Running is coming to Penang!!!!!
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Malaysia NGOs letter to the SCA on SUHAKAM's review
Mr. David Langtry
ICC Sub-Committee on Accreditation
c/o National Institutions Unit
Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights
Geneva , Switzerland .
Dear Mr. Langtry,
We are writing to you regarding the Sub-Committee on Accreditation’s review on the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM), especially in view of the recently-passed amendments to its enabling law, the Human Rights Commission Act 1999.
We call on the Sub-Committee, in making its decision on its review on SUHAKAM, to take into account the fact that the amendments to the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 were made without any consultation whatsoever with civil society, and are superficial in nature and fail to address some of the most important issues raised by the Sub-Committee in April 2008. (We attach with this letter, below, a comparison between the newly-amended provisions and the original provisions of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999.)
We voice our deepest concerns at this critical juncture just as SUHAKAM is being reviewed, as we strongly feel that should SUHAKAM be retained “A” status, it will give legitimacy to the actions of the government of Malaysia in bulldozing through the amendments without any consultation whatsoever with stakeholders, including civil society, and also to the superficial nature of the amendments. We would like to state categorically that the amendments are mainly cosmetic and do not contribute to the improvement of SUHAKAM’s independence as a national human rights institution (NHRI).
Mr. Langtry,
The superficial nature of the amendments can be illustrated, for instance, by the newly-amended Section 5(2) of the Human Rights Commission Act 1999, which provides that the Commission shall be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (King) on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, who shall now, before tendering his advice, consult the committee referred to in Section 11(A).
Section 11(A) provides for the composition of the select committee which comprises of the following persons:
a) The Chief Secretary to the Government who shall be the Chairman;
b) The Chairman of the Commission; and
c) Three other members, from amongst eminent persons to be appointed by the Prime Minister.
Firstly, we would like to point out that these amendments do not address the Sub-Committee’s recommendations to SUHAKAM that it strengthens its independence by the “provision of clear and transparent appointment and dismissal process”. Under the newly-inserted Section 11(A)(6), the views or recommendations of the selection committee as stated above shall not be binding upon the Prime Minister. This, in reality, gives the Prime Minister absolute discretion over the selection of members of the Commission. This demonstrates the fact that the amendments retain the essence of the original provisions of the Act, where members of the Commission are appointed by the King on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. In reality, the appointment process of SUHAKAM under the new amendments still lacks transparency and certainly does not address the specific recommendation made by the Sub-Committee.
Secondly, the amendments above also do not address the other specific recommendation of the Sub-Committee to SUHAKAM to ensure “the representation of different segments of society and their involvement in suggesting or recommending candidates to the governing body of the Commission”. Under the new amendments, there is still no provision which ensures the engagement and participation of civil society in the selection process of SUHAKAM, despite the Paris Principles clearly stating that “whether by means of election or otherwise, shall be established in accordance with a procedure which affords all necessary guarantees to ensure the pluralist representation of social forces (of civilian society) involved in the promotion and protection of human rights”.
Even after the amendments, the selection process of SUHAKAM remains solely determined by the Prime Minister.
Mr. Langtry,
During the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) on Malaysia in February 2009, recommendations of at least four countries, to ensure the independence of SUHAKAM in accordance with the Paris Principles and also to widen the scope of SUHAKAM to cover all rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, were merely noted by the government of Malaysia, and were not listed as those which enjoyed its support. This is a clear demonstration of the lack of commitment of the government of Malaysia in strengthening and improving SUHAKAM.
That the government chose only to make the amendments one day prior to the Sub-Committee meeting to review on SUHAKAM is convened speaks volumes about the level of commitment of the government of Malaysia concerning its NHRI. It clearly shows that these amendments were made not with the intention to improve SUHAKAM, but merely to save it from being downgraded. The government of Malaysia ’s superficial actions, especially with regard to matters of utmost importance and seriousness, such as in ensuring the independence of an NHRI, therefore, are unacceptable.
It is also worthwhile to point out here that the minister who tabled the hurriedly-passed bill of amendments to the enabling law of SUHAKAM on 24 March 2009 was the very same minister who, in March 2006, said that the government “had never planned to give SUHAKAM any teeth”[1] when questioned in the Parliament about the effectiveness of SUHAKAM as an NHRI in Malaysia.
Taken into account all of the above, we are of the view that SUHAKAM does not deserve the “A” status, as it is still not in full compliance with the Paris Principles despite the amendments made to its enabling law. We are of the view that the Sub-Committee’s review on any NHRI should be done solely based on its compliance with the Paris Principles, and not based on relative efforts or improvements. The implications of maintaining the “A” status of SUHAKAM based on these superficial amendments are grave – the Malaysian government’s non-inclusive, superficial, and hasty efforts to save its NHRI, which still did not result in a greater compliance with the Paris Principles, would be legitimised, making it extremely difficult to push forward more substantial reforms on SUHAKAM in the future.
Thus, we strongly urge you to take these points into consideration in the decision of the Sub-Committee’s review on SUHAKAM.
We also strongly call on the Sub-Committee to make the following recommendations in the report of its review on SUHAKAM:
1. The selection process of the Commission should be further improved to make it more transparent and clear. This can be done by ensuring the representation of civil society in suggesting and recommending candidates to the Commission. We recommend that the representation of civil society in this process be spelt out clearly in the enabling law.
2. We also refer to the Sub-Committee’s report in April 2008, which noted, “Members of the NHRIs should include full-time remunerated members […].” We note with concern the part-time nature of the commissioners’ work and recommend that members of the Commission be full-time.
