The Case for Tommy Thomas as the next AG


Note 1: Got this from OutSyedtheBox and it makes alot of sense
Note 2: It is reproduced verbatim (I only edited the layout for clarity) – the authentication is not confirmed

(After the major screw-up and yet to accept the reality of things, the guy on the left does not have enough trust and credibility to continue to be the Attorney General. The country needs a change – a drastic change that it. Image source: Free Malaysia Today)

DOES THE AG NEED TO BE A MALAY OR A MUSLIM? DOES HE HAVE TO ADVISE ON SYARIAH LAW?
By GK Ganesan Kasinathan, Advocate and Solicitor, Kuala Lumpur
03 June 2018

The nation is trundling towards a calamitous constitutional misunderstanding. Someone has to do something about it and set matters straight. Let us identify what is happening. A debate has begun to rage. It concerns the identity of the person who should be the next Attorney General.

It is about constitutional provisions regarding what characteristics the Attorney General should have—and whether the current nominee, Mr. Tommy Thomas has them.

Two conflicting ideas

At the heart of the debate are two conflicting statements:-

  • The first is the altruistic proposition that certain quarters ‘have no objection at all to a non-Malay being nominated as AG.’
  • The second is an opposite argument. It is that the AG should be ‘in a position to advise the palace on Syariah matters.’
  • And the third proposition, being a conclusionary one, is the argument ‘… that therefore a judge, or a retired judge of the Court of Appeal or the Federal Court ought to be appointed as AG.’ These arguments are deeply flawed.

Here are the reasons..

These arguments have no constitutional basis at all. In fact, the Federal Constitution says the opposite. Why is that? The rakyat should be allowed to interpret the Constitution. The rakyat should take part in this debate. They should look at the Constitution and inform themselves of the important aspects of this confusion. They should be taught to interpret the Constitution. It is their right. Lawyers should not be the only ones telling people what the law is.

So let us look at the Constitution.

The starting point is Article 145.

Answer to the claim AG ‘must advise on Syariah law.’ The first and most important opposition to the Administration — and Mahathir — comes from the argument that the ‘AG must be able to advise the King on Syariah matters’. This demand contradicts Constitutional provisions. This is because the Constitution exempts the AG from such a requirement. You will understand this readily, because the relevant part of Article 145(2), states:

– ‘145(2): It shall be the duty of the [AG] to advise the [King] or the Cabinet or any Minister upon… legal matters, and to perform… duties of a legal character,… and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under this Constitution or any other written law.

So what it says here is that the AG must discharge the duties that the Constitution asks him to. What power does the Constitution give him? That is explained by Art 145(3). It states:

– ‘145(3): The [AG] shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence, other than proceedings before a Syariah court, a native court or a court-martial.’ Clause 3 prohibits the AG from dealing with proceedings before Syariah Courts and Military Courts.

As far as Syariah matters are concerned the AG has no role. No one would disagree that the King must have the very best Syariah advisor—an expert. Were previous AGs experts on Syariah Law? Was Gani Patail an expert on Syariah law? Was Apandi? How come no one objected then?

So how can the AG be now compelled to perform a duty — or exercise a power — that the Constitution has taken away from him? Why is the AG now being asked to advise on something that the Constitution tells him is none of his business? The person to advise the King on Syariah law cannot be a retired judge.

The fifth argument is that the nominee for the AG ‘must be either an existing or a retired Federal Court judge or a Court of Appeal judge; for, that way he can render legal advise on Syariah matters’. This argument is a non-starter. Again there is a clear instruction from the Constitution on this.

Apart from informing the AG what matters over which the AG has powers to act on, the Constitution goes one step further.

Secular courts are non-Syariah courts: i.e. the Magistrate Courts, Sessions Courts, High Court, Court of Appeal and the Federal Courts: [Article 121 defines the secular courts].

The Constitution expressly removes from all secular courts any power that is only a Syariah Court can exercise.

Clause (1A) says:- ‘The courts referred to in Clause (1) [read, ‘secular courts’] shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts.’

The Syariah judicial system works under a different set of laws. They have their own courts, their own judges, and their own lawyers. They are independent of the Judiciary.

Therefore if Syariah law advice is needed, their Highnesses have ample Syariah resources available at their disposal. If so, how can candidates be chosen from the retired or existing list of the secular Federal Court or the Court of Appeal judges? From them have been removed the power to deal with Syariah matters. It stands to reason that they, no matter what race or religion they profess, would have had no formal legal training on Syariah law at all.

So why ask to choose from a group who possess no Syariah knowledge at all? So the argument that the AG ‘must be able to advise on Syariah matters’ argument is a red fish! It is simply not true.

What qualities must a candidate for an AG have?

The next question to ask oneself is, who can be appointed as the AG? Article 145(1) answers the question in this way:

– ‘145(1): The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall, on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint a person who is qualified to be a judge of the Federal Court to be the Attorney General for the Federation.’

Note the phrase, ‘a person qualified to be a judge of the Federal Court’. Who is that?

That is explained in Article 123. It prescribes that a nominee for an AG must be (a) a citizen and (b) for the last 10 years before his appointment he shall have been ‘an advocate’; or ‘a member of the Judicial and Legal service’ (this differs from judges in the Courts – do not confuse them as one), or a mixture of both. It does not mean he must be a Federal Court or Court of Appeal Judge. He must only be one who is ‘qualified to be’ one.

From which pool would you choose your AG, given the choice?

As a matter of choice where would you choose the AG to come from? Let us examine the pool of resources available to the Prime Minister. Suppose there are about 1,800 lawyers in the AG’s Chambers [AGC]: that is about right. Suppose we assume that at least 500 AGC lawyers in AGC have crossed the ‘10 year practice’ mark (the numbers could be far lower]. Then at least 500 persons qualify to be the AG.

Now, the Malaysian Bar has ten times more lawyers than the AGC. It had, at the latest count, over 18,000 members. Of that number [I extrapolate] there are over 9,000 lawyers who qualify under this Art 123 — they have crossed the ‘10 years of continued practice’ requirement. They are all citizens.

