By the people, to the people, for the people

Judicial Intervention in political dispute

2007-08-18T16:44:00.000-07:00

In 1987, the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) — a leading party in the governing Barisan Nasional coalition — held elections for its numerous offices. For the first time in twelve years, the incumbent President, Mahathir, was challenged. Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah was the candidate of "Team B" for the Presidency, taking on Mahathir, whose camp was labeled "Team A".[1] There was an intense campaign to win the support of the roughly 1,500 delegates from party branches all over the country, who would elect the party officers. Razaleigh's supporters expected him to win, and at the UMNO General Assembly shortly after the votecounting was completed, rumours spread that Razaleigh had won. However, the official results declared Mahathir the winner, with 761 votes to Razaleigh's 718. The Team A candidate for Deputy President, Ghafar Baba, defeated Musa Hitam of Team B as well, and 16 of the 25 seats on the UMNO Supreme Council also went to Team A.[2]
Razaleigh's supporters were upset by the election, which they insisted had to have been rigged. Their anger was exacerbated by Mahathir, who went on to purge all Team B members from the Cabinet.[3] As a result, 12 UMNO members filed a lawsuit in the High Court, seeking a court order to void the election results and pave the way for a new election. The plaintiffs alleged that 78 of the delegates had been selected by branches not registered with the Registrar of Societies, and as a result were not eligible to vote. They also claimed that certain documents related to the election had been "tampered with". Although Razaleigh was not among the twelve plaintiffs, he was widely believed to be funding and co-ordinating the suit.[4]
Later, one of the twelve withdrew from the case, but the remaining eleven continued to press on. The High Court eventually gave the parties a two week deadline to reach an out of court settlement. An UMNO "Unity Panel" was formed to handle the negotiations and reach a compromise. However, it soon became clear that the differences were intractable — Team B would settle for no less than a new election, while Team A insisted that the suit be withdrawn and a "face-saving" solution be reached which would allow some Team B members to remain in the party. Eventually the eleven plaintiffs declared they would seek a final judgement from the court.[5]
This did not please Mahathir, who had clashed on several previous occasions with the judiciary. In one instance, a government order revoking the work permits of two foreign journalists critical of the government had been overruled by the Supreme Court. Mahathir began making heated attacks on the judiciary, telling Time, "The judiciary says, 'Although you passed a law with a certain thing in mind, we think that your mind is wrong, and we want to give our interpretation.' If we disagree, the Courts will say, 'We will interpret your disagreement.' If we [the government and Parliament] go along, we are going to lose our power of legislation." [6] Mahathir also lashed out at "black sheep [judges] ... who want to be ... fiercely independent," accusing them of playing to public opinion. Immediately after this latter statement, the government reassigned several High Court judges to different divisions, including Justice Harun Hashim who was then hearing the UMNO case. However, as the latter case was already in progress, Harun's transfer would not take effect until the case closed.[7]
Harun was thus forced to make the final call on the case of the "UMNO 11". Although most of the evidence they had presented was not contested, the UMNO defence argued that not all possible remedies within UMNO had been exhausted. The plaintiffs, however, insisted that the fact that at least 30 unregistered branches had sent delegates to the UMNO elections should have been enough to nullify their results. In the end, Harun dismissed the suit, citing Article 41 of the Societies Act 1966, which stated any society would automatically become "unlawful" if any of its branches were not registered with the Registrar of Societies. As a result, Harun declared he had no choice but to declare UMNO "an unlawful society", thereby rendering "[w]hat happened in 1987" a nullity. In his decision, Harun blamed Parliament for forcing his hand: "If the old law was in existence... [one could] apply the common law principle, but here it seems the Parliament, to ensure strict compliance with the law, has made this provision look harsh."[8]
As soon as the decision was made public, Mahathir assured UMNO members that as the decision was based on minor "technicalities", the party could easily be restored as a lawful society. He also reminded the public that this did not threaten his status as Prime Minister, as only a no-confidence vote could lawfully remove him from power.[9] Within a fortnight of Harun's decision, Mahathir announced the registration of UMNO Baru (New UMNO). UMNO Baru's leadership was almost entirely composed of Team A members, who proceeded to spend the next few months transferring the assets of the "old" UMNO to UMNO Baru.[10] The UMNO 11 pursued their case to the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court, still seeking to hold new elections for the "old" UMNO and having its lawful status restored. However, their appeal was rejected.[11] Razaleigh then decided to form a new party focused on the "spirit of 1946" — the year UMNO had been founded.[12] UMNO Baru in turn decided that the "Baru" was superfluous, and officially dropped it from its name, in effect claiming to be the true successor to UMNO instead of Razaleigh's party, which would eventually call itself Semangat 46 (Spirit of 46).[13]