3. Recognising similar concerns which were raised during Malaysia ’s UPR on 11 February 2009 , we recommend that the Commission’s mandate be widened to include all rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
We thank you for your attention.
This letter is signed by the following Malaysian civil society organisations:
1. Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN)
2. All Women’s Action Society (AWAM)
3. Amnesty International, Malaysia
4. Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ)
5. Centre for Orang Asli Concerns (COAC)
6. Child Development Initiative
7. Citizens Think Tank
8. Civil Right Committee, Kuala Lumpur & Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall
9. Civil Society Initiative (CSI)
10. Coalition against Water Privatisation
11. Community Development Centre (CDC)
12. Consumer Association of Klang (CAK)
13. Coordination of Action for Research on AIDS and Mobility (CARAM Asia )
14. Education and Research Association for Consumers, Malaysia (ERA Consumer)
15. Federation of Malaysian Consumers Association (FOMCA)
16. Group of Concerned Citizens
17. Jamah Islah Malaysia (JIM)
18. Jaringan Rakyat Tertindas (JERIT)
19. Kumpulan ACTS (A Call to Serve)
20. LLG Foundation – Civil Society Promotion Committee
21. Malaysia Youth and Students Democratic Movement (DEMA)
22. Malaysian Association of Standards Users
23. Malaysian Indian Development Association
24. Monitoring Sustainability of Globalization (MSN)
25. Nur Salam
26. Pahang Consumers’ Association
27. Penang Consumers’ Protection Association (PCPA)
28. Penang Watch
29. Perak Consumers’ Association (PCA)
30. Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (Empower)
31. Persatuan Masyarakat Selangor & Wilayah Persekutuan (PERMAS)
32. PT Foundation
33. Pusat Khidmat Pekerja Tanjung (PKPT)
34. Pusat Komunikasi Masyarakat (KOMAS)
35. Research for Social Advancement (REFSA)
36. Save Our Selves (SOS)
37. Selangor & Wilayah Persekutuan Consumers’ Association (SCA)
38. Semparuthi Iyakkam
39. Sisters in Islam (SIS)
40. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
41. Tamil Youth Bell Club
42. Tenaganita
43. Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO)
44. Workers’ Organisation Malaysia
45. Writers’ Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI)
46. Youth for Change (Y4C)
This letter is also supported by the Asian NGOs Network on National Institutions (ANNI). The following are members of ANNI:
1. ADVAR – Iran
2. Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK) – Bangladesh
3. Asian Center for Human Rights (ACHR)
4. Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
5. Cambodian League for Promotion and Defence of Human Rights (LICADHO)
6. Center for Human Rights and Development (CHRD) – Mongolia
7. Center for Organizing Research and Education (CORE)
8. Citizens’ Council for Human Rights Japan (CCHRJ) – Japan
9. Commission for Disappearances and Victims of Violence (KONTRAS) – Indonesia
10. Defenders of Human Rights Center – Iran
11. Education and Research Association for Consumer Education (ERA Consumer) – Malaysia
12. Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor (HKHR) – Hong Kong
13. Human Rights Organisation of Kurdistan
14. Indonesian Human Rights Monitor (IMPARSIAL) – Indonesia
15. Indonesian NGO Coalition for International Human Rights Advocacy (HRWG) – Indonesia
16. Informal Service Sector Center (INSEC) – Nepal
17. Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy (ELSAM) – Indonesia
18. International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran – Iran
19. Japan Federation of Bar Associations (JFBA) – Japan
20. Judicial System Monitoring Program (JSMP) – Timor Leste
21. Korea House for International Solidarity (KHIS) – Korea
22. Law and Society Trust (LST) – Sri Lanka
23. Lawyers’ League for Liberty (LIBERTAS) – Philippines
24. Maldivian Detainees Network (MDN) – Maldives
25. People’s Watch – India
26. Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA) – Philippines
27. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) – Malaysia
28. Taiwan Association for Human Rights (TAHR) – Taiwan
ICC Sub-Committee on Accreditation
c/o National Institutions Unit
Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights
Geneva , Switzerland .
Dear Mr. Langtry,
We are writing to you regarding the Sub-Committee on Accreditation’s review on the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM), especially in view of the recently-passed amendments to its enabling law, the Human Rights Commission Act 1999.
We call on the Sub-Committee, in making its decision on its review on SUHAKAM, to take into account the fact that the amendments to the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 were made without any consultation whatsoever with civil society, and are superficial in nature and fail to address some of the most important issues raised by the Sub-Committee in April 2008. (We attach with this letter, below, a comparison between the newly-amended provisions and the original provisions of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999.)
We voice our deepest concerns at this critical juncture just as SUHAKAM is being reviewed, as we strongly feel that should SUHAKAM be retained “A” status, it will give legitimacy to the actions of the government of Malaysia in bulldozing through the amendments without any consultation whatsoever with stakeholders, including civil society, and also to the superficial nature of the amendments. We would like to state categorically that the amendments are mainly cosmetic and do not contribute to the improvement of SUHAKAM’s independence as a national human rights institution (NHRI).
Mr. Langtry,
The superficial nature of the amendments can be illustrated, for instance, by the newly-amended Section 5(2) of the Human Rights Commission Act 1999, which provides that the Commission shall be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (King) on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, who shall now, before tendering his advice, consult the committee referred to in Section 11(A).
Section 11(A) provides for the composition of the select committee which comprises of the following persons:
a) The Chief Secretary to the Government who shall be the Chairman;
b) The Chairman of the Commission; and
c) Three other members, from amongst eminent persons to be appointed by the Prime Minister.
