Site has moved

This website has moved to a new home. For further updates please go to:

http://fabm.wordpress.com

A Place Under the Malaysian Sun III

Malaysia a Jurassic Park? Kim Quek 15 August 2008 - Malaysia Today Surprisingly, even the Constitution was brought in to defend UiTM’s 100% racial discrimination policy, displaying wide-spread ignorance of the Constitution. Vice-chancellor Ibrahim specifically referred to Article 153 of the Constitution as legal basis for his refusal to open the door of UiTM to other races. Can those people thumping their chests to condemn Selangor Mentri Besar Khalid Ibrahim’s suggestion to allocate 10% of student admission of Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) to non-bumiputra and foreign students please answer one simple question: Is there a single university in the world which practices 100% racial discrimination in its student enrolment? If there is none, shouldn’t these same people start to do some reflective thinking now as to whether it is a plus or minus for Malaysia to have this unique distinction? Should they not contemplate whether they are proud or not so proud of this ‘achievement’? Should they not be concerned of what the rest of the world might think of a country that is still fanatically defending its policy of total racial discrimination in its highest seat of learning when the whole world has either abandoned or criminalized racial discrimination of all kinds? Are they not worried that Malaysia may soon acquire the image of ‘Jurassic Park’ or ‘Lost World’ of this globalised age? Yes, I use the word ‘fanatically’ because the outburst against Khalid’s suggestion was swift, vituperative, irrational, racist and spearheaded by top UMNO leaders and reverberated down to UiTM students who gathered in the thousands to protest in front of Khalid’s office. Vocal assailers include unfortunately the minister of higher education Khaled Nordin and UiTM vice-chancellor Ibrahim Abu Shah; and vitriolic criticisms include ‘selling out Malay special privileges’, ‘insult to his own race’, and ironically even ‘playing with racial sentiments’. Surprisingly, even the Constitution was brought in to defend UiTM’s 100% racial discrimination policy, displaying wide-spread ignorance of the Constitution. Vice-chancellor Ibrahim specifically referred to Article 153 of the Constitution as legal basis for his refusal to open the door of UiTM to other races. Whereas the reverse is true – Article 153 only empowers the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to request for the reservation of such proportion of position as deemed reasonable for the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak in educational institutions funded by the government. Coupled with Article 8 which prohibits discrimination of any kind on the ground of race, UiTM’s 100% racial policy is clearly unconstitutional. The fanatical zeal displayed by the ruling party (UMNO) in condemning even the tiniest opening of its mono-racial institution to others in this multi-racial nation half a century after independence is undoubtedly a terrible indictment on the miserable failure of nation-building carried out by the only ruling power this nation has ever known – UMNO. It should be pointed out that this UiTM fiasco is the latest in a long string of world renowned scandals that have shamed this country in a short spell of time – starting with the Lingam tape that reveals our judicial rot, the Mongolian high-level murder trial that drills on endlessly and aimlessly, the Anwar sodomy frame-up saga II which symbolises the regime’s moral bankruptcy, the violent disruption of Bar Council forum on family problems arising from conversion to Islam that displays religious intolerance. What alarms the public even more is that these scandals seem to roll in with increasing frequency and speed, destroying what little trust and confidence the people may still have with the government. Are we as a nation already in the reverse gear sliding into an abyss? With these self-destructive maneuvers, apparently self-engineered for its own political survival, UMNO is actually stretching the political and social fabric of the nation to danger zone. How then could Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi in all honesty announce that the country “is doing quite well in terms of the economic fundamentals” when the economy is already deeply troubled with slumping demand amidst spiraling inflation in an ambience of administrative incompetence, and escalating political turmoil and uncertainty? The latest two incidents – Bar Council forum and UiTM enrolment – appear to be linked to the imminent Permatang Pauh by-election through which Anwar Ibrahim is planning to make his grand return to Parliament. It is apparent that UMNO is hell bent to scrape and exploit every bit of potential religious and racial friction and blow it up to inflame the primordial instincts of the 70% Malay electorate in the Permatang Pauh constituency. Its policy seems to be: There is no price too high for UMNO to retain power, including stoking the fire of racial hatred and religious animosity that may eventually rift the nation apart. The nation must decide whether it can tolerate such an incumbent political power to continue to hold the reign of government. And that collective decision, if in the negative, can be put into effect (to a significant extent) by the electorate of Permatang Pauh by giving Anwar Ibrahim a resounding victory. ...source