The Reformation

2007-08-18T08:07:00.000-07:00

In this context it is necessary to understand the nature of contradictions of the present social context. As is known, the contradictory social values always collide and the resolution of these contradictions is to be found in the larger interest of people. The interim period of course will be painful. Change is a natural process. The broader masses do give up values which are no longer useful for them. It is true that new values cannot be transplanted nor can they be imitated from somewhere else. It is only through the process of transformation the ‘old’ gives birth to ‘new’.
The failure to implement the rule of law does amount to willful abdication of duty by the executive officers. Why do not they provide security to the aggreieved despite their being in full know of it? The excuse that the victim has not made any written formal complaint cannot be accepted as an excuse. It is ridiculous to expect an FIR from a person or persons whose very life is in danger. Are not the administrative officers in whose jurisdiction unlawful village panchayats are held answerable for dereliction of duty? It is imperative to fix the responsibility of the concerned executive officers of the area in such incidents.
most crucial aspect is that of social intervention. All justice loving and democratic citizens will have to come forward to intervene in favour of the deprived sections against social repression. It is this effective intervention which will ensure that the above-stated three aspects also work. In this context the universities, institutions of higher learning, students, youth, women, lawyers, artists, intellectuals, senior citizens and employees have to play a special role at the level of their organisations.
The efforts being made by active organisations and individuals, is a beacon of hope. This struggle must continue so that it takes the shape of a new social reform movement. The democratic movement needs specially to address these problems. We have to imbibe and visualize the shape of the present social reform movement in all its diverse aspects and consider the tasks associated with this movement as an integral part of the struggle for people's democracy.

Malicious Judgments

2007-08-17T06:35:00.000-07:00

Fearful of growing backlash from the public against arbitrary,prejudiced, and even malicious judgments that are protected by judicialimmunity, judges have banded together under government sponsorship todevise means of defending themselves from aggrieved and increasinglymilitant pro se litigants.

Wisdom of the wise - The Honourable Raja Nazrin

2007-08-10T08:48:00.000-07:00

The utmost honourable Raja Muda of Perak ........ in one of his inspirational speeches that perhaps should be… looked into by the present ruling politiccal party's.
People without integrity, honesty and morality should be prevented from holding public office.
The Raja Muda of Perak Raja Dr Nazrin Shah said the fight against corruption should see good governance with figures in authority being qualified for such positions.
He said the corrupt should be held in contempt by society.
“Those with a chequered past or clear evidence of questionable morality should be prevented from taking office.
“There should be zero tolerance for corrupt practices,” he said in his lecture entitled “Towards a Decent Social Order for All Malaysians” at the Islamic Arts Museum.

Juditial System in Crises

2007-08-08T23:25:00.000-07:00

There should be a stauch defender, to the much needed change in the present judicial system in Malaysia. High on the list is the domination and the monopoly of the police, pertaining to the Adminstration of Justice, escaping the impending calamity of judicial tyrauny.An effective judicial adminstration will be rendered impotent if prosecutors fails in their responsibilities, due to the grossily adminstration by the police.

2007-08-08T09:59:00.000-07:00

The way the investigation has been conducted by the Police is stupid and comical. But what is even more mind-boggling is that the Public Prosecutor’s office (that is you people lah) have accepted the half-baked and bungled up investigation done by the police and you have presented it all as evidence in a Court of Law.
I brings forth my testimony in support of my stand without fear, that very action is true.

1) I was roobed at knife-point at my residency (as stated in my very police report)but very succcessful, it had ben neutralize an arm-robbery along the road.

2) I personally (as reported in my police report, also) recovered 2 of my MBB cheque that was taken from me in the arm-robbery. But according to the police conclusive Investigation Statement, nothing were recovered, thus my "kawad-cam" person was not charge for using my personal MBB cheque , stamping it nto a cooperates cheque to cheat the public, amounting to $11,500 RM.

3) The "Material Evidence in Statement" submitted in to the DPP by the policce as "Exhibit" for the Adminstrating of Justice is false and missleading.