Firstly, we would like to point out that these amendments do not address the Sub-Committee’s recommendations to SUHAKAM that it strengthens its independence by the “provision of clear and transparent appointment and dismissal process”. Under the newly-inserted Section 11(A)(6), the views or recommendations of the selection committee as stated above shall not be binding upon the Prime Minister. This, in reality, gives the Prime Minister absolute discretion over the selection of members of the Commission. This demonstrates the fact that the amendments retain the essence of the original provisions of the Act, where members of the Commission are appointed by the King on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. In reality, the appointment process of SUHAKAM under the new amendments still lacks transparency and certainly does not address the specific recommendation made by the Sub-Committee.
Secondly, the amendments above also do not address the other specific recommendation of the Sub-Committee to SUHAKAM to ensure “the representation of different segments of society and their involvement in suggesting or recommending candidates to the governing body of the Commission”. Under the new amendments, there is still no provision which ensures the engagement and participation of civil society in the selection process of SUHAKAM, despite the Paris Principles clearly stating that “whether by means of election or otherwise, shall be established in accordance with a procedure which affords all necessary guarantees to ensure the pluralist representation of social forces (of civilian society) involved in the promotion and protection of human rights”.
Even after the amendments, the selection process of SUHAKAM remains solely determined by the Prime Minister.
Mr. Langtry,
During the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) on Malaysia in February 2009, recommendations of at least four countries, to ensure the independence of SUHAKAM in accordance with the Paris Principles and also to widen the scope of SUHAKAM to cover all rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, were merely noted by the government of Malaysia, and were not listed as those which enjoyed its support. This is a clear demonstration of the lack of commitment of the government of Malaysia in strengthening and improving SUHAKAM.
That the government chose only to make the amendments one day prior to the Sub-Committee meeting to review on SUHAKAM is convened speaks volumes about the level of commitment of the government of Malaysia concerning its NHRI. It clearly shows that these amendments were made not with the intention to improve SUHAKAM, but merely to save it from being downgraded. The government of Malaysia ’s superficial actions, especially with regard to matters of utmost importance and seriousness, such as in ensuring the independence of an NHRI, therefore, are unacceptable.
It is also worthwhile to point out here that the minister who tabled the hurriedly-passed bill of amendments to the enabling law of SUHAKAM on 24 March 2009 was the very same minister who, in March 2006, said that the government “had never planned to give SUHAKAM any teeth”[1] when questioned in the Parliament about the effectiveness of SUHAKAM as an NHRI in Malaysia.
Taken into account all of the above, we are of the view that SUHAKAM does not deserve the “A” status, as it is still not in full compliance with the Paris Principles despite the amendments made to its enabling law. We are of the view that the Sub-Committee’s review on any NHRI should be done solely based on its compliance with the Paris Principles, and not based on relative efforts or improvements. The implications of maintaining the “A” status of SUHAKAM based on these superficial amendments are grave – the Malaysian government’s non-inclusive, superficial, and hasty efforts to save its NHRI, which still did not result in a greater compliance with the Paris Principles, would be legitimised, making it extremely difficult to push forward more substantial reforms on SUHAKAM in the future.
Thus, we strongly urge you to take these points into consideration in the decision of the Sub-Committee’s review on SUHAKAM.
We also strongly call on the Sub-Committee to make the following recommendations in the report of its review on SUHAKAM:
1. The selection process of the Commission should be further improved to make it more transparent and clear. This can be done by ensuring the representation of civil society in suggesting and recommending candidates to the Commission. We recommend that the representation of civil society in this process be spelt out clearly in the enabling law.
2. We also refer to the Sub-Committee’s report in April 2008, which noted, “Members of the NHRIs should include full-time remunerated members […].” We note with concern the part-time nature of the commissioners’ work and recommend that members of the Commission be full-time.
3. Recognising similar concerns which were raised during Malaysia ’s UPR on 11 February 2009 , we recommend that the Commission’s mandate be widened to include all rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
We thank you for your attention.
