Rev.O.Young's Newsletter
September 30 2008
《Voice网络台》（www.voicemedia.com.my ）在今年八月介绍"新亮相"节目，然而，这一个月来，由于网站技术问题无法解决，一直无法推出"革新版"。
基于时局变幻的速度，超越网站设计的进度，"政论特区"唯有选择在原有网页上另辟原地，推出一些政治访问节目，以及分析/评论文章。
世事难"廖"
《Voice 网络台》推出了由廖朝骥主持的清谈节目《世事难"廖"》，至今共推出了七个节目，请来电嘉宾包括唐南发、蓝志锋、胡逸山、黄永安、许国伟与陈亚才。
第一篇：反对祭出恶法对付阿末 唐南发：让选民教训他 （唐南发）
http://www.voicemedia.com.my/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=508&Itemid=39
第二篇：阿末态度强硬拒认输 蓝志锋：首相讯息不明 （蓝志锋）
http://www.voicemedia.com.my/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=507&Itemid=39
第三篇：831独立日·916国庆日 胡逸山盼选民有换的决心 （胡逸山）
http://www.voicemedia.com.my/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=513&Itemid=39
第四篇：国阵借台湾行打心理战 内安法令逮捕抄旧桥段 （黄永安）
http://www.voicemedia.com.my/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=516&Itemid=39
第五篇：蔡锐明或仅扮演牵绊角色 蔡细历阵营部署掌中委会 （许国伟）
http://www.voicemedia.com.my/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=517&Itemid=39
第六篇：将扣留者抽离时空 内安法令折磨身心 （黄永安）
http://www.voicemedia.com.my/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=518&Itemid=1
第七篇：支持者调适接受安华解释 陈亚才：勿让包容变纵容 （陈亚才）
http://www.voicemedia.com.my/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=522&Itemid=1
观点交锋
马 来西亚一直欠缺面对面"争锋相对"的节目，《Voice网络台》作了新的尝试，邀请在特定课题上立场对立的嘉宾，前来《观点交锋》节目辩论。目前，《观点 交锋》邀请了魏家祥与迦玛（Jamaludin Ibrahim），就《单元种族政党能否走多元族群政治路线》辩论；另一场火花四溅的则是唐南发与黄进发 对"跳槽换政府"的激辩。
换政府：要选举吗？ （黄进发vs唐南发）
http://www.voicemedia.com.my/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=515&Itemid=41
单元种族政党走多元族群政治路线，可行吗？ （迦玛vs魏家祥）
http://www.voicemedia.com.my/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=506
明日历史
今日的新闻，是明日的历史，《Voice网络台》注入"政治内容"，点评时局、为国家政治把脉。已经发表的文章包括：
826：回顾308·放眼916 国阵涣散难抵民联强烈攻势
http://www.voicemedia.com.my/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=505&Itemid=1
"阿都拉视己为马来领袖" 卡立：巫统未曾如此激进
http://www.voicemedia.com.my/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=511&Itemid=1
别再提起
比较遗憾的是，一些原定的单元如"别再提起"，基于现有版页的限制，暂时"搁置"。但是，大家还是可以透过以下网址，上去聆听谢春荣律师叙述那一段发生在9年前的"诉求"事件。
http://voicemedia.hinet.net.my/home/?a=58
请大家多多指教。谢谢。
Voice网络台主编
宏祥 顿首
Monday, September 29, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
I.S.A. – Ikut Suka Aku, Ini Seksaan Aku
"There is no freedom without fighting; blood is freedom's stain"
Amer Hamzah Arshad
I.S.A. – Ikut Suka Aku, Ini Seksaan Aku
oleh Amer Hamzah Arshad
Rakus, kau perkosakan jiwa rakyat
Kau rampas anugerah kurnian ilahi
Apakah ertinya kebebasan dibawah belenggu kau
Apakah ertinya kemerdekaan dibawah pengaruh kau
Fitnah, kau lontarkan tohmahan kau
Kau palitkan arang ke muka ku
Apakah ertinya maruah dibawah fahaman kau
Apakah ertinya hak dibawah telunjuk kau
Zalim, kau seksa jiwa rakyat
Deraan ku menjadi hilai tawa kau
Kebebasan ku menjadi percaturan politik kau
Kemanusianku menjadi mainan kau
Kesejahteraaan negara - kau kata
Keselamatan negara - kau kata
I.S.A - Ikut Suka Aku - kau kata
I.S.A - Ini Seksaan Aku - kau kata
Akan kami leraikan jasad kau
Akan kami leburkan jiwa kau
Akan kami lenyapkan nama kau
Akan kami kuburkan kamu ... I.S.A.
Bangsat! Korup! Zalim!
Inilah ... seranah rakyat terhadap kau!
Amer Hamzah Arshad
I.S.A. – Ikut Suka Aku, Ini Seksaan Aku
oleh Amer Hamzah Arshad
Rakus, kau perkosakan jiwa rakyat
Kau rampas anugerah kurnian ilahi
Apakah ertinya kebebasan dibawah belenggu kau
Apakah ertinya kemerdekaan dibawah pengaruh kau
Fitnah, kau lontarkan tohmahan kau
Kau palitkan arang ke muka ku
Apakah ertinya maruah dibawah fahaman kau
Apakah ertinya hak dibawah telunjuk kau
Zalim, kau seksa jiwa rakyat
Deraan ku menjadi hilai tawa kau
Kebebasan ku menjadi percaturan politik kau
Kemanusianku menjadi mainan kau
Kesejahteraaan negara - kau kata
Keselamatan negara - kau kata
I.S.A - Ikut Suka Aku - kau kata
I.S.A - Ini Seksaan Aku - kau kata
Akan kami leraikan jasad kau
Akan kami leburkan jiwa kau
Akan kami lenyapkan nama kau
Akan kami kuburkan kamu ... I.S.A.
Bangsat! Korup! Zalim!
Inilah ... seranah rakyat terhadap kau!
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
Death Penalty Information
Dear Colleagues,
Our death penalty team at the IS has recently translated to a handful of languages the 18 December 2007 UNGA resolution 62/149 which endorses the call for a worldwide moratorium on executions. I have attached here the pdf files of all four major languages spoken in Malaysia, which includes English, Malay, Mandarin and Tamil. For more information and for other languages, please see the link below.
here is the link:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/un-resolution-global-moratorium-executions
We hope that this will be useful for your local campaigns against death penalty. Please feel free to distribute to your contacts.
Thank you and with best regards,
Hazel
Our death penalty team at the IS has recently translated to a handful of languages the 18 December 2007 UNGA resolution 62/149 which endorses the call for a worldwide moratorium on executions. I have attached here the pdf files of all four major languages spoken in Malaysia, which includes English, Malay, Mandarin and Tamil. For more information and for other languages, please see the link below.
here is the link:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/
We hope that this will be useful for your local campaigns against death penalty. Please feel free to distribute to your contacts.
Thank you and with best regards,
Hazel
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Press Statement: The Bar is apolitical
The Bar Council refers to the statement by UMNO Youth’s Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan reported at page 4 of the Star dated 8 September 2008 in relation to the issue of “cross-overs”.
The Bar never participates in party politics nor in partisan politics. Thus, the Bar has deliberately declined to comment on the political issues facing the nation. Nonetheless, the public goading by the Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan and queries by the Press have necessitated a response. Hence, this comment is strictly limited to the legal issues raised by the subject of political cross-overs.
Cross-overs are not new in Malaysia. The law of the land in relation to “cross-overs” has long been settled in the case of Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan & Anor v Nordin Salleh & Anor decided in 1992 by a 5-member panel of the Supreme Court, our highest Court. The Court struck down provisions of the Constitution of the State of Kelantan that sought to prevent such cross-overs on the basis that it offended the fundamental right to freedom of association enshrined in Artcle 10 (1) (c) of the Federal Constitution.
In the case of Nordin Salleh, the plaintiffs were elected to the Kelantan State Assembly during the 1990 General Elections on the PAS ticket. The plaintiffs subsequently resigned their memberships in PAS, and joined the Barisan Nasional. The Supreme Court decision upheld the constitutional right of the Plaintiffs to “cross-over” to Barisan National and held that the right to freedom of association under the Federal Constitution includes the right to disassociate. Similar situations have arisen in the State of Sabah in 1994 when members of the Sabah State Assembly from the PBS crossed over to Barisan Nasional thereby reversing the original majority in favour of the PBS to the Barisan Nasional.
As it stands therefore there is no legal impediment to “cross-overs” by members of political parties.
Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan
President
Malaysian Bar
9 September 2008
Immoral to party-hop even if it is lega
'Immoral to party-hop even if it is legal' PDF Print E-mail
Wednesday, 10 September 2008 08:47am
©New Straits Times (Used by permission)
by Ridzwan Abdullah and R. Sittamparam
KUALA LUMPUR: Legally acceptable but morally unsound.
This was the feeling of non-governmental organisations and bloggers on elected representatives abandoning their parties and joining new ones.
Some, like blogger Haris Ibrahim, felt that an MP or state assemblyman who changed parties should go back to his constituency for a fresh mandate.
In other words, to get re-elected on another party ticket.
"Anything short of that would be a moral fraud perpetrated on the voters," he said.
But since the constitution was amended in 1990 to forbid an MP who resigns from running for office for five years, Haris said, crossing over was the only option for an elected representative who has a partisan change of heart.
"If indeed there are BN-elected representatives contemplating a crossover to Pakatan Rakyat, they should, in my view, refer to the voters in their constituency and get their consent before doing so."
Bar Council president Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan said court rulings have favoured MPs who crossed over as it falls under the right of freedom of association.
This was underlined in two cases of party crossovers in the early 1990s where the court upheld the right of elected representatives to switch parties.
The first case was the "Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan & Anor v Nordin Salleh & Anor in 1992" where the Federal Court struck down provisions of the constitution of Kelantan that sought to prevent crossovers.
This was since the state's constitution had breached the fundamental right to freedom of association enshrined in Article 10 (1) (c) of the Federal Constitution.
Nordin Salleh and others were elected to the Kelantan state assembly in the 1990 general election on a Pas ticket but they quit the party to join Barisan Nasional.
Ambiga said the Federal Court upheld the constitutional right of the plaintiffs to "cross over" to BN.
The second instance was in 1994 when Parti Bersatu Sabah state assemblymen crossed over to BN to enable it to seize control of the state government.
The statements by these civic groups was in response to criticism from Umno Youth secretary Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan who said they were "silent" over Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's Sept 16 plan to seize power through crossovers of BN MPs.
Citizenthinktank.com co-founder Sean Ang also admitted to being uncomfortable over Anwar's crossover plans.
"We, just like the people, are in a dilemma over the country's uncertain political situation and are faced with having to make a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea."
Ang echoed the belief that BN MPs who crossed over to Pakatan Rakyat should get a new mandate from the people who elected them.
Wednesday, 10 September 2008 08:47am
©New Straits Times (Used by permission)
by Ridzwan Abdullah and R. Sittamparam
KUALA LUMPUR: Legally acceptable but morally unsound.