So in my aggrieved action, i thereof , calls publicly to Abdul Gani, to resign oneself so as not to put our Malaysian juditial system in much more shame ... as we are to celebrate the birth of our 50th. independence.I also call's on to our beloved Yang Di-Petua Agong and all our Malaysian rular's to put forwards a motion to our present Prime Minister, "a vote of no confidence" in our present AG's department.

Operation Lalang

2007-08-06T23:59:00.000-07:00

Operation Lalang (or in English, Weeding Operation; also referred to as Ops Lalang) was carried out on 27 October 1987 by the Malaysian police to crack down on opposition leaders and social activists. The operation saw the infamous arrest of 106 persons under the ISA and the revoking of the publishing licenses of two dailies, The Star and the Sin Chew Jit Poh and two weeklies, The Sunday Star and Watan.
Among the more prominent detainees were the opposition leader and DAP Secretary-General Lim Kit Siang, ALIRAN President Chandra Muzaffar, DAP Deputy Chairman Karpal Singh, MCA Vice President and Perak Chief Chan Kit Chee, Dong Jiao Zhong (Chinese Education Associations) Chairman Lim Fong Seng, Publicity Chief of the Civil Rights Committee, Kua Kia Soong. PAS Youth Chief Halim Arshat, UMNO MP for Pasir Mas Ibrahim Ali and UMNO Youth Education Chairman Mohamed Fahmi Ibrahim. Although most of the detainees were released either conditionally or unconditionally, 40 were issued detention order of two years. Included were Lim Kit Siang and Karpal Singh plus five other party colleagues, a number of PAS members and many social activists. A categorization of the initially named detainees, numbering 97, gives the following breakdown: political parties: 37; social movements: 23; individuals: 37.
The political developments which brought this second largest ISA swoop in Malaysian history since the May 13 riots, were sparked ostensibly by mounting political tensions having strong racial overtones. According to the White Paper explaining the arrests, various groups who had played up "sensitive issues" and thus created "racial tension" in the country had exploited the government's liberal and tolerant attitude. This racial tension made the arrests necessary and further, forced the government to act "swiftly and firmly" to contain the situation.
The sensitive issues were brought on by what appeared innocuously enough as Education Ministry appointments of some 100 senior assistants and principals to vernacular Chinese schools. This provoked a storm of protest when it was learnt that those appointed were not Chinese (Mandarin)-educated. Politicians from the MCA, the DAP and GERAKAN, the major Chinese-based parties joined the protests and on 11 October 1987, the Dong Jiao Zong (Chinese educationists) held a 2,000-strong gathering at the Hainanese Association Building, beside the Thian Hou Temple in Kuala Lumpur, which evoked racially provocative speeches from the Chinese politicians present. The meeting resolved to call a three-day boycott in Chinese schools if the government did not settle the appointments issue.
In the event, even though the boycott was called off, albeit at the eleventh hour, the stage was set for a mirror response from the Malays, led by UMNO Youth. A mass rally of 10,000 was held at the TPCA Stadium in Kuala Lumpur and, by then, UMNO politicians had began to condemn MCA leaders for their collusion with the Dong Jiao Zong and the opposition DAP. Amidst calls from both sides for the resignations of MCA Deputy President and Labour Minister Lee Kim Sai and UMNO Education Minister Anwar Ibrahim, UMNO announced the holding of a mammoth rally in KL to celebrate its 41st Anniversary, which it was claimed would see the attendance of half a million members.
The proposed UMNO rally was the ostensible reason for the Inspector General of Police to precipitate the 27 October crackdown. Had the rally been held it was not improbable that racial riots could be sparked by the incendiary speeches of UMNO politicians. To make matters worse, a tinder box situation was already created by the rampage of a Malay soldier who killed a Malay and two Chinese with an M16 rifle in the Chow Kit area, straddling two large Chinese and Malay communities. The pundits have it that the Prime Minister had to have a quid pro quo for cancelling the UMNO rally. Hence the arrests of prominent Chinese politicians. In retrospect, some of the culprits like Lee Kim Sai escaped arrest while many opposition members and activists with nothing to do with racial incitement were put in. Most of the government party people also saw early release while the dissidents generally served detention terms up to two years.
In any case, the incident provided Mahathir's government with the excuse to further tighten the executive stranglehold on politics by further restricting fundamental liberties. In the following year, the Printing Presses and Publishing Act was given more bite by a requirement that printers and publishers had now to apply for new licenses annually whereas they were only required to renew them yearly before. In addition if any license is revoked, it could not be challenged in court. A prison term was added that publication of false news could land a publisher in jail for up to three years. Amendments were also made to the Police Act making it practically impossible to hold any political meeting, including a party's annual general meeting, without a police permit. An illegal meeting could earn the person concerned a fine of RM10,000 and a jail term of one year.