This letter is signed by the following Malaysian civil society organisations:
1. Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN)
2. All Women’s Action Society (AWAM)
3. Amnesty International, Malaysia
4. Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ)
5. Centre for Orang Asli Concerns (COAC)
6. Child Development Initiative
7. Citizens Think Tank
8. Civil Right Committee, Kuala Lumpur & Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall
9. Civil Society Initiative (CSI)
10. Coalition against Water Privatisation
11. Community Development Centre (CDC)
12. Consumer Association of Klang (CAK)
13. Coordination of Action for Research on AIDS and Mobility (CARAM Asia )
14. Education and Research Association for Consumers, Malaysia (ERA Consumer)
15. Federation of Malaysian Consumers Association (FOMCA)
16. Group of Concerned Citizens
17. Jamah Islah Malaysia (JIM)
18. Jaringan Rakyat Tertindas (JERIT)
19. Kumpulan ACTS (A Call to Serve)
20. LLG Foundation – Civil Society Promotion Committee
21. Malaysia Youth and Students Democratic Movement (DEMA)
22. Malaysian Association of Standards Users
23. Malaysian Indian Development Association
24. Monitoring Sustainability of Globalization (MSN)
25. Nur Salam
26. Pahang Consumers’ Association
27. Penang Consumers’ Protection Association (PCPA)
28. Penang Watch
29. Perak Consumers’ Association (PCA)
30. Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (Empower)
31. Persatuan Masyarakat Selangor & Wilayah Persekutuan (PERMAS)
32. PT Foundation
33. Pusat Khidmat Pekerja Tanjung (PKPT)
34. Pusat Komunikasi Masyarakat (KOMAS)
35. Research for Social Advancement (REFSA)
36. Save Our Selves (SOS)
37. Selangor & Wilayah Persekutuan Consumers’ Association (SCA)
38. Semparuthi Iyakkam
39. Sisters in Islam (SIS)
40. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
41. Tamil Youth Bell Club
42. Tenaganita
43. Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO)
44. Workers’ Organisation Malaysia
45. Writers’ Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI)
46. Youth for Change (Y4C)
This letter is also supported by the Asian NGOs Network on National Institutions (ANNI). The following are members of ANNI:
1. ADVAR – Iran
2. Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK) – Bangladesh
3. Asian Center for Human Rights (ACHR)
4. Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
5. Cambodian League for Promotion and Defence of Human Rights (LICADHO)
6. Center for Human Rights and Development (CHRD) – Mongolia
7. Center for Organizing Research and Education (CORE)
8. Citizens’ Council for Human Rights Japan (CCHRJ) – Japan
9. Commission for Disappearances and Victims of Violence (KONTRAS) – Indonesia
10. Defenders of Human Rights Center – Iran
11. Education and Research Association for Consumer Education (ERA Consumer) – Malaysia
12. Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor (HKHR) – Hong Kong
13. Human Rights Organisation of Kurdistan
14. Indonesian Human Rights Monitor (IMPARSIAL) – Indonesia
15. Indonesian NGO Coalition for International Human Rights Advocacy (HRWG) – Indonesia
16. Informal Service Sector Center (INSEC) – Nepal
17. Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy (ELSAM) – Indonesia
18. International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran – Iran
19. Japan Federation of Bar Associations (JFBA) – Japan
20. Judicial System Monitoring Program (JSMP) – Timor Leste
21. Korea House for International Solidarity (KHIS) – Korea
22. Law and Society Trust (LST) – Sri Lanka
23. Lawyers’ League for Liberty (LIBERTAS) – Philippines
24. Maldivian Detainees Network (MDN) – Maldives
25. People’s Watch – India
26. Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA) – Philippines
27. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) – Malaysia
28. Taiwan Association for Human Rights (TAHR) – Taiwan
Thursday, March 26, 2009
人民之声槟城支部呼吁槟州政府在落实财产申报不落人后!
人民之声槟城支部在本星期做了一个关于申报财产的民意调查中发现，高达73%的槟州选民希望政府尽快落实申报财产，申报财产即是一项承诺更是促进民主非常重要的一个环节。在两天的民意调查中，多达508人愿意接受访问，這項调查对象鎖定是槟州选民。
同意 不同意
槟州政府必须落实申报财产 373 135
总人数 508
人民之聲檳城支部呼吁檳州政府盡快落實財產申報，隨著雪州政府終于在13/3/09領先申報財產，檳州無疑落在背后！檳州政府推搪本身的大選宣言并發表“為求步伐一致”卻更加凸顯州政府在改革的路上是沒有決心的。
人民之聲檳城支部表示，希望檳州政府可以在透明的機制上不落人后，盡快申報并公開議員的財產讓人民可以監督其議員的廉潔。民联三党曾在大选前签署《人民宣言》，以立法规定人民代议士申报财产并不是很難辦到的，很多國家都設有強制公職人員申報產業的法案。
人民之声槟城支部同时也呼吁政府将推动民主做为主要的议程，普遍上人民对槟州政府还是充满期待及寄予厚望。但是，这种期待却不应该是放纵政府在落实这些非常重要的政策上。人民必须时时监督政府，必须建立监督的机制；对于上任不过一年的政府，鞭策并不是攻击或者不信任的行为，相反恰恰是人民应该履行的公民责任。民主并不是只是投票，民主是人民在决策的过程中被咨询并参与建设的过程。
人民之聲也勸請州政府不可以犧牲民主機制換取和中央政府的關系，民聯政府不該期望會有統一的形式，人民唾棄國陣選擇民聯也是因為不再對國陣存有希望，而民聯在這一刻不能背叛人民的寄望選擇與國陣合作。
就以東南亞國家舉例，菲律賓和泰國都已經落實了申報產業的法案，反觀馬來西亞卻一直在民主制度上沒有進展甚至在國際上因為發生種種侵犯人權的事跡而蒙羞。有鑒于此，民聯政府需要顯示其改革的魄力，不辜負人民的期望，更別錯過了等待50年才發生的改革浪潮。
雖然，雪州成為領先申報并公布產業的州政權，但是其模式未必是檳州政府應該采納的。雪州公布的財產略顯簡略，并不能讓人民在監督的工作上扮演其角色，雪州政府所提呈的并不符合聯合國《公職人員國際行為守則》。
《公職人員國際行為守則》就包括了：必須公開商業利益、任何形式并涉及金錢交易的活動及任何可能涉及本身職權及個人利益的活動。必須減少或消除任何涉及個人利益的交易。財產申報則是個人產業以及負債，伴侶和未成年的家屬。而这些是具有公信力政府最基本的条件，而做为槟州政府极力推动的主要政纲，槟州政府有责任加快速度。
人民之聲檳城支部希望檳州做為提倡有能力、負責任及具有透明度的政府可以真正成為第一個落實有能力、負責任及具有透明度的政府的政策而非逗留在口號式的推動。更是與檳州人民建立一個良好的問責機制，真正讓檳州政府成為領先民主的州政府。
檳城人民之聲表示現在是民聯實現其大選宣言，并促請民聯成員拼政綱而非倾向向不民主的情况妥协。人民之声同时劝请各州州政府落实良好的监督机制并积极落实大选所承诺的种种议题！
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Suaram Penang calls upon the Penang state government to exercise asset declaration of its EXCO’s.