This was the feeling of non-governmental organisations and bloggers on elected representatives abandoning their parties and joining new ones.
Some, like blogger Haris Ibrahim, felt that an MP or state assemblyman who changed parties should go back to his constituency for a fresh mandate.
In other words, to get re-elected on another party ticket.
"Anything short of that would be a moral fraud perpetrated on the voters," he said.
But since the constitution was amended in 1990 to forbid an MP who resigns from running for office for five years, Haris said, crossing over was the only option for an elected representative who has a partisan change of heart.
"If indeed there are BN-elected representatives contemplating a crossover to Pakatan Rakyat, they should, in my view, refer to the voters in their constituency and get their consent before doing so."
Bar Council president Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan said court rulings have favoured MPs who crossed over as it falls under the right of freedom of association.
This was underlined in two cases of party crossovers in the early 1990s where the court upheld the right of elected representatives to switch parties.
The first case was the "Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan & Anor v Nordin Salleh & Anor in 1992" where the Federal Court struck down provisions of the constitution of Kelantan that sought to prevent crossovers.
This was since the state's constitution had breached the fundamental right to freedom of association enshrined in Article 10 (1) (c) of the Federal Constitution.
Nordin Salleh and others were elected to the Kelantan state assembly in the 1990 general election on a Pas ticket but they quit the party to join Barisan Nasional.
Ambiga said the Federal Court upheld the constitutional right of the plaintiffs to "cross over" to BN.
The second instance was in 1994 when Parti Bersatu Sabah state assemblymen crossed over to BN to enable it to seize control of the state government.
The statements by these civic groups was in response to criticism from Umno Youth secretary Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan who said they were "silent" over Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's Sept 16 plan to seize power through crossovers of BN MPs.
Citizenthinktank.com co-founder Sean Ang also admitted to being uncomfortable over Anwar's crossover plans.
"We, just like the people, are in a dilemma over the country's uncertain political situation and are faced with having to make a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea."
Ang echoed the belief that BN MPs who crossed over to Pakatan Rakyat should get a new mandate from the people who elected them.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
The Morality of Members of Parliament Crossing the Floor
Response to Bar Council and Others
The Bar Council, Harris Ibrahim and Sean Ang are reported in the New Straits Times on September 10, 2008 to have said that Members of Parliament crossing the floor to join another party is legal but immoral. It is therefore necessary to draw the attention of the public to several fundamental principles with regard to the issue on the morality of MPs crossing the floor. Crossing the floor to sit as a member of parliament in another political party is nothing new in parliamentary democracies. It has been described as the height of treachery. It has also been praised as the stuff which parliamentarian heroes are made of. The great Sir Winston Churchill is perhaps the most famous parliamentarian to cross the floor and switch allegiance on more than one occasion. There is no dispute that crossing the floor for money or personal gain is both immoral and a betrayal of the voters’ trust. However, when the MP crosses not for personal gain but in the interest and welfare of his constituents then he should be commended.
The Arguments for Immorality
The argument that crossing is immoral is that the MP was elected on his erstwhile political party’s ticket and that is amounts to a fraud on his voters. This argument is founded on two assumptions. The first is that the MP’s seat belongs to the political party. The second is that the MP was voted in based on his party’s platform and policies. The assumptions are wrong and the argument has failed to take into consideration several objectives and purposes of certain fundamental principles of a parliamentary constitutional system. Upon a proper understanding of these fundamental principles it will be seen that far from being immoral, the ability for MPs to cross the floor is not only moral but part of the democratic process.
The Electoral System and the Power of the 222
The argument that the voters have elected the MP on the party’s ticket and that the seat belongs to the party and not the MP arises from a confusion over the nature of the electoral systems in use. There are two major electoral systems in the world’s democracies:
¨ The first is the constituency-based electoral system. By this system, voters in each local area or constituency elect an individual candidate. The person who wins the majority of votes in each constituency becomes a member of parliament. The party with the majority of MPs forms the government. In this system, the individual MP and not the party holds the seat. This means the MP can cross the floor and still keep his seat
¨ The second is the proportional representation system. By this system, the electorate in a large area, for example, a province or a country votes for political parties. The political party chooses the people who will become MPs. Each party is allocated a number of seats proportional to the number of votes it receives in the election. In this system, the seat belongs to the party and the MP who crosses the floor cannot keep his seat.
The electoral system used in Malaysia is the constituency-based system. Therefore the argument that the MP has stolen his party’s seat when he crosses the floor is not supported upon a proper understanding of the constituency based electoral system. The constituency based system provides for individuals and not political parties to be the candidates for elction to the Dewan Rakyat. This is shown by independents, persons who do not belong to any political party, to contest. The candidate is elected not only on the policies and political ideology but also his personal character and capability. The policies and manifesto of the individual candidate will substantially be similar with the policies of other candidates from his party but there will also be differences according to the specific needs of the constituency and the candidate’s own capabilities. The party ticket is therefore a grouping of individual candidates professing to hold similar policies and ideology. However, the constituents are voting for the individual candidate based on his policies, his personal capabilities and personal commitment.
The party ticket argument also fails to give effect to the provisions of Article 43(1) and 43(4) of the Federal Constitution. Article 43(1) provides that the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong is to appoint the Prime Minister who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Dewan Rakyat. Article 43(4) provides that the Prime Minister is to tender the resignation of his cabinet if he ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Dewan Rakyat. The effect of our electoral system and the operation of these two articles is that the constituents have given the power to the majority of the 222 members of parliament to decide who, from amongst them, is to be the Prime Minister. The tenure of the 222 and their power is fixed. It continues until the next general election. The tenure of the Prime Minister, however, is not fixed and not immutable. It is subject to the Prime Minister continuing to enjoy the confidence of the majority of the 222 throughout the term of the Parliament. By its very nature the confidence enjoyed by the Prime Minister is capable of being lost and changed. This can be due to many factors including where the Prime Minister is unwilling or unable or inept in performing his duties or has failed to properly implement policies or no longer enjoys the confidence of the people or if there is a shift of public opinion as to the desirability of keeping him in office. The power to remove the Prime Minister in practice includes and requires the members of parliament crossing the floor. It is this ability to cross the floor that ensures that only a capable Prime Minister can hope to see the end of the Parliamentary term. The failure for the MP to act is that he will be unlikely to be re-elected by his constituents at the next General Election. It is thus the MP’s moral duty to cross the floor if necessary to ensure that an inept Prime Minister do not remain in office.
The MPs Duty and Good Conscience
The argument that the MP betrays his voters by joining another party glosses over basic principles governing an MP’s duties and his need to exercise independent judgement. The word “democracy” comes from the Greek word “demokratia” which means “government by the people”. The MP is elected to be the voice of his constituents and not to be the voice and handmaid of his political bosses. The MP and his constituents are the conscience of the Executive. The Honourable K. Rozzoli, Speaker of the NSW Legislative Assembly has described this as follows:
“A democratically elected Parliament is the only true voice of the people and accountability to the people it serves is the basic plank of a democratic system, however, no matter what forms of statutory accountability we bring to bear, true accountability lies in the conscience of both the people and their representatives.”
The Honourable Speaker also explained that an MP’s duties owed to his constituents prevail over that to his political party:
“The primary duty of a member is to his constituents who live within the electorate…The second duty is to help people outside the electorate… The third duty is to the Parliament, both to the institution itself and to the general dignity and process of the Parliament… The duty which exists to one’s political party is, I believe, not a duty. It is something we assume as an extra curricular activity.”
The paramount duty of the MP is therefore to act in the interest and welfare of his constituents and the next in the order of priority is to the Parliament. The Parliament, is the second pillar of government. It is one of the three institutions in the concept of the separation of powers of the government. It is to act as a check and balance to executive power. The Parliament is the avenue, through the principle of parliamentary privilege, by which the people may explore alternatives to the Executive’s proposals, to expose a wrong or an injustice. The people vote their parliamentarians to guard their liberties and to query the activities of the Executive and its servants. It is in the ability of the Parliament to challenge the Executive that provides the real restrain to an overzealous or unwise use of authority. The Parliament is therefore not created to be “a rubber stamp” of the Executive. The parliamentarians have a duty to be independent minded and are not put there by the people to be “yes men” for their party bosses. The British had more than a hundred years ago derided members of parliament who followed party orders without questions. William Schwenk Gilbert in “Iolanthe” lamented:
“When in that House MP’s divide
If they ‘ve a brain and cerebellum too
They ‘ve got to leave their brains outside
And vote just as their leaders tell ‘em to”
In more mature democracies, it is not unusual for members of the House of Commons to cross the floor or those members who generally support the Government to speak and vote against the Government. It is not unusual for members of the US House of Representatives or Senate to sit on either side of the House in a division. It is because of this that a democrat like Joe Liberman can follow his conscience to endorse a Republican John McCain as presidential candidate. It is because of this that a President Nixon can be impeached for Watergate. The problem in Malaysia is that no BN MP has in 51 years crossed the floor of our Dewan Rakyat. The Government controlled media had ensured that any vote against the ruling party or even a dissenting voice is labeled as an act of treachery. The idea of BN MPs crossing has therefore been quickly castigated as immoral without examining whether good conscience demands that the MP cross the floor resolutely according to the needs of his constituents’ interest or to remain in sterile stupor according to the dictates of his party bosses. The Watergates of Malaysia shall until then be destined to remain unearthed, unheard and unseen unless and until those elected to be the voice of their constituents find the courage to act according to their conscience. For so long as members of parliament from the ruling party conduct themselves as the proverbial three monkeys of “hearing no evil, seeing no evil and speaking no evil” about their party bosses, then the independence of Parliament does not exist. There is no check and balance by the Parliament of the Executive and only a “rubber stamp”. The political tsunami that swept away the shackles to an independent judiciary must now also free the legislature from its bondage.
Constitutional Convention and Expression of Public Morality
The ability for members of parliament to cross the floor is the expression of public morality and not of immorality. Article 43(4) of the Malaysian Federal Constitution provides that the Prime Minister is to resign his cabinet upon ceasing to command the confidence of the majority in the Dewan Rakyat. Our Constitution is modeled on the British Westminster Constitution. It is a collection of constitutional conventions and customs. It is the outcome of centuries of constitutional evolution. It has distilled and crystallized the essence of the expression of public values and public morality. The convention to provide members of parliament with the ability to cross the floor and thereby bring about the removal of a government is thus an expression of public morality.
The ability to allow MPs to cross the floor recognizes that there may be a significant shift in public opinion that does not require fresh elections but needs to be reflected in the Parliament. The ruling party may be unable or unwilling to implement policies promised to the electorate. This can then be given expression through the MPs crossing the floor. It is this ability that curtails the power of party bosses and makes for a more vibrant political atmosphere. It provides for greater democracy and greater sensitivity to public opinion during the Parliamentary term otherwise it inculcates the Executive to become an authoritarian regime relying in the knowledge that it does not have to account to the people for the next five years.
