datuk Seri Mohd Bakri Mohd Zinin, the Director of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID), together with senior police officers from Sarawak, met with Sarawakian NGOs on 20 January 2009 in Kuching. The purpose was to discuss logistics and terms of references for the joint investigation mission.

As requested, a draft Terms of Reference (TOR) for the joint investigation mission and a proposed itinerary for a week-long mission were subsequently submitted for their approval. The Sarawak NGOs gave an assurance that the police team would be able to meet the Penan victims and witnesses, but in neutral venues that were acceptable to the Penans.

It took the police seven (7) months to respond. At another meeting on 17 August 2009 in Kuching with SAC Huzir Mohamed of the Sarawak Police, the Miri Resident Officer and some others, we were told that the RM100,000.00 allocated for the joint-investigation mission by the Sarawak Police Contingent was only for their use and not for the NGO’s participation.

In short, we got the impression that they did not want the NGOs to be involved in the investigation. Our role was only to make sure the Penan victims and witnesses turned up at the place and date of interview as appointed by the police. The official written reply from the CID Director dated 27 August 2009 suggested that this was so.

It was also clear from the meeting on 17 August 2009 that the police and the authorities were incapable of appreciating the fact that the crux of the whole issue at hand is the distrust the Penans have for the police and the authorities, let alone the loggers.

So, to entrust the Resident's Office to provide personnel such as interpreters and to depend on the logging companies for transport, as suggested at the meeting, is as good as saying you are not interested in getting to the truth of the matter.

The police may cite procedure and laws for not going ahead with the IGP’s pledge to have a joint Police-NGO investigation mission, but their willingness to work with parties that are a part of the problem, leads us to suspect the sincerity of the police in their handling of the sexual abuses cases among the Penans.

The Penan Support Group considers the long-occurring sexual abuse of the Penan girls a hideous crime. It is also a distressing symptom of the overall situation the Penans and other vulnerable indigenous groups in Sarawak are facing today. We are committed to seeking justice for the victims and to expose and correct the wrongs being committed in Penan society.


comments


Its because most of the police there are under the payroll of the timber tycoons

I am not surprise as maybe the police there are raping those poor Penan girls..

All of us Sarawakians are indirectly guilty of the crimes committed against the Penans because we voted in a government that is heartless, soulless and without an iota of compassion. To purge ourselves of this guilt we must ensure that we do not vote for BN ever again.

Samy hits out at Dr Mahathir, Utusan Malaysia

comments


whats the use now? should hv done all this way before but as a toothless tiger now what for all these dramatics?
Enough laa Samy just leave and hibernate just as TDM!! after all the both of you are the causes for what the country is now, both of u hv damaged malaysia so much that its irreparable!!
What for now all this "wayang'!! we not silly as u think we still are

Semi Value has finally finally admitted that the indian community is suffering from poverty for the past 50 years most of which was under his leadership and that it now needs a leader who can talk and bring about change and not to compromise to all what AMENO echoes as he has done at the expense of the plight of the Indian community. In the process Semi Value was happy to even snatch whatever little wealth the Indians had. Every project that Semi started in the interest of indian welfare have all gone to the dogs. So Semi is effectively stating that there is a need for a drastic change in leadership. Perhaps MIC itself needs to be buried and a new party rise from it ashes.

Suhakam: Cops must cooperate, we have the power

On Aug 29, the panel of inquiry was told that almost all the police officers involved had refused to provide written authenticated statements. The police officers had also refused to authenticate the few written statements that were provided.


The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) has the power to compel witnesses to have their statements recorded and affirmed before or during a hearing.

Commissioner Datuk Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, who announced this in an interlocutory decision (see full decision below), said the Suhakam Act -- being a human rights statute -- stands close to legislation such as the Constitution and should be treated sui generis, attracting interpretations of its provisions in a liberal, fair and large fashion.

“Section 14 (1) (a) grants Suhakam the power to record the statements of witnesses, whether they are civilians or police officers,” he said at the public inquiry into the arrest and detention of five lawyers of the Kuala Lumpur Legal Aid Centre at the Brickfields police station earlier this year.

On Aug 29, the panel of inquiry was told that almost all the police officers involved had refused to provide written authenticated statements.

The police officers had also refused to authenticate the few written statements that were provided.

Thus, the panel of inquiry had a hearing on the issue last week.

“These witnesses are obliged to provide written and authenticated statements if and when requested by Suhakam. In this context, we would suggest that in future, proper notices are issued to witnesses for purposes of interview and recording of statements.

“The notice must quote the empowering provisions of Section 14 (1) (a) and the consequent sanctions under Chapter IX and X of the Penal Code must equally be quoted to bring to notice the witnesses of the peril of non-compliance,” said Muhammad Shafee.

He added that the panel of inquiry should therefore direct the relevant named police officers who have been subpoenaed to appear before them to provide written statements of their interview with Suhakam officers.

“As this inquiry is urgently being conducted, we further direct that these statements must be recorded and authenticated before Sept 19,” he said.

Muhammad Shafee said that though the lawyers’ counsel had raised in its submissions that if the inquiry were to proceed without the police witness statements, it would be unfair to his clients, the panel of inquiry does not deem it so.

“This is an inquiry, not an adversarial hearing. The control of the proceedings does not lie with any particular party or parties. The panel would control the proceedings and would make the necessary directions in order to defeat any prejudice, real or apparent.

“We have in our arsenal various techniques that we could employ to set off this apparent unfairness that may be prejudicial,” he said.

The inquiry, which began on Aug 14, is chaired by Muhammad Shafee, assisted by commissioners Datuk Dr Michael Yeoh Oon Kheng and Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria.

The lawyers -- Puspawati Rosman, Fadiah Nadwa Fikri, Murnie Hidayah Anuar, Ravinder Singh Dhalliwal and Syuhaini Safwan -- were arrested on May 7.

Royal Malaysian Police counsel Supt R. Munusamy told the panel of inquiry that he would refer the interlocutory decision back to headquarters and wait for instructions on the next course of action.

“We will see if there is a need to have a judicial review on the decision or to agree with it,” he said.

One of the lawyers who were arrested and who was present at the decision, Fadiah Nadwa, said it was a positive development.

“This would set a precedent for other public inquiries,” she said.

Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam)
Inquiry into the arrest and detention of five lawyers of the Kuala Lumpur Legal Aid Centre

An Interlocutory Decision
Introduction
By a memorandum dated May 20, 2009, the Bar Council Malaysia had requested Suhakam to conduct a public inquiry into the arrest of five Bar Council Legal Aid Centre (KL) lawyers at Brickfields police station on May 7.

On May 13, as a result of the recommendation from the Complaints and Inquiries Working Group in Suhakam, the Commission at its monthly meeting unanimously agreed to hold a public inquiry on the above-mentioned issue. The three members constituting the current panel were empanelled on the same day.

The Commission had decided that the inquiry into the above matter be expeditiously conducted and a limited time frame was agreed upon. Mid-August 2009 was the target set for the commencement of the public inquiry into this matter.

The terms of reference of the inquiry are:-

1) To determine whether the arrest and detention of the five KL LAC lawyers by the police at the Brickfields Police Station on May 7 2009, constitute a denial of legal representation and a contravention of Article 5 of the Federal Constitution and Section 28A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and therefore a violation of human rights;

2) To determine whether there was any justification or necessity to arrest and detain the KL LAC Lawyers under Section 27 of the Police Act 1967 and therefore a violation of human rights;

3) If violation of human rights occurred, to determine:- i) which person or agency was responsible; ii) how did such violations occur; iii) what administrative directives and procedures, or arrangements contributed to them; and iv) what measures should be recommended to be taken to ensure that such violations do not reoccur.

The public inquiry commenced on Aug 14, 2009. After the initial introductory remarks by the Chairman of the Panel of Inquiry, witnesses from the Bar were immediately sworn in to testify. The inquiry continued on Aug 15 and 16. Thereafter the Panel fixed the continuation of the public inquiry to Aug 29. On that morning, apart from the normal housekeeping directions by the Chairman, a matter arose with regards to the fact that most of the police witnesses had refused to give authenticated written statements or any written statements at all.

By way of background we need to mention that on the commencement date of the public inquiry the Chairman of the Panel had disclosed the fact that due to constraint of time and the inefficient communication between the police and the Suhakam investigating officers, the written statements of the police personnel had not been recorded thus far. However, almost all the statements of witnesses from the Bar and certain journalists had been recorded by Aug 14 by the Suhakam investigating team.

The police officers appearing on behalf of the police had informed the Panel that the relevant police officers were in fact providing their written statements to Suhakam investigating officers on the upper floor of Suhakam premises simultaneously to the public inquiry that was proceeding.

For all intents and purposes everyone participating at the public inquiry was under the impression that the recording of statements from the relevant police officers was being conducted smoothly. However the Panel of Inquiry was officially informed by Suhakam investigating officers early in the morning of Aug 29 that almost all the relevant police officers had refused to provide written authenticated statements. In a few instances written statements were provided by police officers who had however refused to authenticate them.