25/3/09
Suaram Penang calls upon the Penang state government to exercise asset declaration of its EXCO’s.
Suaram Penang in a survey conducted this week found that up to 73% of Penang voters hope that the state government will make good its promise of a Competent, Accountable, and Transparent administration by declaring to the public assets owned by the Chief Minister and his Executive Committee. The survey, done over two days at various places in the island, received 508 respondents.
| | Agree | Disagree |
| The Penang state govt should declare assets of its Chief Minister and EXCO members. | 373 | 135 |
| Total no. of respondents | 508 | |
Following the Selangor state government’s step to take up the asset declaration exercise on 13 March, 2009, the results of this mini survey indicate that the people would like the state government to follow suit and do what is only right and reflective of democratic governing practices. We fear failure to do so at the soonest will cause the people to lose confidence in the promises of reform once proudly proclaimed in election manifestos. Instead of delaying with the excuse of “uniformity” with other states or even the federal government, it is time, and perhaps even overdue (since Selangor has taken the lead), that the Penang government shows its commitment to democratic reform.
We believe that by declaring assets of state office bearers, this will not only be symbolic of true transparency but also allow the people to regain trust in the democratic process. As Pakatan Rakyat parties have endorsed the People’s Declaration before the 12th General Elections of Malaysia, it should not be an exercise too hard to be undertaken when governments in other countries have long before us established this good practice.
Suaram Penang hence calls upon the state government to promote democratic governance as its top priority. This hope for the advancement of democratic ideals needs political will from the ruling party. Likewise, people who want a government that is accountable to them must hold those in government accountable. The need for a mechanism of checks and balances must, however, not be confused as an attempt to attack or discredit the one-year-old Penang Pakatan state government. Instead this call should be seen as a way the grassroots exercise their responsibility as citizens of the state. Democracy is not only about voting and elections, it is also about making it possible for people’s participation in the process of decision making.
The attainment of democratic ideals should not also be a pawn on the political chessboard separating the Pakatan state government and BN federal government. By electing into office the new state government on March the 8th last year, voters have already spoken their wishes and certainly do not expect now for the promises of yesteryear to remain only as dangling carrots.
A glance of our surrounding region will show that neighbours like the Philippines and Thailand have already instituted mechanisms that ensure assets of public officials can be monitored. Malaysia’s lagging behind in terms of internationally recognised good practices is further compounded by frequent events that highlight the plight of human rights in this nation. Therefore, the Penang Pakatan state government should take this chance of being in power to institute changes and reform that have not been able to see the light of day in our nation’s first fifty years of existence.
Although the Selangor state government has taken the lead in declaring assets of its EXCO members, the model and (the lack of) depth of its exercise is not something that needs to necessarily be copied wholesale by Penang. We note that the Selangor exercise was too simplistic in nature and does not allow for effective and meaningful monitoring to be done by the people. Any serious assets declaration exercise should be in line with the United Nations International Code of Conduct for Public Officials.
Under section III of the abovesaid code, Public officials shall, in accord with their position and as permitted or required by law and administrative policies, comply with requirements to declare or to disclose personal assets and liabilities, as well as, if possible, those of their spouses and/or dependants.
Suaram Penang hopes that the Penang state government will truly live up to its slogans promoting Competency, Accountability, and Transparency (CAT) by actually instituting policies and practices that reflect the meaning of democracy. Mechanisms that not only allow for active public monitoring but also encourage public participation in the democratic process - i.e. questioning and actually getting answers - should be introduced.
Suaram Penang therefore politely reminds the Penang state government about its promises in their election manifesto, as it is certainly expected of them now that they are in power to be unwavering in the struggle for a more democratic Malaysia.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Kesedihan Rosmah hanya sekelumit duka mangsa ISA
Kesedihan Rosmah hanya sekelumit duka mangsa ISA
Norlaila Othman
Wed | Mar 18, 09 | 12:42:32 pm MYT
Malaysiakini beberapa hari yang lalu melaporkan tentang perasaan isteri bakal PM, Najib Razak yang diberitakan merasa sangat berdukacita dengan segala tuduhan dan tohmahan yang telah dilemparkan oleh rakyat, terutamanya datang dari pihak pembangkang yang mengaitkan suami beliau Najib Razak dengan kematian ngeri seorang wanita Monggolia. Kesihan Rosmah kerana terpaksa menerima segala tuduhan tersebut, hinggakan sentimen itu terbawa-bawa ke Parlimen, dan ada antara ahli Parlimen menuduh suami beliau sebagai "pembunuh". Siapalah yang akan terima dan sanggup mendengar tuduhan berat seperti itu.
Sekiranya saya di tempat Rosmah, adalah lebih baik tuduhan-tuduhan liar itu diselesaikan di mahkamah saja. Biarlah hakim yang menentukan sama ada segala tuduhan itu benar atau sebaliknya. Bak kata orang tua-tua mulut tempayan boleh ditutup dengan nyiru, tetapi mulut manusia...tiada siapa yang tahu kemana sudahnya hendak dijaja cerita sedemikian rupa.
Rosmah masih beruntung kerana suami beliau hanyalah dituduh oleh pihak pembangkang yang tidak punya kuasa sama sekali. Beliau, sebagai isteri bakal PM, masih punyai 1001 kelebihan lain dibandingkan wanita biasa yang ditimpa fitnah seperti itu.