The improper use of the ISA, the Sedition Act, the requirement of police permit to prevent the people from exercising its right of free speech and freedom of assembly and the abuse of power to shut dissent must not have to wait for general elections every five years. It is the duty of the 222 to ensure that the Executive power remains in check. It has become even more imperative that the BN MPs be able to vote according to their conscience. Yesterday, 12th September 2008, Raja Petra Kamaruddin, Selangor State Exco member and Member of Parliament for Seputeh, Ms Theresa Kok and the reporter from Sin Chew Daily News, Ms Tan Hoon Cheng who published the Ahmad Ismail speech have been detained under the ISA. Now is the time to act, the nation cannot wait for five years.
The Tectonic Shift after 308
Since the March 8 General Elections, the Barisan Nasional leaders have shown they are unwilling, unable or indifferent in addressing the challenges facing the nation. Despite, the global shortage of food and the increasing price of essential food products, the Barisan National leadership has refused to dismantle the monopoly given to Bernas in the privatization of the distribution of imported rice. With the global economic slowdown and rising inflation and the US going into stagflation, the BN leadership increased petrol prices by a massive and unprecedented increase of 70 sen causing inflation to jump to 8% per annum. It then did a flip flop by reducing the petrol price to 15 sen but this is too little too late to stop the galloping inflation led loose by the irresponsible increase. The property sector and the construction industry have come to a standstill due to the substantial increase in the price of building and construction materials. The SMIs are crying for help as the sudden jump in operation costs in electricity, petrol and transport costs threaten to put them out of business. Violent crime continues unabated after the General Elections. Murders, rape and robberies haunt the people every day. This indifferent and inept performance has led to a shift in public opinion of tectonic proportions after the March 8 General Elections. The Barisan Nasional leadership has failed. They have shown to be unworthy of commanding confidence of the majority of the Members of Parliament. Good conscience demands the BN MPs who still wish to hold true to the duty to their constituents have an obligation to cross the floor. It will be immoral for them not to.
Conclusion
The ability of the Members of Parliament to cross the floor and by doing so bring about a change in the government is part and parcel of the democratic process. It is a form of check and balance. It ensures that the sitting government must continuously be sensitive to the needs and opinion of the people or risk being removed before expiry of its term. The famous words that a democracy is said to be a “government of the people by the people and for the people” must include the right of the people to remove the government when it no longer represents the people. When Members of Parliament cross the floor acting according to the dictates of the people and not the dictate of the party bosses, they are acting morally and not immorally.
William Leong Jee Keen
Member of Parliament for Selayang
Treasurer General
Parti Keadilan Rakyat
13th September 2008
The Bar Council, Harris Ibrahim and Sean Ang are reported in the New Straits Times on September 10, 2008 to have said that Members of Parliament crossing the floor to join another party is legal but immoral. It is therefore necessary to draw the attention of the public to several fundamental principles with regard to the issue on the morality of MPs crossing the floor. Crossing the floor to sit as a member of parliament in another political party is nothing new in parliamentary democracies. It has been described as the height of treachery. It has also been praised as the stuff which parliamentarian heroes are made of. The great Sir Winston Churchill is perhaps the most famous parliamentarian to cross the floor and switch allegiance on more than one occasion. There is no dispute that crossing the floor for money or personal gain is both immoral and a betrayal of the voters’ trust. However, when the MP crosses not for personal gain but in the interest and welfare of his constituents then he should be commended.
The Arguments for Immorality
The argument that crossing is immoral is that the MP was elected on his erstwhile political party’s ticket and that is amounts to a fraud on his voters. This argument is founded on two assumptions. The first is that the MP’s seat belongs to the political party. The second is that the MP was voted in based on his party’s platform and policies. The assumptions are wrong and the argument has failed to take into consideration several objectives and purposes of certain fundamental principles of a parliamentary constitutional system. Upon a proper understanding of these fundamental principles it will be seen that far from being immoral, the ability for MPs to cross the floor is not only moral but part of the democratic process.
The Electoral System and the Power of the 222
The argument that the voters have elected the MP on the party’s ticket and that the seat belongs to the party and not the MP arises from a confusion over the nature of the electoral systems in use. There are two major electoral systems in the world’s democracies:
¨ The first is the constituency-based electoral system. By this system, voters in each local area or constituency elect an individual candidate. The person who wins the majority of votes in each constituency becomes a member of parliament. The party with the majority of MPs forms the government. In this system, the individual MP and not the party holds the seat. This means the MP can cross the floor and still keep his seat
¨ The second is the proportional representation system. By this system, the electorate in a large area, for example, a province or a country votes for political parties. The political party chooses the people who will become MPs. Each party is allocated a number of seats proportional to the number of votes it receives in the election. In this system, the seat belongs to the party and the MP who crosses the floor cannot keep his seat.
The electoral system used in Malaysia is the constituency-based system. Therefore the argument that the MP has stolen his party’s seat when he crosses the floor is not supported upon a proper understanding of the constituency based electoral system. The constituency based system provides for individuals and not political parties to be the candidates for elction to the Dewan Rakyat. This is shown by independents, persons who do not belong to any political party, to contest. The candidate is elected not only on the policies and political ideology but also his personal character and capability. The policies and manifesto of the individual candidate will substantially be similar with the policies of other candidates from his party but there will also be differences according to the specific needs of the constituency and the candidate’s own capabilities. The party ticket is therefore a grouping of individual candidates professing to hold similar policies and ideology. However, the constituents are voting for the individual candidate based on his policies, his personal capabilities and personal commitment.
The party ticket argument also fails to give effect to the provisions of Article 43(1) and 43(4) of the Federal Constitution. Article 43(1) provides that the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong is to appoint the Prime Minister who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Dewan Rakyat. Article 43(4) provides that the Prime Minister is to tender the resignation of his cabinet if he ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Dewan Rakyat. The effect of our electoral system and the operation of these two articles is that the constituents have given the power to the majority of the 222 members of parliament to decide who, from amongst them, is to be the Prime Minister. The tenure of the 222 and their power is fixed. It continues until the next general election. The tenure of the Prime Minister, however, is not fixed and not immutable. It is subject to the Prime Minister continuing to enjoy the confidence of the majority of the 222 throughout the term of the Parliament. By its very nature the confidence enjoyed by the Prime Minister is capable of being lost and changed. This can be due to many factors including where the Prime Minister is unwilling or unable or inept in performing his duties or has failed to properly implement policies or no longer enjoys the confidence of the people or if there is a shift of public opinion as to the desirability of keeping him in office. The power to remove the Prime Minister in practice includes and requires the members of parliament crossing the floor. It is this ability to cross the floor that ensures that only a capable Prime Minister can hope to see the end of the Parliamentary term. The failure for the MP to act is that he will be unlikely to be re-elected by his constituents at the next General Election. It is thus the MP’s moral duty to cross the floor if necessary to ensure that an inept Prime Minister do not remain in office.
The MPs Duty and Good Conscience
The argument that the MP betrays his voters by joining another party glosses over basic principles governing an MP’s duties and his need to exercise independent judgement. The word “democracy” comes from the Greek word “demokratia” which means “government by the people”. The MP is elected to be the voice of his constituents and not to be the voice and handmaid of his political bosses. The MP and his constituents are the conscience of the Executive. The Honourable K. Rozzoli, Speaker of the NSW Legislative Assembly has described this as follows:
“A democratically elected Parliament is the only true voice of the people and accountability to the people it serves is the basic plank of a democratic system, however, no matter what forms of statutory accountability we bring to bear, true accountability lies in the conscience of both the people and their representatives.”
The Honourable Speaker also explained that an MP’s duties owed to his constituents prevail over that to his political party:
“The primary duty of a member is to his constituents who live within the electorate…The second duty is to help people outside the electorate… The third duty is to the Parliament, both to the institution itself and to the general dignity and process of the Parliament… The duty which exists to one’s political party is, I believe, not a duty. It is something we assume as an extra curricular activity.”
The paramount duty of the MP is therefore to act in the interest and welfare of his constituents and the next in the order of priority is to the Parliament. The Parliament, is the second pillar of government. It is one of the three institutions in the concept of the separation of powers of the government. It is to act as a check and balance to executive power. The Parliament is the avenue, through the principle of parliamentary privilege, by which the people may explore alternatives to the Executive’s proposals, to expose a wrong or an injustice. The people vote their parliamentarians to guard their liberties and to query the activities of the Executive and its servants. It is in the ability of the Parliament to challenge the Executive that provides the real restrain to an overzealous or unwise use of authority. The Parliament is therefore not created to be “a rubber stamp” of the Executive. The parliamentarians have a duty to be independent minded and are not put there by the people to be “yes men” for their party bosses. The British had more than a hundred years ago derided members of parliament who followed party orders without questions. William Schwenk Gilbert in “Iolanthe” lamented:
“When in that House MP’s divide
If they ‘ve a brain and cerebellum too
They ‘ve got to leave their brains outside
And vote just as their leaders tell ‘em to”
In more mature democracies, it is not unusual for members of the House of Commons to cross the floor or those members who generally support the Government to speak and vote against the Government. It is not unusual for members of the US House of Representatives or Senate to sit on either side of the House in a division. It is because of this that a democrat like Joe Liberman can follow his conscience to endorse a Republican John McCain as presidential candidate. It is because of this that a President Nixon can be impeached for Watergate. The problem in Malaysia is that no BN MP has in 51 years crossed the floor of our Dewan Rakyat. The Government controlled media had ensured that any vote against the ruling party or even a dissenting voice is labeled as an act of treachery. The idea of BN MPs crossing has therefore been quickly castigated as immoral without examining whether good conscience demands that the MP cross the floor resolutely according to the needs of his constituents’ interest or to remain in sterile stupor according to the dictates of his party bosses. The Watergates of Malaysia shall until then be destined to remain unearthed, unheard and unseen unless and until those elected to be the voice of their constituents find the courage to act according to their conscience. For so long as members of parliament from the ruling party conduct themselves as the proverbial three monkeys of “hearing no evil, seeing no evil and speaking no evil” about their party bosses, then the independence of Parliament does not exist. There is no check and balance by the Parliament of the Executive and only a “rubber stamp”. The political tsunami that swept away the shackles to an independent judiciary must now also free the legislature from its bondage.
Constitutional Convention and Expression of Public Morality
The ability for members of parliament to cross the floor is the expression of public morality and not of immorality. Article 43(4) of the Malaysian Federal Constitution provides that the Prime Minister is to resign his cabinet upon ceasing to command the confidence of the majority in the Dewan Rakyat. Our Constitution is modeled on the British Westminster Constitution. It is a collection of constitutional conventions and customs. It is the outcome of centuries of constitutional evolution. It has distilled and crystallized the essence of the expression of public values and public morality. The convention to provide members of parliament with the ability to cross the floor and thereby bring about the removal of a government is thus an expression of public morality.