A Place Under the Malaysian Sun II

'Non-bumis will be an asset for UiTM' Aug 15, 2008 - Malaysiakini Your Say On PM vetoes call to open UiTM to non-Malays Chin Tu Lan: I'm a Chinese, and if you ask me whether I feel hurt by this whole issue, I would say no. Mara was set up to help bumiputera students get their education in Malaysia. Let them have their own institutions if they think the concept of staying in their own cocoon makes them better. Just allocate more local university spaces for non-bumiputeras. The whole concept of having 10% participation from non-bumiputera and foreigners is to prepare the bumiputeras to be more competitive when facing the global community. It is their loss anyway. What should we non-bumiputera be worried or angry about? However, I'm angry at the Umno politicians who made a fuss out of this whole issue. Umno claims to be the protector of the bumiputera, yet their actions only tell me that what they are doing is for Umno survival, not for the good of the Malay race. They do not want the Malays to progress. You see, as long as they could keep the bumiputera a marginalised race in the country, Umno will still exist and stay relevant. If all bumiputera are well to do, then why do they still need Umno? I hope one day the Malay race will realise Umno's evil ploy and I hope the day will come very soon. Please, let us not be angry with the UiTM students and graduates. They are just tools used by these Umno politicians. I know of many UiTM graduates who are hardworking and honest. They just want an equal chance and opportunity to survive in this world, as do all of us. I'm afraid that their leaders do not see far enough in the future to take them further, and this is making it worse for them. Har Wai Mun: The MB's reasoning for his suggestion is to allow UiTM students to gain more exposure and be friendlier to people of other races. If anyone thinks his reason is not correct, the logical counter-point would be along the lines of either ‘the suggestion would not allow students to gain more exposure and be friendlier to other races,' or ‘allowing students to gain more exposure and be friendlier to people of other races is not beneficial'. Hopefully, the MB's suggestion will be viewed constructively and is not obscured by communal sentiment. Non-bumis will be an asset to UiTM. Quoting a declaration on various placards on parade at the demonstration, the MB's suggestion might not only ‘Selamatkan UiTM' (Save UiTM), but might propel UiTM to be a world-class university that makes all Malaysians very proud! Anti Double-Standard: It is unfortunate that the MB of Selangor's view about UiTM made him become a racial and political scapegoat when all he was trying to do was foster greater racial harmony in the country and encourage better quality bumiputeras to go through an open university system. After all, he was only proposing a 10% allocation for non-bumiputeras and foreign students. In fact, allocating a small percentage of places for non-bumiputera students has already been practised by the present BN government in fully residential schools. (sekolah berasrama penuh) This has happened even though these schools were originally meant for bumiputera students coming from low-income families. Thus, Khalid Ibrahim's proposal concurs with the present government's line of practice - only that he is trying to extend it into the universities. If UiTM remains die-hard on its decision to keep the university as an all-bumiputera institution of learning, then why does it have a programme of study known as 'UiTM International' and why is it scouting for foreign students from abroad to study there? I know that UiTM has even participated in an international exhibition on higher education in China as late as last year in order to enroll students from China to study at UiTM. What has UiTM to say on this matter? We would like to hear from the vice-chancellor on this question. Kaisim: I salute the Selangor MB for having the courage to make this call to open UiTM to non-Malays. This is the type of leader we need to build Malaysia. A leader representing a multi-racial country cannot be narrow-minded and selfish. Schools, colleges and universities are places for our future leaders to mix and become good citizens. Open any religious text - where does it say that you only have to help your own kind? Ibrahim Abu Shah, vice-chancellor of UiTM, has acted like a politician and made absurd statements about Khalid`s good intention. Ibrahim should concentrate more on becoming a politician. Only then he can make drastic changes to universities to suit his whims and fancies. Many politicians forget that Malaysia needs policies that emphasise need rather than race. We must never forget that, just as there are many rich Malays and non-Malays, there are many poor and unfortunate ones as well. We wish there were more good and responsible politicians who could speak the language of peace, fairness and unity at a time when many of us view with concern the deteriorating spirit of tolerance from an ethnic and religious perspective. Richard Teo: When Abdullah Badawi assumed the mantle of prime minister, he vowed he would be a leader for all Malaysians. However, his vetoing the Pakatan Rakyat Selangor Menteri Besar's call for UiTM to be opened to non-bumiputera, clearly showed that what he espoused was not what he had meant and that the PM is a leader of only one race. No leader of a country that is diverse and multi-ethnic can ever perpetuate a policy that favours one race but claims magnanimously that he is a leader for all. The myopic policy of enrolling one exclusive race in an institution of higher learning will result in a generation of Malays growing up without contact with other races. Such a policy will have adverse implications on future race relations, particularly when religion has already created a wide chasm between the three major ethnicities of the populace. This proposal is a legitimate plea to open up UiTM so that some form of competition can be given to the otherwise isolated Malay students. This in turn would also allow some form of integration among the races and facilitate multi-racial identity. It is rather unfortunate that Ibrahim Abu Shah should even oppose such a plan, since you would expect an academic to be supportive of attaining academic excellence by opening its institution to students based on merit. It is ironic that an academic who chooses mediocrity as an enrollment policy should be appointed vice chancellor of an institution that professes to be churning out students who 'now hold top positions in both the public and private sectors'. Adrian CF Ng: To say I was shocked by what was said is an understatement - I was actually dumbstruck. I cannot understand why the UiTM students are so reluctant to accept change. The well-respected former corporate figure, the MB of Selangor has merely suggested opening up 10% to non-Malays. He has a vision, a long term one. Is it really so important that we have to segment our Malaysian society? At this level? Enlighten me, please. In addition to this, the issue is not about Malays or non-Malays. Look at the standards of all of our local universities - where are we now? At a time where global universities are competing for top academics to study or conduct research at their universities, our local students are rejecting competition. What a shame. Look at Cambridge, Oxford, Stanford and Harvard, just to name a few. Why are top students wanting to get a place in these prestigious universities? Think a bit, local grads, think - use your heads for once. These universities are the places where all the top students are and where they can learn from each other. In order to improve, we need to learn, and to learn from the best, if possible. No wonder our local graduate unemployment rates are so high, and are getting higher. Just like what the uncles, aunties, pak cik and mak ciks say - ‘No standard!' I couldn't agree more... Elsie Goh Siew Khim: Once again, this PM has put his foot into his mouth. He did not check his facts and history, and without hesitation exhibited his power to veto the call to open UiTM to non-Malays. Past records of UiTM will prove that two Chinese non-Muslims were admitted into UiTM, and there was no fuss, no protests, no veto, etc. The double standard practised by the BN-Umno regime is obvious. When it comes from them, everything is a non-issue. Could it be that these two girls were admitted because their parents were/are BN supporters? Whatever it is, I demand that the PM explain to the rakyat why non-Malays are not allowed in UiTM. Why were these two Chinese non-Muslim girls allowed in UiTM? If the PM is unable to provide a logical explanation fit for human consumption, then this confirms the perception held by a huge majority of Malaysians that this PM is incompetent and should gracefully resign. Otherwise, we have no respect for this man. Michael Sun: I find the reaction by the UiTM students and the vice-chancellor to be very racist, immature and definitely lacking in wisdom befitting an institution of higher learning. UiTM students screamed that ‘UiTM is Hak Melayu' and that it needs to follow the constitution. Firstly, the constitution only spelt out the ‘special position' of the Malays in respect to jobs in the government service. UiTM has been funded by taxpayers' money, and according to Dr Mahathir Mohamad, 90% of individual taxpayers are non-Malay Muslims. So here you are, using our money to fund a university that is not open to us. Secondly, education is a right under the UN Human Rights Convention. Of course, Malaysia dares not sign it, as we do not practice human rights. Why, then, do we tax the non-Malays to fund a university solely for the Malays? Is this an Islamic Hadhari way of justice? Thirdly, look at the Harvards, Cambridges and Oxfords of the world - do they restrict their student enrollment by race? No wonder the UiTM graduates cannot find jobs, save those taking professional accountancy courses. Unless and until UiTM changes its mindset, the university will remain mediocre. God really has to bless Malaysia and protect us. Yeap Cheng Liang: I am very disturbed by this recent event. When I looked at the UiTM students' demonstration and all the shouting about defending Malay rights and calling Khalid pengkhianat bangsa, I wept. I wept for this country, the country that am I supposed to love unconditionally, and I looked at my little child and asked whether this country still loves me and my family. It is not that non-Malays will immediately accept UiTM's offer if they open up that tiny 10% allocation - there are so many colleges and universities around, the choices are abundant. What makes them think that non-Malays would want to apply at all? For me, it's the betrayal of the promises this country had for my family and for future generations, for my daughter Hannah and many who are born in Malaysia. I am very, very disturbed and sad that, after 50 years of Merdeka, we are still divided by race and religion. Calling your own race pengkhianat bangsa is actually implying that the other races are invaders, that these other races are out to conquer Malaysia and are not fit to be in this country. No doubt this is the saddest day of my life - sad because I realise that I am not recognised as a Malaysian, no matter how good my Bahasa Malaysia is, no matter how long I have stayed here. Sad because my Malay friends will be called pengkhianat bangsa just because they are fighting for a better Malaysia. True Blue Malaysian: For the past 50 years, Umno has made Mara institutions a breeding ground for perpetuating Ketuanan Melayu. Mara graduates will end up with government offices, and this is where policies will be implemented and carried out throughout the country. Many will end up as top government officers and directors. Will they practise sound and fair governance? Are they of the right calibre? Look at the qualities of some of the vice chancellors and professors - you can tell. They do not show the true traces of scholars. True scholars and academics, such as Ungku Aziz and his peers, are all gone and have been replaced by a bunch of party cronies running our institutions of higher learning. The whole country is in a mess because capable people are not given the chance to run the government machinery, and only mediocre, incompetent and untrustworthy people favoured by the current and past government. It is no wonder the education system has gone down the drain, thanks to their ‘under siege' mentality and their imaginary fears of being overwhelmed by ‘others'. The results show - compare us with Singapore. We were on par with them in almost everything 50 years ago. Now we are left far behind, in education especially. I believe we are all aware of it, but to the government, it does not matter. What matters most is the preservation of their own race and religion.. Cinaputra: When talking of UiTM opening to other races, I really wonder whether UiTM students have any pride of their own. Are they too weak to compete with others, with non-bumis? Or do they feel that this university is only for the highly privileged, elite class of people - the so-called Ketuanan Melayu class? They is a Malay proverb that I will never forget - seperti katak di bawah tempurong - that exactly describes those who are not open to challenges. In my opinion, the BN is not helping them. The ministers' children will be sent to the UK, USA, Australia, etc. Why not UiTM? Ipohwood: I'm a non-bumiputera parent and I strongly support the move by some UiTM students to protest the proposal by Selangor MB to allocate 10% of seats to non-bumiputera students. If UiTM is opened to non-bumiputera students, it could lead to serious negative consequences to the non-bumiputera students, such as 1. It is very likely that they will end up to be mat rempit or kaki lepak; 2. They may become unemployable, as UiTM is probably the lowest ranking public university in Malaysia; 3. Instead of making other UiTM students become more competitive, these poor non-bumiputera students may become less competitive, depending on what their potential allows; 4. This will deprive the non-bumiputera students from securing a place in other public universities such as USM, UTM, UM, UKM, UPM and others. Imagine the devastation a parent will have should their children obtain four As for STPM but be sent to UiTM instead of UM, USM, or UTM just because UiTM is now open to non- bumiputeras! Contrary to general belief, UiTM students, in this case, showed how farsighted they are indeed. Truth: I hope Malaysians will understand and treasure the true values of ‘justice and fairness' in our society. One cannot expect a racial discriminatory policy to perpetuate forever in any nation. How do we teach or explain to our children the justification of such a policy? How can we justify that such a discriminatory policy exists long-term in our multi-ethnic, multi-cultural world? (Just look at the ethnic Chinese badminton players representing different countries in the recent Olympics.) If poverty is what we need to address, let's address poverty. If underprivileged people need to be helped, let's help the underprivileged. Race, culture and religion should never be used to discriminate against one community or another to serve one's own self interest. Multi-ethnic, multiculturalism is a fact of life in the world we are living in. The notion of ‘truth, pprightness and fair play' must prevail in every aspect of our daily lives because there is no justice in ethnic or racial discrimination, no matter how you try to rationalise it. You are just kidding yourself if you think otherwise. Sionna: My friend was surprised to learn that UiTM was for bumis alone, as according to her, she has seen plenty of foreign students on the campus, ranging from Bangladeshis to Arabs students, just to name a few. And these aren't students there for a visit; they're there to study. So, one wonders, does the UiTM vice chancellor really know who's studying in his campus? ...source