Go now to the judiciary as a source. If you add the total number of judges in the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal that does not cross 45. A great proportion of those judges are from the AG’s Chambers: some say as high as 90%. As a matter of choice, where would you choose the AG from? From the largest pool of 9,00 members, or a lesser pool of 500 lawyers from AG’s chambers, or from a smaller pool of 45 judges from the Judiciary— the latter of which is already under attack?

Equality of all candidates not matter of race

The sixth point is, the Constitution, which upholds equality as its central core (read Article 8 of the Constitution), does not prevent a non-Malay from being appointed an AG. If our forefathers thought it necessary, they would have inserted that proscription into the Constitution. Had they done it, that would have been against all known conventions of human rights. They have not.

Our forebears were reasonable people. They saw this issue and catered for it. The framers of the Constitution were men of great foresight. So why manipulate that intent by specious arguments of non-existent ‘conventions,’ conventions which are against human rights?

So there is no racial restriction in the Constitution. So that argument too goes out of the window.

The King ‘shall appoint’ Clause (1) of Article 145 states that His Majesty the King ‘shall’ on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint as AG a person proposed by the Prime Minister. This is what it says:

– ‘145(1): The yang di-Pertuan Agong shall, on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint a person who is qualified to be a judge of the Federal Court to be the Attorney General for the Federation.’

Note the word, ‘shall’. It is mandatory.

The binding nature of the Prime Minister’s proposal is buttressed by an explanatory clause in Art. 40(1A): It says:

– ‘In in the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or federal law, where the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is to act in accordance with advice, on advice, or after considering advice, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall accept and act in accordance with such advice.’

The phrase ‘shall accept and act in accordance with such advice’ points to a mandatory requirement. There is a reason for this. The functioning of a valid government cannot be stultified by delay.

The Manifesto Point

The seventh argument is: ‘In appointing a non-Parliamentarian, Mahathir has departed from the Harapan manifesto that the AG shall be an MP.’

Many points answer this vacuous argument. The manifesto point is readily overcome. Second, I have said elsewhere, the AG ought to be an MP answerable to the people, through parliament. I have suggested that the Constitution ought to be changed to effect that. The Committee for Institutional Reform is engaged in just that.

Like the Council of Eminent Persons, they have had no rest. They are burning the candle at both ends. They are inundated with all manner of papers. They will suggest amendments—in good time. But until that change is done, the law, as it stands, must be complied with. There is no countervailing argument against that. There is, fortunately, a Half-Way House solution.

It is embedded into the Constitution. Art. 61 of the Constitution, which states, ‘(2) Either house of parliament may appoint as a member of any of its committees the [AG]… notwithstanding that he is not a member of that house.’

So, through this side-door, Parliament may, after it convenes, ask the AG to be appointed into its committees. The Committees may ask him to answer questions. In this way the current AG can be brought into Parliament’s deliberations.

So these concerns are easily alleviated. So any allegation that ‘Harapan has breached its Manifesto’ is really no issue at all.

Parliament has a right to override the King on executive matters

The King has executive authority over the Federation. That authority is, however, not absolute. It is subject to the dictates of Parliament: this is because Art 39 states:

‘The executive authority of the Federation shall be vested in the yang di Pertuan Agong and exercisable… by him or by the Cabinet or any Minister authorised by the Cabinet, … but parliament may by law confer executive functions on other persons.’

The AG’s appointment, under the current law, is an exercise of executive authority. If the King does not act on the advice of the Prime Minister, the Constitution grants another route to Parliament. In matters of governance, the primacy of Parliament is constitutionally entrenched. But Parliament has not been convened. That time is not yet come. It will. But can we wait till then?

The power of the Conference of Rulers

The final argument in the opposition’s quiver is that the Conference of Rulers have an absolute power to object to any suggestion of the Prime Minister. This is incorrect. True it is that the Conference of Rulers have certain ‘discretionary’ powers. Article 38 lays it out in great detail. They have a right to be consulted on certain matters.

These are listed with some care: these deal with matters relating the appointment of the King, e.g., include any matter relating to the special position of the Malay rulers, the Islamic religion or the rights of Malays under Article 153 (Reservation of quotas in the services, permits etc. for Malays). True also it is that that Art. 38(2)(c) states that the Conference of Rulers shall exercise its functions of consultation by —

‘… consenting or withholding consent to any law and making or giving advice on any appointment which under this Constitution requires the consent of the Conference or is to be made by or after consultation with the Conference’.

Some argue that Clause (6) gives the Conference of Rulers the right of carte blanche— blank cheque; that that it is ‘an absolute right’. This is what the relevant part of Clause (6) says — … the members of the Conference of Rulers may act in their discretion in any proceedings relating to the following functions, that is to say… (c) consenting or withholding consent to any law and making or giving advice on any appointment which under this Constitution requires the consent of the Conference or is to be made by or after consultation with the Conference; In constitutional theory, the personal prerogative of the monarch is said to contradict democracy.

On a proper reading of Clause 6, this personal power is not absolute.

  • First, much of the strength of these prerogative power are diluted by constitutional principles.
  • Second, other clauses in the Constitution severely limit that power.
  • Third, the ‘right to consultation’ cannot mean an ‘absolute right to refuse.’

That is why the Constitution, with great care, has said, their Highnesses ‘may act in their discretion.’ This discretion is called ‘royal prerogative.’ Blackstone described it as the powers that ‘the king enjoys alone, in contradistinction to others, and not to those he enjoys in common with any of his subjects.’ So they are are ‘personal prerogatives.’ But the principles underlying the exercise of prerogatives have been uniformly accepted without contradiction across the world.

It is for that reason such prerogatives are carefully circumscribed. The way the words in clause 6 are crafted is a call to exercise, in their Highnesses discretion, one of the most fundamental provisions of the Rule of Law: when a constitutional discretion is granted, it cannot be exercised arbitrarily.

