The litany of wrong-doings by the present government is too long. They have moved from stealing our tax dollars to having innocent people killed. This is the culmination of the steady erosion and destruction of all of our institutions, institutions that are meant to protect the common person from the very abuse of power that we are witnessing daily in Malaysia.
The rot has gotten to the core and if we don't change we are doomed ... we will be left with a country like Zimbabwe.
So vote at the next General Election and vote BN out!!!
Save Malaysia
28 October 2010
Saturday rally as outrage grows over police revenge on witness
This is from SUARAM
SUARAM, Lawyers for Liberty
The continuing descent of the Malaysian police force into lawlessness has been graphically demonstrated by the October 25th abduction and beating of K.Selvachandran by police personnel. Selvachandran was a key witness who testified against the police in the recently concluded R.Gunasegaran inquest. On the very day the verdict was delivered in the inquest, police moved against Selvachandran.
When Selva's children asked police why their father was being dragged away, the police answered by beating Selva in front of his own children. The trauma caused to the children is unimaginable and in gross violation of international norms on the protection of children. In a twisted perversion of conjugal love, police personnel tried to make Selva's wife S.Saraswathy kiss him before beating him up in front of her.
Selva, who did his duty as a citizen by telling the truth at the Gunasegaran inquest, is now being held at a unknown location with no access to his family or lawyers. It is believed that he is being detained without trial under the Emergency Ordinance.
The outrage done against Selva and his family is only the latest in a long series of police brutality cases going back into and beyond the Mahathir despotism.
WE FREE CITIZENS OF THIS NATION MUST MAKE A STAND AGAINST THE PREVAILING POLICE AND STATE VIOLENCE ! JOIN US FOR THE HANDING OVER OF A PROTEST MEMORANDUM TO THE IGP THIS
SATURDAY ( 30.10.2010 )
10.00am
BUKIT AMAN FEDERAL POLICE HQ ( LAKE GARDEN ENTRANCE ).
Issued by,
SUARAM
LAWYERS FOR LIBERTY ( LFL)
The reality is that the police are now the largest organised group that is a law unto themselves. So who protects us from the police who are supposed to be our protector.
Time to make sure we have an Executive that has a conscience and is just. Vote BN OUT bu saying a Big No.
SUARAM, Lawyers for Liberty
The continuing descent of the Malaysian police force into lawlessness has been graphically demonstrated by the October 25th abduction and beating of K.Selvachandran by police personnel. Selvachandran was a key witness who testified against the police in the recently concluded R.Gunasegaran inquest. On the very day the verdict was delivered in the inquest, police moved against Selvachandran.
When Selva's children asked police why their father was being dragged away, the police answered by beating Selva in front of his own children. The trauma caused to the children is unimaginable and in gross violation of international norms on the protection of children. In a twisted perversion of conjugal love, police personnel tried to make Selva's wife S.Saraswathy kiss him before beating him up in front of her.
Selva, who did his duty as a citizen by telling the truth at the Gunasegaran inquest, is now being held at a unknown location with no access to his family or lawyers. It is believed that he is being detained without trial under the Emergency Ordinance.
The outrage done against Selva and his family is only the latest in a long series of police brutality cases going back into and beyond the Mahathir despotism.
WE FREE CITIZENS OF THIS NATION MUST MAKE A STAND AGAINST THE PREVAILING POLICE AND STATE VIOLENCE ! JOIN US FOR THE HANDING OVER OF A PROTEST MEMORANDUM TO THE IGP THIS
SATURDAY ( 30.10.2010 )
10.00am
BUKIT AMAN FEDERAL POLICE HQ ( LAKE GARDEN ENTRANCE ).
Issued by,
SUARAM
LAWYERS FOR LIBERTY ( LFL)
The reality is that the police are now the largest organised group that is a law unto themselves. So who protects us from the police who are supposed to be our protector.
Time to make sure we have an Executive that has a conscience and is just. Vote BN OUT bu saying a Big No.