A Place Under the Malaysian Sun I

The land that my forefathers helped build August 13, 2008 - People's Parliament ... ‘UiTM is for Bumiputeras — that’s the strong message from more than 5,000 Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) student’, reports NST. “Jangan Rampas Hak Kami” What Bumiputeras? What ‘hak’? Someone must tell them that the document that our forefathers left us with, the Federal Constitution, makes no mention of Bumiputera. And Article 153 talks only of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong safeguarding the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of such proportion as he may deem reasonable of positions in the public service (other than the public service of a State) and of scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities given or accorded by the Federal Government and, when any permit or licence for the operation of any trade or business is required by federal law, then, subject to the provisions of that law and this Article, of such permits and licences. Special position. Not rights and privileges. And that special position was envisaged by the forefathers of this nation, as explained in the Reid Commission report, to be reviewable after 15 years. In other words, not in perpetuity. ...more

The Case of the Two SDs

Numerous articles and blog comments are now available online on the sensational statutory declaration made by P. Balasubramaniam on 1 July 2008 and released to the public on 3 July which was followed by an equally sensational second statutory declaration made on 4 July which essentially retracts the first statutory declaration.

The following articles capture the gists of the serious issues related to this case of two statutory declaration made by the same person with contradictory content within a period of two days.

A Malaysian Private Eye Recants an Explosive Statement Asia Sentinel - 04 July 2008 Complete reversal on charges against Malaysia's deputy prime minister raises questions of political pressure In a stunning turnaround that raises as many questions as it answers, the Kuala Lumpur-based private investigator who set off a firestorm Thursday by alleging that Deputy prime Minister Najib Tun Razak was involved in the 2006 murder of Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu today retracted the entire contents of his statutory declaration and said he had made it under duress (Note: Both declarations can be found here). Media in Kuala Lumpur reported that P. Balasubramaniam, a private investigator who once represented accused murderer Abdul Razak Baginda, said everything he had alleged in his July 1 statutory declaration was wrong, then rushed off without taking questions. Local media also reported that he had come under severe pressure after releasing the declaration in the company of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim Thursday. The investigator did not say who pressured him to issue the initial statement, but his action raised the inevitable specter that powerful political forces are at work over the sensational murder. The allegations against Najib have already undermined his standing as the heir apparent to the leadership of the powerful United Malays National Organization. The prominent Internet journalist Raja Petra Kamaruddin in his own statutory declaration recently flatly stated that Najib's wife had been present at Altantuya's execution. Raja Petra now faces charges of sedition and is scheduled to go on trial in October. Opposition leaders denounced the retraction as the result of political pressure and called for an investigation. To Balasubramaniam's assertion that he had been pressured into making the original statement, they pointed out that he was in the company of his own lawyer, Americk Singh Sidhu, when he made the statement public to reporters. The respected independent reform organization Aliran issued a statement questioning the reversal and said that an assistant superintendant of police had met with Balasubramaniam at the Brickfields police station in Kuala Lumpur the night after he made his first statement, and that his second was witnessed by a commissioner of oaths named Zainul Abidin Muhayat from an address of the law firm Zul Rafique and Partners, reportedly owned by the brother of Federal Territories Minister, Zulhasnan Rafique. The minister is a top UMNO wheelhorse. The ongoing trial has thus far avoided questioning Najib or bringing his name into the proceedings, with both prosecutors and defense attorneys challenging attempts to have him brought into the proceedings. Given the assertions by Raja Petra and Balasubramaniam it seems almost inconceivable that the High Court hearing the case would not reopen it to attempt to get at the truth. Anwar, who himself faces recent allegations of forcibly sodomizing a 23-year-old man who works in his office, was excoriated by pro-government loyalists from the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition led by UMNO after he released the initial declaration. Najib and Anwar are bitter rivals for power who were once allied in UMNO before Anwar was booted out of the deputy prime minister’s job in 1998 and later jailed on sexual perversion charges. Building on opposition gains in the March elections, Anwar has declared his intention to unseat the BN by September. Najib called the private investigator’s statement “a desperate move by Anwar Ibrahim to divert attention from the sodomy allegation he is facing.” For some, the episode reveals rot inside the political system. “They are all damaged, it doesn’t matter, really,” said a disgusted lawyer and political insider in Kuala Lumpur. “I think new leaders will emerge after this mess.” In the new declaration, a sworn statement made in writing as was his first, Balasubramaniam said: "I wish to retract the entire contents of my statutory declaration dated July 1, 2008. I was compelled to affirm the said statutory declaration under duress. "I wish to expressly state that at no material time did (Abdul) Razak (Abdullah) Baginda inform me that he was introduced to Altantuya Shaariibuu by a VIP and at no material time did Razak Baginda inform me that Datuk Seri Najib (Tun Razak) had a sexual relationship with Altantuya Shaaribu and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse. At no material time did Razak Baginda inform me that Datuk Seri Najib instructed Razak Baginda to look after Altantuya Shaaribu as he did not want her to harass him since he was the Deputy Prime Minister." Balasubramaniam’s previous statement was extraordinarily detailed, accusing the deputy prime minister of having had an affair with Altantuya and introducing her to Razak; he also recounted SMS conversations between Razak and Najib on the night of her murder. The statement described the cars that came to take the woman away, related conversations with the accused and described his disappointment at the fact that a detailed statement he had given police about the matter had been censored so completely that nothing of the relationship between Razak and Najib survived. Razak went on trial in June 2007 for Altantuya’s murder along with two of Najib’s bodyguards, Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar of the elite Unit Tindak Khas or Special Police Action Unit. The 28-year-old Mongolian woman was shot twice in the head on October 19, 2006 and her body dumped in a patch of jungle near the suburban city of Shah Alam before she was blown up with explosives. Balasubramaniam wrote in his first declaration that he wanted the “relevant authorities to reopen their investigations into this case immediately so that any fresh evidence may be presented to the Court prior to submissions at the end of the prosecution’s case.” In that declaration Balasubramaniam, who was hired to help Razak deal with the woman, said he repeatedly tried to get Razak to have Altantuya arrested for harassment, but that he refused to do so. The July 1 statement described in meticulous detail a series of visits by Altantuya and two friends from Mongolia to Razak’s office and home, seeking to corner the political analyst about their relationship and demanding US$500,000 for her services as a translator in a questionable transaction involving Malaysia’s purchase of French submarines. The document also purported to confirm long-reported rumors that Najib, Razak and Altantuya had been at a dinner in Paris during the time when the submarine transaction was being negotiated. It described conversations with Altantuya, in which she told the private investigator that Razak had even bought her a house in Mongolia. ...Asia Sentinel

