Category: What da f***!!

THIS PART SHALL COVER THE TOPIC OF PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY

It is a misconception that there are no limitations to Human Rights.  It is a gross misconception, too, to think that the Right to Peaceably Assemble comes without any form of limitation.  Article 29(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says so.

In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society

What does the above mean?  If put in layman terms, the above means you can’t assemble in a quiet neighbourhood at four o’ clock in the morning. You can’t assemble in the middle of a downtown street. If your assembly becomes rowdy, the cops can stop it. If your assembly is a pot party, the police can close it. If you bring 1,000 people into a building designed for 100, the police can close it. Basically, you can’t create a safety hazard. You can’t disturb the peace. You can’t incite a riot. You can’t create unsafe conditions.

The preliminary report by the Bar Council on BERSIH 3.0 acknowledged that some rally participants were already behaving rowdy towards the authorities, but the police did not act until the breach of police line was done by some politically-motivated participants, after a signal instruction was given out to them by some politicians.  The final report, which was prepared in haste, changed the situation to “reported breach” instead of an actual breach, and pinned more than 90 percent of the blame on the police.

The Bar Council’s 93-paged final report contained lots of overkill in order to justify their pinning the blame on the police; citing every single declaration and convention there is on Human Rights, and articles that point to misconducts by the authorities. Now, let us revisit the facts one by one. I will go by chronological order based on the preliminary Bar Council report and compare it with the final version:

Para 5.5: “At around 12.50pm near the roundabout on Jalan Kinabalu, some of our monitors heard some rally participants calling police officers “sampah (rubbish)” as they passed the police line. The police officers, however, did not pay heed to what was said by the participants. ”  Apart from an incident at 12.38pm where rally participants shouted “Rasuah (Corruption/Corrupted)” at the police, the final report did not mention the incident at Jalan Kinabalu.

Para 5.6: “Around 12pm to 1pm, participants at the intersection of Jalan Tun Perak, Jalan TAR and Jalan Raja, booed and jeered at the police officers but there was no retaliation from the police. Some police officers took photos of the crowd surrounding them.”  This, too, was omitted in the final report.

Para 5.7: “Between 12pm and 2pm, PDRM and DBKL constantly drove their vans, cars and trucks along Jalan Tun Perak through the middle of the crowd.  A small number of participants (mostly in yellow t-shirts) at times threw things at the vehicles including cans, empty plastic bottles, and other items, and at other times, the crowd cheered them.” Not a single mention of this was made in the corresponding table in the final Bar Council report.  Instead, it wrote about how the participants were in jovial mood and at the same time the number of police presence was building up and acted in aggressive manner towards the participants.

Para 5.8: “Around 2.50pm, near the barricades at Dataran Merdeka, some of our monitors observed rally participants shouted “masuk, kita masuk! (Go in, let’s go in!)”  The police force then sprayed water cannon and fired tear gas towards the participants.  The monitors, who were trapped within the crowd of participants then heard a group of particpants yelling “undur, undur (retreat, retreat).”  However, some of the participants kept on shouting “masuk, kita masuk (go in, let’s go in).”  Not a single sentence from this preliminary report was included inside the Bar Council’s final report; nor was there any mention of the video of a politician signalling the order for a breach of police barricade be made.  Instead, the final report painted a picture that the police had already fired tear gas BEFORE this signal-event even  took place.  I quote:

2.40pm in front of DBKL building.  A monitor noticed police officers ran backwards towards the police trucks.  The monitor did not hear of any warning sound given by the police but then water cannons sprayed and tear gas fired towards the crowd.  The crowd dispersed towards DBKL building. DBKL officers did not allow the crowd to take cover in the area.

Was the Bar Council fair and just in its reporting of the event?  Why was there such a huge difference between the preliminary and final reports?  One may argue that the preliminary report did not contain all the details of the events as it was quickly drafted, but total omission of events in the final one shows that the Bar Council’s final report was objective.  Its objective was to paint a bad picture of the police and local government authorities.

I think much have been said by me on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its limitations.  You can find them in the links below:

A Clean Assembly – Part One

A Clean Assembly – Part Two

A Clean Assembly – Part Three

A Clean Assembly – Part Four

Funny Association of Bar Owners

Now, let us revisit Article 20(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR):

Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association

The corresponding article in the Malaysian Federal Constitution would be Article 10(1)(b) that states:

Subject to clauses (2), (3) and (4) – all citizens have the right to a peaceful assembly and without arms

One glance at these two articles will indicate that it is everyone’s right to be able to assemble peacefully.  Does the right come without limitation?  My answer is, of course NOT.