The ability to allow MPs to cross the floor recognizes that there may be a significant shift in public opinion that does not require fresh elections but needs to be reflected in the Parliament. The ruling party may be unable or unwilling to implement policies promised to the electorate. This can then be given expression through the MPs crossing the floor. It is this ability that curtails the power of party bosses and makes for a more vibrant political atmosphere. It provides for greater democracy and greater sensitivity to public opinion during the Parliamentary term otherwise it inculcates the Executive to become an authoritarian regime relying in the knowledge that it does not have to account to the people for the next five years.
The improper use of the ISA, the Sedition Act, the requirement of police permit to prevent the people from exercising its right of free speech and freedom of assembly and the abuse of power to shut dissent must not have to wait for general elections every five years. It is the duty of the 222 to ensure that the Executive power remains in check. It has become even more imperative that the BN MPs be able to vote according to their conscience. Yesterday, 12th September 2008, Raja Petra Kamaruddin, Selangor State Exco member and Member of Parliament for Seputeh, Ms Theresa Kok and the reporter from Sin Chew Daily News, Ms Tan Hoon Cheng who published the Ahmad Ismail speech have been detained under the ISA. Now is the time to act, the nation cannot wait for five years.
The Tectonic Shift after 308
Since the March 8 General Elections, the Barisan Nasional leaders have shown they are unwilling, unable or indifferent in addressing the challenges facing the nation. Despite, the global shortage of food and the increasing price of essential food products, the Barisan National leadership has refused to dismantle the monopoly given to Bernas in the privatization of the distribution of imported rice. With the global economic slowdown and rising inflation and the US going into stagflation, the BN leadership increased petrol prices by a massive and unprecedented increase of 70 sen causing inflation to jump to 8% per annum. It then did a flip flop by reducing the petrol price to 15 sen but this is too little too late to stop the galloping inflation led loose by the irresponsible increase. The property sector and the construction industry have come to a standstill due to the substantial increase in the price of building and construction materials. The SMIs are crying for help as the sudden jump in operation costs in electricity, petrol and transport costs threaten to put them out of business. Violent crime continues unabated after the General Elections. Murders, rape and robberies haunt the people every day. This indifferent and inept performance has led to a shift in public opinion of tectonic proportions after the March 8 General Elections. The Barisan Nasional leadership has failed. They have shown to be unworthy of commanding confidence of the majority of the Members of Parliament. Good conscience demands the BN MPs who still wish to hold true to the duty to their constituents have an obligation to cross the floor. It will be immoral for them not to.
Conclusion
The ability of the Members of Parliament to cross the floor and by doing so bring about a change in the government is part and parcel of the democratic process. It is a form of check and balance. It ensures that the sitting government must continuously be sensitive to the needs and opinion of the people or risk being removed before expiry of its term. The famous words that a democracy is said to be a “government of the people by the people and for the people” must include the right of the people to remove the government when it no longer represents the people. When Members of Parliament cross the floor acting according to the dictates of the people and not the dictate of the party bosses, they are acting morally and not immorally.
William Leong Jee Keen
Member of Parliament for Selayang
Treasurer General
Parti Keadilan Rakyat
13th September 2008
THE MORAL DILEMMA OF POLITICAL CROSSOVERS
THE MORAL DILEMMA OF POLITICAL CROSSOVERS
As the law stands today, there is no legal impediment to elected members of parliament crossing over to a different political party or platform.
As the law stands today, there is no legal impediment to elected members of parliament crossing over to a different political party or platform.
Attention is therefore switched to whether or not such crossovers are morally permissible.
There are those who oppose crossovers simply because of their unspoken fear of losing power, or that of a change in government. The worst kind are those who had in the past explicitly or implicitly supported previous crossovers when it suited them.
But there are also those, among whom many good people, who argue on ground of principle that political crossovers lack moral fibre. It is with these people that I wish to engage.
The ethical objection to crossovers may be expressed as follows. Since a parliamentarian had been elected, by a majority of his constituents, on a particular political ticket or platform; it is logical to suggest that those who had elected him, or at least some of them, might not have voted for him if he was contesting under a different ticket (such as that of the party to which he now wishes to cross). Hence, his mandate from the people might become questionable if he were to switch camp now. In short, we could never know for sure whether or not his original mandate would be renewed if, say, we were to have a re-election now with him standing on his new ticket. This is essentially why crossovers are thought to be morally objectionable, even for some who consider the likely consequences of such crossovers in our circumstances to be positive and beneficial to the people as a whole.
The moral dilemma involved is a real and difficult one. The solution to this dilemma, as I will propose in this article, cannot be correctly reached by merely pursuing a single straight-path approach, as has been done by some. This requires some explanation.
When considering controversial moral issues, it is sometimes easy, or even tempting, to overlook one or more of the following factors:
(a) That only very few ethical principles are absolute in nature. Most of them have exceptions. For instance, even killing can be morally justified if it is committed out of genuine self-defence.
(b) That many moral standards are not static. They evolve and change through time. It may, for example, be difficult for us to see autocratic rule as anything other than immoral, but at one time (and for a long period in world history) it was indeed not seen as immoral.
(c) That much of moral right or wrong is relative to both time and circumstances.
(d) That when judging the morality of an act, its consequences frequently have to be weighed against the consequence of its omission, and vice versa.
(e) That moral wrongs do come in different sizes. There are bigger wrongs and smaller wrongs. For example, rape is certainly far more deplorable than badmouthing someone, although both acts involve the violation of another person. This element becomes particularly important when there exist competing ethical considerations respecting the commission of an act as compared with its omission.
(f) That morality should not be considered in a vacuum or in abstract, but in the situational context of the relevant act. Few situations consist of just one single moral issue that is relevant. More often than not, there is a basket of multiple moral issues, some of them competing with one another, that needs to be weighed in together. A clear example would be when a group of armed men is pursuing a pregnant lady and they stop to ask an honest farmer in which direction that lady had run, and the farmer deliberately points to the opposite direction, believing that those men intend her harm. Surely in that situation no one should criticise the farmer as immoral for having lied, even if his suspicion of the motive of the armed men turns out to be misplaced.
(g) That the true purpose of a consideration of personal and interpersonal morality issues is not to determine or illustrate who is (or can be) holier than thou, but to suggest and guide people’s actions with the view to fostering a better society. Thus, a functional assessment of the moral value (or turpitude) of a particular act cannot be divorced from an examination of its possible impact on society, in both the long and short terms.
I shall refer to the above collectively as “the contextual factors”.
If one examines the issue of crossovers standing alone, free from the contextual factors, it is indeed logical to conclude that crossovers are morally suspect because there is the uncertainty as to whether or not a would-be party-hopper would continue to enjoy his original mandate from his electorate.
However, is it morally right to consider the issue of crossovers in isolation, and without regard to the contextual factors? My proposition is that it is not.
First of all, the uncertainty over the issue of continuing mandate remains at best an uncertainty, and is at worst a mere conjecture. No one can say that the original mandate is definitely going to be reversed by the electorate if a crossover occurs and if a fresh mandate is immediately sought. Secondly, this uncertainty is based on a number of assumptions that may or may not be true. I will sample just two of them. One assumption is that the majority of the electorate had voted based on their faith in the representative’s party, rather than in the representative himself. Is that really the case with regard to all, or substantially all, of those who had voted for that representative?
Another assumption is that the electorate, at the time of voting, had in mind that they would want their representative to always tow his party line no matter how important the issue is and how abhorrent the party position is, including on issues that had not been in the contemplation of the electorate at the earlier time of voting. Would it not be equally (if not more) reasonable to make a different assumption, namely that the electorate had voted for the representative on the basis that they perceived him to be one possessing the maturity and ability to put the interest of the nation before the interest of his party? Is it not morally proper to expect all representatives to place the country before his party? Of course as a matter of practicality no representative should lightly break rank with his party on minor issues. But if it comes to crucial issues that will affect the entire future of the nation and the paramount interest of the people, and in such exceptional circumstances, what is so morally objectionable for a parliamentarian to defect to another party if he finds (for example) that the interest of the nation is being gravely compromised by his original party for the immorally selfish sake of holding on to power at any cost?
In other words, when one compares the nature and degree of the moral doubt or taint that can be cast upon the act of crossover by a representative, with the nature and extent of the immoral and disastrous consequences that will visit upon the people by his remaining a passive participant in the continuation of the status quo; which act is by far, by very far, the greater evil? How can it be morally superior or imperative for one to refrain from crossing over (thus taking care of a small moral uncertainty), when in the process it would pave the way for a much greater moral disaster to occur?
Take the example of the most recent ISA arrests, including that of the journalist Tan Hoon Cheng, and the subsequent idiotic excuses proffered that could hardly disguise the government’s real motive. If a parliamentarian feels that this has gone beyond all sanity, that it threatens the entire fabric of our society and whatever we have built over the years, that it manifests a dangerous disregard of the interest of the rakyat, and that it would plunge the country into dark ages; why in all these circumstances should it be immoral for him to pursue and perform his duty to all Malaysians by crossing over, if he finds that this is the best way to save the nation in a time of unusual crisis? What is so morally unforgivable about that?
It is easy for armchair critics to insist that, because there is no practical way of ascertaining whether a representative will enjoy continuous mandate from his electorate, he must refrain from crossing over; never mind the nature or scale of the prevailing crisis facing the country. It is equally simple for Utopians to maintain that the only thing a representative in such a situation can morally do is to resign and trigger a by-election; and in the meantime it is just too bad if he (along with others) has to watch the country burn and its people suffer.
That is the result of neglecting to take into account the contextual factors.
When one takes into consideration the whole basket of moral issues, the answer will be the opposite.
The solution to the moral dilemma will become obvious when one bears in mind that: (a) most morally challenging situations have exceptions to the rule, (b) many moral values are relative and also evolving, (c) one must judge a moral issue in its circumstances and by reference to its consequences as compared with the consequences of the opposite act, (d) moral taints do not come in one single size, and sometimes a weighing exercise is required, and (e) when applied to real-life human situations, the purpose of moral guidance lies not in the desire to be holier than thou, but in enabling society to proceed along a path that is more just and equitable than before.
In my view, our country is not just at crucial crossroads. It is more precarious than that. For the first time in the nation’s history, a real opportunity for change and betterment presents itself. If missed, no one knows how long more it will take for another opportunity to come. And while waiting for the next bus, situations will no doubt worsen, and more human sufferings will take place.
Hence, I for one would not come down like a ton of bricks on political crossovers, when failing which the reality is that those much more grievous and immoral acts that have oppressed the Malaysian people for decades will continue for God knows how long more, and cause untold sufferings. Such being the likely consequences, I do not see it as morally right to insist on absolute “correctness” in satisfying a relatively minor (and arguable) issue, when by doing so will permit a trainload of greater wrongs to continue to steamroll over an entire population.
Lest I be misunderstood, let me make it clear that I am not suggesting that political crossovers are always morally justifiable. My point is that it would not be correct to insist, on moral ground, that crossovers should be avoided in all circumstances and at all cost. Crossovers should remain the exception rather than the rule. But they should be judged (as to whether or not justified) not in isolation, but by reference to the basket of moralities alluded to above, and by taking into account all the circumstances and weighing their consequences against the likely consequences of their prohibition or refrain.