Why Balasubramaniam's First Declaration Is Still Significant Disquiet - July 4, 2008 P Balasubramaniam has made an about turn and released a new statutory declaration. From media reports, it appears that he claims that those parts of his original Statutory Declaration that pertained to the Deputy Prime Minister were made under duress. He has not been forthcoming with particulars of his purported duress. This is unfortunate as it raises many questions that the Malaysian public is deserving of answers to. As I understand it, the inflicting of duress in law requires the subjecting of a person to the kind of treatment that would leave that person with no doubt that he or someone close to him would be in grave danger, life and limb, unless that person cooperated with the person inflicting duress. Is Balasubramaniam saying that representatives of Keadilan inflicted duress or that his previous lawyer did? We cannot overlook the statement given by Anwar Ibrahim at the same press conference yesterday in he explained how Balasubramaniam had come to make the Statutory Declaration. From this perspective, the accusation of duress is not a trivial one as it carries grave implications and consequences. In the same vein, if in fact the police were in contact with Balasubramaniam yesterday, after the press conference at which he released his original (and now retracted) Statutory Declaration as the media suggests, the police should also make it clear to the rakyat what it is that transpired, if only to clear up any doubt as to the circumstances in which Balasubramaniam retracted his original statement. I say this because the original Statutory Declaration was itself of grave importance and carried with serious implications. I have noted that some writers have been quick to question or dismiss the value of the original Statutory Declaration for it allegedly being hearsay, or put another way, containing only second hand information not directly within the knowledge of Balasubramaniam. I do not share this view. Allow me to explain why. The law requires direct evidence of a fact. Second-hand knowledge is considered to be unreliable. However it does not follow that ‘hearsay’ evidence is not admissible or irrelevant in all cases. Evidence is multi-faceted and is never merely proof of one fact. Considered from different angles, a single piece of evidence may tell more than one story. For example, A tells B that A had stolen some money. B then tells C. C’s evidence of the conversation is not admissible as an admission by A or as proof of theft. Put another way, A could not be convicted purely on the say so of C. Evidence of A having committed the theft would have to be put before the court, in one form or the other. This is the essence of the hearsay rule. However, this does not mean that the fact of B telling C is of no relevance. The fact is that A and B had that conversation and though C’s evidence may not be able to establish the truth of what was told to him by B, it can establish that such a conversation took place. The law permits this. If admitted, such evidence could be considered as ‘circumstantial evidence’. Seen in this light, it is clear that the original Statutory Declaration was of great significance. In it Balasubramaniam categorically stated that he gave information to the police about the conversations he had had with Razak Baginda and Altantuya AND that such information was excluded from his statement AND that the Prosecution did not ask him any questions about this aspect of the information he gave to the police. These pieces of evidence were not hearsay as they were matters directly within the knowledge of Balasubramaniam. They were also manifestly relevant. Additionally, for the reasons explained above, the fact of the conversations between Balasubramaniam and Razak Baginda and Altantuya respectively were also of relevance for equally suggesting an alternative or additional line of enquiry that the police ought to have looked into but apparently did not. The about-turn and the possible, though as yet uncertain, involvement of the police do not do any good for the already seriously undermined confidence of the rakyat in the justice system. We deserve better. ...Disquiet

Was Bala’s second declaration made under duress? 04 July 2008 - Aliran Aliran views private investigator P Balasubramaniam’s two contradictory statutory declarations with shock and concern. It is difficult to believe that he could have retracted his earlier statutory declaration dated July 1, which implicates and condemns the Deputy Prime Minister’s involvement with Altantuya Shaaribuu, within a matter of three days. His latest statutory declaration dated July 4 retracts every thing that he had solemnly sworn “consciously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declaration Act 1960.” When he disclosed the contents of his first statutory declaration at the press conference on July 3, he was in the presence of his lawyer, Americk Singh Sidhu. His lawyer even clarified that Balasubramaniam made the statutory declaration because the prosecution had wrapped up their case against Abdul Razak Baginda without raising his revelation to them in the course of the trial. What he had revealed to the police implicated Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak. According to Americk, Balasubramaiam wanted to bring to light the available evidence and tell the police and the prosecution that the private eye was at their disposal at any time. Up to this point there was no mention of any coercion or duress from any quarter that compelled the former police officer to appear at the press conference. We could only observe the voluntary nature of his conduct and it did not go unnoticed that he was at the press conference as a concerned citizen whose primary duty was to ensure that justice prevailed. But his second statutory declaration retracting his earlier declaration raises all sorts of questions. If the first one was a false declaration as he now claims, how are we to believe that his second one is not another concocted story? How are we to believe that his latest declaration was made freely, voluntarily and not under duress? It also does not go unnoticed that he came up with his retraction this morning after he had gone to Brickfields to meet an ASP yesterday evening, soon after the first press conference. Malaysians would like to know what transpired last night. Was he turned over by their incredible methods of making people “see the light” as was demonstrated by a top police officer during the first Anwar trial? When did the new lawyer, Arulampalam, get involved in this matter? Who recommended this new lawyer? Even Americk is “extremely surprised” at the change of lawyers. His second declaration was affirmed before commissioner of oaths Zainal Abidin Muhayat bearing an address reportedly belonging to law firm Zul Rafique and Partners owned by Federal Territories Minister Zulhasnan Rafique’s brother. This is what makes this sordid affair suspicious and questionable. It is difficult to believe that Balasubramaniam had once again made “this solemn declaration consciously believing the same be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declaration Act 1960.” There is reason to believe that there may be an attempt to suppress evidence borne out by these contradictory declarations. There are hands, it seems, at work to derail justice and bury the truth. What has unfolded in this disturbing episode suggest that there are forces bent on subverting our justice system. Malaysians are perturbed by this latest turn of events and are not sure what to believe. Is this part of the script so that his first declaration will be thrown out as evidence coming from an unreliable source? Thinking Malaysians will remain sceptical with regard to the second declaration for very obvious reasons. P Ramakrishnan President 4 July 2008 ...Aliran