There are SIX guiding principles for the rights to peaceful assembly:

Principle 1 – Presumption in favour of holding assemblies. What it means here is that as a fundamental right, freedom of assembly should, in so far as possible, be enjoyed without regulation. Anything not expressly forbidden in law should be presumed to be permissible, and those wishing to assemble should not be required to obtain permission to do so.  In the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012, Section 9(1) states that the organiser shall, ten days before the date of an assembly, notify the Officer in-charge of Police District (OCPD) in which the assembly is to be held.  No permit is required, as evident in the BERSIH 3.0 assembly where the police and relevant authorities facilitated the passage and assembly of participants EVEN WHEN INCONVENIENCING non-participants. barring areas like the Central Market, the DBKL building, and the Dataran Merdeka.  Were the authorities right by barring the participants entry into these areas?  The answer is, YES.  Section 11 of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 requires organisers to obtain consent of owner or occupier of place of assembly.  Unless it is a designated place of assembly, an expressed consent from the owner or occupier is needed for these places.

Principle 2 – The State’s duty to protect peaceful assembly. This is an established fact that from 9am when the Bar Council monitors began observing the assembly, the police were there to facilitate the assembly, EVEN to the point of not reacting to taunts and jeers and objects being thrown at their vehicles prior to 3pm.

Principle 3 – Legality.  Any restriction imposed must have a formal basis in law.  A constitutional lawyer debated with me this issue saying that the Home Minister had already given the green light for the assembly to go ahead without a permit.  Yet, as a lawyer, he failed to understand the part where Section 11 of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 states that expressed consent must be obtained from the owner or occupier of the place.  Does he mean that if the Home Minister says it is okay for the participants to camp out on your home lawn then you have no right to refuse?  If so, where is your right under Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Is it supposed to favour only the participants?

DBKL, as the custodian of the Dataran Merdeka, had obtained a court order two days before BERSIH 3.0 assembled, to bar participants from entering the Dataran Merdeka.  Bear in mind, for two weeks they had closed one eye to a group of students who had camped on the lawn of the Dataran Merdeka, causing damage and throwing rubbish all over the place.  Therefore, an order was obtained to prevent more damage to the Dataran Merdeka.  Remember, By-Law 4 of the Local Government (Dataran Merdeka, Federal Territory, Kuala Lumpur) By-Laws, 1992 states the following:

No person shall, unless approved by the Commissioner in writing, in the Dataran Merdeka– (a) eat any food, drink or smoke any cigarette, cigar or any tobacco; (b) cut, remove, damage, pluck any leaf, branch, flower or seed of any plant or tree; (c) cut, uproot, dig, remove or damage any plant, tree or grass; (d) excavate or remove any earth; (e) climb any tree or structure; (f) dirty, deface, make alteration to, displace or damage any structure; (g) nail, tie, bind, chain, draw, scribble, paint, spray, mark, affix, inscribe, display, place or hang anything on any tree, plant or structure; (h) walk over, step or stand on any planting bed or shrubbery; (i) enter or climb the hundred metre flag pole; (j) ride, drive, pull or push any vehicle whether mechanically propelled or otherwise or slide with a skate; (k) contaminate or pollute the water in any fountain; (l) deface or remove any notice displayed by the Commissioner; (m) spit, urine or defecate; (n) displace, make any alteration to, remove, deface or tamper with anything displayed, exhibit, affixed, hung, placed, constructed or set up by the Commissioner; (o) erect any tent, booth, shed or other structure;(p) drop, throw, deposit, place or leave anything whatsoever; (q) kindle any fire or any fireworks or crackers; (r) lie down or sleep in any part of Dataran Merdeka; or (s) allow any animal which is under his control to enter or remain in any part of Dataran Merdeka.

The order was obtained under Section 98 of the Criminal Procedure Code.  I am pretty sure that the Magistrate who issued the order must have taken into consideration the history and lessons learnt from the previous BERSIH episodes, thus meeting the requirement of the clear and present danger test.  I am also sure that the Magistrate had taken into account statements and remarks made by politicians in the mass media on BERSIH 3.0 that have met the incitement test, before issuing the order.