So the exercise of the ‘personal prerogative’ must seek to achieve the equality principle rooted as the basic fabric of the Constitution. It must be subject to transparency and good governance. It cannot be exercised arbitrarily. It cannot be exploited capriciously. Such a discretion must be exercised in a way that will aid democracy and uphold the Rule of Law. The words must be construed to comply with the spirit of the Constitution and the Will of the People.

Conclusion

Parliament is not in session. Not yet. Yet someone has to carry the burden of the AG. Charges have to be filed. People have to be hauled up before the courts.

The Cabinet is busy answering a hundred, perhaps a thousand urgent calls upon its time. This amidst the urgent concern that economic matters should be dealt with alacrity. Manifesto or no, Mahathir has to stop the haemorrhage.

The Cabinet cannot hang about. Time is of the essence. Mahathir has to act now. Those who delay the appointment of the AG are doing a great disservice to the toils of an elderly patriot trying to right a wayward ship. These detractors are playing into the hands of the pilferers who have purloined billions from our coffers. They sit pretty, smiling from their strongholds. They think nothing will come upon them so long as they keep raising one constitutional crises after another, and trigger as much unease and delay as possible.

That is why they are delaying the appointment of the AG. They wish to feel safe. They think the GE 14 is a pyrrhic victory. They feel they are untouchable. They must be stopped. As a nation we cannot sit idly by, while these detractors stultify the rakyat’s hard-won victory

Advertisements

All in the name of Religion


religion-dose-three-things-quite-effectively-divides-people-control-people-deludes-people

(Personally I am not a true blue atheist but then again, religion for me is something personal between me and the Supreme Being and not to be imposed forcibly to anyone else. Quote source: http://www.thequotepedia.com)

Read these first:-

In the month of Ramadan this year, we are seeing and listening to things that hardly can be called as good and blessed religious activities.

First we had a couple of men throwing grenades into a crowd of people in a pub and although there were denials first, the IGP now have confirmed that it was indeed a terrorist attack.

Police have confirmed that the Movida night club bombing last week was the first ever successful IS attack on Malaysian soil.

Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar said the attack, which left eight people injured, was carried out by locals who were directly instructed by IS member Muhamad Wanndy Mohamad Jedi from Syria.

“Since the attack on June 28 to July 1, we have arrested 15 people including the two men who threw the hand grenade,” he said.

It was confirmed that two of the 15 were also policemen

(Source)

And elsewhere around the world, there was more bloody news of acts committed in the name of religion.

A wave of suicide bombings hit three Saudi Arabian cities over a 24-hour period.

The attacks came on the heels of massive jihadi assaults in the Muslim world last week that have been been tied to ISIS; analysts believe that this string of assaults in Saudi Arabia could be the work of the terror group.

There has been no claim of responsibility.

Two of the attacks failed but four people were killed in the third, all of which appear to be coordinated — targeting both Saudi security forces and Western interests.

(Source)

And before that, a good number of foreigners were gunned down in Dhaka and where suspects were once studying in Malaysia and the Government is considering bringing in more workers from Bangladesh – a recipe for disaster?

Bangladeshi police are continuing to investigate Friday’s deadly attack on a Dhaka cafe, amid shock at the elite background of most of the suspects.

They include the son of a government politician, along with university and elite public school students.

Twenty hostages, two policemen and six suspects were killed in the raid. One suspect was arrested.

The so-called Islamic State (IS) group said it was behind the attack but the government has denied this.

Nine Italians, seven Japanese, one US citizen and an Indian were killed in the 12-hour siege at the Holey Artisan cafe in the Gulshan neighbourhood. One Italian is unaccounted for.

(Source)

And there were more terror attack much nearer to Europe

Thirteen suspects, including 10 Turks, have been formally charged over the Istanbul airport suicide bombings, the deadliest of several attacks to strike Turkey’s biggest city this year, the Dogan news agency reported.

Turkish officials have pointed blame at the Islamic State jihadist group (IS) for Tuesday’s gun and bomb spree at Ataturk airport which left 45 people dead including 19 foreigners.

The suspects, who are in police custody, were charged with belonging to a terror group, homicide and endangering the unity of the state, Dogan reported, without providing the foreign suspects’ nationalities.

(Source)

It is time to be more alert and put priority on moderation, good understanding and tolerance between the many religions and races in this country. Hope the authorities are on high alert and dumb politicians (and little Napoleons who have too much free time on their hands) have come to their senses to ensure they don’t cause any problems with their foolish acts and words. After all, you just need an idiot and small spark for an uncontrollable forest fire.

Selamat Hari Raya and Happy Holidays all

The Fight Against Crime


cctv--crime-prevention_52f8d4695a85f_w1500

(It always pays to have another set of eyes on the street for catch criminals in their act. The role of CCTVs in prevention of crime cannot be dismissed – it works 24 by 7 and 365 days without taking rest and it is impartial too. Infographic source: http://visual.ly)

The month April proving to be an interesting month for me

We have walked into the age of GST and the night before was rather comical – I saw a family piling up their grocery items onto the trolley to the brim. Didn’t they know that naturally there will be some items which will see the price going down with GST and there will be some with increased price?

The issues that will come with the introduction of GST maybe too early to comment. It is one good way to ensure that the Government gets its money for the development of the country. After all the, the oil and gas industry is not doing well and hence there would be less income for the Government. But there will be issues, no doubt especially with how the Government will be using the money from the GST collected (hope they will not be buying new plane and politicians taking too many overseas trips). I hope they don’t shoot themselves in the leg by imposing GST but at the same time, maintain their lavish lifestyle, wastage and unnecessary overseas trips.

Anyway, let’s move on with another news. Amidst the arrests a number of journalists recently and many arguments for and against hudud, PAS finally asked the right question:-

PAS Selangor Youth, claimed in a statement on Wednesday that hudud was the answer to the rising crime rate in the country and if DAP, for one, was against the punishment, it should counter-propose solutions.

(Source)

Finally an intelligent question and it should be interesting to see how DAP counter propose solutions to fight crime in this country. Actually it is a good question for any political party out there and citizens who may not agree that we need another set of laws in this country to fight country. If you ask me, there are couple of things can be done or rather, should be revisited.