Raja Petra Out On Bail

Raja Petra out, explains U-turn on bail

Sedition Act Infringes on Constitutional Right of Freedom of Speech

Press Release: Sedition Act Infringes on Constitutional Right of Freedom of Speech Friday, 09 May 2008 The Bar Council notes with alarm the report in today’s New Straits Times that the Prime Minister has instructed a police report to be lodged against DAP chairman Karpal Singh. This move, following the recent charges of sedition against Raja Petra and Syed Akbar Ali, signals a disturbing trend towards the use of archaic and oppressive legislation such as the Sedition Act as a means of stifling debate and exchange of opinions. Many issues of public and constitutional law including state law and convention that have hitherto not arisen, have understandably surfaced since the March 8 general elections. One recent controversy was over the appointment of the Trengganu Menteri Besar, when many members of the Government and public took strong positions in relation to the actions of the state’s Regent and its Regency Advisory Council, including the position that the appointment of the Chief Minister was unconstitutional. Strong views were similarly expressed in respect of the appointment of the Perlis Menteri Besar. Likewise the views expressed by Karpal Singh are his opinion on the legal issues relating to the transfer of the Perak Religious Department director Datuk Jamry Sury. Using the Sedition Act against him is a stifling of healthy debate that has in fact already been taking place over the last few months in other instances. We would in the circumstances urge that the oppressive Sedition Act not be used against Karpal Singh or anyone else exercising their constitutional right of freedom of speech. Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan President Malaysian Bar

Raja Petra was charged with sedition - Video

Raja Petra was charged with sedition Courtesy of Mediarakyat

About the law of sedition - Video

About the law of sedition - The People's Parliament

RPK's struggle must not be in vain

Marina Lee : Is Parliament still relevant? Wednesday, 07 May 2008 "... when freedom of speech is being brutally subverted by the present regime and false charges can be instituted against anyone who dares to demand for justice and truth." As a wife and mother, I want to know from my fellow citizens whether a government that has incarcerated my husband in the Sungai Buloh prison on trumped up charges and brought untold suffering on my family, especially when one of my daughters is sitting for her final examinations, is a legitimate government. No wife, mother or child should to go through this horrible experience when all her beloved husband did was to uphold justice and truth. On 2nd May 2008, the Armed Might of the regime was unleashed on my family when they came to my house in search of evidence for some alleged crime that my husband was supposed to have committed. I thought that this can only happen in a Gestapo state but not in my beloved Malaysia. You be the judge of this. The police came in the morning and desecrated the sanctity of my home for the fourth time. The fact that this had occurred previously does not make it any easier for my daughter and me. I wish that such nightmares can be forgotten, but let me tell you, especially mothers and wives, that the pain will never go away and that it is only our family's self esteem and strength and our faith in god that has enabled us to withstand and overcome the trauma and pain that we have suffered together. I pray that no mother and wife will have to suffer and experience what I had with my beloved husband and my family. Before we had time to recover our composure, the police handed us a summons to appear before the CCID the following day. However, at 3.15pm, we received a call to appear at 4.00pm on the same day. My suspicions for this sudden change in the time for my husband to be interrogated was to prevent publicity and the exposure of their dastardly deeds. Can anyone of you imagine what I, as a wife and mother, had to go through emotionally and psychologically when accompanying my husband to be interrogated by the police when on a previous occasion in 2000, he was brutally assaulted in my presence? I could not express my anxiety to my husband on the way to the CCID, as I know that my strength and resoluteness would be critical to enable my husband to face his interrogators. He must have also felt the same for me and so both of us, thinking alike kept our silence. But we were determined to see this through together hell or high water. The Petras’ are not some tofus!! We have enough strength and dignity to overcome such adversity. My daughter suffered in silence and despite her age, she held up magnificently and no mother can be more proud than I to have such a daughter. As we approached the CCID, tears welled in my eyes, but they were not tears of fear, sadness or trepidation, but the expression of my determination and faith that my husband’s struggle will ensure a better future for my daughter and the children of a better Malaysia. I am proud to say that my husband overcame the intrigues and schemes and came out unscathed. But we knew that this was a mere prelude to more brutality that will be inflicted on my family. The events of yesterday’s circus are known to all. But what was most telling was the deafening silence of the judiciary and the bar council which supposedly are the guardians of justice and equality. The dinner that was orchestrated by Pak Lah, his law minister and other cronies that allegedly ushered “a new era” for an independent and fearless judiciary in upholding justice and human rights, makes me wonder if such an institution that was promised was a fantasy in the light of my experience. Today, my daughter and I went to the Sungai Buloh prison to visit my husband but we were told that he had no wish to see anyone, not even any member of the family or lawyers. I was shocked and disturbed by this turn of events as it can only mean that my husband is determined to endure the pain of incarceration and humiliation of being subjected to and treated like a common criminal for upholding the freedom of speech and justice. Being married to him for 35 years, I know only too well that he is capable of making sacrifices for truth, justice and freedom. I suspect that when I was told that he did not want to see me, that he would be taking the ultimate step – to go on a hunger strike to demonstrate his determination to uphold the cause of truth and justice. I have nothing more to say, as I am thoroughly exhausted by the turn of events and can only hope and pray that my fellow citizens, especially wives and mothers out there, that you would all come together to protest and to demand for my beloved husband's freedom and that you will call upon your member of parliament to boycott parliament as a gesture of support for my husband’s struggle. His struggle must not be in vain. We as a family will see this through but we will only be able to cope if we know that good and god fearing people like you will be there and standing together with us shoulder to shoulder to strike a fatal blow against tyranny and for justice and truth and for my husband’s freedom. Marina Lee ...link