Rosmah mempunyai peluang terbuka untuk meluahkan perasaannya di mana-mana media yang beliau suka sama ada di surat khabar, radio atau televisyen. Beliau juga punya banyak wang untuk mendapatkan khidmat peguam handalan untuk menyaman mana-mana pihak yang begitu celupar itu.
Cuba bandingkan derita Rosmah dengan kesedihan wanita-wanita yang masih menjadi mangsa ISA, milik kerajaan Malaysia.
Puan Hapipah berasal dari Sabah. Suami beliau telah ditahan di bawah ISA bulan Jun 2002. Beliau yang menghidap penyakit jantung lebih empat tahun tidak bertemu suami kerana tidak mampu untuk datang ke Kem Kamunting yang terletak di Semenanjung Malaysia.
Puan Norhata, juga berasal dari Sabah telah dipisahkan dari suaminya yang ditahan di bawah ISA sejak tahun 2006. Beliau terpaksa membesarkan lapan orang anak bersendirian sepanjang ketiadaan suaminya. Sejak hari pertama ditahan di bawah ISA, beliau tidak pernah langsung bertemu suaminya yang kini masih dikurung di Kem Kamunting.
Puan Jo, suaminya ditahan di bawah ISA pada tahun 2006. Beliau juga tidak pernah melawat suaminya di Kem Kamunting kerana tidak mempunyai wang untuk datang ke Taiping, Perak. Pastinya wang lebih diutamakan untuk membiayai makan-minum lima orang anak-anak yang sedang membesar.
Suami saya telah ditahan pada April 2002... hingga kini beliau tidak pernah pulang ke rumah...Jika nak dibandingkan dengan Rosmah, nasib kami mangsa ISA adalah seperti langit dengan bumi. Suami kami di tuduh dan dinamakan oleh Menteri Dalam Negeri sebagai ahli "pengganas Islam" dan disebarkan oleh semua media kerajaan. Kami tidak pernah diberi peluang di mana-mana akhbar, radio atau televisyen kerajaan untuk meluahkan rasa hati sebagai isteri tahanan ISA.
Suami kami minta dibicarakan di hadapan hakim bersama bukti-bukti, namun hingga kini, Kerajaan Malaysia tidak pernah mendakwa mereka di mana-mana mahkamah.
Semua peluang itu ditutup rapat oleh pihak berkuasa. Dan yang lebih buruk polis Cawangan Khas (SB) terus-menerus digunakan untuk mengekori, dan memantau kehidupan kami. Sekiranya ada antara kami yang ingin menyuarakan bantahan terhadap penahanan tanpa bicara ini, mereka akan diugut oleh SB dengan mengunakan pelbagai cara dan saluran menyebabkan kami menghadapi tekanan emosi yang lebih dari biasa.
Sebahagian besar daripada kami tiada pekerjaan tetap, punya anak-anak yang ramai dan semuanya sedang membesar. Suami tidak tahu, bilakah tarikh akhir akan dilepaskan dari Kem Kamunting... manakala orang ramai pula turut takut kerana SB sentiasa memantau anggota masyarakat yang ingin membantu mengurangkan kesusahan kami, mangsa ISA.
Bukankah semua ini, lebih dahsyat lagi kedukaannya jika nak dibandingkan dengan masaalah Rosmah yang sedikit itu? Siapakah yang berani untuk membela nasib kami? - mns_
Norlaila Othman
Wed | Mar 18, 09 | 12:42:32 pm MYT
Malaysiakini beberapa hari yang lalu melaporkan tentang perasaan isteri bakal PM, Najib Razak yang diberitakan merasa sangat berdukacita dengan segala tuduhan dan tohmahan yang telah dilemparkan oleh rakyat, terutamanya datang dari pihak pembangkang yang mengaitkan suami beliau Najib Razak dengan kematian ngeri seorang wanita Monggolia. Kesihan Rosmah kerana terpaksa menerima segala tuduhan tersebut, hinggakan sentimen itu terbawa-bawa ke Parlimen, dan ada antara ahli Parlimen menuduh suami beliau sebagai "pembunuh". Siapalah yang akan terima dan sanggup mendengar tuduhan berat seperti itu.
Sekiranya saya di tempat Rosmah, adalah lebih baik tuduhan-tuduhan liar itu diselesaikan di mahkamah saja. Biarlah hakim yang menentukan sama ada segala tuduhan itu benar atau sebaliknya. Bak kata orang tua-tua mulut tempayan boleh ditutup dengan nyiru, tetapi mulut manusia...tiada siapa yang tahu kemana sudahnya hendak dijaja cerita sedemikian rupa.
Rosmah masih beruntung kerana suami beliau hanyalah dituduh oleh pihak pembangkang yang tidak punya kuasa sama sekali. Beliau, sebagai isteri bakal PM, masih punyai 1001 kelebihan lain dibandingkan wanita biasa yang ditimpa fitnah seperti itu.
Rosmah mempunyai peluang terbuka untuk meluahkan perasaannya di mana-mana media yang beliau suka sama ada di surat khabar, radio atau televisyen. Beliau juga punya banyak wang untuk mendapatkan khidmat peguam handalan untuk menyaman mana-mana pihak yang begitu celupar itu.
Cuba bandingkan derita Rosmah dengan kesedihan wanita-wanita yang masih menjadi mangsa ISA, milik kerajaan Malaysia.
Puan Hapipah berasal dari Sabah. Suami beliau telah ditahan di bawah ISA bulan Jun 2002. Beliau yang menghidap penyakit jantung lebih empat tahun tidak bertemu suami kerana tidak mampu untuk datang ke Kem Kamunting yang terletak di Semenanjung Malaysia.