Principle 4 – Proportionality.  Any restriction imposed on freedom of assembly must be proportional.  The least intrusive means of achieving the legitimate objective being pursued by the authorities should always be given preference.  The dispersal of assemblies may only be a measure of last resort.  The restriction imposed was proportional.  Only the Dataran Merdeka was sealed off, and this only happened AFTER several stadiums offered to the organisers by the local authorities as designated place of assembly, were rejected by the former.  This despite the fact that in BERSIH 2.0, the organiser applied for the use of the Stadium Merdeka, but was rejected by the owner.  If the cause of BERSIH 3.0 is paramount, would venue be a matter?  The dispersal of the assembly was only done when the participants, after being signaled by a politician, breached the barricades protecting the Dataran Merdeka.  If you read the definition under Section 3 of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012, an assembly is no longer an assembly the moment you assemble in a meeting at a specified place, then walk in a mass march or rally for the purpose of objecting to or advancing your cause.  This is termed as a ‘street protest’ which is no longer covered by the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 under Section 4(1)(c).  Here, the test of preserving the public order, morality and security takes place.  Even then, before the breach at 2.50pm, the police allowed the participants to rally.

Principle 5 – Good administration.  The public should know which body is responsible for taking decisions about the regulation of freedom of assembly, and this must be clearly stated in the law.  In this case, the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012  states that the Minister of Home Affairs, through the Police, is responsible.

Principle 6 – Non-discrimination.  The right to peaceful assembly should be enjoyed by all.  On the 28th April 2012 we had different parties and organisations that held simultaeneous assembly, including political parties.  None were discriminated.  The right for children to participate in an assembly or organise an assembly is also stated in Section 4(1)(d) and (e) of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012.  With due regard to the evolving capacity of a child, no children below the age of 15 may participate in an assembly.  What we saw during BERSIH 3.0 was parents taking children even below the age of 12, which in my opinion is irresponsible given the intensity of the event’s atmosphere, and given the history of similar assemblies organised by the same organisers in the past.

We know for a fact that the police had, right up until the breach was “ordered” at 2.50pm, facilitated the street protests, the marches, the multiple (simultaenous) assemblies, did not even react to taunts, jeers, object-throwing.  Suddenly, in the Bar Council’s final report there was this monitor who had heard a police walkie-talkie saying , “Bersiap sedia untuk…(Prepare for….)” although this was heard some 20 minutes before the actual breach.  Other monitors reported seeing pick-up trucks with strange communication poles on top of them.  None of these were in the preliminary report, yet conveniently appeared in the final report that was prepared in haste for the EGM called.  Was the idea of producing this report and the subsequent condemnation of the police a deliberate act to vilify the police?

In 2007, the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) had issued a Guideline for Freedom of Peaceful Assemblies.  On page 13 of the guideline, the following statement is made:

Only peaceful assemblies are protected. An assembly shall be deemed peaceful if its organisers have peaceful intentions.  The term “peaceful” should be interpreted to include conduct that may annoy or give offence to persons opposed to the ideas or claims that a particular assembly is promoting, and even the conduct that deliberately impedes or obstructs the activities of third parties.  Participation in a public assembly must be voluntary.

And as I said in a few paragraphs above, Section 4(1)(c) of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 clearly agrees with the guideline above.  The police were upholding the law by protecting the Dataran Merdeka, as ordered by the Magistrate via a court order issued under Section 98 of the Criminal Procedure Code.  If that is so wrong, then is the Bar Council not interested in upholding the sanctity of the law?  The Dataran Merdeka does not fall under the definition of a public place.  It is not a park where people go picnic or jog at; it is not a square that is open to the public like the Trafalgar Square is; it is not a street or a sidewalk or an avenue or pavement or even a footpath.  It is protected under a By-law made under the Local Government Act, 1976.

I personally do not take the Bar Council’s final report seriously. I do not believe it was made objectively, nor was it a fair report made with good intention.  As for its Monitors, some are members of the opposition party, some are on the BERSIH steering committee, some are both.  How non-partisan is that?

In the next part of my posting, I will address the issue and claims of torture. Lastly, I leave you with this section on “Monitors” set in the guideline issued by the ODIHR. Based on my paragraph above, you decide whether the Bar Council has been fair at all:

8.  Monitors – For the purpose of these Guidelines, monitors are defined as non-participant third-party persons or groups whose primary aim is to observe and record what is taking place.

 

My colleague from Sweden once made a remark about the Chinese New Year traffic.  The problem with Malaysian roads getting congested, he said, is because people do not respect the law.  Queue-jumpers cause bottleneck situations along highways, while in town, double-parking clogs up the roads.

He is absolutely right.  Malaysians have a problem with abiding by the law. What makes it worse is when the very institution that is supposed to set examples to the general public breaks it once too often.  After a while, I can only conclude that the Malaysian Bar is led by drunkards and partisan people who have no regards to uphold the tenets of their association. Seriously, I find their constant by-design association with the opposition parties, and skewed view of Human Rights, for the lack of a better word, disturbing.