An Open Letter to RPK

An Open Letter to RPK Wednesday, 07 May 2008 Dear Raja Petra, You must not languish in custody. We have to get you out on bail. If on ground of principle, you do not wish to pay it, I will pay it. It's extremely important that you come back to us to continue your courageous acts. I have been telling my children that if there is a Malaysian role-model we can look to, it is none of the BN goons, certainly not the Prime Minister and his cohorts, absolutely not the so-called spaceman, nor the sailor who fell from grace with the sea and yet got celebrated. The real Malaysian role-model is you, sir. For courage, for standing up for what you believe in, for defying oppression, for exposing the truth despite the odds. This is a time for heroes. And we need our heroes to be free, to fight, to stand up for us all. Not spend time in prison. We need the truth to be made known. We need the truth to set our beloved country free. We need you to be free. Sincerely, Kee Thuan Chye ...link

Civil Society Groups Express Solidarity with RPK

CIVIL SOCIETY GROUPS EXPRESS SOLIDARITY WITH RAJA PETRA KAMARUDIN - Press Statement Wednesday, 07 May 2008 It is with great concern that we, representing several Civil Society Action Groups, note that Raja Petra Kamarudin, Editor of news portal and blog, “Malaysia Today”, has been charged in the Petaling Jaya Sessions court with sedition in connection with an article he wrote and posted up at www.malaysia-today.net on April 25, 2008. We call on all Malaysians concerned with the freedom of information and speech to stand up in support of a fellow Malaysian who has been writing “without fear or favour” on issues of public and national concern. The charge against Raja Petra is in connection with a Post entitled “Let’s send the Altantuya murderers to hell” in which he raised pertinent questions on various facts of the case that are already within the domain of public knowledge. In our view the sedition charge is malicious and without merit. It is also politically motivated and aimed at silencing one of the most eloquent, dedicated and uncompromising voices speaking in defense of the rights of Malaysians and against the abuse of power stemming from the highest level of government and authority. We urge the Government to re-consider its action in pursuing what is being perceived in the country and internationally as blatantly selective and repressive persecution. The action not only runs counter to the Government’s expressed promotion of a democratic, informed and participatory society. It also smacks of a renewal of the tactics of fear and intimidation which were recently resoundingly rejected by the Malaysian electorate. We are disappointed that, despite the Government’s rhetoric of learning from its past mistakes, it continues to rely on heavy handed authoritarian means to instill fear and to discourage its citizens from freely engaging in public discourse. This action of the Government coming just a few days after World Press Freedom Day (which fell on May 3) especially makes a mockery of the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s expression of commitment to democratic and social reforms to promote a more open and transparent government. We stress that a draconian law such as the Sedition Act has no place in a democratic society. Unlike the law on defamation, one cannot defend him/herself from a charge of sedition on the ground of truthfulness. In other words, messengers may be shot for simply uttering the truth. That the State is willing to use its instruments to charge Raja Petra for sedition instead of the aggrieved party resorting to civil defamation points to the need for thorough reform of our media laws. This is not a new demand but one which has been consistently raised by civil society. As civil society action groups, we call upon all political parties, non-government organizations and individuals to express their concern and to show solidarity with Raja Petra. All freedom loving Malaysians must impress on the Government the need to withdraw this obnoxious action against a conscientious writer and true Malaysian. Finally, we urge fellow Malaysians to respond positively to a coordinated initiative now being planned to raise funds (a token amount of RM1 per person) in defence of Raja Petra and to show our solidarity for a national cause aimed at protecting and promoting our freedom of speech. Press Statement issued jointly by: Dr Lim Teck Ghee, Director, Centre for Policy Initiatives (CPI) Bernard Khoo, For Ahirudin Attan President, Interim Council National Alliance of Bloggers Wong Chin Huat Chairperson, Writer Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI) Gayathry V. Executive Director Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) Ser Choon Ing Chairman of Civil Rights Committee KL and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall ...more

Sedition charge raises more questions

Sedition charge raises more questions Dr Mustafa K Anuar & Anil Netto May 7, 2008 Charter 2000-Aliran is appalled by the Malaysian authorities' action in charging prominent blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin with sedition for allegedly implying that deputy prime minister Najib Razak was involved in the sensational killing of a young Mongolian woman. The sedition charge stems from a April 25 article entitled ‘Let's send the Altantuya murderers to hell’ that Raja Petra posted on his popular ‘Malaysia Today’ website. We, like many other concerned Malaysians, are shocked that such a sedition charged has been used against Raja Petra as opposed to a more appropriate action that could have been taken by the aggrieved party (i.e. Najib and wife), which is to sue Raja Petra for supposed defamation. Raja Petra now sits in remand in Sungai Buloh Prison after refusing bail, and he will remain there until Oct 6 when his trial begins. If found guilty, he could be jailed for up to three years and/or face a fine of up to RM5,000. Under the Sedition Act, a ‘seditious tendency’ implies, among other things, ‘a tendency to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any ruler or against any government’. Are we to conclude that alleging complicity in a murder case on the part of a government leader is tantamount to causing the Malaysian public to go against the entire (federal) government? Would one supposedly rotten apple spoil the whole tree? The authorities’ action only raises more questions. It raises suspicion that it is meant not only to politically bludgeon Raja Petra but also to make an example of him for the rest of the blogging fraternity and civil society. Many Malaysians are clearly not impressed with the latest turn of events. In a sense, it reveals just how out of touch the authorities are with the new political realities after March 8 especially in dealing with an electorate that now demands greater respect for freedom of the media and of expression. The writers are coordinators, Charter 2000-Aliran. Malaysiakini - Letters

Raja Petra's charge: What double standard is this?

Raja Petra's charge: What double standard is this? Hamdan Ibrahim May 7, 2008 I refer to the Malaysiakini report Raja Petra charged, chooses jail over bail. Our own version of Mahatma Ghandi, Raja Petra who chooses jail rather than bail on his sedition charges had won the respect of the public for his steadfast principle to stick to his guns come what may. By going to jail, he will put the government in the spot as public sentiment will be on his side. What a brilliant strategy on Raja Petra’s side to put the government on the defensive. Selective persecution seem to be the weapon of choice of the authorities to stop bloggers from giving their two sen of opinion on the Internet. One wonder if the present regime is trying to silence dissenting voices from reaching the public by charging a well-known blogger. Raja Petra’s well-written and hardhitting articles on the high-profile Mongolian murder case have hit a raw nerve among those top guns whom names he mentions in his blog. Presently there are a lot of corruption cases among the ruling elite, cases which seem to gather dust in the public prosecutor’s office. But once the cases involve the opposition members, just a trivial thing can land the individuals in jail. What double standard is this? Raja Petra might not be the first person to face the wrath of the law by publishing interesting articles which ridicule corrupt politicians on their misdeeds but now other bloggers too must watch their backs as what they post on the Internet might make them to be on the ‘wrong side’ of the law and they will have to face the music as well. When will the government ever learn that you cannot control information from reaching out to the public in this global world that we live in. The mainstream media is not the choice of the reading public what with their stale news. We cannot prevent people from reading the alternative medias and blogs for information on the wheelings and dealings of the ruling elite as they empty public coffers. More often than not, their articles are true as compared to mainstream news media controlled by the government. Our freedom of speech is under assault today with the jailing of Raja Petra and one can only hope that other brave souls who dare to expose the misdeeds of the ruling elite will not be cowed by this unfortunate incident and will continue to report the truth about what is wrong with this country. This despite that it might expose the high and mighty’s lack of integrity while they are in power. Raja Petra is a torchbearer of the good against evil in this country. Let us all decent Malaysians pray and at the same time donate some token sum to his defence team. May his ultimate sacrifice in going to jail galvanise other decent people to speak out loud and clear on what is wrong in this country. We cannot allow corrupt politicians to have it their way by intimidating and jailing those who expose public officials misdeeds in public. Only tyrants with their vain ego still thinks that they can control the people with government apparatus and stop dissenting voices from being heard. Let us hope our strong opposition in Parliament will bring up Raja Petra’s case which is seen as nothing but political persecution by all right-thinking members of the public. Malaysiakini - Letters