Like other Malaysians, I hope for a better tomorrow.
Yeo Yang Poh
15 September 2008
(on the eve of Malaysia Day)
Sunday, September 14, 2008
UMNO BACK TO ITS OLD TRICKS !
PARTI SOSIALIS MALAYSIA
PRESS STATEMENT : 13 SEPTEMBER 2008
UMNO BACK TO ITS OLD TRICKS !
Every ISA arrest is a political decision to safeguard the interest of the ruling elite. These arrest has nothing to do with the security of the country. The only security these arrest guarantees is the security of the ruling elite.
This is not new in Malaysian politics and UMNO is not new to this game. The arrest of
Malaysia Today editor Raja Petra Kamaruddin, Sin Chew Daily journalist Tan Hoon Cheng and Member of Parliament Theresa Kok and many more which may follow is yet another last resort to safe a corrupt Government in its finals days in office.
In previous encounters, the people are divided according to race and religion and this makes the job of the ruling party easy. March 8 and the Permatang Pauh elections results has shown that race based politics do not seem to win the hearts of the young people, as well as it has been rejected by the majority of the voters.
The wounded UMNO and its wounded allies will try everything to cling to power.
This latest desperate attempt by UMNO to be in power is enough reason why it is time to replace them. It is now the right time for parties like GERAKAN and PPP who claim that they are against the ISA to make a stand and leave Barisan National.
The moment has come for all of us to make and take a stand. The ruling and corrupt BN elites is going to use all its resources to clamp down but we have the numbers and the motivation and now we need the courage to fight back.
We face an imminent economic crisis, the working class face raising inflation and further cuts to their wages and benefits. BN and the ruling capitalist classes want us to forget this and create a climate of fear. Create a climate, which will ensure we remain docile while they continue to rule us. It is time we put back our agenda – the agenda of the workers and the common people.
Great movements in history are not determined by dozens of people but by the mass movement willing to bring about a change. It is time we unite and mobilize the forces for change. Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) would stand together with our clenched fist and we are determined to defend and defeat the onslaught from UMNO and its allies.
S.Arutchelvan
Secretary General
(019-2537791)
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Malam Anti ISA – Penang
Subject: Malam Anti ISA – Penang
Kawan-kawan,
Selepas pilihanraya March 8, rakyat Malaysia telah menunjukkan kuasa rakyat terhadap kerajaan BN melalui kotak undi.
Tetapi, kerajaan BN masih tidak sedar akan sentimen rakyat dengan menggunakan akta zalim ISA untuk memendamkan suara rakyat.
Mari kita keluar beramai-ramai ke Dewan Sri Penang malam esok (14 September) 9pm untuk menyeru pembebasan semua tahanan ISA dan mansuhkan ISA.
Hidup Rakyat!
Malam Anti ISA
Tempat: Dewan Sri Penang
Tarikh: 14 Sept 08
Masa: 9pm
Sebarang pertanyaan sila menelefon 012-8756179
******************************
Dear all,
After March 8 elections, the people of Malaysia had voiced out their demands to the government through the ballet box.
However, the BN government is still unaware of the people's feelings by abusing the power entrusted via the draconian law, ISA.
Let's come out as a concerned Malaysian tomorrow night (14 September 08) 9pm, and gather in front of Dewan Sri Penang to show our strongest protest to the ISA and ask for the release of all ISA detainees.
People Power!
Anti ISA Night
Venue: Dewan Sri Penang
Date: 14 September (Sunday)
Time: 9pm
Any inquiry please contact Lau Shu Shi 012-8756179
******************************
大家，
三月八日大选，票选结果已经证实了人民的力量。
国阵政府依然不知悔改， 再次滥用了内安法令。
明天晚上（9月14日）晚上9点，让我们聚集在DEWAN SRI PENANG前面，大力向政府说， 大马不需要内安法令！并释放所有的内安法令扣留者。
人民万岁！
反对内安法令夜
地点：Dewan Sri Penang
日期：9月14日（星期日）
时间： 晚上9点
任何疑问请联络刘素希012-8756179
UMNO BACK TO ITS OLD TRICKS !
PARTI SOSIALIS MALAYSIA
PRESS STATEMENT : 13 SEPTEMBER 2008
UMNO BACK TO ITS OLD TRICKS !
Every ISA arrest is a political decision to safeguard the interest of the ruling elite. These arrest has nothing to do with the security of the country. The only security these arrest guarantees is the security of the ruling elite.
This is not new in Malaysian politics and UMNO is not new to this game. The arrest of
Malaysia Today editor Raja Petra Kamaruddin, Sin Chew Daily journalist Tan Hoon Cheng and Member of Parliament Theresa Kok and many more which may follow is yet another last resort to safe a corrupt Government in its finals days in office.
In previous encounters, the people are divided according to race and religion and this makes the job of the ruling party easy. March 8 and the Permatang Pauh elections results has shown that race based politics do not seem to win the hearts of the young people, as well as it has been rejected by the majority of the voters.
The wounded UMNO and its wounded allies will try everything to cling to power.
This latest desperate attempt by UMNO to be in power is enough reason why it is time to replace them. It is now the right time for parties like GERAKAN and PPP who claim that they are against the ISA to make a stand and leave Barisan National.
The moment has come for all of us to make and take a stand. The ruling and corrupt BN elites is going to use all its resources to clamp down but we have the numbers and the motivation and now we need the courage to fight back.
We face an imminent economic crisis, the working class face raising inflation and further cuts to their wages and benefits. BN and the ruling capitalist classes want us to forget this and create a climate of fear. Create a climate, which will ensure we remain docile while they continue to rule us. It is time we put back our agenda – the agenda of the workers and the common people.
Great movements in history are not determined by dozens of people but by the mass movement willing to bring about a change. It is time we unite and mobilize the forces for change. Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) would stand together with our clenched fist and we are determined to defend and defeat the onslaught from UMNO and its allies.
S.Arutchelvan
Secretary General
Friday, September 12, 2008
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Amnesty Int Appeal:Health Concern and torture of ISA Detainee
Urgent Appeal- 249/08 Health concern/torture/ ill-treatment
MALAYSIA:Sanjeev Kumar (m), age 25
Sanjeev Kumar, who has been detained without charge or trial for over a year, is not receiving the medical treatment he needs for injuries apparently sustained during torture. He is paralyzed on the left side of his body. His condition may deteriorate further if he does not receive immediate medical treatment.
Sanjeev Kumar was arrested on 28 July 2007 by 20-25 plain-clothed officers from the Special Branch of the Malaysian Police, together with one uniformed police officer. He is held under the terms of the Internal Security Act (ISA), which allows detainees to be held without charge indefinitely. He is accused of being a spy for a foreign government, which he denies.
Sanjeev Kumar was held at the Federal Police Headquarters in the capital, Kuala Lumpur, for the first eight weeks of his detention. According to sources close to him, he was tortured and ill-treated throughout this period. Police officers beat him repeatedly, stepped on his back, and hit his head with a plastic bottle filled with water. The police also made him drink his urine and inserted a mop into his anus. They forced him to sign a document, even though he reportedly cannot read or write. He did not have access to a lawyer, and the contents of the document he signed are not known.
On 21 September 2007, Sanjeev Kumar was transferred to Kamunting Detention Centre, Perak , with approximately 60 other ISA detainees. From his first day in Kamunting, he complained of headaches and numbness in his left hand. On 11 April 2008, he was admitted to hospital because of a prickling sensation in his arm. His condition deteriorated in hospital, and two days later he was paralysed down the left side of his body. After a few weeks, he was returned to the Kamunting Detention Centre. His health again worsened, and he was re-admitted to hospital, although the exact date of his admission is not known. However, he received no treatment, and was instead transferred to a psychiatric hospital. No explanation was given for this decision. Medical tests were carried out while he was in the psychiatric hospital, but neither he nor his relatives or lawyer have been notified of the results of these tests, nor of any diagnosis.
Sanjeev Kumar was later returned to Kamunting Detention Centre. He now uses a wheelchair, and is forced to depend on other detainees for help with personal care. A doctor at the centre gave him some medication, but did not explain what it was, so Sanjeev Kumar has refused to take it. His lawyer, who visited him end of August, said that his ordeal has left him severely depressed. Sanjeev Kumar has complained that his right hand is now numb, and fears that this may progress to further paralysis if he does not receive immediate medical treatment.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
As of September 2008, approximately 65 people, including foreign nationals, are held in administrative detention under the ISA at Kamunting Detention Centre. The ISA is a law that allows the police to arrest individuals they believe have acted, or are “about to” or “likely to” act in a way that would threaten Malaysian security, “essential services” or “economic life” (Article 73 (1)b).
Detainees can be held for up to 60 days for investigation by the police. After 60 days, the Home Minister can issue a two-year detention order under the ISA. The two year detention can be renewed indefinitely without the detainee ever being charged with a crime or tried in a court of law. As such the ISA is contrary to fundamental principles of international law, including the right to liberty, to freedom from arbitrary arrest, the presumption of innocence, and the right to fair and open trial in a court of law.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Please send appeals to arrive as quickly as possible, in Malay, English or your own language:
- expressing concern that Sanjeev Kumar's health is deteriorating;
- calling for Sanjeev Kumar to be given a full medical examination and all necessary treatment and care immediately;
- calling for Sanjeev Kumar and his relatives to be informed of the results of tests and any diagnosis, without delay;
- calling on the authorities to conduct an immediate, thorough and impartial investigation into allegations that Sanjeev Kumar was tortured at the Federal Police Headquarters, with the results made public and those responsible brought to justice;
- urging the authorities either to charge all those detained under the ISA with a recognizably criminal offence or release them.
SEND APPEALS TO:
Y.B. Dato' Seri Syed Hamid bin Syed Jaafar Albar
Home Minister and Internal Security Minister
Blok D 2, Parcel D,
Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan,
62546 Putrajaya, Malaysia
Fax: + 603 8889 3854
Salutation: Dear Minister
Tuan Yasuhimi Mohamad Yusuf
Director
Kamunting Detention Centre
Taiping, Perak, Malaysia
Fax: +605 883 7010
Salutation: Dear Director
COPIES TO:
Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman,
President, National Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM)
Tingkat 29, Menara Tun Razak,
Jalan Raja Laut,
50350 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Fax: + 603 2612 5620
Tan Sri Musa Hassan
Inspector General of Police (IGP)
50560 Bukit Aman,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Fax: + 603 2272 5613
MALAYSIA:Sanjeev Kumar (m), age 25
Sanjeev Kumar, who has been detained without charge or trial for over a year, is not receiving the medical treatment he needs for injuries apparently sustained during torture. He is paralyzed on the left side of his body. His condition may deteriorate further if he does not receive immediate medical treatment.
Sanjeev Kumar was arrested on 28 July 2007 by 20-25 plain-clothed officers from the Special Branch of the Malaysian Police, together with one uniformed police officer. He is held under the terms of the Internal Security Act (ISA), which allows detainees to be held without charge indefinitely. He is accused of being a spy for a foreign government, which he denies.
