SeaDemon Says

I shall not waste my time dwelling into what Article 153 of the Federal Constitution stands for. If any of you are Internet-savvy enough to reach this page would mean that you would be savvy enough to Google it up.

I am writing this with alarm because a self-professed Constitutional Lawyer by the name of Edmund Bon tweeted that the Reid Commission had recommended for the said Article to be removed 15 years after Independence had been achieved. While that point is true, Mr Bon probably did not and does not understand the whole history and spirit behind both the Reid Commission and the Federal Constitution itself.

On the road to Merdeeka, the Reid Commission did offer a draft Malayan Constitution to the Malay Rukers, the British Government, and the leaders of the Alliance Party. The Commission also recommended dual or multiple citizenship.  This, like its recommendation that Malay special privileges should be for only 15 years, the dual or multiple citizenship recommendation was also rejected.

Some naive people speak about the departures above from the Reid Commission draft as being a departure from an original constitution.  The likes of Mr Bon should learn history properly, that the Reid Commission was not a party to the Merdeka talks. The parties were strictly the Malay Rulers in whom resided the states’ sovereignty, the British Government, which was in treaty with the Malay Rulers as protector and administrator, and the Alliance which had a resounding victory to represent the people of Malaya – 51 out of 52 seats, the only opposing seats being won by the Pan-Malaya Islamic Party.

So please, people. Check your historical facts and spirit behind the Federal Constitution before you make a fool of yourselves.

These are excerpts from Chapter 7, Pages 77-88 of Michael Backman’s book “Inside Knowledge – Streetwise In Asia” that I find interesting and would like to share with all. For the benefit of those who do not understand English, I have included the Bahasa Malaysia translation as well.

Berikut adalah cabutan dari Bab 7, Mukasurat 77-88 buku Michael Backman berjudul “Inside Knowledge – Streetwise In Asia” yang menarik minat saya untuk berkongsi dengan semua.  Untuk manafaat mereka yang tidak berbahasa Inggeris, saya telah juga menyertakan terjemahan dalam Bahasa Malaysia.

Anwar Ibrahim: Malaysia’s Dark Cloud

A dark cloud hangs over Malaysia in the form of Former Finance and Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. Anwar was fired from these positions in September 1998.  He was then charged with sodomy and abuse of power and jailed nine and six years respectively.  The sodomy charges were overturned on appeal in 2004 and Anwar was released.

What is Anwar planning to do now that he has been released from jail?  Will he become a divisive opposition figure?  How much trouble will he cause?  Planning for business needs to take these unknown into account.  They will impact upon Malaysia’s future political stability.

Anwar Ibrahim: Awan Hitam Malaysia

Malaysia masih lagi dibayangi oleh awan hitam bekas Menteri Kewangan dan Timbalan Perdana Menteri Anwar Ibrahim.  Anwar telah dipecat dari jawatan-jawatan berkenaan pada September 1998.  Kemudian, beliau telah didakwa atas tuduhan meliwat dan salahguna kuasa dan didapati bersalah di atas kedua-dua pertuduhan.  Bagi kesalahan meliwat beliau dijatuhi hukuman sembilan tahun penjara manakala bagi kesalahan salahguna kuasa beliau dijatuhi hukuman penjara enam tahun.  Pertuduhan kesalahan meliwat telah ditarik balik pada tahun 2004 selepas rayuan beliau diterima.

Selepas dibebaskan, apakah perancangan Anwar?  Adakah beliau akan menjadi Ketua Pembangkang yang akan memecahbelahkan negara?  Sejauh mana masalah yang akan ditimbulkannya?  Perancangan untuk berniaga di Malaysia perlu mengambil kira persoalan-persoalan yang akan memberi kesan kepada kestabilan politik Malaysia masa hadapan.

What Anwar’s Release Really Means

The decision in 2004 by Malaysia’s Federal Court to overturn Anwar’s conviction for sodomy might have got him out of jail but did not get him off the hook.  Many commentators and journalists who reported on the decision did not appear to have read the detail of the 36-page majority judgment.  The initial conviction rested on a confession by Anwar’s co-accused, his adopted brother Sukma Darmawan, and statements by the only witness, Anwar’s wife’s driver who claimed to have been sodomized by both men.  The charges against the two men related to the acts of sodomy between the given dates, dates that famously had to be changed three times on the charge sheet as Anwar came up with credible alibis.

The Federal Court majority judgment ruled Sukma’s confession as inadmissible.  The judges found that it had been obtained under duress.  There is little doubt as to Sukma’s sexual orientation.  But what the court had to prove beyond reasonable doubt was that the incidents occured within the dates specified by the charges.  The Federal Court judges found that the dates had not been proven, and it was on this basis that they allowed Anwar’s appeal.