10 October 2010
BN warns Chinese that if PR wins PAS will be PM
The same old story is dusted off, and shown to the populace ... voting in the "opposition" means voting for an Islamic state.
What is never mentioned is that Islamic law has become more pervasive and affects non-Muslims much more under BN State Governments that under PAS.
There has been rhetoric but PAS also understands that winning does not mean that they can change the constitution. Anyway what have we got to loose, how much worst off can we be if PAS introduced Islamic law, if the corrupted and incompetent race based parties in BN are thrown out.
Bear in mind that they (BN) are an illegitimate party having lost the people's trust. They can only win votes by paying for it, like everything else their god is MONEY.
What is never mentioned is that Islamic law has become more pervasive and affects non-Muslims much more under BN State Governments that under PAS.
There has been rhetoric but PAS also understands that winning does not mean that they can change the constitution. Anyway what have we got to loose, how much worst off can we be if PAS introduced Islamic law, if the corrupted and incompetent race based parties in BN are thrown out.
Bear in mind that they (BN) are an illegitimate party having lost the people's trust. They can only win votes by paying for it, like everything else their god is MONEY.
08 May 2009
Perak - the final frontier of childishness
The newspapers and blogsphere are abuzz with the actions of the executive and the members of the state assembly in Perak on 7 May 2009, a day all people in this once luminary state will remember. Grabbing power (i.e. controlling the state via its executive arm) is one thing, but when the house is brought down to gutter politics - that is another.
What is going on in Perak is ultimately gutter politics, and for the BN government there - no matter how much good is done for the people there, no matter how much they speak of unity and harmony, no matter how much they put into practise what they speak, the people's trust of the BN is damaged, and I would hazard a guess to say irreparably so.
This now has a spill over effect to the federal BN Government. The question is how far and wide is this spill over.
Trust is a fragile thing, difficult to obtain and easily lost. The BN state government in agreeing to take power forgot this. Power for the sake of power or at all costs does not build trust.
The point of this article is simply the following:
If the constitutional monarch had acted (as by convention he should) on the advice of his Menteri Besar who called for a dissolution of the house and a general election be held in the State, the gutter politics that is witnessed in Perak would be absent. Instead by arguing that the constitutional monarch has the absolute power to reject the advice of the MB has led to this situation that now exist in Perak.
Secondly the courts have also been dragged into this frontier, and has as Justice NH Chan said, did not interpret the constitutional provisions according to the simple and plain words that even a child would interpret. Instead some legal and interpretative gymnastics were used to justify their decision. Yet the decisions of the judges whether legal or otherwise, cannot substitute for the decision of the people because they the judges are unelected. How can the unelected dictate what the elected wishes. So when Nizar the MB asked for dissolution it is the elected who is asking and the unelected (the monarch, the judges etc) have to abide by the decision of the elected which is superior to that of the unelected.
Only by adhering to the convention that normality and the avoidance of gutter politics can emerge. Zambry should on being invited to form the state government, declined so that the general election could have been held, but he did not do so. This refusal to decline is evidenced of the need for power at all costs, no matter what the consequence to the state. Just like the action to sell off the Toyota Camrys that were purchased less than a year ago. Why? Because it was purchased by a Pakatan Rakyat Government and not by BN. Talk about childish.
This adherence to the convention has been omitted for whatever reason.
Today Perak can be said to be the effect of the very reason why the convention exist and that honest and prudent men would abide by it. To do otherwise is to court with the very foundation of a parliamentary democracy and the rights of the people.
It is a dangerous and slippery slope that the political party in power in Perak is now on.
What is going on in Perak is ultimately gutter politics, and for the BN government there - no matter how much good is done for the people there, no matter how much they speak of unity and harmony, no matter how much they put into practise what they speak, the people's trust of the BN is damaged, and I would hazard a guess to say irreparably so.
This now has a spill over effect to the federal BN Government. The question is how far and wide is this spill over.
Trust is a fragile thing, difficult to obtain and easily lost. The BN state government in agreeing to take power forgot this. Power for the sake of power or at all costs does not build trust.