For start, how about re-looking into how we can tighten up the security and vetting of “visitors” coming into the country, not for business or pleasure but rather for a more sinister reasons:-

A 45-year-old commandant of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (Isis) was detained by the Malaysian Police Counter Terrorism unit in Kuala Lumpur on January 31. Intelligence sources said the man from the Middle East who arrived here mid-January was detained at a four-star hotel near Bukit Bintang

(Source)

In the past, the police have arrested a number of foreigners involved in terrorism. How they managed to slip into the country unnoticed?

And if you have read the previous blog posts, enough have probably been said on the so-called Nigerian “students” who end up caught for drug related offences. The same have been mentioned on the Iranians. And before that, the many illegal Indonesians and Filipinos. Things have improved especially with the creation of MMEA and the establishment of ESSZONE and the biometrics exercise. But there are still areas that need to be improved especially with the foreigners coming in from the Thailand and via KLIA2. Still remember the famed Latin American criminals?

And since early 2014, we had Operation Cantas which proves rather success:-

Police arrested 44,343 suspects in ‘Op Cantas Khas’ until Dec 31, last year since the nationwide special anti-crime operation was launched on Aug 17. Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar said the operation obviously had positive results, whereby the crime index dropped by 4.3 per cent.

(Source)

Then there was a glimpse of “hope” when the government announced this:-

If you buy a motorcycle for your son and he rides it without a licence, you will now have to pay a RM300 fine. On top of that, your son will be fined RM300 for the offence — which obviously you have to pay. If you are unable to pay the RM600, the police keeps the bike.

The new ruling which comes into force on February 2, will affect thousands of parents who buy small motorcycles for their children to go to school. These students have been involved in minor accidents that go unreported and are also known to have joined Mat Rempit in illegal road races.

(Source)

Interestingly I almost knock down 2 boys on the motorcycle, clearly under aged and not wearing helmet and was riding on the wrong side of the road. No police around to catch these pests and get their parents down to the station. And last week, I was on the way back from donating blood and I used the Federal Highway and traffic was heavy as usual. My dad was sitting next to me and remarked that it was an unnecessary traffic jam and he was right. One main reason there was a traffic jam was due to the shameless idiots who use the emergency lane and cuts into the main lane.

Obviously we cannot expect the police to be around at all places and time. There are better things for them to do. There was a dire shortage of men in blue as well.

The IGP reckons that the force need to recruit between 6,000 and 7,000 new personnel every year. He even said that the country need more policemen to effectively carry out policing matters nationwide. That is a valid point – without enough men on the ground, policing would certainly be less effective. But moving forward, it was disappointing to hear the same IGP despite the dire shortage of men in the force, he rather harp on monitoring the social medias.

Yes, he may not have meant it that way but certainly his statement in light of crime and shortage of men did not go well with most Malaysians. This perception need to be changed drastically. The police can still keep their monitoring over the social media but let a specialised team in cyber laws to police to do it. Does it really need an IGP to do the monitoring himself? That is certainly not the right allocation of resources. The IGP has better things to do, I am sure.

And to help with the shortage of men in blue, the local authorities (instead of private companies, to avoid argument of cronyism) can further assist by installing more CCTVs at key areas and do the monitoring on behalf.

In that sense, AES would have greatly help to enforce the traffic laws. But no thanks to the oppositions who barked on the wrong issue and a government with a flip-flop mind, enforcement via AES was put on hold. That was a wrong move indeed. They should bring back the enforcement by AES and by a greater number. This will assist the police to reallocate resources for other work.

We don’t need another law but we certainly need to improve on how we enforce the law. That is what is more important. That is what the country needs. And that’s where we need to focus our energy, time and resources on.

Hudud: 1 country, 2 sets of laws?


2 laws

(Should Islamic law take over precedent over conventional law if the conventional already exist and been applied by the courts of the country? The same case for hudud now. Why not improve on the existing laws and enforce it instead of bringing in another set of law that does not apply to all? Why reinvent the wheel? Cartoon source: The Net)

The issue of hudud have been in the news lately and there have been plenty of statements made in public and by various parties including politicians from both side of the fence, supporting for or opposing the implementation of hudud.

Before anyone starts to jump up & down and argues that the non-Muslims should stay out of it and keep their silence on the issue of hudud since it will only be imposed on the Muslims and nothing further than that, let’s clear our minds for a moment and let’s try to understand why there have been so much objection, noise and comments by the non-Muslims on something that does not affect them in the first place.

An article by Mariam Mokhtar over at FMT may explain this further. It makes a lot of sense and shows that we have a long way to go before we can implement something called hudud which at the end of the day, will affect us all – both Muslims and non Muslims.

Reject hudud before it destroys our lives

How often have Muslim clerics, the National Fatwa Council or the Islamic institutions spoken against corrupt and immoral leaders? How often have they highlighted the injustices, in particular the deaths in custody or the murders of people who are linked to the echelons of power? When did they last criticise people who openly abuse power?

Those of us who oppose hudud do so not because we are anti-Islam but because we do not trust the people who will implement hudud. In Malaysia religious and controversial topics like hudud elicit six responses, all of them unsatisfactory.

First: Those who hate Umno Baru will say, “Bring it on! We want to see hudud being used on Umno Baru ministers and politicians. Let us see how they will cope without limbs!”

This is just wishful thinking. Thinking without any rationality does not help the debate on hudud. No-one in the Umno-Baru elite has been punished for the thousands of injustices perpetrated today, from rapes of maids to “rasuah”, or theft of taxpayers’ money to the taking of lives by powerful people.

Criminals escape punishment not because we have insufficient laws, but because the laws are not enforced and our judiciary is corrupt to the core. Umno-Baru ministers have always escaped punishment. Who honestly thinks that hudud will escape manipulation?

Second: Those who propose the implementation of hudud claim that hudud will result in a crime-free (or relatively low crime) state. Wrong! Which nation under hudud has a low crime rate, negligible rape and no corruption? PAS Kelantan cannot perform miracles.