Most prominent opposition-leaning Bar Council members claim that the Peaceful Assembly Act, 1972 is against normal International Human Rights “law.”  For that reason, the PA2012 should and can be be challenged.  This Act was put to the test during the recent BERSIH 3.0 mayhem.

In the recent BERSIH 3.0 interim report issued by the organisation, it mentioned that the rally was peaceful until around 3pm when the police opened fire with their water cannons and teargas (para 1.3 (i)) but there was no mention about the breach of police line by the protestors under the instruction of one politician (or so it seems from the video that has now been shown by several international news agencies).

The organisation also goes to mention about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  It quoted Article 3 of the Declaration which says:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person

Then it goes on to quote Article 5 of the same Declaration that says:

No one shall be subjected to torture, or to cruel, or inhuman or degrading treatment, or punishment

Let us first talk about these two Articles.  Article 3 clearly says everyone, not just the rally participants, has the right to life, liberty and security.  In Section 3 of the PA2012, it is stated in the interpretation that “rights and freedom of other persons” includes:

• the right to peaceful enjoyment of one’s possession;
• the right to freedom of movement;
• the right to enjoy the natural environment; and
• the right to carry on business.

Pro-one-sided Human Rights group may argue that the right to freedom to assemble is guaranteed under the Declaration, and also in the Federal Constitution.  However, if one was to read the Declaration and the Constitution properly, the Declaration clearly states:

Article 20(1) UDHR – Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association

                            Article 10 Federal Constitution – (1) Subject to Clauses (2), (3) and (4) – (a) every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression, (b) all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms;

If you look at the above Articles, they clearly mention the words PEACEFUL and PEACEABLY.  On Page 27 of the Bar Council’s report, their monitors reported that between 9am and 2.30pm it was observed that the police force was unperturbed by the participants, and some were courteous towards the participants (para 6.1).  Around 12 noon, the crowd marched towards Jalan Tun Perak from the Jalan P Ramlee and Jalan Raja Chulan areas.  Along the way, traffic police gave full cooperation and managed traffic for the crowd to march (para 6.2).  In both paragraphs, it was clear that the police cooperated, even though at this point the BERSIH 3.0 participants had broken the law.  Section 4 (2) of the PA2012 states:

A person commits an offence if (c) he organizes or participates in a street protest

A ‘street protest’ is defined in Section 3 of the Act as: “an open air assembly which begins with a meeting at a specified place and consists of walking in a mass march or rally for the purpose of objecting to or advancing a particular cause or causes.”

The Bar Council monitors also noted that at 12.50pm, near the Jalan Kinabalu roundabout (in the Dataran Merdeka area), some rally participants were heard calling the police “sampah (rubbish)” as they passed the police line.  The police officers did not pay heed to what was said by the participants (para 5.5, page 26).  Around 12 noon to 1pm, a number of participants (most were wearing yellow) booed and jeered at the police.  Still there was no retaliation by the police (para 5.6, page 26).  Between noon and 2pm along Jalan Tun Perak, some participants threw cans, empty bottles and other stuff at police vehicles (para 5.7, page 26), and still there was no report of the police retaliating.  It was only at 2.50pm that the monitors observed rally participants shouted “Masuk, kita masuk (Go in, let’s go in!)” (para 5.8, page 26). This was when the police retaliated with water cannon and tear gas after the barricade was breached.

It was after this that the report stressed more on the conduct of the police than of the protestors.  The Bar Council had failed to also pin the blame on their political associates from the opposition that had hijacked the BERSIH 3.0 cause, to achieve their own cause – and that was to get the attention of the foreign media to focus on the acts of members of the police force against the demonstrators DESPITE having a law to allow peaceful assemblies to demonstrate Prime Minister Najib’s commitment towards better freedom.

I do not condone the acts of the members of the police force if they had gone overboard, but I can understand from the bar Council’s report that for 6 hours the police had cooperated with the participants even though they had broken the law.  Even after sporadic jeering and having bottles thrown at them, they never once retaliated.  This goes to show that the police had been consistent in executing their duties which were (1) to facilitate the BERSIH 3.0’s rally and minimise inconvenience to the public at large (read: those who were not participants), and (2) to uphold a Magistrate’s order barring participants from entering the Dataran Merdeka.