Understanding secular state.

2007-08-06T23:48:00.000-07:00

Using the convenient reference of Wikipedia here, a secular state is described as “a state or country that is officially neutral in matters of religion, neither supporting nor opposing any particular religious beliefs or practices, and most often has no state religion or equivalent. A secular state also treats all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and does not give preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion over other religions.”

Know - Your - Right. ( Bird-view - Part 1 )

2007-07-27T11:24:00.000-07:00

1) If you are stopped and search ..........

# Stay calm. Give your correct name and address.
# The police can searcch you without an arrest if they have reasonable grounds to suspect you of an
offencce. Before the search, ask what they're looking for and why they suspect you and get their names
and police station - they have to give you this information.
# They can search everyone in certain area for weapons, to prevent violence but they must tell you that's
what they are doing.
# They can only search your outer clothess in public. Any other search must be in a van or police station.
# The police must make a written reccord of the search. Be sure you ask for a copy. You can get it from
the police station up to a year later. it ccan be useful evidence of harassment.
# If they do not have grounds for a statutory (compulsory) search they can do a voluntary one, as long as
you are 17 years and above. They must tell you it's a voluntary and you can refuse.
# Afterwards write down everything you remember, include officers' number and vehicles registration
number. Get witnesses to do the same.

2) If you are arrested ..........

# The police must say you're under arrest and why they're arresting you. If you haven't been arrested you
don't have to go to the police station. Don't discuss anything, don't admit to anything and don't answer
any question on the way to the police station.
# At the police station give your name, date of birth and address or you won't be able to get bail if you
need it. (However - the police can search your adress without a warrent while you are under arrest.)
# You've got the right to a solicitor to advise you and be present when you're question. This is free. Or
phone any solicitor that you may choose. If you don't have your personal names or numbers, you can
ask for a duty soliccitor.
# Don't say anything ar sign anything untill you've talk to your solicitor. If the police delay you, getting
a solicitor, you still don't have to say anything.
# Don't accept a caution or a formal warning until you have talked to a solicitor. A caution goes on
your record and means you you admit, you are guilty.
# As well as free legal advice you have the right to have a friend or relative, inform of your arrest.
# If you're under 17 years old, the police can't question you, until a parent or guardian is present - but
get a soliccitor as well.
# If you do not speak their language, you have the right to a interpreter. If the police asked about
immigration status, give your name, address and nationalaty. Don't say anything untill you've got legal
advice.
# If you're handicap or have mental problems, you can have a social worker, signer ... or ... etc., present.
# If you've been injured, ask for medical attention.
# You have the right to be silence when you're question. The police may say that you'll be found guilty
if you don't answer. That isn't true. Don't say anything untill you have talk to a soliccitor.
# Don't agree to give samples or go for on a ID parade, before you checked with a solicitor for legal
advice.
# Refuse to make or sign a written statement until you've spoken to a solicitor, even if the solicitor was
there when the statement was taken down.
# Normally, the police ccan only hold you up to 24 hours without charging you. It can be up to 36 hours
in special circumstances. Any longer detention will need a permission from the court.

What happened to the right to a peaceful assembly

2007-07-26T07:29:00.000-07:00

Article 20 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to the freedom of a peaceful assembly and association. Freedom of association is the only way in which people collectively can express aims, exercise pressure as a group and protect the interest of the individual.

The laws of a democratic society should provide the framework within which rights and freedom can thus be exercised.

It is the duty of the courts and the legitimate concern of everyone to ensure that limitation place by the law upon the exercise of this rights and freedoms are used solely for a valid and recognised purpose and do not exceed the purpose for which they are intended.

OSA is licence to hide secrets

2007-07-25T05:06:00.000-07:00

As Winston Churcill ounce commented that "The Official Secrets Act is invariably used to defend ministers who tell lies". The right to know is equally important and should be included in the Constitution.

Corruption can end only if there are freedom of information. It is crucial to the survival of democracy that there must be absolute freedom of information, except slicing out a small portion if it is impinging on the security of the nation. Only then will there be complete transparency.

All information that affects public interest should be made available to the public and the media as it has a crucial role to play. "The right to know is as much a basic right as to the one to breathe fresh air and to drink fresh water without obstruction".