Corrupt leaders and institutions thrive because the systems to check them, have failed. They fail because the people who should be enforcing them are not trustworthy or have a secret agenda. Once we start to administer laws without fear or favour, crime rates may drop.

Third: If you are a Muslim and you oppose hudud, it means that you are going against Islam. Nothing could be more insulting to any decent God-fearing Muslim. Islam encourages the acquisition of knowledge and encourages debate, but Malay Muslims appear reluctant to engage in intelligent discourse. Why?

In Malaysia, Malay Muslims accept archaic laws or traditional thinking and beliefs without question. Last month a retired judge criticised the presence of large statues at the entrance to the Batu Caves and in Penang. In Egypt, the land of 95% Muslims, few worry about the presence of the Sphinxes.

Kartika Dewi Sukarno was charged with drinking beer in a public place. She was treated like someone who had committed a heinous crime, like murder. The Muslim clergy wanted to make a showcase of her, by punishing her with whipping even though civil laws prevent women from being whipped, in Malaysia.

Soon after, three women were whipped in secret, for having extramarital sex. No details are known of the men. The government was afraid of a backlash like the Kartika case. The three women and Kartika were punished, whereas well-connected people who drink freely, and fornicate in five-star hotels and exclusive clubs in Kuala Lumpur escape scot free.

Fourth: If you are a non-Muslim and you made your views known about hudud as any responsible Malaysian would, some Muslims will attack you and say, “You have no right to comment. You are not even Muslim.”

Another response might be, “You have nothing to fear as you are not Muslim. Hudud will not affect you.” Wrong again! A woman was charged in Penang under syariah law even though she was not a Muslim.

In a recent child conversion case, the father kidnapped his son, even though his former wife, a Hindu, had been given custody of their child. There have been other miscarriages of justice when bodies have been snatched and taken for “Muslim” burial.

Who says that non-Muslims will not be affected by Muslim laws? Hudud will creep into your lives, sooner or later.

Fifth: Some Muslims will say that it is God’s law and Muslims must abide by it. As we have seen, civil or syariah laws have been manipulated by evil, unscrupulous and corrupt men, to suit their own selfish agendas.

One girl I know, was forced into marriage because her neighbour, whose advances she had rejected, accused her of having sex with her boyfriend. She is now a sad divorcee with children, and she freely admits, “We were forced into marriage to avoid humiliation for both our families. We married to avoid a prison sentence, but still had to pay a fine.

“The neighbour was wrong to accuse us and call the moral police. He wrecked our lives. Eventually, we had children and I had to stay at home to look after them. I regret ending my studies and I think my boyfriend resented me. We were both young, but we were wronged.”

Another woman was set up by her husband. He wrongly accused his first wife of infidelity so that he could marry a younger woman. He beat his first wife and she left him. He refused to grant her a divorce, and he will not help with the upkeep of the children. He married in southern Thailand and simply paid a nominal fine, when he returned to Malaysia, for failing to register the marriage and for not seeking the permission of his first wife.

Syariah failed both these women and one doubts if hudud would reduce the discrimination against women, the poor and the marginalised. Several homosexual Muslim men and women lead secret lives in Malaysia or have emigrated. What would happen to them under hudud? Aren’t they God’s creatures, too?

The sixth response is apathy. Yours! The Allah case has divided this nation, because a few men held their tongues. They were afraid to go against one man who had a personal agenda against another party. Speak out now, before hudud destroys our lives.

(Source)

Firstly, there is a valid reason why the non-Muslim are very concerned with the idea of hudud. Yes, it only applies to the Muslims for now but once this is in place and implemented wide spread, what is the assurance that it will not be expended to cover the non-Muslims as well – all in the name of standardisation and to weed out double standards?

It will never happen, you say? Well, think again:-

The drama unfolded when Takiyuddin questioned Md Alwi’s statement to the press outside the House on Wednesday that the PAS-led Kelantan government was inconsistent in banning gambling but allowing non-Muslims to consume and sell alcohol. Takiyuddin said the government had never condoned alcohol consumption in Kelantan as it was against Islamic teachings.

Later, at a press conference outside the house, Md Alwi clarified that the Kelantan government practised double standards. “If they had banned gambling activities they should also ban alcohol consumption for both Muslims and non-Muslims,’’ he said.

(Source)

And this:-

PAS Kelantan State Government should rescind the ban of liquor sale by the Tanah Merah district council ordering coffee shops and restaurants to stop selling alcoholic drinks, including beer and stout and issue a similar directive to all local councils in the state.

It has been reported that the directive, contained in a letter dated August 8 and signed by council secretary Ruslan Hassan was hand-delivered to several Chinese-owned coffee shops and restaurants in the district, giving them a grace period of 15 days to clear their stocks.

(Source)

And this:-

Hair dressing salon operators are learning the hard way that gender segregation rules in Kelantan apply to non-Muslims as well. They have had to pay many summonses for allowing their female workers to cut the hair of non-Muslim male patrons, which they thought was permissible. E-Life Hair Salon manager Ong Lee Ting said she had settled 11 summonses since she opened for business in KB Mall in 2010.

Gender segregation is among the controversial regulations imposed by the PAS state government, which insists that the rule be also observed at supermarket check-outs. The last time Ong went to the local council office to pay a compound, she was told that the licence for the salon would be revoked because of the many summonses issued to the operator.

However, council secretary Mohd Anis Hussein said: “As long as they (the salon owners) pay the compounds, they will be allowed to operate.”

(Source)

And lately this:-

Majlis Amanah Rakyat (MARA) officers allegedly asked two non-Muslim students questions about the Islamic faith as part of a scholarship interview in Sarawak over the weekend.

The students were left speechless after being asked to name the prophets of Islam, the rukun (precepts) of Islamic prayers, and their opinion on the controversial hudud law, among others.

They are now afraid that their inability to answer the questions would affect their applications for university scholarships under the Indigenous People’s Trust Council.