The point of this article is simply the following:
If the constitutional monarch had acted (as by convention he should) on the advice of his Menteri Besar who called for a dissolution of the house and a general election be held in the State, the gutter politics that is witnessed in Perak would be absent. Instead by arguing that the constitutional monarch has the absolute power to reject the advice of the MB has led to this situation that now exist in Perak.
Secondly the courts have also been dragged into this frontier, and has as Justice NH Chan said, did not interpret the constitutional provisions according to the simple and plain words that even a child would interpret. Instead some legal and interpretative gymnastics were used to justify their decision. Yet the decisions of the judges whether legal or otherwise, cannot substitute for the decision of the people because they the judges are unelected. How can the unelected dictate what the elected wishes. So when Nizar the MB asked for dissolution it is the elected who is asking and the unelected (the monarch, the judges etc) have to abide by the decision of the elected which is superior to that of the unelected.
Only by adhering to the convention that normality and the avoidance of gutter politics can emerge. Zambry should on being invited to form the state government, declined so that the general election could have been held, but he did not do so. This refusal to decline is evidenced of the need for power at all costs, no matter what the consequence to the state. Just like the action to sell off the Toyota Camrys that were purchased less than a year ago. Why? Because it was purchased by a Pakatan Rakyat Government and not by BN. Talk about childish.
This adherence to the convention has been omitted for whatever reason.
Today Perak can be said to be the effect of the very reason why the convention exist and that honest and prudent men would abide by it. To do otherwise is to court with the very foundation of a parliamentary democracy and the rights of the people.
It is a dangerous and slippery slope that the political party in power in Perak is now on.
18 April 2009
Blogger protection - using the law as a shield
Just thought I'd share some legal pointers in case blogging gets the big stick from the new Minister.
The law book that is thrown is the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (besides being sued for tarnishing people's reputation without good cause/evidence/facts/comment).
Two sections that bloggers should be aware are s211 and s233.
Now for the prosecution to prove a criminal offence they must satisfy the court beyond reasonable doubt, that means that the defence need only show reasonable doubt and the case is won.
Second, any offence has two elements that must be satisfied - the act of the wrong-doing and the mental element - I intended to kill him (as e.g.).
So if you read s211 carefully the prosecution must prove the following:
a) That the accused is an "other person using a content applications service". So using a free blog application (e.g. Blogger) may not be using a content applications service; but may be using an applications service. Subtle but critical difference.
b) that the content provided is indecent, obscene, false, menacing, or offensive in character;
This means that the nature of the content has to be assessed. problem is that there is no one size/standard. So what is obscene to me may not be obscene to you. So-how? Law will in such circumstances apply a subjective test. Did the accused consider the content obscene etc.
c) the content provided was "with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any person".
This is the kicker. For the prosecution to succeed, they must show that the person posting the content had the intention to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any person. If the intention is to post but not to annoy then this element of the offence has not been proven.
So bloggers, all you need say is that the posting below is not intended by you to harass, abuse or threaten any person.
S233 is similar; except that if you use Blogger etc you can be caught by s233, since you are using an applications service to make, create or solicit any comment etc.
Now s233 also requires that the prosecution prove that the comment is obscene, false etc, and was made by the blogger with the intention to annoy etc. So (like s211) if there is no intent to annoy, by the maker then there is no offence.
So to show intent to annoy they must show that:-
(i) blog is read by that person which is known by the blogger (otherwise how to annoy, coz its like writing a diary about something and no one knows about it). A person cannot get annoyed if he does not know what is written about him.
(ii) the blogger knew this - which means ask the blogger this question "Did you know that the person reads your blog?" Answer: No
end question.
(iii)the purpose of writing this is to annoy etc that person (say a politician). If the purpose is something else than they cannot succeed.
So two things that bloggers should do based on the rights provided by the Law:
(i) Always state that the content expressed is not intended to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person;
(2) State that the content is an expression of your frustration with the MSM in only publishing BN's point of view and not contrarian views.