Puan Norhata, juga berasal dari Sabah telah dipisahkan dari suaminya yang ditahan di bawah ISA sejak tahun 2006. Beliau terpaksa membesarkan lapan orang anak bersendirian sepanjang ketiadaan suaminya. Sejak hari pertama ditahan di bawah ISA, beliau tidak pernah langsung bertemu suaminya yang kini masih dikurung di Kem Kamunting.
Puan Jo, suaminya ditahan di bawah ISA pada tahun 2006. Beliau juga tidak pernah melawat suaminya di Kem Kamunting kerana tidak mempunyai wang untuk datang ke Taiping, Perak. Pastinya wang lebih diutamakan untuk membiayai makan-minum lima orang anak-anak yang sedang membesar.
Suami saya telah ditahan pada April 2002... hingga kini beliau tidak pernah pulang ke rumah...Jika nak dibandingkan dengan Rosmah, nasib kami mangsa ISA adalah seperti langit dengan bumi. Suami kami di tuduh dan dinamakan oleh Menteri Dalam Negeri sebagai ahli "pengganas Islam" dan disebarkan oleh semua media kerajaan. Kami tidak pernah diberi peluang di mana-mana akhbar, radio atau televisyen kerajaan untuk meluahkan rasa hati sebagai isteri tahanan ISA.
Suami kami minta dibicarakan di hadapan hakim bersama bukti-bukti, namun hingga kini, Kerajaan Malaysia tidak pernah mendakwa mereka di mana-mana mahkamah.
Semua peluang itu ditutup rapat oleh pihak berkuasa. Dan yang lebih buruk polis Cawangan Khas (SB) terus-menerus digunakan untuk mengekori, dan memantau kehidupan kami. Sekiranya ada antara kami yang ingin menyuarakan bantahan terhadap penahanan tanpa bicara ini, mereka akan diugut oleh SB dengan mengunakan pelbagai cara dan saluran menyebabkan kami menghadapi tekanan emosi yang lebih dari biasa.
Sebahagian besar daripada kami tiada pekerjaan tetap, punya anak-anak yang ramai dan semuanya sedang membesar. Suami tidak tahu, bilakah tarikh akhir akan dilepaskan dari Kem Kamunting... manakala orang ramai pula turut takut kerana SB sentiasa memantau anggota masyarakat yang ingin membantu mengurangkan kesusahan kami, mangsa ISA.
Bukankah semua ini, lebih dahsyat lagi kedukaannya jika nak dibandingkan dengan masaalah Rosmah yang sedikit itu? Siapakah yang berani untuk membela nasib kami? - mns_
Sunday, March 15, 2009
槟州民众对猫政府宽容 但要恢复地方议会选举
槟州民众对猫政府宽容 但要恢复地方议会选举
时间：2009-03-15 19:43:02 来源：本报报道 作者：陈锐嫔
（槟城15日讯）槟州民联“猫政府”上台后，是否有带来改变或者依循前朝政府的旧路呢？一般上，槟州民众都认为民联政府做得比前朝好，但是似乎缺少远见与远景，他们认为猫政府应该多听取民意、跳脱旧政治思维和结构、加强州政府与地方议会的合作，才能更有效的带来改变。而民众更认为，重新恢复地方议会选举，是当务之急。
人民之声槟城支部昨晚在槟州华人大会堂主办了“猫政府管理，改变还是维持现状”英文讲座，邀请了槟州地方政府委员会主席曹观友、民政党前市议员郑两明、市议员林巧清与人民之声槟城支部秘书处成员朱进佳进行座谈，共吸引了近60位老中青各阶层人士出席。人民之声也会在今晚举行相同主题的中文场讲座。CAT为能干、公信及透明（competency, accountability and transparency），是由会计师背景的首长林冠英推介的施政方针。
民众讲座上对前朝市议员呛声
在讲座中，可见民众对民联政府还是非常宽容的，当主持人把行动党第12届大选的8项竞选宣言念出来，包括希望恢复地方议会选举时，想问槟州政府兑现了那些台下一位观众即时回应说：“（他们上台）才一年嘛。”现场观众更奚落在场的前民政市议员郑两明说：“民政掌权槟州近30年，没有想办法解决槟州的交通问题，还要邀功说槟城快捷通是由你们引进的。这到底有什么好骄傲的？”