(Source)

What will happen if a Muslim and non Muslim been caught under the same crime? Will they be treated under a different justice system with 2 different outcomes – one jailed for x number of years and another with his limbs amputated? For how long you expect them to be treated under a different justice system with 2 different outcomes before someone comes up and claims double standard and asks for both to have their limbs chopped off?

There are already some morons in this country calling fellow Malaysians infidels just because some of us profess to difference religion and insists on overriding everyone to come up on a Islamic state (where they were all these years when Malaysia is branded as a country with multiple race, religion & culture?). Yes, now they will say that it applies only for Muslims but in the near future, what’s stopping them from asking why the “minority infidels” are not subjected to the same law of the “majority. It is only fair, right? I am sure even then they will chant the mantra “don’t let ‘infidels’ decide on hudud”

Secondly, even though one may argue that hudud only applies to the Muslims, it is part and parcel of the Islamic teaching and is needed to curtail the escalating crime rate, the thing is why we need 2 sets of laws in this country that only creates sheer confusion to all Malaysians – both Muslims and non Muslims alike.

Just take a look at the case of S. Deepa who had won the custody of their two children at the civil High Court, only for someone to come along and kidnap her son:-

The police will not investigate a Muslim father accused of abducting his six-year-old son despite a civil High Court awarding custody to the Hindu mother, the country’s police chief said today. Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar said the father, a Hindu-turned-Muslim who now goes by the name Izwan Abdullah, had also won custody at the Shariah High Court.

Jelebu district police chief Setapa Yusof was reported by The Star daily earlier today saying the police were unable to take action due to the two conflicting court orders.

“As far as we are concerned, we cannot investigate Izwan for abducting his son. We have to respect and obey the orders issued by both courts,” he told The Star yesterday.

(Source)

In the above case, S Deepa does not have any recourse in the Syariah Court simply because she is not a Muslim (thus the case should not have gone to the Syariah Court in the first place) Where is the fairness when only one appears before the court and argues the case. And despite the High Court order came after the Syariah Court’s order and thus should in effect supersedes it (by this definition that the Syariah Court being an inferior court to the High Court) and makes S Deepa the legal guardian of the children, the police had decided upon themselves to say that both orders are valid and both has custody to the same child. So it has ended of who kidnap who first and the police had to look the other way in this case?

But you cannot blame them too – the confusion is there and the Government is keeping its silence on the matter and yet to come out to state the obvious. There is no clear precedent from the various court cases as well. After all, when the Parliament amended the Article 121 of the Constitution that created the Syariah Courts, it is unlikely it wanted the newly created Syariah courts to be in direct conflict with the existing civil courts.

Let’s set aside the issue of confusion for a second and look into the urgency and effectiveness instead.

The thing is, there NEVER been an issue of a serious lack of laws and rules in this country to cover the various offences. We made a wise move by adopting the Englishman’s law (or rather Indian & Australian penal codes) when we got our independence from the British. At least we did not had to create it from the scratch. We did not drop it despite it was the law of a “coloniser”. And despite having the Muslims as the majority back then, we did not opt to instil the Islamic law and choose to do what the Arabs did or go on own way. And over the years, we have repealed some laws, enacted some new ones and strengthened some of the existing ones.

We have always done that and the law had always worked to ensure fair play, justice, better protection and deserving punishments. So why now, there is an urgent need bring in the hudud laws? What is the shortcomings in the civil law that cannot be improved and can only be rectified by implementing hudud laws? And how one can say that hudud will be more effective in curtailing the crime rates than the conventional criminal laws? We need the promoters of the hudud laws to further clarify this. Perhaps they will argue that by chopping one’s hands, this guarantees the criminal will not be able to steal again. Ya, it makes sense but what happens if this person is found guilty due to an error by the witness or framed by someone else or a loophole in the law and only later after various appeals and perhaps new evidence, he was found to be innocent? Can he get back his hands?

Why not instead focus on the current shortcoming of the current civil law? And a large aspect of it boils down to the enforcement of the law. In some cases, a severe case of double standards and selective enforcement of the law. After all, these days, one wrong Facebook post of a politician’s wife could get the police to drop everything and swiftly arrest you. But the similar thing happens for the opposition MP (an elected one), nothing really moves. If the matter is something petty, then why the swift action on former’s case? And if it is the law, then why no action on the latter’s case? You see my point here? If the punishment is not severe enough, why not just amend the existing laws and impose a higher jail terms or whipping by the cane?

As a nation, we are already blundered big time many times over by having different economic policies to different sectors of Malaysians and different education system and political preference based on race, religion and culture, why  strive to disunite the nation even further by having different set of laws for different class of Malaysians? Still striving for developed nation status by 2020? Throw in the lack of enforcement and selective enforcement into the wood works and it will only be bad news for the country. Is this what we want at end of the day?

The non Muslims, frankly speaking, are not against hudud if it is implemented for the Muslims only and it is done fairly and without any bias but unfortunately, they have seen enough to know that it will not be the case. They are wary of the warning – hudud will creep into your lives, sooner or later. They are wary of the overzealous officials in enforcing the Islamic laws and this spilling over to affect the non Muslims (there already too many examples in the state of Kelantan, the very place they want to introduce the hudud laws). They are wary of the those entrusted with the necessary authority to be fair and unbiased when judging the law and applying it in the most equitable way to all Malaysian (such in the case of S. Deepa).

So just, prove to us that it only will apply on Muslims and hudud is being implemented only because there is a serious shortcomings in the current civil laws and we will stop worrying and make a big fuss about it.

Snippets – 21 February 2014


dead-chickens

(Upset a group of people in this country, you will end up getting a dead chicken on your doorstep. It used to be a cow head. That is what will happen when you have people thinking on their emotions. Image source: http://www.thenewstribe.com)

Immature Malaysians

Well, this was not something new or something that is not common to find in Malaysia. You can find the dumbest and the most arrogant people on Malaysian roads. Those riding motorcycles (except for handful) don’t even come close to the scrapping the bottom of the pit when it comes to law abiding road users. They have safely rooted themselves on Martian grounds.