Sanjeev Kumar was held at the Federal Police Headquarters in the capital, Kuala Lumpur, for the first eight weeks of his detention. According to sources close to him, he was tortured and ill-treated throughout this period. Police officers beat him repeatedly, stepped on his back, and hit his head with a plastic bottle filled with water. The police also made him drink his urine and inserted a mop into his anus. They forced him to sign a document, even though he reportedly cannot read or write. He did not have access to a lawyer, and the contents of the document he signed are not known.
On 21 September 2007, Sanjeev Kumar was transferred to Kamunting Detention Centre, Perak , with approximately 60 other ISA detainees. From his first day in Kamunting, he complained of headaches and numbness in his left hand. On 11 April 2008, he was admitted to hospital because of a prickling sensation in his arm. His condition deteriorated in hospital, and two days later he was paralysed down the left side of his body. After a few weeks, he was returned to the Kamunting Detention Centre. His health again worsened, and he was re-admitted to hospital, although the exact date of his admission is not known. However, he received no treatment, and was instead transferred to a psychiatric hospital. No explanation was given for this decision. Medical tests were carried out while he was in the psychiatric hospital, but neither he nor his relatives or lawyer have been notified of the results of these tests, nor of any diagnosis.
Sanjeev Kumar was later returned to Kamunting Detention Centre. He now uses a wheelchair, and is forced to depend on other detainees for help with personal care. A doctor at the centre gave him some medication, but did not explain what it was, so Sanjeev Kumar has refused to take it. His lawyer, who visited him end of August, said that his ordeal has left him severely depressed. Sanjeev Kumar has complained that his right hand is now numb, and fears that this may progress to further paralysis if he does not receive immediate medical treatment.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
As of September 2008, approximately 65 people, including foreign nationals, are held in administrative detention under the ISA at Kamunting Detention Centre. The ISA is a law that allows the police to arrest individuals they believe have acted, or are “about to” or “likely to” act in a way that would threaten Malaysian security, “essential services” or “economic life” (Article 73 (1)b).
Detainees can be held for up to 60 days for investigation by the police. After 60 days, the Home Minister can issue a two-year detention order under the ISA. The two year detention can be renewed indefinitely without the detainee ever being charged with a crime or tried in a court of law. As such the ISA is contrary to fundamental principles of international law, including the right to liberty, to freedom from arbitrary arrest, the presumption of innocence, and the right to fair and open trial in a court of law.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Please send appeals to arrive as quickly as possible, in Malay, English or your own language:
- expressing concern that Sanjeev Kumar's health is deteriorating;
- calling for Sanjeev Kumar to be given a full medical examination and all necessary treatment and care immediately;
- calling for Sanjeev Kumar and his relatives to be informed of the results of tests and any diagnosis, without delay;
- calling on the authorities to conduct an immediate, thorough and impartial investigation into allegations that Sanjeev Kumar was tortured at the Federal Police Headquarters, with the results made public and those responsible brought to justice;
- urging the authorities either to charge all those detained under the ISA with a recognizably criminal offence or release them.
SEND APPEALS TO:
Y.B. Dato' Seri Syed Hamid bin Syed Jaafar Albar
Home Minister and Internal Security Minister
Blok D 2, Parcel D,
Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan,
62546 Putrajaya, Malaysia
Fax: + 603 8889 3854
Salutation: Dear Minister
Tuan Yasuhimi Mohamad Yusuf
Director
Kamunting Detention Centre
Taiping, Perak, Malaysia
Fax: +605 883 7010
Salutation: Dear Director
COPIES TO:
Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman,
President, National Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM)
Tingkat 29, Menara Tun Razak,
Jalan Raja Laut,
50350 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Fax: + 603 2612 5620
Tan Sri Musa Hassan
Inspector General of Police (IGP)
50560 Bukit Aman,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Fax: + 603 2272 5613
槟州巫统秘书恫言枪毙记者,人民之声谴责制造白色恐怖
9月9日 下午1点27分 Malaysiakini
大马人民之声槟城支部严厉谴责槟州巫统出言恐吓记者，并继续发表人民唾弃的种族性言论，同时认为这是种族政治的垂死挣扎及转移视线的伎俩。
协调员刘素希今日发出文告时表示，记者有责任报道社会上的一切关乎公众利益的课题。因此，槟州巫统秘书阿查哈（Azahar Ibrahim）出言要枪毙《星洲日报》记者不但是对记者的人身恐吓言论，更旨在让白色恐怖在报界发酵。
该组织也表示，大马已有多种恶法限制新闻自由，以剥夺了人民的知情权。这包括印刷及出版法令及官方机密法令等。而记者现在正面临新的挑战，即政客公然恐吓记者。
阿末依斯迈在9月5日炮轰，“寄居论”所以引爆是因为《星洲日报》记者拥有隐议程记者的报道。因此，这名记者必须要为这篇报道做出道歉。
另外，槟州秘书阿查哈（Azahar Ibrahim）在昨日的新闻发布会上，以“愚蠢”（idoit）羞辱记者并恐吓该记者应被拉去枪毙。现场巫统支持者更发出将记者“送回中国”、“关闭报馆”、“上吊”等言论。而在现场的巫统领袖却无视于这样的恐吓言论。
担忧新闻自由度继续恶化
刘素希也指出，根据《自由之家》（Freedom House）2008年的报告，马来西亚已经沦为没有新闻自由的国度。这恰恰反映了站在新闻前线的记者，为了报道事实真相时正面对严峻的挑战，这包括法令的枷锁、人身攻击、白色恐怖等等。
“自补选以来，北马已经有几宗记者采访权或者言论自由被侵犯的事件。这包括《光明日报》摄影记者骆慧芬在采访时被暴力对待，《中国报》记者杨永年也因为发表评论而遭恐吓。”
呼吁记者能正面驳斥抹黑
此外，刘素希也赞扬《星洲日报》记者捍卫了本身的报道，认为“这举动表现了记者专业操守的一面，即不因恐吓而退缩或转变立场。”
不过，他也期待记者“在秉持专业的同时，记者也必须要勇于正面回应阿末依斯迈指记者扭曲言论和拥有本身议程的指责”。
刘素希解释说，要求记者正面回应并不是为了为难记者，而是要纠正抹黑对人们造成的印象，避免人民误信这些不实指控。
“这并不是要为难记者，但是如果记者没有挺身而出，正面反驳政客的抹黑，那么记者基本上就是在纵容政客的压迫。同时，如果这些抹黑没有得到回应，那么这些言论就会被输入读者的脑海，让人认为这些对记者的攻击是事实。”
反对种族政治和煽动法令
人民之声也抨击阿末依斯迈和其他巫统领袖，不断从种族角度来炒作议题，企图转移人民对真正的国家政策改革的视线。
“我们要求人民坚决拒绝种族政治，并不轻易让巫统领袖的种族言论而被煽动。反而我们必须对国阵施政不良的问题继续穷追猛打，不让国阵成功以种族课题掩盖了真正的改革课题。”
尽管如此，人民之声却也强调，它并不倡导以煽动法令对付任何人，但认为公民应该从槟巫统的回应，认清巫统正企图转移视线，以掩饰国阵无力肃贪、打压人权及霸权政治的问题。这样人民就不会随着巫统的种族火焰起舞，也能够要国阵正视本身的施政缺陷。
大马人民之声槟城支部严厉谴责槟州巫统出言恐吓记者，并继续发表人民唾弃的种族性言论，同时认为这是种族政治的垂死挣扎及转移视线的伎俩。
协调员刘素希今日发出文告时表示，记者有责任报道社会上的一切关乎公众利益的课题。因此，槟州巫统秘书阿查哈（Azahar Ibrahim）出言要枪毙《星洲日报》记者不但是对记者的人身恐吓言论，更旨在让白色恐怖在报界发酵。
该组织也表示，大马已有多种恶法限制新闻自由，以剥夺了人民的知情权。这包括印刷及出版法令及官方机密法令等。而记者现在正面临新的挑战，即政客公然恐吓记者。
阿末依斯迈在9月5日炮轰，“寄居论”所以引爆是因为《星洲日报》记者拥有隐议程记者的报道。因此，这名记者必须要为这篇报道做出道歉。另外，槟州秘书阿查哈（Azahar Ibrahim）在昨日的新闻发布会上，以“愚蠢”（idoit）羞辱记者并恐吓该记者应被拉去枪毙。现场巫统支持者更发出将记者“送回中国”、“关闭报馆”、“上吊”等言论。而在现场的巫统领袖却无视于这样的恐吓言论。
担忧新闻自由度继续恶化
刘素希也指出，根据《自由之家》（Freedom House）2008年的报告，马来西亚已经沦为没有新闻自由的国度。这恰恰反映了站在新闻前线的记者，为了报道事实真相时正面对严峻的挑战，这包括法令的枷锁、人身攻击、白色恐怖等等。
“自补选以来，北马已经有几宗记者采访权或者言论自由被侵犯的事件。这包括《光明日报》摄影记者骆慧芬在采访时被暴力对待，《中国报》记者杨永年也因为发表评论而遭恐吓。”
呼吁记者能正面驳斥抹黑
此外，刘素希也赞扬《星洲日报》记者捍卫了本身的报道，认为“这举动表现了记者专业操守的一面，即不因恐吓而退缩或转变立场。”
不过，他也期待记者“在秉持专业的同时，记者也必须要勇于正面回应阿末依斯迈指记者扭曲言论和拥有本身议程的指责”。
刘素希解释说，要求记者正面回应并不是为了为难记者，而是要纠正抹黑对人们造成的印象，避免人民误信这些不实指控。
“这并不是要为难记者，但是如果记者没有挺身而出，正面反驳政客的抹黑，那么记者基本上就是在纵容政客的压迫。同时，如果这些抹黑没有得到回应，那么这些言论就会被输入读者的脑海，让人认为这些对记者的攻击是事实。”
反对种族政治和煽动法令
人民之声也抨击阿末依斯迈和其他巫统领袖，不断从种族角度来炒作议题，企图转移人民对真正的国家政策改革的视线。
“我们要求人民坚决拒绝种族政治，并不轻易让巫统领袖的种族言论而被煽动。反而我们必须对国阵施政不良的问题继续穷追猛打，不让国阵成功以种族课题掩盖了真正的改革课题。”
尽管如此，人民之声却也强调，它并不倡导以煽动法令对付任何人，但认为公民应该从槟巫统的回应，认清巫统正企图转移视线，以掩饰国阵无力肃贪、打压人权及霸权政治的问题。这样人民就不会随着巫统的种族火焰起舞，也能够要国阵正视本身的施政缺陷。
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
DNA - Draconian New Act
The DNA Bill by Dr. Jeyakumar
The BN Government has postponed further discussion – the committee stage - of the DNA bill to after the Budget. However the government has already got the DNA Bill through the Policy stage.