Apa Sebenarnya Makna Pembebasan Anwar

Keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan pada 2004 menggugurkan sabitan kesalahan Anwar mungkin membolehkan Anwar bebas dari penjara, namun ianya tidak membersihkan beliau.  Kebanyakan komentar dan wartawan yang mengulas keputusan berkenaan tidak membaca sepenuhnya keputusan 36-mukasurat yang dibuat secara majoriti oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan.  Sabitan awal Anwar berasaskan pengakuan Sukma Darmawan, adik angkat Anwar, dan kenyataan satu-satunya saksi iaitu pemandu kepada isteri Anwar yang mendakwa beliau telah diliwat oleh kedua-dua Anwar dan Sukma.  Tuduhan ke atas kedua-duanya bersangkutan dengan aksi meliwat yang berlaku di dalam satu tempoh masa yang telah ditukar sebanyak tiga kali oleh pihak pendakwa kerana alibi Anwar yang kukuh.

Mahkamah Persekutuan dengan secara majoriti memutuskan bahawa pengakuan Sukma tidak boleh diterima sebab telah dibuat dalam keadaan paksaan.  Walau bagaimanapun, tidak terdapat kesangsian tentang amalan homoseksual Sukma.  Apa yang perlu dibuktikan di mahkamah adalah perlakuan liwat oleh Anwar dan Sukma berlaku pada tarikh sepertimana yang dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaraya.  Mahkamah Persekutuan mendapati tarikh berkenaan gagal dibuktikan yang mana merupakan alasan utama mereka membenarkan rayuan Anwar.

To be continued/Bersambung

For as long as I can remember a Malaysian Indian family lived on the ground floor of my late grandmother’s house in Teluk Intan.  The family is no longer there as thaatha had passed on and the children have all moved out after starting their own family.  That family was like an extended kin to us; helped our family when my grandmother passed away almost three decades ago.  My father allowed them to stay on even after that and never once, as far as I can recall, was the rent rate ever revised.  My father  never have allowed that to happen as he too was taught to be just to all races even though his late uncle was the first UMNO leader there, and my late grandfather the first secretary.

Which brings me to this post.  My friends and foes in UMNO would probably scream at me once they get to read this post, but it is a matter that I have to bring forth.

I have been made aware that the MIC Youth has had their request for allocation to the Youth and Sports Ministry for a youth programme involving 1,000 Indian youths from Malaysia and Singapore shot down by the latter – apparently without offered reasons.  The request was personally sent in by the MIC Youth Chief,  T Mohan to the Deputy Minister for Youth and Sports, Dato’ Razali Ibrahim.  However, I was made to understand that without even opening the envelope to read the content, Razali passed the letter on to his Special Officer.  The very next day, the Special Officer, when contacted, told MIC youth’s secretary, P Punithan that the Ministry had run out of allocations.  Punithan reluctantly accepted the reason (excuse, I would say) and asked if a Local Order could be issued, but was told that the Deputy Minister does not have a local order facility.  Now, I find that excuse quite absurd.

The above is apparently NOT the first time that such an incident has happened involving the MIC Youth and the said Ministry.  One wonders if the “Big Brother” attitude is back in business at this eleventh hour (with the General Elections just around the corner)?  Is it because Razali feels that Muar is a safe seat, oblivious to the fact that major voters’ registration process in major towns in Johor is taking place (and not organised by BN component parties)?  Or is it because the MIC Youth openly supports the UMNO Youth Chief, Khairy Jamaluddin?  If the latter is the case, they I do not find Razali a mature or professional politician (he is four years younger than I am).  I, too, have had issues with Khairy but I know where to draw the line when it comes to the importance of the community at large.  Differences aside, Khairy is still a better choice, commandingly, as a youth leader than Razali is.

I pity the Prime Minister because every time he tries to do something different and acceptable to virtually all, some jokers will drag his efforts down.  And when Najb tries to appeal to the nation stating that “No one will be left out in nation’s march towards progress“, people like Razali proves otherwise.

If the Malays really want to prove their “Ketuanan,” they ought to learn that respect has to be earned and commanded – not demanded. The only way this can be achieved is by being fair to and respecting fellow Malaysians, and not by shunning them.

I received a comment from Encik Md Sha’ani bin Abdullah, Commissioner of SUHAKAM containing the media statement from the Chairman of SUHAKAM.  When I received the notification I was inside my car along Jalan Bandar, and I hoped that it would contain something new.  To be fair, this is what was sent.  Let me thank Encik Md Sha’ani for his comment:

KENYATAAN MEDIA
UNDANG-UNDANG TAHANAN PENCEGAHAN BERCANGGAH DENGAN PRINSIP HAK ASASI MANUSIA

Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia Malaysia (SUHAKAM) meluahkan rasa amat kecewa dan terkejut dengan penangkapan terbaru 13 individu di bawah Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri 1960 (ISA) atas kegiatan gerakan militan di Sabah. Tindakan pihak berkuasa ini benar-benar mengejutkan dan sama sekali bertentangan dengan keputusan Perdana Menteri yang berani dan bersejarah untuk memansuhkan ISA serta pengiktirafan dan penghormatan terhadap hak asasi manusia serta perseimbangan antara hak tersebut dengan peraturan undang-undang dalam sistem demokrasi berparlimen negara – yang telah lama dinanti-nantikan dan amat dialu-alukan dengan sepenuh hati oleh rakyat.