In the above paragraph, both the Organisers and the Participants of the rally have already breached Sections 2 (c) (f);  6 (2) (a) (b) (c) (d) (f) (g) (h) and 7 (a) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) and 7 (b) of the PA 2012.  If you think that the Dataran Merdeka belongs to the people, you are dead wrong.  The Local Government (Dataran Merdeka, Federal Territory, Kuala Lumpur) By-Laws, 1992 states:

By-Law 4. Offences. No person shall, unless approved by the Commissioner in writing, in the Dataran Merdeka– (a) eat any food, drink or smoke any cigarette, cigar or any tobacco; (b) cut, remove, damage, pluck any leaf, branch, flower or seed of any plant or tree; (c) cut, uproot, dig, remove or damage any plant, tree or grass; (d) excavate or remove any earth; (e) climb any tree or structure; (f) dirty, deface, make alteration to, displace or damage any structure; (g) nail, tie, bind, chain, draw, scribble, paint, spray, mark, affix, inscribe, display, place or hang anything on any tree, plant or structure; (h) walk over, step or stand on any planting bed or shrubbery; (i) enter or climb the hundred metre flag pole; (j) ride, drive, pull or push any vehicle whether mechanically propelled or otherwise or slide with a skate; (k) contaminate or pollute the water in any fountain; (l) deface or remove any notice displayed by the Commissioner; (m) spit, urine or defecate; (n) displace, make any alteration to, remove, deface or tamper with anything displayed, exhibit, affixed, hung, placed, constructed or set up by the Commissioner; (o) erect any tent, booth, shed or other structure;(p) drop, throw, deposit, place or leave anything whatsoever; (q) kindle any fire or any fireworks or crackers; (r) lie down or sleep in any part of Dataran Merdeka; or (s) allow any animal which is under his control to enter or remain in any part of Dataran Merdeka.

I did not see the By-Law being quoted by the Bar Council, nor was it quoted by any of its opposition-leaning members that I have engaged.  This further underscores my idea that the Bar Council has a political agenda, and is not interested in upholding the law.

The report also quoted Article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) that says:

Every human being has the inherent right to life.  This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life

I do not know why was this Article or the Covenant quoted in its report.  Is it to show that the degree of “police brutality” equals that to Tahrir Square and elsewhere?  If you flip this Covenant’s coin, the Bar Council should also see that it applies to us who detest street protests, miss out on the joys of life because of them, inconvenienced because of them and also to the policemen who got beaten up for trying to maintain public order.  Where were the rights of the policemen who were constantly taunted, ridiculed, jeered at with the aim to diminish or obliterate their mental capacity?  That act falls under the definition of torture. But of course the learned members of the Bar Council will say, “The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment does not cover the police.”  So, is a policeman less than human?  Is he supposed to have limits of patience as high as the sky is?

The Right to a Peaceful Assembly is NOT a guaranteed right – whatever that right is has to and must be balanced with the rights of others.  The PA2012 is there to ensure that the rights are balanced.  If you are to assemble, you are not to cause inconvenience to others.  During BERSIH 3.0, those who did not participate had their rights infringed upon when they could not travel in and around KL as they would do.  Roads were closed and there was clear and present danger in the areas leading to the Dataran Merdeka.  Under Article 10 (2) (a) the Government has a duty to restrict the right to peaceful assemblies where the security, public order and public morality is under threat.

For advocates of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I am happy to inform you that such limitations also exist in the form of Article 29 (2) of the said Declaration, where it says:

• In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

So, there have you.  The Bar Council of Malaysia has contradicted itself.  Like a drunkard it goes to talk about one thing, then deny it in another sentence.  And it also conveniently omitted Articles of International Human Rights “laws’ that do not work in their favour.  I can only think of one agenda that the Bar Council has, and it is the same one that the goons who hijacked BERSIH 3.0 had on that April afternoon: not fighting for BERSIH, but fighting for the agenda of bringing down the government through force and lies.

Today, The Star published an article claiming that the general elections is just around the corner.  No doubt that the signs are strong, but for me, the day after the last general elections is a day closer to the next polls.  The Prime Minister had also apologised to voters for the mistakes BN had done leading up to its sham performance in the 2008 general elections.  It was a good gesture; it shows his commitment to strive harder for the good of the people; but really, it was his predecessor’s dismal performance (or the absence of it), coupled with the extra large big-headedness that the BN, especially those in UMNO, had then, that led to the worst performance by the BN since 1969.  When Najib’s (now all-but-forgotten) predecessor took office, he made promises that he never kept.  Najib, who took over mid-term, has half a term to rectify the mistakes, and must remember to keep his promises.  No longer should voters be taken for a ride, as they were back in the 2004-2008 period.

A group that had been seeking for some kind of fairness is the Indian diaspora.  Based on the promises made by Najib’s not-to-be-named predecessor, 72.4% of them voted for the BN in 2004.  This number shrunk to merely 8.3% when promises were not delivered by 2008, translating into 88% of Indian voters voting for the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) then.  The Pakatan Rakyat seemed the best avenue for minorities to express their grouses through, and hundreds of promises were made by the former to address the problems faced by the Indians – a good example being the Kampung Buah Pala fiasco in Pulau Pinang.