Many a time people are ignorant of the law and think that they the authorities are always right. Remember that they are human beings too, and dont know enough of the law to be sure. As human beings they can make mistakes too.
So fellow bloggers this way we can use the Law against the BN itself.
The law book that is thrown is the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (besides being sued for tarnishing people's reputation without good cause/evidence/facts/comment).
Two sections that bloggers should be aware are s211 and s233.
Now for the prosecution to prove a criminal offence they must satisfy the court beyond reasonable doubt, that means that the defence need only show reasonable doubt and the case is won.
Second, any offence has two elements that must be satisfied - the act of the wrong-doing and the mental element - I intended to kill him (as e.g.).
So if you read s211 carefully the prosecution must prove the following:
a) That the accused is an "other person using a content applications service". So using a free blog application (e.g. Blogger) may not be using a content applications service; but may be using an applications service. Subtle but critical difference.
b) that the content provided is indecent, obscene, false, menacing, or offensive in character;
This means that the nature of the content has to be assessed. problem is that there is no one size/standard. So what is obscene to me may not be obscene to you. So-how? Law will in such circumstances apply a subjective test. Did the accused consider the content obscene etc.
c) the content provided was "with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any person".
This is the kicker. For the prosecution to succeed, they must show that the person posting the content had the intention to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any person. If the intention is to post but not to annoy then this element of the offence has not been proven.
So bloggers, all you need say is that the posting below is not intended by you to harass, abuse or threaten any person.
S233 is similar; except that if you use Blogger etc you can be caught by s233, since you are using an applications service to make, create or solicit any comment etc.
Now s233 also requires that the prosecution prove that the comment is obscene, false etc, and was made by the blogger with the intention to annoy etc. So (like s211) if there is no intent to annoy, by the maker then there is no offence.
So to show intent to annoy they must show that:-
(i) blog is read by that person which is known by the blogger (otherwise how to annoy, coz its like writing a diary about something and no one knows about it). A person cannot get annoyed if he does not know what is written about him.
(ii) the blogger knew this - which means ask the blogger this question "Did you know that the person reads your blog?" Answer: No
end question.
(iii)the purpose of writing this is to annoy etc that person (say a politician). If the purpose is something else than they cannot succeed.
So two things that bloggers should do based on the rights provided by the Law:
(i) Always state that the content expressed is not intended to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person;
(2) State that the content is an expression of your frustration with the MSM in only publishing BN's point of view and not contrarian views.
Many a time people are ignorant of the law and think that they the authorities are always right. Remember that they are human beings too, and dont know enough of the law to be sure. As human beings they can make mistakes too.
So fellow bloggers this way we can use the Law against the BN itself.
16 September 2008
Change, change, change - Part 1
During the hey-days of the dotcom, Jack Welch of GE introduced the concept of DYB or destroy your business, as a challenge to existing business units of GE (and there were many), to find ways to reinvent themselves, in other words to destroy the old so that the new can emerge.
We all understand that change posseses a destructive element and the result may be good or bad. That choice is left to man to make, not nature, not god, but man.
The current BN Government, in my view, is unable to grasp the concept of change nor able to implement change. As anyone who has undertaken change management it is painful, there are many vested interests (and I don't only mean pecuniary) and entrenched positions, so much so, that a key element of change management is to have leadership and buy-in. Any corporation that wants to implement change does this.
Yet in a Government that has become accustomed to having its way, controlling 2/3rd of the Dewan Rakyat, seeing itself as a ruler not as a group to govern (a subtle but important distinction), cannot change by simply mandating it with slogans - blue ocean strategy.
If the BN Government really wanted to change, then:
(a) its top leaders must become change agents or if not to empower proper change agents;
(b) it must trust the stakeholders and in this regard must know who the stakeholders are.
(c) a proper plan for change management must be introduced.
In all three points the BN Government has failed spectacularly.
How come?
well what is said is not what is believed, so change is not going to happened because they don't really want change. They want the status quo particularly the brand of economics called mahathirism in all its glory.