When this fact was fully disclosed to all present on the morning of Aug 29 at the continuation of the public inquiry, Mr M. Puravelan who was representing the Kuala Lumpur Legal Aid Centre, had taken objection as to the failure of the relevant police officers in providing written statements to Suhakam. Mr Puravelan argued that such refusal by the police would cause unfairness in the conduct of the public inquiry as the police could approbate and reprobate their testimony in accordance with what they would possibly learn from the evidence as it unfolded through the witnesses of the Bar.

Mr Puravelan further submitted that he was totally misled by the police into thinking that authenticated written statements by the relevant police witnesses would have been recorded. Mr Andrew Khoo representing the Bar Council supported and adopted Mr Puravelan’s contention.

Supt Munusamy representing the police then informed the Panel that he too was not aware that the police officers had actually refused to give authenticated written statements or any statements at all to Suhakam investigating officers as required of them by Suhakam. He however maintained that there was no intention on the part of the police to mislead. Given the situation, the Panel had decided, after getting the views of all parties, to hear full submissions on this objection from all parties on Sept 2, 2009.

Hearing on the Sept 2 on the interlocutory issue
Arguments advanced by the Bar Council KL Legal Aid Centre and Bar Council Malaysia were as follows:-

a) That the Police had given a commitment to have their statements recorded by Suhakam officers (as part of Suhakam’s investigation) prior to hearing the lawyers testimony at the hearing proper.

b) That as a result of the representation by the Police the counsel representing the KL Bar Legal Aid and the Bar Council were misled.

c) Further the KL Bar Legal Aid and Bar Council felt that it would be advantageous to the Police and prejudicial to the Bar’s case if the Police are allowed to listen to the Bar’s case without the Police “staking” their case in writing before hand. This they argue would allow the Police to approbate and reprobate their case as the evidence from the Bar unfolded.

d) They argue that Section 14 read with Section15 of the Suhakam Act 1999 are wide enough to confer power on Suhakam to compel the recording of all witness statements (including the Police witnesses) in a pre-investigation before the hearing proper at the Inquiry. In particular they stressed on the words “shall”, “power”, “procure” and “receive” in Section 14(1)(a) of the Act as indicative of the presence of these powers.

e) Further they contend that apart from the express power earlier mentioned, there are implied powers of the same nature under Sections 40 and 95 of the Interpretations Act 1948 and 1967 read with Section14 of the Suhakam Act.

f) The Bar Council further argued that such investigative powers of Suhakam commissioners can be delegated to their officers by virtue of Sections 16 and 17 of the Suhakam Act. Therefore a request by an officer of Suhakam for statements to be recorded in an investigation is lawful and must be adhered to.

Argument by the Police
a) The Police on the other hand argued that the Suhakam Act is unclear. They submitted that while Section 14 seems to indicate the existence of such powers, in reality it does not confer those powers. They invited us to consider the contrast in the scheme of the Commission of Enquiry Act 1950 (hereinafter the “1950 Act”). (Section 8 of the 1950 Act is in pari materia to Section 14(1) of Suhakam Act). However, they argue that Section 8 of the 1950 Act seems to require the aid of a separate Section 16 of the 1950 Act to repose such powers of recording statements in a pre-investigation to a Commission of Enquiry. They therefore contended that if Section 8 of that Act requires the aid of Section 16 in order to arrogate to the Commissioners in the 1950 Act such investigative powers, then Section 14 of the Suhakam Act standing by itself could not have that very power of investigations.

b) The Police felt that at most Suhakam can only “interview” witnesses on a voluntary basis without powers of compulsion and the case of Subramaniam Vythiligam v Human Rights Commission Malaysia [2003] 6 CLJ 175 was cited in support.

Issues before the Panel of Inquiry:-
Having considered the parties’ respective arguments we consider the following to be the relevant issues:-

a) Whether the Suhakam Commission has the power under the Human Rights Commission Act 1999 (Act 597) to compel witnesses to have their statements recorded and affirmed for purposes of being used subsequently at the hearing in the Inquiry?

b) In the event witnesses refuse to allow their statements to be recorded, are there available remedies or powers of enforcement with Suhakam to discourage such refusal with threats of legal consequences?

The Panel’s findings and opinion
1) Section 14 of the Suhakam Act is clear. It allows two types of inquiries. One is the investigative sort of inquiry without a public hearing (closed investigations). A Closed investigation is conducted mainly by interview and recording of statements of witnesses and reception of documentary and other exhibits. When a public inquiry becomes necessary Suhakam’s panel of Inquiry would be at liberty to use the closed inquiry statements of the interviews and exhibits for purposes of the hearing of witnesses viva voce.

2) There are times that certain factual scenarios may demand Suhakam to declare that it would undertake a public inquiry on a certain issue on an expedited basis. If this were to happen Suhakam can then set a time period for purposes of conducting the closed investigation prior to the actual public hearing in the inquiry. This is in fact the case in this inquiry.

3) The wording in Section 14(1)(a) of the Suhakam Act seem to provide a support for both the closed and open inquiry mechanism.

Section 14(1)(a) of the Suhakam Act reads as follows:-

14. Powers relating to inquiries (1) The Commission shall, for the purposes of an inquiry under this Act, have the power - (a) to procure and receive all such evidence, written or oral, and to examine all such persons as witnesses, as the Commission thinks necessary or desirable to procure or examine.

The above sub-section in no uncertain terms declares that Suhakam has the power:-

i) to procure and receive all such evidence;

ii) the evidence to be either written or oral;

iii) to examine all such persons as witnesses;

iv) as Suhakam thinks necessary or desirable to procure or examine.

It would seem that the powers granted to Suhakam under this sub section are manifold. The phrase procure and receive all such evidence would suggest the mechanism of investigation to be undertaken by Suhakam.

The ordinary meaning of procure in the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd Edition) Vol. XII is:-

3. to contrive or devise with care (an action or proceeding) 5. to obtain by care or effort; to gain, win, get possession of, acquire. (now the leading sense) 6. to prevail upon, induce, persuade, get (a person) to do something. To contrive on the other hand means to discover (the answer to a problem etc); find out

(See The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (on historical principles) Vol.1)

In Black’s Law Dictionary 8th edition, “procurement” means

1. the act of getting or obtaining something. – also termed procuration.

The meaning of “procure” suggests some kind of interview and/or interrogation of potential witnesses in order to uncover or discover the answer to a particular issue.

When these answers are uncovered they are then received by the interrogator as evidence.

This mechanism is to be contrasted with the other mechanism of examining witnesses which seems to suggest a more formal setting in a tribunal like situation.

In Words, Phrases & Maxim Legally Defined by Anandan Krishnan 2008 Edition, “to examine” means:-

to formally interrogate a witness or an accused person; to test critically

Similarly in The New Shorter Oxford Dictionary Vol. 1 (1993), the word “examine” is given the meaning

5. interrogate formally (especially a witness or an accused person). Formerly also, investigate the guilt or innocence (of an accused person).

The phrase “written or oral” in the said sub section is most telling as it suggests that a written testimony suggested to be used before the Panel of Inquiry would have to be undertaken earlier through a separate process altogether, either through the investigative mechanism or recording by one’s own solicitor.

One need also take into consideration the overall meaning of “inquiry”. In the Indian Supreme Court case of Real Value Appliances Ltd v Canara Bank & Others [1998] 5 SCC 554 at page 566, the Supreme Court resorted to the meaning of “inquiry” as provided in the New Standard Dictionary as including “investigation” into facts, causes, effects and relations generally; “to inquire”, according to the same dictionary means “to exert oneself to discover something”. Chambers 20th Century Dictionary lays down that the meaning to the term “inquiry” among others is given as “investigation.”

Quite clearly therefore in our opinion the mechanism of inquiry in the context of Section 14(1)(a) of the Suhakam Act encompasses two separate procedures:

a) a closed investigation for purposes of uncovering and discovering facts in issue; and

b) a formal public inquiry which necessitates the process of hearing witnesses in a tribunal like situation.

We feel justified in interpreting this sub section in this manner because one can hardly imagine a public inquiry being undertaken without recorded statements of witnesses being provided earlier to the Panel to facilitate the navigation of questions to be posed by the Panel to the witnesses.

Cases are replete with the suggestion that it is a necessity to have prior recorded statements of witnesses before an official public inquiry is embarked upon.

For instance, in R(D) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Inquest intervening) [2006] 3 All ER 946, at pg 956, Sir Anthony Clarke MR at the Court of Appeal said:-

… No inquiry is ever wholly in public. Thus for example the police investigate a death and report to the Coroner. Their investigation is not in public. Nor is the preliminary process of obtaining evidence, including witness statements in any public inquiry ...

In Mohon v Air New Zealand [1984] 3 All ER 201 at pg 205, Lord Diplock sitting in the Privy Council said:-

… At that stage it was contemplated that the parties represented should furnish the counsel assisting the judge written briefs of the evidence to be given by their witnesses and that this should be done well in advance of those witnesses being called, so as to enable the evidence to be collated and, if need be, elaborated ...