So it not a big surprise to read this:-

Malaysians are still immature when it comes to road safety and following traffic regulations. Road Safety Department director-general Datuk Tam Weng Wah said the country has first-world facilities and infrastructure, including good roads, pedestrian walkways, proper traffic lights and signages.

He added that despite the efforts to educate the public about abiding by traffic regulations, using zebra crossings and switching on signal lights while driving, many were still not disciplined in those aspects.

“Such bad habits and road culture have contributed to the death toll due to the negligence of their own safety as well as the safety of others,” he said after meeting pedestrians at Jalan Wong Ah Fook here yesterday to promote road safety.

(Source)

Perhaps I should write another open letter, this time to Datuk Tam Weng Wah. As I have said many times in my blog, end all the sweet talk and come hard on the wrong doers. It is clear that we are having too many immature people on the road and endangering others.

The only way to ensure that the road users abide by the traffic laws is by enforcing the law. AES should be implemented in a greater numbers and this will help to nab speed demons like this (the investigations now revealed that speeding was a factor that caused the 37 deaths back in 2013). And in time, it will become second nature to them and people will just abide by the traffic laws without the need to enforce them.

Beating Up Children in Sweden

Beating our children when they misbehave is nothing new in our Asian society – don’t we all still remember the whacking that we got from our parents and teachers when we were young? Even the Big Boss have gotten one or two from me when he really “misbehaved” (I rather call it being hyperactive with too much knowledge and curiosity) although this is very, very rare (most of the time, I will just raise my voice and whatever “misbehaving” ends immediately)

But it is not the case in other countries as these 2 Malaysians are finding out the hard way in Sweden:-

In a video recorded by the Swedish police last December, and shown to the court on Wednesday, Ammar said his mother Shalwati Nurshal often beat him when he talked back, stomped his feet, or watched YouTube videos instead of joining the family for dinner.

Shalwati, and her husband Azizul Raheem Awalluddin, a Tourism Malaysia director in Stockholm, are facing their second day of trial in the Solna District Court, here, over charges of abusing their children.

This prompted the policewoman to say that regardless of what a child had done, he could not be hit as it was the law in Sweden. Sweden has outlawed corporal punishment since 1979, and those found guilty of breaking the law could face up to six years in prison.

(Source)

Just like how we expect foreigners to abide by the law of this country, the same goes to Malaysians living & working in other countries. It is just unfortunate that Shalwati and Azizul have been booked for something that most Malaysian parents would do without any hestitation. I just hope that the judge in the court hearing will consider the Asian culture in deciding whether the Malaysian couple is indeed guilty of breaking of the law or just too ignorant of the laws of the country that they are in.

Dead Chickens for Terese Kok

Well, err, read this latest news on dead chicken for Teresa Kok:-

A dead chicken and red paint, along with A4 printouts of Seputeh MP Teresa Kok’s image, were found on the staircase leading to the DAP lawmaker’s office in Seputeh on Wednesday. Kok condemned the act and has stated her belief that it was related to her Onederful Malaysia CNY 2014 video. All these “threats”, including an NGO’s reward offer for anyone to slap her, have made the public upset, claimed Kok.

“Many members of the public have expressed concern for my safety,” said Kok, adding that she’s not considering hiring bodyguards as it is “troublesome”.

Though she feels threatened, Kok said she’s working as usual and is relying on her colleagues to ensure her safety at functions. She urged social media and bloggers to stop playing up and distorting the issue, saying that “enough is enough”. “It’s really unthinkable. There’s a group of people who are bent on turning everything into a racial issue, twisting simple things that I do in such a manner that it threatens my security,” she said.

(Source)

Yes, I have watched her Onederful video and franky speaking, I don’t get it. It getting clearer that Teresa Kok should not have done up the video in the first place.

Firstly it was not funny and somehow lacked the creative touch. For those who may not understand the language, the acting seemed overboard too. Issues raised was not new and it was tiring to see the same old horse beaten to death. Even Namewee was funnier and made more sense.

Secondly knowing that there are too many emotional people around when it comes to race and religion in this country, she should have focused on something more related to the occasion – Chinese New Year. With too many dry leaves on ground, all it needs is small spark and you will end up with an uncontrolled forest fire.

After all, we are still plenty of immature people in this country, right?

Have a good weekend ahead!

Crime, Crime, Crime


I will be on a long hiatus from next week onwards – I will be away on a “mission” and internet connection may be almost non-existence. Besides, I intend to use whatever little free time I have on finishing on a very thick book that I had put away since last year (it was just too thick for me to start and I always opt for a thinner one) and of course catching on sleep (the new Boss is back to be very active at night). Hopefully when I come back, the police had score the big one by nabbing a good number of hired killers and sent them to the gallows for cold blood murders.

shootingsgraphic302e

(The biggest headache for the nation at the moment – we have multiple shooting and hired killers on the loose. The next question is whether it is just a tip of the iceberg in the wave of crime confronting the country. Image source: http://www.straitstimes.com)

In the meantime and while the Government seems to be at lost over almost 23 incidents of shooting over the last 2 months and only now they want to stand-up and “wear their pants” on beefing up the police force (shouldn’t they done that eons ago?) and tighten the preventive laws, as a parent myself, I think we should not also miss the focus of stopping crime at the start and ensure there is no rise of young offenders who in turn end up becoming the filth of the filth in the country. With that, go ahead and read this:-

The father of a 14-year-old boy who was found murdered near some bushes in Taman Mewah, Kamunting, suspects that his son may have been killed due to a misunderstanding. Supervisor A. Manimaran, 46, claimed his son M. Nathaniel was involved in a minor accident with a group of youths a week ago. “My son, who was riding my motorcycle, had been involved in a minor accident with another motorcyclist. There could have been some misunderstanding from there.