Secondly they dont care whether they have stakeholder trust because they dont even know who their stakeholders are. The usual concept of stakeholders are all people who are interested in the result and this can usually be displayed as a pyramid. These guys have inverted the pyramid, so everyone looks to the PM and the PM looks to the Ketua Bahagians' for power/authority. It's almost fuedal like, in fact it probably is.
So if the going has been good, and everyone has grown up in the belief that "I will have to wait my turn to ..." then why should I want the situation to change when it is my turn.
Its like kids at a playground waiting to use the swing, after the first guy goes the second guy gets on, and if you then ask the second guy that the queuing to enjoy the swing approach is to be changed you would hear him howl.
So there aint going to be any change from within, because for all their talk (and that's what it is) they are not prepared to make the sacrifices for changing the way things are for the future generations and this country's survival.
Hence we should not believe a word they say.
So if change aint then what is?
Change from outside is the only answer. Change needs change agents to happen, and this means that all stakeholders have to act as change agents. if we want the change (and why should we not, since a change does not put us in (economically speaking) a worst off position than if no change) we should move for a change.
Next how should we move for a change ...
We all understand that change posseses a destructive element and the result may be good or bad. That choice is left to man to make, not nature, not god, but man.
The current BN Government, in my view, is unable to grasp the concept of change nor able to implement change. As anyone who has undertaken change management it is painful, there are many vested interests (and I don't only mean pecuniary) and entrenched positions, so much so, that a key element of change management is to have leadership and buy-in. Any corporation that wants to implement change does this.
Yet in a Government that has become accustomed to having its way, controlling 2/3rd of the Dewan Rakyat, seeing itself as a ruler not as a group to govern (a subtle but important distinction), cannot change by simply mandating it with slogans - blue ocean strategy.
If the BN Government really wanted to change, then:
(a) its top leaders must become change agents or if not to empower proper change agents;
(b) it must trust the stakeholders and in this regard must know who the stakeholders are.
(c) a proper plan for change management must be introduced.
In all three points the BN Government has failed spectacularly.
How come?
well what is said is not what is believed, so change is not going to happened because they don't really want change. They want the status quo particularly the brand of economics called mahathirism in all its glory.
Secondly they dont care whether they have stakeholder trust because they dont even know who their stakeholders are. The usual concept of stakeholders are all people who are interested in the result and this can usually be displayed as a pyramid. These guys have inverted the pyramid, so everyone looks to the PM and the PM looks to the Ketua Bahagians' for power/authority. It's almost fuedal like, in fact it probably is.
So if the going has been good, and everyone has grown up in the belief that "I will have to wait my turn to ..." then why should I want the situation to change when it is my turn.
Its like kids at a playground waiting to use the swing, after the first guy goes the second guy gets on, and if you then ask the second guy that the queuing to enjoy the swing approach is to be changed you would hear him howl.
So there aint going to be any change from within, because for all their talk (and that's what it is) they are not prepared to make the sacrifices for changing the way things are for the future generations and this country's survival.
Hence we should not believe a word they say.
So if change aint then what is?
Change from outside is the only answer. Change needs change agents to happen, and this means that all stakeholders have to act as change agents. if we want the change (and why should we not, since a change does not put us in (economically speaking) a worst off position than if no change) we should move for a change.
Next how should we move for a change ...
15 September 2008
Arresting News
The madness has reached even the most level headed individual. A person can be found to have made racist statements, but a reporter of a newspaper who writes about it is being labelled a racist.
This madness is contagious since at the press conference on Saturday night the Home Minister, Syed Hamid, did say that she was detained because of treats to her safety.
They used section 73 of the Internal Security Act to detain a person who had threats against her life being made.
I have several questions:
I reproduce section 73 Internal Security Act which is the section that was relied upon to detain the reporter, Raja Petra and Teresa Kok.