The above underscores the importance of a prior statement to be made available to a commissioner/coroner to facilitate his inquiry.

Another case that illustrates the need of a private inquiry (ie recording of witness’ statements) is the case of Regina (Wagstaff) v Secretary of State for Health [2001] 1 WLR 292 (QB Division) at pg 322 where the Court opined:-

But the taking of a statement from a lay witness dealing with facts possibly some time ago and covering a substantial period of time is a skilled art; so is the eliciting of evidence on the basis of such a statement, and in each case it is a lawyer’s art. If, after questionnaires have been completed, the solicitor to the inquiry were to take statements from those witnesses who might be called, he or she would be able to follow up useful leads; and if counsel to the inquiry were to examine witnesses when called, their evidence could be properly tested against evidence coming from other sources. The members of the inquiry panel would then have a better opportunity to receive the information and to assess it without entering into the arena, and it is unlikely that significant extra costs would be involved. An alternative would be to instruct the solicitor already acting for the families to prepare their statements and to appeal on their behalf.

This case also brings to attention the advantages of a public hearing with a prior recorded statements of witnesses. At pg 319, it is stated:-

There are positive known advantages to be gained from taking evidence in public, namely: (a) witnesses are less likely to exaggerate or attempt to pass on responsibility; (b) information becomes available as a result of others reading or hearing what witnesses have said; (c) there is a perception of open dealing which helps to restore confidence; (d) there is no significant risk of leaks to distorted reporting.

See also:-

Regina (Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (House of Lords) [2003] UKHL 51; [2004] 1 AC 653.

The above opinion that we have expressed on the interpretation of s.14(1)(a) of the Suhakam Act is an analysis of the express powers of Suhakam in an inquiry under Section 14. However should we be wrong in our opinion pertaining to the express power, we are also relying in the alternative that there are ample implied powers within the meaning of Sections 40 and 95 of the Interpretation Acts 1948 & 1967 read with Section 14 of the Suhakam Act.

N.S. Bindra’s Interpretation of Statute 9th Edition, at page 1293 says the following;

The doctrine of Implied Powers is embodied in the maxim ‘Quando lex aliquid alicue concedit concediture et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest.’ Its full and true import is set out in the judgment in the case of Fenton v Hampton (11 Moo PCC 347) as follows:

Whenever anything is authorised and especially if, as matter of duty, required to be done by law, and it is found impossible to do that thing unless something else not authorised in express terms be also done, then that something else will be supplied by necessary intendment. But, if, when the maxim comes to be applied adversely to the liberties or interests of others, if it be found that no such impossibility exists, that the power may be legally exercised without the doing that something else, or even going a step further, that it is only in some particular instances, as opposed to its general operation that the law fails in its intention unless the enforcing power be supplied, then, in any such case, the soundest rules of construction point to the exclusion of the maxim, and regard the absence of the power which it would supply by implication as a cassus omissus.

In other words, when any power or control is expressly granted, there is included in the grant, to the full extent of the capacity of the grantor and without special mention, every power and every control the denial of which would render the grant itself ineffective.

Where an Act confers jurisdiction it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts or employs such means as are essentially necessary to its execution. This is, in truth, not a doctrine of any special system of law, but a statement of a necessary rule of construction of all grants of power, whether by unwritten Constitution, formal written instrument, or other delegation of authority and applies from the necessity of the case to all to whom is committed the exercise of powers of government.

Sections 40 and 95 of the Interpretation Acts 1948 & 1967 respectively reads as follows;

40. Implied powers (1) Where a written law confers a power on any person to do or enforce the doing of any act or thing, all such powers shall be understood to be also given as are reasonably necessary to enable the person to do or enforce the doing of the act or thing.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of sub section (1)- (a) power to make subsidiary legislation to control or regulate any matter includes power to provide for the same by licensing and power to prohibit acts whereby the control or regulation might be evaded; (b) power to grant a licence, permit, authority, approval or exemption includes power to impose conditions subject to which the licence, permit, authority, approval or exemption is granted; and (c) where a power is conferred on any person to direct, order or require any act or thing to be done, there shall be deemed to be imposed on any person to whom a direction, order or requisition is given in pursuance of the power a duty to comply therewith

Section 95. Construction of enabling words. (1) where a written law confers power on any person to do or enforce the doing of any act or thing, all such powers shall be understood to be also conferred as are reasonably necessary to enable the person to do or enforce the doing of the act or thing.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing- (a) power to control or to regulate any matter includes power to provide for the same by the licensing thereof and power to prohibit acts whereby the control or regulation might be evaded; and (b) power to grant a licence, permit, authority, approval or exemption includes power to impose conditions subject to which the licence, permit, authority, approval or exemption is granted.

Siti Norma Yaakob J (as she then was) in Bank Pusat Kerjasama Berhad (in receivership) v Mahkamah Perusahaan & Anor [1994] 4 CLJ 341, had occasion to invoke s.40 of the Interpretation Act 1967 and held that when interpreting an enabling section resort to section 40 for necessary implied powers should be undertaken. She adopted Hashim Yeop Sani J’s (as he then was) decision in Lee Wah Bank’s case [1981] 1 MLJ 169 when the learned judge construed such powers:

“these are powers which are necessarily implied and nothing more. Since the Industrial Court is a creature of the Industrial Relations Act 1967, its powers must be discovered only from the four corners of the Act – expressly or by necessary implication.”

In the AG of The Gambia v Momodou Jobe [1984] AC 689, Lord Diplock had occasion to comment on matters pertaining to implied or inferred powers in a legislation:

“…where, as in the instant case, omissions by the draftsman of the law to state in express words what, from the subject matter of the law and the legal nature of the processes or institutions with which it deals, can be inferred to have been Parliament’s intention, a court charged with the judicial duty of giving effect to Parliament’s intention, as that intention has been stated in the law that Parliament has passed, ought to construe the law as incorporating, by necessary implication, words which would give effect to such inferred intention, wherever to do so does not contradict the words actually set out in the law itself and to fail to do so would defeat Parliament’s intention by depriving the law of all legal effect.”

In another Canadian case Phillips v Nova Scotia (Commission of Inquiry into the Westray Mine Tragedy) [1995] 2 SCR 97, the Court there held:-

“Courts should give a generous interpretation to a Commissioner’s power to control his or her own proceedings under the Nova Scotia Act. The Commissioner must be responsible for ensuring that the hearings are as public as possible yet still maintain the essential rights of the individual witnesses. It is the commissioner who will first determine whether exceptional orders should be issued. The authority to make these orders derives from and relates to the conduct of the inquiry hearings and should be given a reasonable and purposeful interpretation in order to provide commissions of inquiry with the ability to achieve their goals.”

It is therefore our opinion there are clearly implied powers in s.14 of the Suhakam Act for us to construe that the word ‘inquiry’ encompasses the two mechanism of interview and recording of statement on one hand and the public hearing on the other.

Supt Munusamy’s reliance on Subramaniam Vythilingam v The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) & Ors [2003] 6 CLJ 175 at 224, 225 is misplaced. He contended that since the Judge in that case referred to the recording of statements from witnesses by Suhakam investigating officers as merely “interviews”, it is a far cry from having the power to compel and record statements of witnesses, especially police witnesses.

Firstly we take note that for every recording of a witness statement there must surely be an interview preceding that or simultaneously conducted. The word ‘interview’ in the judgment therefore does not help and resolve the current issue before this Panel. In any case the Learned Judge therein could have used the word ‘interview’ by adopting certain averments by parties in their respective affidavits. By the same token, one could also have argued that since the Learned Judge had used the phrase investigating officers of Suhakam then there must be powers of investigation by Suhakam, including interview and recording of statements of witnesses. Such tenuous argument in either situation cannot hold water.

Supt Munusamy of the Police further raises the point that if one were to compare the similar wording in s.8(a) of the Commission of Enquiry Act 1950 to s.14(1)(a) of the Suhakam Act the wordings are identical. And yet he argues, there exists a separate s.16 in the 1950 Act wherein the commissioner or commissioners in an inquiry under the 1950 Act may require the public prosecutor to cause any matter relevant to the inquiry to be investigated. In particular s.16(2)(a) empowers the Public Prosecutor to appoint any person to investigate any such matter who shall “for the purposes of the investigation, have all the powers in relation to police investigations given to police officers in any seizable case under the provisions of Chapter XIII of the Criminal Procedure Code (FMS Cap 6), ….”