Moving farther from 2008, it is no secret that the DAP-controlled PR is spending more of its effort in winning more Chinese and Malay votes than keeping the promises they had made to the Indians in 2008.  Chinese votes in Johor’s urban Parliamentary areas have seen a significant rise since 2008: namely in Gelang Patah, Tebrau, Pulai, Batu Pahat, Kulai, and Bakri.  I will not go into the state assembly seats at this juncture.  The game is to reduce UMNO’s hold in its own bastion (Johor) in order to deny the BN a 2/3 majority, or even for the PR to gain a 2/3 majority this time around.  The PR has been systematically attacking government institutions like the judiciary, police and even the armed forces, to discredit the BN government.

In this new game to gain power in GE13, do you think the PR needs the Indians?

Being a Malay majority country, the Malay popular votes have split almost equally in the 2008 general elections: 35.5% for UMNO, and 34.8% for PAS.  Therefore, the win for Chinese votes is more than crucial for both BN and PR in order to obtain majority, albeit a simple one, to form the next government.  Therefore, all efforts by the PR are not being wasted on looking after issues that, to them, may be petty.  After all, the Indian diaspora only make up 7.33% of the whole population in 2010.  Even DAP is now wooing the Malays to join it and run as its candidates in the GE13.

Therefore, the Indians were taken for a ride in 2008, all in the name of power. Hence, you see temples being demolished without prior consultation (or so they claim), and the Indians being sidelined.  It was a case of double jeopardy for the Indians: they wanted to teach MIC a lesson, and had hoped to gain voice through the PR; only to lose representation in the Federal Government in the form of MIC, and left to rot by the PR.  The PR did not even address the Indian woes in its recent convention, paying more attention towards stale issues like Teoh Beng Hock (and its countless RCIs or demands for RCIs) and Aminurrasyid (the boy who was fatally shot by the police in a high-speed chase) lest the Malay and Chinese voters forget that the DAP, especially, is not forgotten.  The Indians simply do not control the PR agenda.

DAP even goes all out to promote itself as a multiracial party.  But let us take a look at the breakdown of the Malaysian demography: 50.4% are Malays, 23.7% are Chinese, 11% are Indigenous, 7.33% are Indians, and 7% others.  Let us now take a look at the breakdown of so-called multiracial DAP at central and states levels:

DAP Central Committee:  31 members (3 Indians, 2 Sikh, 2 Malays)

DAP Women Section: 11 members (1 Indian – Assistant Publicity Secretary)

DAPSY: 23 members (1 Sikh)

Johor: 15 members (1 Malay, 2 Indians)

Kedah: 15 members (1 Malay, 2 Indians)

WP KL: 14 members (1 Malay)

Melaka: 20 members (1 Indian)

Negeri 9: 15 members (5 Indians)

Pahang: 19 members (1 Malay, 1 Indian)

Penang:20 members (4 Indians, 1 Malay)

Perak:20 members (4 Indians)

Sabah:20 members (6 Bumis, 1 Malay)

Sarawak:19 members (2 Bumis, 1 Malay)

Selangor: 20 members (5 Indians, 1 Malay)

The above figure hardly reflects the multiracial composition of the DAP. Not even so-called Malay “Khairil Khir Johari” has a hint of Malay blood in him, while the Indians in DAP are split into camps conveniently ignored by its leadership.  As long as the Indians inside DAP are fighting amongst themselves, everything would be okay.  And Indian supporters of the PR who cry foul over PR’s absent-mindedness have been given excuses by the PR leaders such as “We are not in Putrajaya yet,” “Indians are a minority so don’t ask for anything,” Don’t be a racist,” “If you are not happy with us you can go back to MIC-lah,” and the most they would get from the PR leaders are the “hamper/schoolbag giving – photo shoot” events to show that the Indians are still being looked after by the PR.

Perhaps, Prime Minister Najib Razak’s constant mingle with the Indians, assistance given, and his apology for the failure of the BN in 2008, serves as a reminder to all voters, especially the Indians, that a good representation in the Federal Government, and promises delivered albeit with some defects by the devil you know, is still far better than the devil that you don’t know, makes countless promises, but keeps none.  For Najib, he not only needs to deliver as much as he can, but he must ensure that the whole BN machinery is as apologetic as he is.  Otherwise, his efforts would go to waste.  Remember, there still are people with the “I am the leader, I know what’s best for you” attitude inside the BN.

After all, a man should be respected and supported for the promises he keeps, not the ones he makes.