So my questions are:
(a) what did the reporter, Raja Petra or Teresa Kok do that would be considered by right thinking persons to be "necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to the maintenance of essential services therein or to the economic life thereof" (this is an extract of section 8(1) ISA)
(b) what evidence is there that he/she has acted or will act in a manner prejudical to the security of Malaysia or to the maintenance of essential services (e.g. power, telecommunications).
In any way one looks at it there is nothing in section 73 ISA that permits the police to detain the reporter for her own safety, and to think the Home Minister is a lawyer?!!
Secondly section 73 is to permit the police to detain a person for enquiries, so what enquiries could there be if it was for her protection?
Thirdly if she had been detained, she would be subject to DNA profiling and her profile kept on the detainee index and cannot be removed. Is this what we want? See the far reaching effect of the DNA Identification Bill?
At the end of the day, the police was acting beyond their powers (as one must infuse those apparently absolute powers with a degree of reasonableness), since the Home Minister said that they detained her not because she was a threat to national security or to maintenance of essential services but for her safety as there were threats against her.
This alone means that the police had acted beyond their powers and so her detention is both illegal and unlawful. This amounts to a tort (civil action) of false imprisonment and/or malicious prosecution.
Either way she and her employers should sue. That is the way to teach the police and the Government a lesson that they cannot abuse their power with regards to the peoples of this country.
This madness is contagious since at the press conference on Saturday night the Home Minister, Syed Hamid, did say that she was detained because of treats to her safety.
They used section 73 of the Internal Security Act to detain a person who had threats against her life being made.
I have several questions:
- Who made those threats?
- Have they been similarly arrested and detained?
- If there were such threats could the police not have stationed police officers at her home to provide protection?
I reproduce section 73 Internal Security Act which is the section that was relied upon to detain the reporter, Raja Petra and Teresa Kok.
| Section 73. Power to detain suspected persons | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (1) Any police officer may without warrant arrest and detain pending enquiries any person in respect of whom he has reason to believe—
(2) Any police officer may without warrant arrest and detain pending enquiries any person, who upon being questioned by the officer fails to satisfy the officer as to his identity or as to the purposes for which he is in the place where he is found, and who the officer suspects has acted or is about to act in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to the maintenance of essential services therein or to the economic life thereof. (3) Any person arrested under this section may be detained for a period not exceeding sixty days without an order of detention having been made in respect of him under section 8: Provided that—
(4)-(5) (Deleted by Act A61). (6) The powers conferred upon a police officer by subsections (1) and (2) may be exercised by any member of the security forces, any person performing the duties of guard or watchman in a protected place and by any other person generally authorized in that behalf by a Chief Police Officer. (7) Any person detained under the powers conferred by this section shall be deemed to be in lawful custody, and may be detained in any prison, or in any police station, or in any other similar place authorized generally or specially by the Minister. |
So my questions are:
(a) what did the reporter, Raja Petra or Teresa Kok do that would be considered by right thinking persons to be "necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to the maintenance of essential services therein or to the economic life thereof" (this is an extract of section 8(1) ISA)
(b) what evidence is there that he/she has acted or will act in a manner prejudical to the security of Malaysia or to the maintenance of essential services (e.g. power, telecommunications).
In any way one looks at it there is nothing in section 73 ISA that permits the police to detain the reporter for her own safety, and to think the Home Minister is a lawyer?!!
Secondly section 73 is to permit the police to detain a person for enquiries, so what enquiries could there be if it was for her protection?
Thirdly if she had been detained, she would be subject to DNA profiling and her profile kept on the detainee index and cannot be removed. Is this what we want? See the far reaching effect of the DNA Identification Bill?
At the end of the day, the police was acting beyond their powers (as one must infuse those apparently absolute powers with a degree of reasonableness), since the Home Minister said that they detained her not because she was a threat to national security or to maintenance of essential services but for her safety as there were threats against her.
This alone means that the police had acted beyond their powers and so her detention is both illegal and unlawful. This amounts to a tort (civil action) of false imprisonment and/or malicious prosecution.
Either way she and her employers should sue. That is the way to teach the police and the Government a lesson that they cannot abuse their power with regards to the peoples of this country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)