Supt Munusamy therefore argues the fact that in the Commission of Inquiry Act 1950 the legislature had deemed it necessary to provide separately a distinct power of investigation to a designated person and this implies that in the absence of similar provisions in the Suhakam Act, s.14(1)(a) alone, standing by itself, could not be the authority for an express or implied enabling power to record an authenticated statement or any statement from witnesses, including police witnesses. At first glance, Supt Munusamy’s argument seems to have force and is attractive. But on critical analysis of the two legislation the following distinctions must be drawn:-

(a)Suhakam was created under the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 (Act 597) to be a permanent independent commission for the protection and promotion of human rights in Malaysia. It is not an ad-hoc body. Section 3(2) of the Suhakam Act creates Suhakam “…as a body corporate having perpetual succession and common seal, which may sue and be sued in its name and, subject to and for the purposes of the Suhakam Act, may enter into contracts and may acquire, purchase, take, hold and enjoy movable and immovable property of every description…”

For purposes of discharging its functions a maximum of 20 commissioners are allowed to be appointed (s.5(1)). There is a permanent secretary to the Commission being appointed under s.16(1) and permanent officers and servants of the Commission that the Commission may appoint as may be necessary to assist the Commission to discharge its function under the Act. Further s.17 of the Suhakam Act allows the Commission to delegate to any of its officers any of its powers and the officers to whom such powers are delegated may exercise those powers subject to the direction of the Commission. Section 17 is important in relation to the activities of Suhakam officers conducting interviews and recording statement of witnesses under s.14(1)(a) of the Act. This must surely be lawful delegated duties.

On the other hand, the commission formed under Commission of Enquiry Act 1950 are not permanent bodies, they are ad-hoc in nature, being formed for purposes of a particular requirement at the time. Section 2 of the Commission of Enquiry Act 1950 clearly provides that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may, where it appears to Him to be expedient so to do, issue a Commission appointing one or more Commissioners and authorizing the Commissioners to enquire into the conduct of any federal officer, the conduct of any management or department of the public service or public institution etc etc. (see also s.2(3) in relation to the State Authority appointing the State Commissions of Inquiry). Section 3 of the same Act provides the period for which the Commission shall hold its inquiry and to render its report thereof. And section 5 empowers the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the State Authority to enlarge the time for the execution of the Commission of its ad-hoc duty. Section 21 of the Suhakam Act enacts that Suhakam shall submit an annual report of its activities to Parliament and that Suhakam may, when it considers necessary, submit special reports to Parliament. It is not responsible to any other body or bodies. (b)because of the aforesaid, it is not strange for the Commissions of Enquiry Act 1950 to provide for assistance of another body like the Public Prosecutor or the police to aid the ad-hoc commissioners in their duties at the specific inquiry as such Commissions of Inquiry do not have their own permanent establishment, officers, staff or facilities. Suhakam on the other hand is an independent body, self sufficient, complete with its permanent premises, budget, commissioners, officers and staff to man the duties imposed by law under the Suhakam Act. The Suhakam Act therefore does not require the aid of the equivalent of s.16 of the Commissions of Enquiry Act 1950. Both sections 14(1)(a) of Suhakam Act and s.8 of the Commissions of Enquiry Act 1950 confer power to the respective bodies to conduct the dual mechanism of inquiry, namely, closed investigation and open public hearing. Suhakam is able under the Act to conduct both functions independently without resort to any outside help. This is important to Suhakam as it needs to preserve its independence. The Legislature in its wisdom has created Suhakam as such. On the other hand, the Commissions of Enquiry under the 1950 Act, although similarly empowered as Suhakam to conduct interview and to record statements from witnesses are however handicapped in their facilities, officers and staff. It is for that reason, s.16 was specially crafted in the Commissions of Enquiry Act 1950 to bridge such handicap of the Commissions of Enquiry.

(c)The Suhakam Act being a human rights statute created by the Legislature for the protection of fundamental liberties of persons and citizens under Part II of the Federal Constitution (defined as Human Rights) is a statute sui generis, akin to that of the Constitution and its provisions must be interpreted liberally and not pedantically with a view to advancing its objects. This is to be contrasted from the normal legislation in the Commissions of Enquiry Act 1950 (the subject matter of interpreting the Suhakam Act sui generis will be dealt with later in this opinion.)

Therefore all enabling powers in the provisions of the Suhakam Act must be construed widely to incorporate necessary implied powers to ensure the effective operation of Suhakam as the guardian and custodian of human rights.

Section 18(4) of the Suhakam Act declares that such Chapters in the Penal Code shall apply to the commissioners, officers and servants of the Commission as if they are public servants within the scheme in those Chapters. The impact of s.18(4) is monumental. In effect, since we have opined that we have the powers to compel the recording of statements of interviews of witnesses be they civilians, police officers or otherwise, non compliance with such lawful directions of Suhakam’s Commissioners or officers would attract the sanctions in those two Chapters of the Penal Code. For instance, s.179 of the Penal Code (falling within Chapter X) states:-

“Whoever, being legally bound to state the truth on any subject to any public servant, refuses to answer any question demanded of him touching that subject by such public servant, in the exercise of the legal powers of such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand ringgit, or with both.”

The above provision creates an offence to any person who refuses to answer any question demanded of him such as in an interview for the recording of a statement by Suhakam Commissioners or officers and such an offence attracts a punishment with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to two thousand ringgit or with both. Interestingly, following that section, section 180 of the Penal Code creates an offence for any person who refuses to authenticate the statement required of him in that interview. This offence carries a term of imprisonment of a maximum of three months or with fine which may extend to one thousand ringgit or with both.

However, where witnesses are called to testify at the hearing of the inquiry, there are adequate safeguards incorporated under sections 15(1) and 15(2) of the Suhakam Act. No self incriminating statements or testimony can be used against a witness in any other proceedings.

Provisions in Chapters IX and X in the Penal Code read with section 18(4) of the Suhakam Act and sections 40 and 95 of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 are meaningful in two respects ;

(i)They enhance and support our interpretation of the powers of Suhakam such as that in section 14(1)(a) of the Suhakam Act; (ii)As they are enforcement mechanisms in Chapters IX and X of the Penal Code available to Suhakam, its Commissioners or officers have at their disposal powers to compel witnesses to provide authenticated statements in an interview. We realize however, the powers of enforcement in the two Chapters in the Penal Code do not lie with Suhakam; (iii)Suhakam would have to be a complainant in a police report to investigating agencies for purposes of initiating action to be taken against the recalcitrant witnesses; (iv)Suhakam’s Act does not provide us with contempt powers as compared to the contempt powers available in the Commissions of Enquiry Act 1950.This we recognize. Perhaps the Legislature would consider granting us such contempt powers to enable us to conduct public inquiries more effectively. We see no relevance or impact on our interpretation of section 14 to the fact that we do not have powers for contempt.

The Suhakam Act “sui generis” interpretation

The starting point to interpreting legislation on Human Rights lies in the Hallmark decision by Lord Wilberforce in Minister of Home Affairs and anor v Collins Macdonald Fisher and anor (1980) AC 319

Although the question in that case turned on interpretation of the Constitution of Bermuda we are more concerned ,however with the second principle enunciated in that case, ie that Human Rights instruments should be treated “sui generis” as well. In Law Society of Lesotho v Prime Minister of Lesotho (1986) LRC 481, the point was made that although the Human Rights Act ,though in terms not a constitutional instrument, was similar to one and should be interpreted sui generis following Fisher’s case. (See page 499 paragraphs a-c and See pages 497-499)

It was very clearly stated in Fisher’s case that

“….A Constitution is a legal instrument giving rise,amongst other things,to individual rights capable of enforcement in a court of law.Respect must be paid to the language which has been used and to the traditions and usages which have given meaning to that language.It is quite consistent with this,and with recognition that rules of interpretation may apply.to take as a point of departure for the process of interpretation a recognition of the character and origin of the instrument,and to be guided by the principle of giving full recognition and effect to those fundamental rights and freedoms with a statement of which the Constitution commences”. (See page 329 , paragraphs E-F)

Quasi-constitutional effect of human rights legislation,an alternative view

The reason why Constitutional interpretation principles are equally applicable to Human Rights legislation is because of the quasi Constitutional effect and nature of Human Rights Legislation. (See Gould v Yukon Order of Pioneers (1996)LRC 72 where this is stated at page 111 paragraph “b” following the case of Robichaud v Canada Treasury Board (1987) 2 SCR 84 at 89).

In Gould v Yukon Order of Pioneers (1996)LRC 72 it was held that Human Rights legislation should be interpreted purposively so as to advance its objects by giving it a fair, large and liberal interpretation.It was also well established that a true purposive approach considered the wording of the statute itself,with a view to discerning and advancing the intent of the legislature. (See page 73 paragraph d ,page 80 paragraph e page 80 paragraph I page 111 paragraph b-d)

Human Rights instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR 1948) has been incorporated into our domestic legislation by virtue of section 4 (4) of our Human Rights Act and it has found its way into the portals of our Malaysian courts . See the case of Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Ors v Sagong Tasi & Ors [2005] MLJ 6289 where the following was stated by Gopal Sri Ram JCA in the Court of Appeal

“It is therefore fundamentally a human rights statute. It acquires a quasi constitutional status giving it pre-eminence over ordinary legislation. It must therefore receive a broad and liberal interpretation”. (See paragraph 20 at page 304)

Dickason v University of Alberta [1992] 2 SCR 1103 at p 1154 was also quoted in the Sagong Tasi case (paragraph 23 and 24 st page 305) where L’Heureux-DubeJ said J “In order to further the goal of achieving as fair and tolerant a society as possible, this Court has long recognised that human rights legislation should be interpreted both broadly and purposively. Once in place, laws which seek to protect individuals from discrimination acquire a quasi-constitutional status, which gives them pre-eminence over ordinary legislation.