There are several aspects o the DNA Bill that should worry all right minded Malaysians. Let me enumerate some of these
- Section 7 of the proposed bill empowers the Minister of Home Affairs to appoint a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police as the Head of the Forensic DNA Databank.
Some of us objected to this saying that there should be clear separation of powers. Collection, storing and testing of body fluids of suspects should be handled by a body that is independent of the police.
- Section 13 which deals with the collection of non-intimate samples such as scalp hair, buccal swabs and saliva, states under subsection 7, that "a police officer may use all means necessary for the purpose of taking of a non-intimate sample".
Several among us brought this up. What does "all means necessary" mean in the case of a suspect who is in police custody?
- Section 14 of the proposed bill states that anyone who refuses to give a sample, or obstructs the taking of such sample, commits on offence and upon conviction can be fined up to RM10,000 or imprisoned for a period of up to a year!
How will the police fail to get a sample given section 13(7)?
- Section 24 of the Bill states that "not withstanding any written law o the contrary, any information from the DNA Databank shall be admissible as conclusive proof of the DNA identification in any proceedings in any court.
This seems to mean the person being charged cannot ask for an independent review of the DNA evidence. The opinion of the DNA Bank cannot be queried in a court of law.
- Section 25 specifies that no action or prosecution shall be brought in any court against the Minister or any DNA Databank personnel in respect of any act, neglect, default or omission done by him in good faith.
In addition to these, there are no sections dealing with the handling of left over samples. How they should be destroyed etc. The possibility of the police keeping some of that material to later implicate that person in another crime is something that cannot be ruled out.
DNA testing is a powerful tool – too powerful to be placed in the hands of a police force that has shown that it can be swayed by the executive to go after political opponents, and I am not referring to only Anwar Ibrahim. So many of the people arrested under the ISA faced a hostile police force which concocted considerable evidence to justify their arrest and detention.
As the government has postponed the committee stage of the Bill's passage to the sitting in October, there is still time to make representation to the Minister. I would therefore urge public interest groups to take up these issues with the government while at the same time highlighting it to the public.
Make no mistake, this is a bad law with very serious implications.
Dr. Jeyakumar Devaraj
PSM Central Committee Member
MP for Sungai Siput
Monday, September 01, 2008
Malaysian socialists say Anwar Ibrahim by-election victory a 'marker of massive change'
The landslide victory by Justice Party leader Anwar Ibrahim in the August 26 Permatang Pauh by-election is welcomed in this commentary by Dr Jeyakumar Devaraj, the first federal parliamentarian of the Socialist Party of Malaysia (PSM) <http://www.parti-sosialis.
Malaysia.
By Dr Jeyakumar Devaraj
The by-election results in Permatang Pauh, a semi-rural constituency in the northern state of Penang, is yet another marker of the massive change that is taking place in Malaysian politics. Usually by-elections are won handsomely by the Barisan National (BN) government because the BN will approve millions of ringgit in development projects, deploy all its main leaders in the campaign and use the subservient media to the fullest. This was attempted in Permatang Pauh this time around.
The deputy prime minister, Najib Abdul Razak, camped out in Permatang Pauh for the entire course of the campaign, leading a team of leaders from various BN component parties.
The BN campaign portrayed Anwar as someone who would sell out Malay interests in his hurry to become the sixth prime minister of Malaysia -- that he would roll back the affirmative action policies, trade off important cabinet positions to non-Malays. The BN also used the media to play on non-Malay fears that the presence of the Islamic Party (PAS) in the opposition coalition would accelerate the Islamisation of Malaysian society.
Normally, such arguments, coupled with the million-dollar goodies thrown in the way of voters would be sufficient to win handsomely in by-elections. But it failed woefully in Permatang Pauh.
Anwar, and the other leaders of the Pakatan Rakyat (the Peoples' Pact), campaigned on a non-racial basis. The Pakatan Rakyat would look after the poorer sectors of all the communities; there would be a new agenda to help all the needy and not merely the well-connected cronies and the economy would be reprioritised to meet the needs of the people.
However on polling day, Anwar received 31,195 votes to the BN candidate's 15,524. The voters of Permatang Pauh rejected the racial politicking that has worked so well for the BN all this while. This is the significance of the Permatang Pauh victory – the people are no longer responding to the ethnic divide-and-rule tactics that the ruling coalition has used all this
while.
How is the PSM positioning itself?
Anwar is not a socialist by any stretch of the imagination. He does not see the need to challenge the existing relations between the advanced economies and the developing regions of the world. He believes that an efficiently managed Malaysia would be able to thrive in the globalised economy. He does not see any contradiction between his often repeated promise to attend to
the needs of the poorer sectors, and his party's stand that Malaysian economic development should be driven by private-sector investment.
However, at this point in time, the coalition led by Anwar (PR, the Pakatan Rakyat) is by far the more progressive of the two factions within the Malaysian elite which are now engaged in a life-or-death battle for federal power. In addition to the PR's relatively non-racial stance, the PR has promised that it would dismantle some of the more draconian laws curtailing human rights in Malaysia, such as the dreaded Internal Security Act, the Official Secrets Act, the Printing Act and several others.
The PR leaders are not yet tied into the system of lucrative crony contracts to keep their business conglomerations thriving.
At the same time, we have to accept the fact that the left in Malaysia today is not in a position to proclaim: ``Neither the BN nor the PR. Both of them have capitalist orientations. Choose the PSM, we are the only force with a socialist alternative.''
This slogan would sound nice but would not reflect the actual situation. Having said that, PSM would also not just join the bandwagon; we would go into a minimum program.
For these reasons, the PSM welcomes a transition from BN rule to PR rule at the federal level. It would open up the space for the political work that we need to do. The displacement of the BN at federal level will also emancipate Malaysian society from the deeply ingrained misconception that Malaysia cannot manage without BN rule.
The PSM therefore endorsed the PR campaign at Permatang Pauh and at the national level. Mohd Nasir, the PSM chairperson, led a group of PSM members to support Anwar on nomination day. As the PSM's sole federal parliamentarian, I went with a contingent of 15 PSM stalwarts to campaign for Anwar for a day. Another team from Subang went there for two days. Our Penang branch also distributed leaflets as well as sold party newspapers.
The PSM's support of the PR will continue, and might become crucial if there is any attempt by desperate elements within the BN to attempt a coup to suspend the parliamentary process by declaring a national emergency and rule through a joint police-military council. This is one of the possible scenarios, and the PSM has already begun discussing with the political parties within the PR how we could respond to such an attempt should it occur.
However, if and when the PR succeeds in capturing power at the federal level, the differences between the PSM and the PR will become more apparent, and we will then need to re-position ourselves as the nucleus of a critical caucus within the ruling coalition. No doubt this will require deep and on-going discussion regarding tactics.
We will have to cross those bridges when we come to them.
Dr. Jeyakumar
Malaysia.
By Dr Jeyakumar Devaraj
The by-election results in Permatang Pauh, a semi-rural constituency in the northern state of Penang, is yet another marker of the massive change that is taking place in Malaysian politics. Usually by-elections are won handsomely by the Barisan National (BN) government because the BN will approve millions of ringgit in development projects, deploy all its main leaders in the campaign and use the subservient media to the fullest. This was attempted in Permatang Pauh this time around.
The deputy prime minister, Najib Abdul Razak, camped out in Permatang Pauh for the entire course of the campaign, leading a team of leaders from various BN component parties.
The BN campaign portrayed Anwar as someone who would sell out Malay interests in his hurry to become the sixth prime minister of Malaysia -- that he would roll back the affirmative action policies, trade off important cabinet positions to non-Malays. The BN also used the media to play on non-Malay fears that the presence of the Islamic Party (PAS) in the opposition coalition would accelerate the Islamisation of Malaysian society.
Normally, such arguments, coupled with the million-dollar goodies thrown in the way of voters would be sufficient to win handsomely in by-elections. But it failed woefully in Permatang Pauh.
Anwar, and the other leaders of the Pakatan Rakyat (the Peoples' Pact), campaigned on a non-racial basis. The Pakatan Rakyat would look after the poorer sectors of all the communities; there would be a new agenda to help all the needy and not merely the well-connected cronies and the economy would be reprioritised to meet the needs of the people.
However on polling day, Anwar received 31,195 votes to the BN candidate's 15,524. The voters of Permatang Pauh rejected the racial politicking that has worked so well for the BN all this while. This is the significance of the Permatang Pauh victory – the people are no longer responding to the ethnic divide-and-rule tactics that the ruling coalition has used all this
while.
How is the PSM positioning itself?
Anwar is not a socialist by any stretch of the imagination. He does not see the need to challenge the existing relations between the advanced economies and the developing regions of the world. He believes that an efficiently managed Malaysia would be able to thrive in the globalised economy. He does not see any contradiction between his often repeated promise to attend to
the needs of the poorer sectors, and his party's stand that Malaysian economic development should be driven by private-sector investment.
However, at this point in time, the coalition led by Anwar (PR, the Pakatan Rakyat) is by far the more progressive of the two factions within the Malaysian elite which are now engaged in a life-or-death battle for federal power. In addition to the PR's relatively non-racial stance, the PR has promised that it would dismantle some of the more draconian laws curtailing human rights in Malaysia, such as the dreaded Internal Security Act, the Official Secrets Act, the Printing Act and several others.
The PR leaders are not yet tied into the system of lucrative crony contracts to keep their business conglomerations thriving.
At the same time, we have to accept the fact that the left in Malaysia today is not in a position to proclaim: ``Neither the BN nor the PR. Both of them have capitalist orientations. Choose the PSM, we are the only force with a socialist alternative.''
This slogan would sound nice but would not reflect the actual situation. Having said that, PSM would also not just join the bandwagon; we would go into a minimum program.
For these reasons, the PSM welcomes a transition from BN rule to PR rule at the federal level. It would open up the space for the political work that we need to do. The displacement of the BN at federal level will also emancipate Malaysian society from the deeply ingrained misconception that Malaysia cannot manage without BN rule.
The PSM therefore endorsed the PR campaign at Permatang Pauh and at the national level. Mohd Nasir, the PSM chairperson, led a group of PSM members to support Anwar on nomination day. As the PSM's sole federal parliamentarian, I went with a contingent of 15 PSM stalwarts to campaign for Anwar for a day. Another team from Subang went there for two days. Our Penang branch also distributed leaflets as well as sold party newspapers.
The PSM's support of the PR will continue, and might become crucial if there is any attempt by desperate elements within the BN to attempt a coup to suspend the parliamentary process by declaring a national emergency and rule through a joint police-military council. This is one of the possible scenarios, and the PSM has already begun discussing with the political parties within the PR how we could respond to such an attempt should it occur.
However, if and when the PR succeeds in capturing power at the federal level, the differences between the PSM and the PR will become more apparent, and we will then need to re-position ourselves as the nucleus of a critical caucus within the ruling coalition. No doubt this will require deep and on-going discussion regarding tactics.
We will have to cross those bridges when we come to them.