On the 9th of January, 2012, Anwar Ibrahim was acquitted from a sodomy charge (dubbed Sodomy 2.0) on technical reasons.  The DNA specimen that was submitted as one of two incriminating evidences, was found to be tainted.  Anwar, as were people on both sides of the political fence, was caught by surprise.  Later, Anwar was reported to have said that he will amend the law pertaining to sodomy which he opined as being archaic.  In doing so, he condemns not just the law, but also Holy Books of Peoples of the Book as being equally archaic.

To some benighted supporters of his, this event proves Anwar’s innocence and that he is not a sodomite.  Perhaps, they should re-read the judgment of the Appellate Court when releasing Anwar from jail for Sodomy 1.0. Critically, the majority judgment says, “we find evidence that the appellants were involved in homosexual activities.”  It is this point that many in the media, particularly outside Malaysia, missed.  What the judges couldn’t find evidence for was the dates.

In one respect the majority judgment went further than earlier courts.  It was found that the driver “was an accomplice” to the acts of sodomy.  Earlier courts had judged him to be a victim.  To put it crudely, the judges paint a picture of a happy threesome rather than of two aggressors.

Just when every one was ready to put Sodomy 2.0 behind them, and Anwar picking up momentum in his life-long quest to become the Prime Minister, the Prosecution had decided to appeal.  Anwar’s spin-doctors quickly went into an attack mode claiming that the Barisan Nasional is bent on keeping Anwar out of Putrajaya; but in reality his “victim’s” father appealed to the Public Prosecutor to appeal, and that process is part of the processes of natural justice.  If anyone has a problem with that, he or she ought to move to Rwanda or Angola, or even to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.  A caveat from me is I hope the Prosecution has compelling evidences this time to incriminate Anwar, else this would be another waste of time.

In an unrelated development, after a long while of pussyfooting, it was decided that the assets of the National Feedlot Corporation Sdn Bhd be frozen – an gesture that would have won political points had it been done some three months ago.  This decision was made a day after the person in focus, Minister Shahrizat Jalil, announced that she was going on leave for three weeks to assist the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission in its investigation of her family-run company.

Shahrizat has also sued Ampang MP Zuraida Kamaruddin and PKR’s Strategy Director, Rafizi Ramli over what she claimed to be acts of defamation.  While that is within her rights to sue people who defame her, she must also remember Newton’s three laws of motion.

I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

First and foremost, as a Cabinet Minister, she should have advised her husband against applying for a government grant or loan to start a personal business, OR, she should have resigned and helped her husband in running the multi-million Ringgit business.  Going against the norm, or disturbing the equilibrium causes motion.

II. The relationship between an object’s mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

As she is a Minister, she should have realised that being such a huge public figure would cause acceleration of public perception.  The negative force against her was produced by the combination of her being a huge public figure and the acceleration of public negative perception of the issue.

III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Well and good that she is taking action against those whom she claims to have defamed her.  However, a caveat from me: I hope she is prepared if the sued party calls for documents related to what the defamation was all about – and that can cause equal pain to her as well as to members of her family.

This is going to be one crappy but interesting quarter of 2012.

With that, I would like to take this opportunity to wish all of you Gongxi facai.

For the life of me I am just too lazy to search for the video that I want to put into this posting.  Maybe for starters, Shahrizat Jalil could have asked her husband to take a look at this video first before getting involved in the NFC. For GE13, I don’t think it is fair for BN supporters to be answering on Shahrizat’s personal issue on behalf of her and her family as the BN members at large do not benefit from the business.

Coming from a renowned boarding school in Kuala Kangsar, I am privy to some info from old boys who are pro-government supporters as well as from those who oppose.  With 9th January looming on the weekend’s horizon (I am writing this on a Saturday while waiting for my wife to finish making her Mee Tomato), the story of succession in both PKR and Pakatan Rakyat in general, comes to mind.  It is interesting to note that some people in PKR’s up there has hinted that the Youth Chief of PKR, Shamsul Iskandar Mohd Akin, will take over the helm.  Nurul Izzah, the daughter of Anwar Ibrahim, is being promoted by her mother, Dr Wan Azizah, much to the behest of Anwar’s long-time loyal-for-some-fishy-reason lieutenant, Azmin Ali, who wants the Party’s No.1 position all to himself, while the name of Badrul Hisham Shaharin, Rembau’s PKR’s Chief, was not mentioned at all.  Badrul Hisham lost in his bid for the No.1 Youth’s position to incumbent Shamsul Iskandar, and therefore does not have the locus standi (if I may use that term) to stake his claim at the National level.