Now, although L’Heureux-Dube J (speaking for herself and McLachlin J) was in dissent on the final outcome of the case, she was in agreement with the majority who, speaking through Cory J, held that: In the construction of human rights legislation, the rights enunciated must be given their full recognition and effect, while defences to the exercise of those rights should be interpreted narrowly.” (paragraphs 23 and 24 at page 305)

Conclusion and Directions

The following are our conclusions and directions:-

1.The Suhakam Act, being a human rights statute stands close to legislations such as the constitutions. It ought to be treated sui generis attracting interpretations of its provisions in a liberal, fair and large fashion.

2.Section 14(1)(a) grants Suhakam with the power of recording statements of witnesses, whether they are civilians or police officers.

3.These witnesses are obliged to provide written and authenticated statements if and when requested to by Suhakam. In this context, we would suggest that in future proper notices are issued to witnesses for purposes of interview and recording of statements. The notice must quote the empowering provisions of Section 14(1)(a) and the consequent sanctions under Chapter IX and X of the Penal Code must equally be quoted to bring to notice of the witnesses of the peril of non-compliance.

4.We therefore direct the relevant named police officers who have been subpoenaed to appear before us to provide written statements of their interview with Suhakam officers. As this inquiry is urgently being conducted we further direct that these statements must be recorded and authenticated before the 19th September 2009 (7 clear days).

Epilogue

Mr Puravelan’s concern that if the inquiry were to proceed without Police witnesses statements having been recorded earlier by Suhakam his clients would suffer prejudice almost irreparable in nature. Whilst we agree that it is only fair that all witnesses, including police witnesses, should have given their statements in writing to Suhakam, we will not take the position that without such statements from Police witnesses the case of the affected members of the KL Legal Aid Centre would necessarily suffer prejudice. We say this because of the following:-

a)this is an inquiry, not an adversarial hearing. The control of the proceeding does not lie with any particular party or parties. The Panel would control the proceeding and would make the necessary directions in order to defeat any prejudice real or apparent;

b)In all previous public inquiries by Suhakam, except for one or two, Police witnesses have not come forward to provide recorded statements. In spite of that, every single public inquiry Suhakam has conducted did not show any signs of prejudice having taken place to any particular party or parties.

c)But we do recognize the observation made in certain cases that with recorded statements before us we could test the veracity of particular witnesses in a better light as we would have the advantage of comparing the witnesses’ testimonies to their recorded statements.

d)We have in our arsenal various techniques that we could employ to set off this apparent unfairness that may be prejudicial. We could for instance make observations of these facts when we evaluate the credibility of witnesses. On the other hand, counsel appearing before us would be able to employ strategic modes of cross examinations in eliciting the truth from fiction and therein achieve the balance in the apparent “inequality of arms”.

Dated this Sept 11, 2009
Commissioners
Dato’ Muhammad Shafee Abdullah (Chairman)
Datuk Dr Michael Yeoh Onn Kheng
Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria


comments


Sorry suhakam, u still dont realise that the police only follow UMNO,s instructions!!
Seems you still dont realise that you hv no power to do anything unless allowed by UMNO!!
Why not you use means at yr disposal to investigate further? but even than i feel u will be "pressured" by UMNO to quit!!
Sorry if what i said hurts but its been too long and we see that nothing can change unless we change it with rakyat power!!
Strong words i am sure but just see hiw this country seems oblivious to so many misjudgements, any fool will tell you that we are a policed state

The Dog can Bark, But what the fark for when they cannot BITE?

This is Malaysia, you only can bite when your UMNO master says you can.
SIT!, you sit!
STAND!, you stand!
SHIT!, oh you better SHIT! on the opposition! UNDERSTAND? THIS IS UMNO MALAYSIA!

May i know who is funding this shiatty org along with some other toothless orgs?

If it is the rakyat's money then about time we put a stop to this as the staff and bigshots are just sitting there enjoying their pension and holidaying with our money.

Anyone can also set up an org and once in a while talk kalk about human rights!

Mystery ‘police’ after Sivanesan?

Sivanesan Tanggavelu attending the Teoh Beng Hock inquest yesterday.


After being told to report to Jenjarom police station near Banting tonight, T. Sivanesan, who claimed anti-graft officers had assaulted him last year, went along with lawyer Gobind Singh Deo, only to find that no one there knew what was going on.

Sivanesan’s testimony at the Teoh Beng Hock inquest yesterday suggested Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officers torture people during questioning.

Tonight, several persons came to his home in Jenjarom but he was not home at the time. It is unclear if these persons were policemen.

The DAP’s Lim Kit Siang had sent out tweet messages earlier saying persons he was told were policemen had gone to Sivanesan’s house to arrest him. Since he was out, they apparently left a message for him to report to the Jenjarom police station.

But when he arrived at the station with his lawyer Gobind, policemen there were unaware of any such request.

Earlier today, the MACC failed in its bid at the High Court in Petaling Jaya to remove Sivanesan’s damaging evidence that its men torture people during questioning.

The national anti-graft body had objected strongly to letting Sivanesan testify as a witness in the coroner’s court tasked to find out the cause of Teoh’s death.

Sivanesan told the coroner’s court yesterday that he had been badly beaten up by Selangor graft busters during interrogation at their office in Plaza Masalam, Shah Alam last year. He had to be hospitalised for four days.

Photographs detailing his injuries and a police report filed in September last year complaining about MACC brutality were admitted as evidence.

MACC’s legal director Datuk Abdul Razak Musa, who is holding a watching brief at Teoh’s inquest, insists that any evidence from Sivanesan, who is a suspect in a separate and ongoing investigation by the Selangor MACC, is “not relevant” to efforts to establish how Teoh died.

He maintained the same position in the High Court today but Judge Yeoh Wee Siam dismissed the MACC’s application to review and revise the ruling made by the coroner’s court. She also denied the national anti-graft body’s bid to postpone the inquest from continuing tomorrow, pending their appeal at the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya.

RM218m suit against Umno struck out

Justice Anantham Kasinater, judge of the High Court of Kuala Lumpur today threw out a RM218million suit filed by Elegant Advisory Sdn Bhd, an election campaign material supplier against Umno saying that he was satisfied that the there was no basis for the application.

Justice Anantham said "The court is satisfied that it did not meet Section 71 of the Act, and ruled it was unjust enrichment. The court is also satisfied there is no privity of contract between Elegant Advisory and Umno,"

Ahmad Termizi Abdullah, the lawyer for the company said "We will do more research in getting this full judgment before filing appeal” while Mohd Hafarizam Harun, who represented Umno said "Umno, as a responsible party, did not violate the Election 0ffences Act 1994,"


comments

GOOD GRACIOUS ARE WE HAVING ANY LAWS IN THIS COUNTRY?
IS THERE ANY JUDGE WHO CAN RULE THE LAWS IN PROTECTION OF ANY OTHER THAN THE GOVERNMENT, or EVEN umno?

f**king Bar Council WHERE THE f**k IS THE RULE OF LAWS ?
The Elegant Advisory HAS NO INVOICE to this Rm 218 Million?

This Justice Anantham " dog" working in favor of umno who state they did not violate Election offences act 1994?
Billing of supplies come under an act?

What is " the court is satisfied that it did not meet section 71 of the act?

Does not supplies running up to 218 million show that this umno is avoiding any contact with the company.

HOW CAN ANYONE BE SO foolish TO SUPPLY without promise?

GOOD GRACIOUS YAB PM Najib , THIS NATION IS LAWLESS EXCEPT FOR THE "HOAX AND CONSPIRACIES"
LIKE IN THE " murders " by Police Officials, the macc and now the mcmc soon to be release "conspired version"

f**king shit we Malaysians are CLUELESS!

umno BN can do and make RULES by any means.
1 MALAYSIA IS MORE DANGEROUS THAN MAHATHIR MAFIA!


These judges are UMNO supporters. That is why they said UMNO was not guilty of corruption. So, I call this concept 1Pinnochio.

MCMC visits Malaysiakini's office again

It seems that the MCMC (Malaysian Communication and Multimedia Commission)’s investigation on local news portal Malaysiakini is set to continue after they visited the office again in their investigation of the cow-head videos.

7 members of the MCMC visited Malaysiakini and demanded for the original tapes of the 2 videos which they have instructed the news portal to remove. Mohd Syukri Jamaluddin led the team which includes 3 digital forensics experts also interviewed Mohd Kamal Ishak, the cameraman who covered the post-meeting press conference by Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein with the cow-head protestors.