Selaras dengan seruan yang telah dibuat sebelum ini agar undang-undang penahanan pencegahan dimansuhkan, Suruhanjaya menggesa agar pihak berkuasa membebaskan kesemua mereka yang ditahan di bawah undang-undang tersebut dan memberikan hak mereka kepada perbicaraan terbuka dengan diwakili peguam. Suruhanjaya juga menyeru Kerajaan supaya menghentikan penggubalan undang-undang yang membenarkan penahanan tanpa bicara dan agar menangani isu berkaitan keganasan di bawah undang-undang lain yang sedia ada; dan sementara pemansuhan ISA dibuat, tiada sebarang penangkapan akan dijalankan di bawah Akta ini.

-TAMAT-

“HAK ASASI UNTUK SEMUA”

TAN SRI HASMY AGAM
Pengerusi
Suruhanjaya Hak Assasi Manusia Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
18 November 2011

There was nothing new.  However, to be fair, I decided to post the media statement here so everyone could read it.  Honestly, I was hoping for something new, for SUHAKAM as a body formed via an Act of Parliament, to advise the Government on the course of action that should be taken – i.e the Act(s) that should have been used to deal with terrorism.  I was truly disappointed.  The statement underscores my point in a previous posting that SUHAKAM is acting more like a non-governmental organisation, than a body to assist the Government and law enforcement agencies on human rights.  When I say human rights, I do not just mean the rights of those arrested under the Internal Security Act, but also the rights of the majority to life, liberty and security of person as stated in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that the Commission religiously upholds.

Let me make myself clear on one issue: I AM NOT AN ADVOCATE OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT for a simple reason: the Act allows the Minister to order the detention of a person or persons to a period of not more than two years, and may review the detention at the end of the period for a further period of not more than two years.  That is given by Section 8 of the Internal Security Act.  I would prefer the period of 60 days provided for in Section 73(3) of the Act, with the limitations set in Section 73(3)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act, but the order has to come from a High Court judge.  This is what I hope to see in the Anti-Terrorism Act that will be tabled in Parliament soon.

What was offered to me on Twitter as a suggestion to be used against terrorism by a SUHAKAM Comissioner is the Criminal Procedure Code.  In Section 28 of the CPC, a person arrested has to be produced without delay within 24-hours of his arrest in front of a Magistrate for arraignment.  This 24-hour period, though, has its own definition in the Interpretation Act when it comes to the weekends and public holidays.  This is something everyone needs to understand.  If the investigating officer finds that he cannot conclude the investigation within the given 24-hour period, he may, under Section 117 of the CPC, apply for an extension of the remand order.  The Magistrate will then decide if the remand period should be extended to facilitate investigations, and if so, decide on the number of days.  At the end of the extension period, the Magistrate may grant further extensions but the whole extension periods cannot exceed fifteen days in total.

Here, my friends, I would like to ask you: would 15 days be a reasonable period for the police to investigate the suspect’s/suspects’  involvement in terrorism, and that is to include the network, both local and international, of the organisation the suspect/suspects belong to?  What prevailing Act of Law, may I ask you, my dear friends, would allow the police to thoroughly probe and investigate the gravity of the case and network(s) involved?

(The following part in Italics was added at 3.15am, 21st November 2011)

To comment further on the suggestion by SUHAKAM in its media statement above that the Government should use other laws,  for any law to apply appropriately, the evidence must fall within the parameters of the law.  The Internal Security Act is still a valid law for terrorism, subversion, espionage and sabotage of certain kinds.  Other laws can be effectively used if the evidence collected can be adduced in court.  In most cases they can’t because witnesses are afraid to testify in an open court, and the police will not jeopardize the identity of their informants because it is not easy to replace a deep mole.

Whether we like it or not, in my opinion, the Internal Security Act is the prevailing Act of Law, for now, that would allow the police to nip terrorism before we get religious zealots representing whatever religious organisation, blowing themselves up, killing our family members and/or friends, in downtown Kuala Lumpur or Georgetown, during Christmas shopping rush period.

Think about it carefully.

The Internal Security Act is still valid, and it is still applicable.  And the threat and danger that we Malaysians and expats living in our country alike face, is very clear and very present.