虽然民众对槟州民联州政府诸多爱护与袒护，但是在恢复地方议会选举上，民众却有志一同，希望尽快恢复地方议会选举。
曹观友表示，地方政府已经委托研究地方政府的前理大教授吴万里与其他非政府组织进行研究，并且在这个月底把报告呈给他，找出恢复地方议会选举的可行性。
必须改变旧思维与政治结构
但是现任市议员林巧清表示，308之后的改变是，非政府组织成员有机会进入市议会。目前槟州市议会只有两名实际来自非政府组织的成员，应该多增加，应该政党委任的市议员有些虽然很有理想，想为人民服务，但是有时碍于政党利益，还是必须遵从政党的方针。林巧清来自非政府组织妇女醒觉中心。
林巧清就任一年，也对官僚体系深感无力。“有些政策决定了，要政府官员去进行，他们也说没问题，但是一年过去后，才发现他们什么都没做。所以，如果现有的政治结构没有改变的话，我们能期待的改变并不多。如果结构没有改变，推行地方议会选举的意义并不大。”
她也有话直说地指出：“州政府应该多与地方政府合作，而不应该互相推搪责任，如广告牌指南属于市议会职责范围，就不应该把球踢给州政府。我们应该勇于改变，不要在陷入旧思维与旧政治结构的泥沼中。”
民主不是5年一张选票 全民参与更重要
朱进佳表示，民主并不只是选举，而在选举过后就说，我这个是好政策，应该施行，而不再咨询人民的意见。“民联政府应该开放更多空间，让民间参与公共事务，推动民主化的进程。”
他更提醒说：“管理一个州与管理一间公司是不一样的，因为企业是一个不民主的机构，低下员工没有决策权。管理一个州，就是要倾听人民的声音，也让人民有管道发声。而恢复地方议会选举，是槟州迈向民主化应该走的路。”
针对公开财产议题，朱进佳表示，槟州要推行全州无线上网，但是却资讯不透明，没有公布州行政议员财产，这又有什么意义呢？
曹观友指出，他一年前已经把相关资产呈报上去，不知道为何该资讯到现在还没公开。“无论如何，槟州首席部长林冠英表示会在两周内公布行政议员财产，我只希望到时人民不要笑我们说，啊，你们的资产这么少啊！”
时间：2009-03-15 19:43:02 来源：本报报道 作者：陈锐嫔
（槟城15日讯）槟州民联“猫政府”上台后，是否有带来改变或者依循前朝政府的旧路呢？一般上，槟州民众都认为民联政府做得比前朝好，但是似乎缺少远见与远景，他们认为猫政府应该多听取民意、跳脱旧政治思维和结构、加强州政府与地方议会的合作，才能更有效的带来改变。而民众更认为，重新恢复地方议会选举，是当务之急。
人民之声槟城支部昨晚在槟州华人大会堂主办了“猫政府管理，改变还是维持现状”英文讲座，邀请了槟州地方政府委员会主席曹观友、民政党前市议员郑两明、市议员林巧清与人民之声槟城支部秘书处成员朱进佳进行座谈，共吸引了近60位老中青各阶层人士出席。人民之声也会在今晚举行相同主题的中文场讲座。CAT为能干、公信及透明（competency, accountability and transparency），是由会计师背景的首长林冠英推介的施政方针。
民众讲座上对前朝市议员呛声
在讲座中，可见民众对民联政府还是非常宽容的，当主持人把行动党第12届大选的8项竞选宣言念出来，包括希望恢复地方议会选举时，想问槟州政府兑现了那些台下一位观众即时回应说：“（他们上台）才一年嘛。”现场观众更奚落在场的前民政市议员郑两明说：“民政掌权槟州近30年，没有想办法解决槟州的交通问题，还要邀功说槟城快捷通是由你们引进的。这到底有什么好骄傲的？”
虽然民众对槟州民联州政府诸多爱护与袒护，但是在恢复地方议会选举上，民众却有志一同，希望尽快恢复地方议会选举。
曹观友表示，地方政府已经委托研究地方政府的前理大教授吴万里与其他非政府组织进行研究，并且在这个月底把报告呈给他，找出恢复地方议会选举的可行性。
必须改变旧思维与政治结构
但是现任市议员林巧清表示，308之后的改变是，非政府组织成员有机会进入市议会。目前槟州市议会只有两名实际来自非政府组织的成员，应该多增加，应该政党委任的市议员有些虽然很有理想，想为人民服务，但是有时碍于政党利益，还是必须遵从政党的方针。林巧清来自非政府组织妇女醒觉中心。
林巧清就任一年，也对官僚体系深感无力。“有些政策决定了，要政府官员去进行，他们也说没问题，但是一年过去后，才发现他们什么都没做。所以，如果现有的政治结构没有改变的话，我们能期待的改变并不多。如果结构没有改变，推行地方议会选举的意义并不大。”
她也有话直说地指出：“州政府应该多与地方政府合作，而不应该互相推搪责任，如广告牌指南属于市议会职责范围，就不应该把球踢给州政府。我们应该勇于改变，不要在陷入旧思维与旧政治结构的泥沼中。”
民主不是5年一张选票 全民参与更重要
朱进佳表示，民主并不只是选举，而在选举过后就说，我这个是好政策，应该施行，而不再咨询人民的意见。“民联政府应该开放更多空间，让民间参与公共事务，推动民主化的进程。”
他更提醒说：“管理一个州与管理一间公司是不一样的，因为企业是一个不民主的机构，低下员工没有决策权。管理一个州，就是要倾听人民的声音，也让人民有管道发声。而恢复地方议会选举，是槟州迈向民主化应该走的路。”
针对公开财产议题，朱进佳表示，槟州要推行全州无线上网，但是却资讯不透明，没有公布州行政议员财产，这又有什么意义呢？
曹观友指出，他一年前已经把相关资产呈报上去，不知道为何该资讯到现在还没公开。“无论如何，槟州首席部长林冠英表示会在两周内公布行政议员财产，我只希望到时人民不要笑我们说，啊，你们的资产这么少啊！”
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
“一年貓政府，民聯功與過”
“一年貓政府，民聯功與過”
日期：15/3/09
時間：晚間八點
地點：檳華堂
主講人：檳州行政議員曹觀友，民政黨涂仲儀醫生、非政府組織成員劉素希及槟城中文报记者及摄影记者协会主席陈云清
聯絡人：劉素希 012-8756179， suarampg@gmail.com
Cat's Ruling Change or the Same?
“CAT’s ruling, change or the same”
Date: 14/3/09
Time: 8pm
Venue: Penang Chinese Town Hall
Panelist: YB Chow Kon Yeow, MPPP Lim Kah Cheng, Choo Chon Kai and Gerakan Teh Leong Meng
Contact person: Lau Shu Shi 012-8756179, suarampg@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)