MCMC has accused Malaysiakini to have contravened the Communication and Multimedia Act (CMA) 1998 and according to Abdul Halim Ahman, the Senior Acting Director of the Monitoring and Enforcement Division, posting the 2 videos in their portal "is an offence under Section 211/233 of the CMA". According to Steven Gan, the Editor-in-Chief of Malaysiakini, who said that they will not take down the videos, “Our intent in putting up the videos was not to 'annoy' anyone, but to do our job as journalists to draw attention to the protest and to ensure action is taken so that incidents like this will not happen again in Malaysia."


comments


The Federal Governemnt under the PM is supposed to SERVE the Nation. This kind of "dirty mafia" Aggression and "attack" upon an Independent Malaysian owned News firm is TOTAL "MISUSE OF POWER" and persecution by Force?

It is time WE MALAYSIANS STAND UP PEACEFULLY AGAINST THIS KIND OF HARASSMENT UPON ANY ONE WHO IS |"NOT GUILTY" of any crime until Charged and sentenced.

BN Umno Najis wanted to shut up the true MEDIA mouth!!!
we wait and see Najis and Hisapmudin using ISA to close Malaysiakini...

Come on, its a real video shot and ACTUALLY happened! What is wrong with displaying it???!!!! Show the FACTS! We Malaysians will decide who is wrong and right. No need you MCMC or MACC or MCACMMMC meddle with FACTS. We want to see REAL and FACTUAL news. Not twisted and racist news from the MSM!!! Hands off and do your job properly. Don't get GAJI BUTA doing these silly trivial stuffs.


The MACC, FBI and CIA are out to prove that they are the best at apprehending criminals.



The US President decides to give them a test. He releases a
rabbit into a forest and each of them has to catch it.

First the CIA goes in. They place animal informants
throughout the forest. They question all plant and mineral
witnesses. After three months of extensive investigations
they conclude that rabbits do not exist.

Next the FBI goes in. After two weeks with no luck they
burn the forest, killing everything in it, including the
rabbit, and they make no apologies.. The rabbit had it coming.

Finally the MACC goes in. They come out two hours later
with a badly beaten wild boar..

The wild boar is yelling:

"Okay! Okay! I'm a rabbit! I'm a rabbit!"

Shut it or I will sue – Chua tells Ong

Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek, the sacked deputy president of MCA has told the party president Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat to stop slandering him in public otherwise he will take legal action.

This came in light where Ong claims that Chua has started a new political party named Parti Cinta Malaysia. He claims that Ong is the one sending these rumours and for all the speculations involves because he is the ‘grandfather of all nonsense”.

Chua said "If Ong continues to claim that I'm forming a new party, I will sue him in no uncertain terms... I don't want him to spend his retirement in court," said Chua, adding that Ong is already facing a slew of court cases. All I want is to be a normal member of the MCA when I retire fully in future," said Dr Chua, who was expelled on Aug 26. I would like to deny in very strong terms that we have any intention of forming any new party. I would say that this is a creation of Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat and I would say he's a grandfather of all nonsense. We have no such plan because we are confident that the extraordinary general meeting (EGM) that we are calling will be successful, not because they are supporting Dr Chua or are against Ong but because I have faith in the wisdom of the MCA central delegates,"


comments


Ong Tee Keat has already sunk MCA to the bottom of the South China Sea. The problem is that Ong Tee Keat does not know he is already under water with more legal cases growing by the day.

MCA has a history of having weak Presidents and Ong Tee Keat is no exception.

if i am chua i will engage the best private investigator and collect evidence that will be use to sure Ong for the video exposure'.

i declare war with him if he has something to do with the video exposure and let the public know and let all MCA members vote him out and clear my name amicably.

my sexual life is a private matter an no one suppose to do anything with it. if there is someone want top meddle with me on that it is either him or me must die.

Khairy: Don’t test our patience

Indonesians should not continue to test the patience of Malaysians, said Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin.

“Indonesians should understand that Malaysians are also sensitive, and get angry at hearing our country labelled negatively, and seeing our national flag burnt.

“We realise we need to understand and learn about the sensitivities of Indonesians. I hope Indo­nesians will not continue testing the patience of Malaysians because it will incite similar aggressive nationalism from us,” he said in a statement yesterday.

Angry Indonesians have been protesting daily over the use of the Balinese pendet dance in the Enigmatic Malaysia promotion by Discovery Channel.

Despite an apology by the channel to the Indonesian Government that Malaysia was clearly not at fault, some sectors in the republic refused to accept the explanation.

“I urge youth leaders of political parties and non-governmental organisations such as Himpunan Pengusaha Muda Indonesia to resolve this controversy for the benefit of Malaysia, Indonesia and the Asean region in general,” said Khairy.

He hoped rational voices from both countries would ensure that the controversy was not prolonged or led to untoward incidents.

He said recent incidents included the Jalur Gemilang being burnt at Yogyakarta university, Indo­nesian hackers attacking Malaysian websites during the 52nd Merdeka celebration and labelling Malaysia a thief, and aggressive demonstrations outside the Malaysian Embassy in Indonesia.

Khairy warned that although the extreme anti-Malaysian acts did not reflect the sentiments of the majority of Indonesians, it could lead to a souring of ties between both countries.

He added that Indonesians should also not simply accuse Malay­sians of stealing their culture, especially as both nations had a shared heri­tage through the centuries.

“I am not questioning the origin of the pendet dance, but it is impossible that we can claim certain cultural aspects as being 100% Indonesian or 100% Malaysian when the shared culture occurred even before the existence of the concept of nation, race and national boundaries as a result of foreign colonisation.
“Those who accuse Malaysia of stealing their culture should study the history and heritage of this region,” he said.


comments

Kairy, along the same vein, please tell the govt not to test our patience too.
Harga barang naik, naik. Common folks suffer daily with the cost of living outpacing our salaries while good governance is nonexistent and our tax money haemorraging profusely as corruption run wild in Malaysia.

“Those who accuse Malaysia of stealing their culture should study the history and heritage of this region,” he said.

Now this Oxfart kera has a lembu head. In asking others to study their heritage before accusing, this Rembau lembu is implying that the Balinese pendet dance may actually be a Malaysian's heritage. But then, why apologised?? Should also counter their accussation by protesting at the Indon embassy after tomorrow's Friday prayers lah

This thievery Khairy, for your information, has been testing the patience of non-Malays in Malaysia as well since UMNO became the dominant political force.

Non-Malay culture,religion and contribution to our national identity has been systematically 'air brushed' out our national consciousness which can aptly be described as ethno-cultural cleansing. The latest atrocity is the 'cow head' insult to Hindus in Shah Alam. The Shah Alam Malays on UMNO's instigation are hell bent on destroying a 150 year old Hindu temple. Whose patience is being tested Khairy, you ignoramus!

This 'cleansing' in the universities, police force, army, judiciary, civil service etc is really testing non-Malay patience. Non-Malays want back their land and will not tolerate anymore thievery from UMNO.

Teoh inquest: High Court dismisses MACC bid to block evidence of torture, rules testimony relevant

The High Court here dismissed an application for a judicial review to stop a witness in the Teoh Beng Hock inquest from testifying.

The application was filed by Datuk Abdul Razak Muda, who is holding a watching brief for the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), to stop T. Sivanesan from testifying in the inquest.

Sivanesan alleged he had been tortured by Selangor MACC officers in Plaza Masalam in September last year.

On Wednesday, coroner Azmil Muntapha Abas allowed Sivanesan to testify despite objections by Abdul Razak as he (Azmil) had earlier ruled on Tuesday that Sivanesan’s report was relevant to the case as his alleged torture took place at Plaza Masalam and the officers involved could be the same men who interrogated Teoh.

On Thursday PJ High Court judge Justice Yeoh Wee Siam ruled that there was nothing illegal, incorrect or improper with the coroner’s ruling and asked all parties to proceed with the inquest.

The inquest, being held at the Shah Alam Magistrates Court, however has been adjourned to 9am Friday.

Sivanesan’s testimony on Wednesday could have been expunged if the High Court had ruled that his evidence was not relevant.

Teoh, who was the political secretary to Selangor executive councilor Ean Yong Hian Wah, was summoned to the MACC office located on the 14th floor of Plaza Masalam here on July 15 to be questioned over the alleged irregular disbursement of state funds.
He was found dead at the building’s fifth floor service corridor the following day.


comments


Off course it is relevant. It goes to show that torture and violence were used to extract information from witness / suspects. This MACC have more brawn than brains. They are not fir to be anti corruption officers. They do not have tact and the intelligence to arrest corruption. Hooligans in suits

Actually Razak should eat cow dung and go for further night classes on law. It is common knowledge that opponents in court always get witnesses and evidence to prove the character of the other party. Razak is so heartless that he considers caning the victims testicles is irrelevant? We want him to show us his testicles and ....

Thanks to Justice Yeoh Wee Siam. He restores some confidence in the judiciary.

The main purpose of the coroner is to get to the bottom of the case. Common sense will tell you that if there is no torture at the MACC, why would TBH "committed suicide"?