Shamsul Iskandar’s appointment would serve DAP’s and PAS’s interest as it would seem to be a move away by PKR from Anwar’s shadow.  Anwar, who used to walk the streets flanked by leaders of the other opposition parties, now often seen walking alone up the staircase of the court during his sodomy trial, save for the company of his wife, daughters, and occasionally, Azmin himself.  But Shamsul Iskandar may not be welcomed by DAP and PAS to replace Anwar, whom they have successfully jockeyed for political mileage and support to get on the plane they are on now.  It would be naive to say that both DAP and PAS do not know of Anwar’s character weaknesses as the latter was part of the BN machinery; and especially DAP, had put a lot of effort in exposing BN MP’s dirty linen in public. Therefore, another leader, acceptable by both DAP and PAS, and some members of the public, would be the best to lead – and this person is reported to be none other than Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah himself.  PKR, being the weakest among the three parties, would have to accept this decision and take the backseat duty thenceforth.

I think it was on New Year’s Day that I saw the headline on one tabloid quoting DAP as saying, “We don’t need the MB’s seat.”  This was, I think, made in response to speculations.  We all know that in the states of Perak (when it was briefly under the Pakatan Rakyat) and Selangor, the real administrator of the states was and still is for Selangor, the DAP.  Even when the Damansara Utama Methodist Church (DUMC) was raided by the Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor (JAIS), Khalid Ibrahim, the de jure Menteri Besar, quickly apologised to Pastor Daniel Ho on the Thursday after the 2nd August 2011 raid.  On the 8th the de jure Menteri Besar had a “meeting” with several DAP excos such as Tan Kok Wai, Ronnie Liu, Ean Yong Hian Wah, V. Ganabathiroa & Senator S. Ramakrishnan.  The result of the meeting can be found here.  Dr Hasan Ali, the Selangor State Religious Affairs Exco was immediately bashed by all quarters from the Pakatan Rakyat over this issue.  Dr Hasan Ali holds his ground until now, while fellow Selangor parliamentarian from PAS, Khalid Samad, is reported to deny that the act of proselytizing never took place at the DUMC, and continues to deny.  This is despite the fact that HRH The Sultan of Selangor had issued a proclamation that the act did take place (please refer to the full text of HRH’s proclamation).   I always wonder what hold does the DAP have on Khalid Ibrahim and Khalid Samad that they seem to be dragged by their nose by the former on this issue.

PAS is also seen as digressing away from its original path.  With the Ataturks (I refuse to term them as Erdogans, as Tayyib Erdogan fights for Islam while Ataturk fights for power, doing away with Islam) having 60% control and the Ulama controlling only 30%, PAS now seems to have forgone Islam and would deal with the Devil himself for power.  People with baggages like Mat Sabu and Mahfuz Omar now sit as Vice Presidents of PAS.  These are people who can easily be held at ransom given their past.  How do you see them lead a so-called Islamist party?  I personally feel that they are nothing more than Trojan horses for a force outside PAS, that would lead PAS to kowtow to anything that the other partners in Pakatan Rakyat do.

The Penang government led by DAP also tried to introduce mosque committee elections.  This, in my opinion, was malicious of nature.  DAP knows that it has a solid support from the Chinese voters in Penang, but not so from the Malays.  Perhaps mosque elections would split congregations politically, and dilute Malay solidarity at the grassroot level.

Recently, we also saw attacks on Article 153 of the Federal Constitution – a move seen to chip away at the Special Rights given to the Malays and other Bumiputeras.  There was even an attempt to confuse the masses by introducing historical facts that are totally wrong and misleading.  DAP-led forces are also trying to dilute UMNO’s influence in its final bastion – Johor.  If  UMNO’s influence in Johor  could be drastically weakened, BN may not even win a simple majority. And UMNO may be forced to abdicate its seat as the leading party in BN.

I have nothing against other races.  What I have is hatred towards those who are bent on chipping away at the fundamentals that have been holding this nation together.  While the Malays sleep, DAP continues to chip away at their cohesiveness, and spirit of Malayness that we used to see not too long ago; but these values have eroded so much that many do not realise the implications of losing the Special Rights.  While I take swipes at what I think is wrong with people in UMNO, I am against any attempt to usurp the power of the Malays through the religion of Islam and the protection of the institution of the Malay Rulers.  If Pakatan Rakyat wins 2/3 majority, with DAP being the biggest winner, DAP will be in the position to propose for amendments to the Federal Constitution.  The Malay Rulers would have a smaller role, probably similar to what was proposed during the Malayan Union, and would be powerless to even protect the religion of Islam in their respective state.

By then, it would be too late for the Malays to wake up from their slumber.