Bloggers: Sedition charge politically motivated - Malaysiakini

Bloggers: Sedition charge politically motivated S Pathmawathy - Malaysiakini May 7, 2008 An alliance of civil society groups and bloggers today expressed their solidarity and support to Raja Petra Kamarudin and blog commentator Syed Akbar Ali, who were separately charged with sedition yesterday. "We are seated here in solidarity for fellow writers and bloggers to make our stand on similar action that may be taken against other writers and journalists in future," said Interim Council National Alliance of Bloggers president Ahirudin Attan. "This move is politically motivated and aimed at silencing a principled and uncompromising voice speaking against the abuse of power," he said in a group statement. "We urge the government to re-consider its actions what is being perceived to be blatantly selective and repressive persecution. "In our view the sedition charge is malicious and without merit," he said. Selective persecution Dr Lim Teck Ghee of the Centre for Policy Initiatives (CPI) said the issue carries momentous implications for the freedom of speech and freedom of expression in the country. "This case is very clearly one of selective political persecution," he said. "It is an old law and based on a law which is obsolete and should have no place in a democratic society. "If his voice and similar voices are continually silenced it would be a very sad day for Malaysia," he said. The alliance also said that the Sedition Act expresses the idea that "the messenger may be shot for simply uttering the truth". "The fact that the charge against Raja Petra comes just days after commemorating World Press Freedom day is very shocking," said Centre for Independent Journalism executive director V Gayathry. She said Raja Petra has yielded a following in the public sphere. "Issues that come up in his posting are reflection on how people see the justice being meted out in this country," she said. Bernard Khoo (left), a blogger who goes by the name of 'Zorro-unmasked' said "we blog because we want to say what has to be said". "We blog because there are people out there who listen to what we say … we are willing to put our necks on the line so that what we say gets to the people who listen," he said.

Malaysian blogger jailed - AP

Malaysian blogger jailed over article allegedly implicating deputy leader in killing The Associated Press Tuesday, May 6, 2008 KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia: A prominent Malaysian blogger was charged Tuesday with sedition for allegedly implying the deputy prime minister was involved in the sensational killing of a young Mongolian woman. Raja Petra Raja Kamaruddin, who has not denied that he linked Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak to the slaying, pleaded innocent to the charge, telling reporters that he should have the right to hold the powerful accountable for wrongdoing. He was taken to prison after he refused to post bail. The court set the trial for Oct. 6. If convicted, he faces up to three years in jail. "I am not posting bail. See you guys in October," Raja Petra told supporters before police took him away. "I will be out for Christmas. Don't worry." Dozens of opposition members and bloggers gathered to show support for Raja Petra outside the Kuala Lumpur court where he was charged. They said they would raise public donations to post bail for him later. "Raja Petra has done a lot to raise people's awareness of issues," said Nurul Izzah Anwar, an opposition member of Parliament and daughter of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim. "This is an attempt to clamp down on all sorts of freedom," she said. The sedition charge stems from an April 25 article titled "Let's Send the Altantuya Murderers to Hell" that Raja Petra posted on his popular Web site Malaysia Today. The article allegedly implies that Najib and his wife, Rosmah Mansor, were involved in the 2006 killing in Malaysia of Altantuya Shaariibuu, a 28-year-old Mongolian interpreter. Abdul Razak Baginda, a close associate of Najib, is charged with abetting the murder. Two policemen have been accused of killing her and destroying her body with explosives in a jungle clearing. The trial of the three men began in June 2007 and is under way. The prosecution contends that Abdul Razak had the woman killed because she pestered him for money after he ended their affair. ...more

Judicial Reform Proposal Sufficient?

The following is an excellent analysis of the proposal for judicial reform announced by the PM on 17 April 2008.

The Politics Of Compromise Malik Imtiaz Disquiet - April 19, 2008 ... This setting makes me wonder how to perceive these wonderful promises of judicial reform. I know Zaid Ibrahim and I think he is doing a good job at trying to push for reforms. His efforts strike me as being sincere and aimed more at nation building than politics. If he were the only factor in the mix, I would be heartened and would view the situation optimistically. However, Zaid is not the only factor nor he is the only player. Neither is the Prime Minister, assuming that he is solidly behind the push for reform. There are those on the cabinet who, in many ways, represent the old guard and for that reason alone may choose to oppose any measure involving acknowledgments of wrongdoing, tacit or otherwise. I note the Deputy Prime Minister’s emphatic rejection of the suggestion that the gesture made by the Government to those judges who were victimized in 1988, was not, repeat, not an apology. This refutation is manifestly inconsistent with Prime Minister’s declaration of a need to make amends. This and the presence on the cabinet of other senior UMNO members who may be nervous about crossing Tun Mahathir, who in these politically treacherous times is now openly acknowledged as being the principal cause of the downfall of the Judiciary, hints worryingly at the possibility that the reform proposals may not gain traction. The ex-gratia payment and the speech delivered by the Prime Minister fell short of the full vindication that the affected judges, so well versed in the parceling of fault, are deserving off. The payment and speech go someway to beginning a necessary process of truth and reconciliation not only the victims of 1988 but for the Judiciary and the nation. We must credit Zaid and the Prime Minister for that. Having said that, it must be recognized however that no matter how we characterize the gesture, it in itself does not go far in reforming the Judiciary. Zaid had declared that there were three key aspects to the reform package he was offering Malaysia; the apology, the establishment of a judicial appointments commission and reinstating Article 121(1) of the Federal Constitution to ensure the separation of powers. Of the three, as thing stand, only the first has to an extent become a reality. The Prime Minister’s declaration that the government proposes the establishment of a judicial appointments commission does not quite hit the mark where the second is concerned, in part because it is for the government to take steps and not to propose. His explanation that this will involve some time as the process has to be worked out is not reassuring in light of the split in ranks within the cabinet. The Prime Minister had in 2005 similarly reassured Malaysians that the IPCMC would be established. We have yet to see it, largely due to resistance from within. The establishment of the National Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM) took some seven years. If that is what is meant when the Prime Minister says that the process will take time, I am not inspired. I do not know whether Malaysia can take another seven years of the Judiciary in its current state. The avoidance of any discussion of Article 121(1) in the speech is similarly worrying. The reinstatement of the article as it was prior to 1988 is a crucial step in re-entrenching the separation of powers and re-establishing the judiciary as a bulwark against totalitarian arbitrariness. The Barisan government has time and time again shown us why Malaysians cannot afford to lose the right to seek judicial review. We are largely where we are because the courts felt themselves unable to intervene or, if permitted, were unwilling. The absence of any reference to this key aspect of the discussion further undermines my belief that the Government will actually take concrete steps forward. Seen from this perspective, it is glaringly evident that the nation is currently caught up in a huge public relations exercise that the Barisan has hinged on the promise of judicial reforms. The public relation campaign does not necessarily of itself lead to the implementation of reforms. It is for this reason that civil society must keep on pressuring the Government to act and to act decisively. The Pakatan Rakyat should consider tabling a private members bill for the establishment of an adequately empowered judicial appointments commission. All possible avenues to create awareness and force accountability must be explored. The battle has not been won, it has just begun. ...more

Judicial reforms to be announced today

In a surprise move, the PM is expected to announce major judicial reforms at a dinner hosted by the Bar Council tonight (17 April 2008). These will include the setting up of a judicial commission for the selection and promotion of judges and the Federal Constitution will be amended to restore the independence of the judiciary. Financial compensation for the sacked judges will be worked out and the PM is also expected to make an apology or expression of regret to the judges who were sacked during the judicial crisis.