If it involves the same place and probably the same persons, why should Sivanesan's testimony not be accepted? In fact, the wrist wounds found on TBH corresponds to the truth in Sivanesan's testimony that one is subjected to abuse and torture while he is being hand-cuffed!

If the MACC claims that it's image is being smeared, then by all means rebut or defend the allegations in the coroner's court. The coroner already has placed some restrictions on Sivanesan's police report on how it is to be argued in court. Is that not enough for MACC? By asking the higher courts to forbid the testimony of torture, then might as well as don't have the coroner hearings in the first place because nobody can ever die in the MACC if they are just chit-chatting there!

MACC must have something terrible to hide if they ask the courts to forbid the torture testimony! I have a sneaking feeling the Court of Appeal might subsequently agree with the MACC to cover up the case. If that is the case, TBH's family should go back to Najib to demand for a RCI.


Now, Abdul Razak Muda(coverer of murder), trying to prevent justice being done to Sdr Teoh beng Hock by trying to get the High Court to stop the witness who was tortured by MACC mobsters in Sept. 2008. MACC(Murder And Cover-up Commission) mobsters have deprived an uborn child of a father, robbed a wife of her husband & income earner and stole a loyal, hardworking & upcoming son from a Malaysian couple. Well, you still trying to cover-up the murder of Sdr TBH just likened to the murder of the pregnant Mongolian model committed by those in the corridors of power.

God knows who the real murderers are, there is no escape. Those who committed the murders must pay for the crime committed. God have mercy on you.

Penan girls and women were sexually violated

Nearly a year after, a government task force report has confirmed that Penan women and children in Sarawak were raped and sexually abused by timber workers.

The report by the national task force set up in October last year also found troubling incidents of children as young as 10 years old being sexually abused by the timber companies' truck drivers when they took the children to school.

The task force reported that students were "frequently molested" by the truck drivers.

"In one account, the truck driver molested a 14-year-old's breasts on the journey to school," the report, written in Malay, said.

It said that in another incident, a girl was taken away by the truck driver after the boys were told to get down from the vehicle. Other girls in the truck managed to escape, but were unable to help that one girl get down in time.

In yet another instance, a girl was riding, together with her father, in a timber truck to go to Long Bangan to apply for her identity card. "Halfway through the journey, the passengers were told to alight, but the driver hung on to Mary (not her real name) and sped off. He then stopped the truck, dragged her to a bush by the side of the road and tried to molest her.

"Her father and the other passengers ran after the truck after realising that Mary had been apprehended, and managed to catch up with them and stop any further abuse," the report said.

An interviewee told the task force she had been raped by the timber company's truck driver on her way to a neighbouring longhouse, in addition to being raped when she was 12 outside the school compound by an unidentified man.

"She recalled that the government used to provide vehicles to take them home from school during the term breaks. However, this had been discontinued, so they had to rely on the timber companies as the only means of transportation," the report noted.

In the absence of any viable alternatives such as proper tarred roads or school buses, Penan children who live in the interior are entirely reliant on the timber companies for transport as some of their schools are located four to six hours away by truck.

The report was prepared mostly from interviews conducted by ministry officials and other representatives, including women's groups, in November 2008 when they visited the Penan community in Sarawak. The task force was set up to investigate the allegations of rape and sexual abuse of Penan women and girls in the Baram district.

Surprising release

After close to a year of not wanting to make the report public, the Women, Family and Community Development Ministry released a copy of the report to Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) Wanita chief Zuraida Kamaruddin on 8 Sept.

"After months of unanswered calls and letters to the minister, I went to see the minister (Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil) yesterday and was informed by her staff that I could collect the report," Zuraida told The Nut Graph over the phone.

The report was subsequently made available to The Nut Graph via e-mail.

No explanation was given by the ministry as to why the report could not be made public initially. The ministry has also yet to explain why it took so long to make the report available to the public despite numerous calls to do so in the interest of public accountability.



Bigger picture

Apart from documenting the individual instances of rape and sexual abuse, the task force also found that the Penan were especially vulnerable because of their low socioeconomic status and lack of access to government and healthcare services.

The factors that cause the community's vulnerability include overdependence on timber companies for transportation and other services, poverty, and the remoteness of their villages.

The report also cited the Penan's distrust of the authorities, and their low self-esteem as a result of prejudices against them.

"All these factors — sexual violations, not having ICs, health problems, dropping out of schools — are closely related to imbalanced development. The lack of roads and public transportation causes the Penan difficulties in engaging with the outside world, including government agencies.

"In order to ensure more balanced development, the involvement of the Penan in matters that affect their lives must be increased," the report said.

The report also made several specific proposals to address sexual abuse, including raising awareness within the Penan community on personal safety, violence towards women, and sex education.

"Teachers in Penan schools would also need to be educated to be sensitive to the specific needs and difficulties faced by the community," the report said.

The task force also proposed for "trusted vehicle drivers" and a pupil management assistant to accompany the Penan children back to their villages. No specific proposals were mooted on how to make it easier for those who have been raped and sexually abused in the Penan community to report such incidents.

Despite the task force's findings, it remains to be seen whether any of the offenders will be charged and brought to justice for the sexual abuse perpetrated on the Penan women and children. Although several police reports have been made, it is unclear whether the police will be investigating the matter



comments

1. Their big Bosses raped the forest and sucked billions from the State resources in cohorts with the politicians.
2. Their workers have a free hand to rape the women and children of the Natives in their own backyards.
3. And the Government call all these activities 'sustainable logging' and even try to promote and distort the message across the world with their 'Buy Malaysian Tropical Wood' campaign.
4. All happening right here in Malaysia. Wow, how I simply love "Malaysia Boleh".

Why Shahrizat Abdul Jalil took such a long time to release the report so that something can be done? Is she ever concern about these poor girls who could be the same age as her children? Is she also on the take? She is not fit to be a Minister in charge of welfare in the first place. Just take a look at how much she has spent doing up her Ministry and her office. That sort of money could be spent much wisely helping the poor Penans. What has she ever done for poor people when there are still so many who have no access to aids from her Ministry. Shahrizat, you are a fake and many of us could see through you. Abdul Jalil, you have such a horrible daughter.

These Penan are true Bumiputra and yet they are treated like dirt by the State government as well as Federal Govt. Something must be done to protect them and all Malaysian minorities that are constantly being exploited..catch the rapists and send them to jail for a long time...!This is where DNA evidences come in handy in tracing these rapists as there are childrens born out of these rapes...!


I really wish the Penan Chieftain, BRUNO MANSER is around. First dart will be for Taib Mahmud (so that he can join his wife Laila) for allowing his money suppliers to commit the rapes, and the second dart for the Mamee Bitch Sharizat for trying to cover up with the hope Malaysians mudah lupa. She was a minister for women& family matters and now an advisor.

Does she think that only malay cunts needed protection from NEP and not the others'? She is a bitch ain't she? No wonder a little girl dumped her during the last election. People must ensure she is always devastingly defeated, in case she unashamedly seeks candidacy.

And the bastard dogs in blue denied these rapes when the matter earlier surfaced. Were they also trying to cover up (for $$$) or that is their standard of investigation? Is the Chief Dog going to say that the investigation was done by inexperienced policemen? Doesn't all these explain the custody murders (water in lungs lah, found dead in toilet lah, found hanging in the lockup with a mysterious saree lah...).

Isn't the MACC going for the current report investigator? Isn't MCMC going for the online news webs for publishing this?

One whole year for an official report to acknowledge what is common knowledge -that the weak and powerless Penan womenfolk in particular have been raped and sexually harassed.
Then, No further action!

Emergency! Emergency! There aren’t enough froggy ADUNS in Selangor! Emergency! Emergency!

Be not in any doubt that on the night of 8th March, last year, as the fall of the mighty BN began to unfold as the election results were announced, the move by UMNO to re-take Selangor from DAP, PAS and PKR and thwart the will of the voters, had already begun.

Remember the revelation much later, after the Pakatan Selangor state government had been sworn in, of Khir Toyo and Hassan Ali’ s clandestine meetings in the days immediately after the elections, with a view to negotiating a PAS-UMNO/BN coalition government in Selangor?

If Hassan had been able to swing enough crossovers then, he would be MB of Selangor today.

He couldn’t then, and he still can’t now.

Not that they haven’t tried.

As Selangor State Assembly YB Teng has pointed out, getting 9 Pakatan ADUNs in Selangor to crossover is not as simple as getting the two donkeys and the other Hee-whore in Perak to sell out.

It would cost far, far more and besides, Pakatan, possibly learning a lesson or two in Perak, have been more guarded in Selangor.

Several forces in UMNO are still determined to take Selangor back.

On 9th August, this year, Malaysiakini reported Najib as saying that he wanted Selangor, which he described as the heartbeat of the nation, back in BN’s grip, calling on all the component parties within the coalition to bring about the necessary changes, to win back the state, implying taking back the state in an election.