Dr. Jeyakumar
Are We A Free Nation? A Joint Merdeka Day Message
Independence means that the nation is free from any imposed political domination, citizens are sovereign and are masters of their own destiny. For that to be true, they must at least be able to think freely, express and exchange opinion, and, obtain and disseminate information without fear or favour.
As we celebrate the 51st anniversary of our Merdeka tomorrow and the 45thanniversary of Malaysia's establishment in two weeks' time,we should be celebrating our political adulthood. We should be proud that as citizens, we are atruly sovereign people, ruled by nothing more than the collective free will of our citizenship. We invite all Malaysians to ponder before
lighting fireworks and joining the parade: Are we truly free? Are we truly sovereign?
Are we free? Just on the eve of Merdeka Day, one of Malaysia's most popular news portal, Malaysia Today, was blocked by internet service providers under the instruction of the Malaysia Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC). This instruction denied millions of Malaysians, who have shunned the mainstream media, their primary information source. The MCMC has cited the Section 263 of the Communications and Multimedia Act, 1998 to force ISPs to use their best endeavour "to prevent his/her facilities from being used to violate any law in the country". It is unfortunate that MCMC acted without Malaysia Today and its editor Raja Petra Kamaruddin being convicted or proven in court of any criminal offence. By invoking the block, the MCMC contravenes the government's promise of no censorship and less regulation in
the internet, when the multi-media super corridor was launched in 1998. It has also broken the law as Section 3 of the CMA states clearly that "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting the censorship of the Internet." So, What has produced MCMC to toe the political line rather than adhere to the law?
Are we free? Just two weeks before Merdeka Day, the Home Ministry decided that we cannot read two more books, on top of at least 1443 books that were banned since 1971. One of the two latest banned books is a volume titled "Muslim Women and the Challenge of Islamic Extremism" authored by international experts and edited by renowned Malaysian sociologist, Prof
Norani Othman. The book was published three years ago, so why the ban only now? Did the Home Ministry censorship board take three years to understand its content? In fact, are they capable of reading and understanding an academic book when they have not even produce a book review to pinpoint its flaws? Can we be a free nation when bureaucrats whose reading ability is questionable are deciding what we can and cannot read? Their power to curb freedom of expression stems from the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (PPPA) which requires all periodicals to apply for annual renewable permits, which can be revoked and suspended by the Minister at anytime at his absolute discretion. In 1987, under Operasi Lalang eitght newpapers were suspended. Operasi Lalang also saw the arbitrary detention of 106
socio-political activists.
Are we free? When questioning of government policies or the judicial process by citizens can land one in prison under the Sedition Act, 1948, when truth cannot be a defence against charges, where "seditious tendency" are broadly and vaguely defined, when newspapers can be suspended for allegedly containing seditious matter (Section 9), what's left of our public space to
discuss issues that matter most and are therefore often termed "sensitive"?
Are we free? When there are 66 persons still detained arbitrarily and indefinitely without trial for opposing the government's policies under the Internal Security Act (ISA) 1960, when the Minister can subjectively ban any publications deemed to be "prejudicial to the national interest, public order, or security of Malaysia", and his/her decisions cannot be reviewed by the judiciary. Are we free from the danger of arbitrary judgment of one politician? And, are we free when the very same repressive colonial laws that suppressed peoples' struggles in the pre-Merdeka era are still continued and used randomly by the present government even after Merdeka?
Are we free? When citizens have no freedom of information to learn about public policies and decision-making process, when politicians and bureaucrats can easily deny public access to details of lucrative contracts and concessions, justified under the Official Secrets Act 1972 (OSA), is it any wonder that corruption and power abuse become rampant? When we pay taxes
and yet do not have the right to know how the money is spent, are we really the boss of the government? Or have we, the rakyat, instead become slaves to the very people we have elected?
Unfortunately, we are not free given the flaws and shortcomings in the CMA, PPPA, Sedition Act, ISA, OSA and other media-related laws. We will continue to be enslaved until we become truly politically free and democratic. We had merely replaced foreign colonial masters with domestic ones who rule over us by insisting that we are incapable of thinking and making our own judgment.
A true national independence is, therefore, overdue. It is possible only if all the media-related laws are put under thorough reviews and after taking on board the concerns of all Malaysians, regardless of economic interest, social-cultural background and political affiliation. A parliamentary select committee on media law reform must, therefore, be made a priority in our
quest for independence, democracy and good governance. Calls to celebrate or to substantiate our independence by any political coalitions, are hollow if without a concrete commitment and roadmap to media law reform.
We call upon all Malaysians to press for the demand of media law reform by endorsing the 2008 Memorandum on Media Freedom on www.benar.org. The campaign for media law reform is extended to 27 October 27 2008, the anniversary of 1987 Operasi Lalang. Until we can ensure the freedoms of citizens and the media, Merdeka is not achieved. Let us fight for our second
independence, this time from domestic authoritarianism – *Merdeka! Merdeka! Merdeka!*
*A Joint statement by*
1. Aliran Kesedaran Negara (Aliran)
2. Benar for Free and Fair Media (Benar)
3. Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ)
4. Civil Rights Committee, Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall
(CRC-KLSCAH)
5. Civil Society Initiative for Parliamentary Reform (CSI@Parliament)
6. Gerakan Mansuhkan ISA (GMI)
7. Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall Youth Section (KLSCAH-YS)
8. Malaysia Youth and Student Democratic Movement (DEMA)
9. National Alliance of Bloggers (All-Blogs)
10. People's Parliament
11. Empower (Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti, Selangor)
12. Sister in Islam (SIS)
13. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
14. Writer Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI)
This statement was initiated by Benar and WAMI. For details, please contact
Wong Chin Huat (019-3502823) or Maria Chin Abdullah (0133422931)
As we celebrate the 51st anniversary of our Merdeka tomorrow and the 45thanniversary of Malaysia's establishment in two weeks' time,we should be celebrating our political adulthood. We should be proud that as citizens, we are atruly sovereign people, ruled by nothing more than the collective free will of our citizenship. We invite all Malaysians to ponder before
lighting fireworks and joining the parade: Are we truly free? Are we truly sovereign?
Are we free? Just on the eve of Merdeka Day, one of Malaysia's most popular news portal, Malaysia Today, was blocked by internet service providers under the instruction of the Malaysia Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC). This instruction denied millions of Malaysians, who have shunned the mainstream media, their primary information source. The MCMC has cited the Section 263 of the Communications and Multimedia Act, 1998 to force ISPs to use their best endeavour "to prevent his/her facilities from being used to violate any law in the country". It is unfortunate that MCMC acted without Malaysia Today and its editor Raja Petra Kamaruddin being convicted or proven in court of any criminal offence. By invoking the block, the MCMC contravenes the government's promise of no censorship and less regulation in
the internet, when the multi-media super corridor was launched in 1998. It has also broken the law as Section 3 of the CMA states clearly that "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting the censorship of the Internet." So, What has produced MCMC to toe the political line rather than adhere to the law?
Are we free? Just two weeks before Merdeka Day, the Home Ministry decided that we cannot read two more books, on top of at least 1443 books that were banned since 1971. One of the two latest banned books is a volume titled "Muslim Women and the Challenge of Islamic Extremism" authored by international experts and edited by renowned Malaysian sociologist, Prof
Norani Othman. The book was published three years ago, so why the ban only now? Did the Home Ministry censorship board take three years to understand its content? In fact, are they capable of reading and understanding an academic book when they have not even produce a book review to pinpoint its flaws? Can we be a free nation when bureaucrats whose reading ability is questionable are deciding what we can and cannot read? Their power to curb freedom of expression stems from the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (PPPA) which requires all periodicals to apply for annual renewable permits, which can be revoked and suspended by the Minister at anytime at his absolute discretion. In 1987, under Operasi Lalang eitght newpapers were suspended. Operasi Lalang also saw the arbitrary detention of 106
socio-political activists.
Are we free? When questioning of government policies or the judicial process by citizens can land one in prison under the Sedition Act, 1948, when truth cannot be a defence against charges, where "seditious tendency" are broadly and vaguely defined, when newspapers can be suspended for allegedly containing seditious matter (Section 9), what's left of our public space to
discuss issues that matter most and are therefore often termed "sensitive"?
Are we free? When there are 66 persons still detained arbitrarily and indefinitely without trial for opposing the government's policies under the Internal Security Act (ISA) 1960, when the Minister can subjectively ban any publications deemed to be "prejudicial to the national interest, public order, or security of Malaysia", and his/her decisions cannot be reviewed by the judiciary. Are we free from the danger of arbitrary judgment of one politician? And, are we free when the very same repressive colonial laws that suppressed peoples' struggles in the pre-Merdeka era are still continued and used randomly by the present government even after Merdeka?
Are we free? When citizens have no freedom of information to learn about public policies and decision-making process, when politicians and bureaucrats can easily deny public access to details of lucrative contracts and concessions, justified under the Official Secrets Act 1972 (OSA), is it any wonder that corruption and power abuse become rampant? When we pay taxes
and yet do not have the right to know how the money is spent, are we really the boss of the government? Or have we, the rakyat, instead become slaves to the very people we have elected?
Unfortunately, we are not free given the flaws and shortcomings in the CMA, PPPA, Sedition Act, ISA, OSA and other media-related laws. We will continue to be enslaved until we become truly politically free and democratic. We had merely replaced foreign colonial masters with domestic ones who rule over us by insisting that we are incapable of thinking and making our own judgment.
A true national independence is, therefore, overdue. It is possible only if all the media-related laws are put under thorough reviews and after taking on board the concerns of all Malaysians, regardless of economic interest, social-cultural background and political affiliation. A parliamentary select committee on media law reform must, therefore, be made a priority in our
quest for independence, democracy and good governance. Calls to celebrate or to substantiate our independence by any political coalitions, are hollow if without a concrete commitment and roadmap to media law reform.
We call upon all Malaysians to press for the demand of media law reform by endorsing the 2008 Memorandum on Media Freedom on www.benar.org. The campaign for media law reform is extended to 27 October 27 2008, the anniversary of 1987 Operasi Lalang. Until we can ensure the freedoms of citizens and the media, Merdeka is not achieved. Let us fight for our second
independence, this time from domestic authoritarianism – *Merdeka! Merdeka! Merdeka!*
*A Joint statement by*
1. Aliran Kesedaran Negara (Aliran)
2. Benar for Free and Fair Media (Benar)
3. Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ)
4. Civil Rights Committee, Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall
(CRC-KLSCAH)
5. Civil Society Initiative for Parliamentary Reform (CSI@Parliament)
6. Gerakan Mansuhkan ISA (GMI)
7. Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall Youth Section (KLSCAH-YS)
8. Malaysia Youth and Student Democratic Movement (DEMA)
9. National Alliance of Bloggers (All-Blogs)
10. People's Parliament
11. Empower (Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti, Selangor)
12. Sister in Islam (SIS)
13. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
14. Writer Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI)
This statement was initiated by Benar and WAMI. For details, please contact
Wong Chin Huat (019-3502823) or Maria Chin Abdullah (0133422931)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)