(Source)

Lost in translation is the question how could the 14-years old be riding around in a motorcycle when the minimum age to ride a motorcycle in this country is 16 years old and that too with a valid license. It’s obvious that no only the deceased was under-aged to ride a motorcycle; he was also riding around without a valid license. I won’t be surprised if the deceased was not wearing a helmet at the time too. And such problem is nothing new in many housing areas in the country where we have under-aged riders riding around unsupervised and without license (the usual “tak apa” attitude). It is quite understandable if we don’t have the police rushing into the housing area to round these youngsters up for riding around without license or helmet – these cases very likely to be rated the lowest in the police’s list of priorities when it comes to fighting crime (seriously they have a bigger issue at hand and that includes the alleged involvement of the police with the criminal underworld). It is quite understandable too as some of these youngsters are also our neighbour kids and we know them from small and thus not keen to chase them with a baseball bat to stop them (whacking snatch thieves to a pulp on the other hand is another ball game all together).

It does not matter if there were some misunderstanding or there were other idiots in the picture – the end of the story is tragic – someone’s young son is dead. Thus it is indeed important to relook at this nuisance (and breaking of the law) from the aspect of parenting and how some parents could be dumb enough to be allowing these youngsters to ride around without any license and helmet (let’s leave the impact of the education system on the young minds for now – there have been too many flip-flops on the education blueprint on the simplest thing like language to use for Science and Mathematics). Of course, some takes the notion of dumbness to a whole new level by allowing the young “abang” to take the infant “adik” (both of course riding around without wearing any helmet) for ride around the housing area and without any supervision. One cannot blame the kids to riding around without helmets and license – the fact that the parents themselves allow the kids to ride a motorcycle (intentionally or unintentionally) means that the kids could do anything. And without a good parenting and a good sense of discipline and education, some of kids have been spoilt to the core and became a bigger nuisance to others.

And when some of these harmless law breakers started to venture to something more sinister for cheap kicks and quick money, you will have this in the papers:-

The police have arrested two men believed to be involved in the snatch theft and attack on Dr Delaila Ahmad, in her 50s, in Subang Jaya on Tuesday. Selangor acting police chief Datuk A. Thaiveegan said the suspects aged 20 and 22 years old respectively were arrested at about 6am today in SS17, Subang Jaya. “They were arrested based on information from the public and family members of one of the suspects,” he told reporters at Subang Jaya district police headquarters today.

The police are still investigating the case and the victim is still being being treated at the Sime Darby Medical Centre in Subang Jaya. Delaila, an obstetrician and gynaecologist, was attacked by parang-wielding men as she was leaving her polyclinic in Jalan SS 19/6, Subang Jaya at 1.20am on Tuesday.

(Source)

They are barely into their twenties and yet they are brave enough to rob a doctor with parang and slash her fingers without any hesitations. And despite their young age and some argument for reforms instead of punishment, the rest of us (I am very certain) would be praying that they would be locked away behind bars for the rest of their life (although unfortunately Section 326 of the Penal Code only carries a maximum imprisonment for 20 years). We do not need selfish & dangerous youngsters like these in our society and making it a living hell for the rest of us. It is just too bad that the Government had not thought of making armed snatch-theft (or any crime that causes injuries to others for argument sake) punishable with mandatory death by hanging. Do that (and of course couple that with good enforcement of the law & prosecution) and you will see how fast the serious crime statistics drops.

Back in 2011, this was reported:-

“The rate of crimes committed by youths has increased over the past two years although the overall crime index in the country has decreased,” he said after launching the “6 in 1” Crime Prevention and Healthy Living Community Service Project at Seri Petaling here. He said according to police statistics, students’ involvement in crimes had increased from 1,409 in 2009 to 1,947 in 2010, causing the crime index involving youths to increase by 38%. “As for non-students, the crime cases have increased from 2,245 in 2009 to 3,218 in 2010, marking an increase of 43.3%.

“Youths are increasingly involved in violent and property crimes like physical aggression, rape cases, snatch thefts and robberies,” he said. He reminded parents to make time for their children even if they were busy working.

(Source)

And in 2012, something similar was echoed:-

Students from Form One to Form Three have been identified as the biggest contributors to juvenile crime, according to a research by the Malaysia Crime Prevention Foundation (MPCF). The agency said there was a three-fold increase in crimes committed by students aged between 13 and 15 compared with other age groups. Its national vice-chairman, Datuk Kamarudin Ali, said many students in lower secondary level had fallen from grace upon reaching adolescence, partly due to unsupervised Internet use such as social networking sites, especially Facebook.

(Source)

If one argues that it is a case poverty and lack of education & opportunities had led these youngsters into committing serious crime, then think again. There are thousand others who are in the same predicament but have held their heads up the water and turned around things for them and their family (still remember the girl who passed her exams by studying under public street light?). It’s sad that some parents simply don’t give a damn when it comes to looking into what their kid do and say and when the situation requires for it, discipline and educate them. I call my son “The Boss” but if he does something wrong (and it rarely happens), he knows what’s coming from me and my wife – punishment old school (I am sure many of us would recall how our parents and some of our teachers used to whack us with a thick cane for the smallest mistakes we did when we were small).

When it comes to parenting, one aspect of making sure that the kids do and say the right thing is by setting a good example – if some adults themselves are riding around the housing area without any helmets (and acting like primates on the road), then how one can expect their kids to be wearing one. In the case of 20 years old snatch thief – at least the parents did set a fine example to other (parents) – if your kid is in fault and you know that he is in fault, do the right thing and turn them in to the police for due process. Yes, it is hard for any parents to see their kids behind bars but if they had tried their best to discipline the kids and failed for one reason or another, they have no other choice.

Good discipline and setting good examples at the end of the day must be coupled with good education and high morality. There must be a constant preaching of “do the right things” and “do what’s fair” to our kids to ensure that they are often reminded on what is wrong and what is right. Yes, “doing what’s right and fair” may be something very subjective but most parents just have to put a bit of the thinking cap and a good dose of reasonableness and fairness (simply do to others on what you expect others to do to you and you are on safe grounds). If we do that effectively, we will not have delusional 20 year-olds walking around with parang and cutting off people’s fingers for quick cash.

Have a good weekend and in case I could not get “online”, happy holidays and Selamat Hari Raya…