Yet anyone with any credible source of information from within the BN coalition will tell you that the major component parties are all, without exception, in total disarray.

Gerakan has lost all credibility, MCA is split and MIC has become incresingly irrelevant to the Indian community.

Some speculate that Najib’s intelligentsia had hoped that the release of the Hindraf 5 from Kamunting might, amongst other things, spell the end of Aiyo Aiyo Samy’s allready tottering political career.

Can Najib still confidently count on UMNO’s ‘fixed deposits’ in East Malaysia?

And Najib has to constantly watch his back, with word making its rounds that he is out of favour with he who was the architect of Pak Lah’s premature departure from the seat of power, working in tandem with the current No.2.

And Najib is advocating a reform to make ready to face the next elections?

Zaid’s challenge to Najib to call for snap elections in Perak if the latter really believes that Pakatan Rakyat is floundering in the states that they now govern hits the nail squarely on the head.

Forget snap elections in Perak, though.

Najib doesn’t dare call for a snap general election now.

And yet, Selangor had to be taken back, and now.

It is a rich state; a literal money-churning machine.

Hence Toyo’s RM24 million mansion.

Hence the huge amounts of state asemblymen allocations misappropriated as is emerging from the ongoing Select Committee on Competence, Accountability and Transparency (Selcat) probe.

And, it is rumoured that in the run-up to the last elections, Selangor UMNO, through the late Zakaria Deros, raised a huge amount in campaign funds on the promise of future contracts and projects when BN returned to form the government.

That didn’t happen.

Leaving some very unhappy, very unfriendly people in the state who want their money back, I am told.

More than ever, Selangor had to be taken back.

If MACC’s investigation into the affairs of the Selangor Pakatan ADUNs hadn’t gone awry with the death of Beng Hock, so it seems, MB Khalid and several of his exco members were to be arrested and remanded that Friday to face trumped-up corruption charges.

The circumstances in which Beng Hock died turned the spotlight on MACC, which then had to tread carefully.

A new plan had to be hatched.

Turn to the tried and tested.

History will bear testimony that every time Barisan Nasional and, before that, the Alliance, found itself losing its grip on political power in the country, a bout of madness would coincidentally seize a certain segment of the polity.

Take May, 13, 1969.

We may never know the truth of why this sad episode happened in our nation’s history.

Official accounts will blame it on the overly exuberant celebrations of the opposition who had just emerged from a recently concluded general election, leaving the ruling coalition barely holding on to federal power. This, it seems, was simply too much for the supporters of the ruling UMNO to swallow. Hence, the racial clashes.

Dr. Kua’s book points the finger at elite Malay nationalist leaders contriving to displace Bapa Malaysia and the rule of law, impose emergency rule and effectively return unto themselves what had been lost through the democratic process.

Two seemingly differing accounts of the whys and wherefores of 13th May, 1969 and yet, when viewed closely and in the light of all that we know now, one may begin to see that the two actually describe different forces, albeit on the same side, at work .

The elites that Dr. Kua speaks of set the agenda.

Intermediaries then go to the ground to agitate the masses with the same, old, rhetoric.

Loss of Malay political dominance will see the Malay enslaved in his own land.

Muslims will one day be ruled by the kafir unless they rise to defend their dissipating political dominance.

Immigrants are robbing and abusing the generosity of the indigenous.

The old divide and rule.

The events leading up to Ops Lallang is another case in point.

Najib stirring up the sentiments of the Malays, and Lee Kim Sai supposedly ‘reacting’ thereto.

The script’s the same.

Only the settings, the props and the actors change.

On 4th August, the wannabe MB, Hassan Ali, goes public with his harebrained proposal to ban the sale of alcohol in all Muslim-majority areas in the state of Selangor, immediately pitting the ultra-conservative Muslims in the state against the more liberal of that faith and the non-Muslims.

A controversy, it seemed, was set to explode in Selangor.

3 days later, however, MB Khalid appeared to have nipped the storm in the bud when he announced that there was to be no blanket ban of the sale of alcohol in the state. This, however, set the stage for the ‘Take Beeer” slogans that were to appear at the Permatang Pasir by-elections.

Unbeknownst to most, though, even as this potential controversy was headed off, the foundation for another, more sensational one, had been set the day after Hassan announced his ‘ban alcohol sale’ proposal.

On 5th August, the Selangor state exco approved the proposal to relocate the Sri Maha Mariamman temple, presently situated in section 19, Shah Alam, to section 23, and directed that the proposal be made known to the residents of section 23.

At the dialogue that was sponsored by the state government last Saturday, YB Khalid Samad was at great pains to emphasise that the relocation was, at that stage, only a proposal, and the state government had no intention of moving forward with the same until all interested parties had been heard. This is an important point to note.

Even before the dust from the ‘ban alcohol sale’ announcement could settle, Hassan came up with another salvo.

On 24th August, Hassan now announces that mosque officials will be called upon to arrest Muslims found working in establishments that serve, store or display alcoholic beverages.

The next day UMNO Selangor chief Abdul Shukor Idrus responds to Hassan’s announcement by taunting the Selangor government to arrest Muslims working at the two breweries operating in the state.

Two days later, on 27th August, Hassan responds to UMNO’s taunts to say that the Selangor government will not mobilise mosque officials to arrest Muslims working in breweries but that such actions could be taken in future.

It’s important to note here that all these announcements by Hassan were never sanctioned by the state government.

He was on a frolic of his own.

A frolic that laid the state government open to be painted as being anti-Islam.

The ‘cow head’ protest that took place the next day, 28th August, was replete with banners declaring the state government, MB Khalid and several other named YBs as just that : anti-Islam.

Interestingly, Hassan, who is in charge of Islamic affairs in the state, has not been heard on this issue at all.

Not even a call for calm, or to denounce the vile acts of the protestors.

UMNO, so as squeeze the Pakatan state government into a seemingly inextricable corner, then offers to find an alternative site for the to-be relocated temple.

I think the protest, whilst planned with some detail, was hastily put together.

Had the organisers more time, the individuals involved, and who have today been slapped with charges in court, would not themselves have featured in the protest that day, but would have left it all to hired hands with no ostensible links whatsoever to UMNO so as not to leave such a pointed trail as would prove an embarrassment to Najib and leave his 1Malaysia looking patently hollow.

Or was that also the intended effect?

Weaken the Najib administration whilst laying the ground to contrive Selangor as being on the brink of racial chaos?

Perhaps by those unhappy with measures announced by the present administration which appeared to incline towards meritocracy and do away with reservations and quotas long accustomed to by the few privileged in UMNO?

There can be little doubt that the protest was intended to injure the feelings of the Hindus, and yet, on the face of it, the grouse of the protestors was with the state government.

This, in my view, was the first giveaway that the protest had a hidden agenda, far removed from the matter of the relocation of the temple.

The opportunity to observe the same protestors of that ‘cow head’ demo at the dialogue, for me, proved to be most valuable.

Watching Azmir ( the songkok’d one ) and his sidekicks at the back of the hall laughing amongst themselves after each round of loud abuse hurled at the YBs in front left me convinced that their displayed anger, allegedly for the state government’s lack of sensitivity towards the feelings of the Muslim community in section 23, was contrived and not real.

So why this contrivance, and was the end-goal achieved?

I think it was a monumental disaster, save and except if it was also intended to embarass the Najib administration, which it certainly did.

Firstly, the Hindus did not react in the manner that the organisers must have hoped for.

Gandhi would have been proud of my Hindu brothers and sisters.

I am.

Secondly, they probably overlooked that even as the mainstream media might not carry footage of the disgusting mistreatment of the head of a dead cow, the internet has carried those scenes far and wide, and has largely been roundly condemned by a large segment of the Malay community.

They were not prepared for this.

Was contriving a state of affairs in Selangor to then allow for federal intervention through emergency provisions the gameplan?

To allow for such a state of affairs to spill into neighbouring states so as to enable the ”emergency’ net to be cast nationwide?

Thereby deferring general elections ad infinitum, at least until a redelineation exercise creates another 30 or so safe seats?

If so, was Najib in the driving seat and, if not, what gives?

In 1977, emergency powers were used to displace PAS rule in Kelantan. A brief account of the events leading up to this may be viewed HERE.

YB Lim Kit Siang’s speech, when the emergency bill for Kelantan was debated in Parliament, can be read in full HERE.


comments


UMNO goons are like spoiled kids.
They have been misusing power or so long, they think they are above the law.
But in the next life, they will face The Judge. for mankind, there is no escape. So strive to do good.

The pattern is unmistakably there. Whenever there is signs of losing power, just light the powder keg of racism & religious sentiments to blow democracy sky high. Create chaos and anarchy to justify emergency rule to supplant a democratically-elected government.

We need more such expose to show the evil deeds and intentions of BN/UMNO to undermine democracy in our country. And we need to highlight this to the rakyat, so that we will not fall into UMNO/BN's trap. And we shall collectively excise this disease called UMNO/BN from our country come GE13. Let's start off by doing it in Bagan Pinang.