The former chief judge Tun Salleh Abas and his three other colleagues in the Supreme Court - Datuk George Seah, Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin and Tan Sri Wan Hamzah - are expected to be present when the announcement is made. The two other Supreme Court jurists - the late Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman and the late Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader - will be represented by their families. Bar Council sources say that opposition leader Wan Azizah Wan Ibrahim and Lim Kit Siang will also attend tonight's event.

Abdullah to unveil judicial reforms today By Leslie Lopez, South-east Asia Correspondent Straits Times - April 17, 2008 Judicial Commission to appoint judges Greater independence for the judiciary Financial compensation to sacked judges Expression of regret by PM Abdullah FIGHTING back stiff opposition from his own Cabinet and administration, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is set to unveil major reforms to the country's much-maligned judiciary. The reforms will include the setting up of a Judicial Commission that will be responsible for the selection and the promotion of judges. It will also feature changes to the Federal Constitution that will restore greater independence to the judiciary, senior government officials and lawyers said. The reform agenda, which will be announced at a special dinner hosted jointly by the government and the country's Bar Council tonight, will also see Datuk Seri Abdullah make an expression of regret over the 1988 judicial saga that led to the sacking of the country's top judge. The government's effort to make amends to the jurists disgraced by the events in 1988 will also include some form of financial compensation, one senior government official involved in the judicial reform plan told The Straits Times on condition of anonymity. 'The amounts are being worked out,' he said without elaborating. Malaysia's once-robust judiciary was dealt a severe blow when it clashed with former premier Mahathir Mohamad in the late 1980s. That face-off led to the suspension of six Supreme Court judges and the subsequent removal of three of them, including the head of the judiciary at the time, Tun Salleh Abas. The sackings damaged the integrity of the judiciary, which came under fresh attack again 10 years later during the controversial corruption trials of former deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim. Shortly after taking office in November 2003, Datuk Seri Abdullah declared that he would push for reforms in the judiciary. But those efforts were often stymied by his own Cabinet colleagues, who served under Tun Dr Mahathir and were not keen on reforms that could embarrass the former premier, senior government officials and lawyers say. Even the Prime Minister's move to establish a Royal Commission late last year to investigate a damning video-recording that implicated a prominent lawyer allegedly attempting to broker the promotion of judges was privately criticised by senior members of his own ruling United Malays National Organisation Party. But last month's stunning election results, which saw the ruling Barisan Nasional lose its two-thirds majority and control of five states, changed everything, close aides of Datuk Seri Abdullah say. The Prime Minister signalled that judicial reform was his key priority when he appointed prominent lawyer Datuk Zaid Ibrahim to his new Cabinet to push his agenda. Lawyers and government officials credit Datuk Zaid for convincing the government to bring closure to the controversial events in 1988 and to establish a more transparent system of selecting and promoting judges. Under the current practice, the country's Chief Judge recommends candidates to the Prime Minister and in the case of senior judicial appointments, the Chief Judge's recommendation must by approved by the Conference of Rulers. But Datuk Zaid had to fight hard during Cabinet meetings, say senior government officials. There is also some unease among senior judges over Datuk Seri Abdullah's efforts. Still, lawyers say that tonight's event could boost his battered public standing. Sources say that the Prime Minister insisted that the six judges who were disgraced by the events in 1988 be present at the dinner where he will deliver a short address titled Delivering Justice, Renewing Trust. Government officials say that former chief judge Tun Salleh Abas, his three other colleagues in the Supreme Court at the time - Datuk George Seah, Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin and Tan Sri Wan Hamzah - have confirmed their attendance. The two other Supreme Court jurists - the late Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman and the late Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader - will be represented by their families, the government officials say. Bar Council sources say that opposition leader Datin Seri Wan Azizah Wan Ibrahim, who is Datuk Seri Anwar's wife, and Mr Lim Kit Siang of the Democratic Action Party, will also attend tonight's event. 'We hope this will bring closure to the 1988 judicial crisis,' said a senior government official involved in the judicial reform plan. But to some Malaysians it may not be enough. 'An apology or expression of regret would be sweeping everything that happened 20 years ago under the carpet,' said Datuk V. C. George, a former Court of Appeal jurist. 'We need an investigation into the events of 1988 and to expose the conspiracy and its conspirators.' ------------------- Mahathir versus the judges THE 1988 Malaysian constitutional crisis began with a divisive Umno election the year before and ended with the suspension and the eventual removal of the Lord President of the Supreme Court, Tun Salleh Abas, from his seat. The Supreme Court in the years leading up to 1988 had issued several rulings that irritated the government of then premier Mahathir Mohamad (left), who had narrowly won re-election as Umno president in the bitterly fought poll. Among other things, a judge had declared Umno 'an unlawful society' in a case brought by disgruntled losing party members. The last straw for Tun Dr Mahathir came when the Supreme Court ordered the release of prominent opposition leader Karpal Singh from detention under the Internal Security Act. The premier submitted several constitutional amendments to Parliament, divesting the courts of the 'judicial power of the Federation' and giving them only such powers as Parliament might grant them. He also lambasted the judiciary for their interference. Tun Salleh convened a meeting of all 20 judges from the Supreme and High Courts in Kuala Lumpur where they agreed not to publicly reply to Tun Dr Mahathir's criticisms. Instead, they wrote a confidential letter to the King and the Malay rulers, expressing their grievances. The Lord President was subsequently hauled before a tribunal convened by the premier on the grounds of misconduct. Five judges of the Supreme Court who granted him a temporary order against the tribunal were also suspended. The crisis ended with the sacking of Tun Salleh along with two of the five judges.

At Kelab Sultan Sulaiman

Videos of the press conference held after the police abruptly stopped Anwar from addressing the crowd of 20,000 at the Kelab Sultan Sulaiman.

Kampung Baru hails 'Ketuanan Rakyat' (Malaysiakini)

Anwar: We have the numbers (Malaysiakini)

Video of Anwar Rally - 14 April 2008

Anwar Returns - Part 1 (mediarakyat)

Links to Part 1-6:

• Part 1
  
• Part 2
  
• Part 3
  
• Part 4
  
• Part 5
  
• Part 6