Arkib Tahun 2011

31 December 2011

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

By Kim Quek

Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim’s call for free and fair media coverage for the coming election strikes at the core of the fundamental flaws that have made Malaysian elections a mockery of democracy.

This is because electoral democracy is a game of perception.  And perception is shaped by the media.  

Hence, an electoral contest with one contestant monopolizing the media to the exclusion of his adversary is akin to a debating competition where one debater is using a microphone to speak to the audience while the other is using none.

And the Malaysian media is notorious for its biased reporting, as the ruling coalition Barisan Nasional (BN) has never been shy in exploiting to the fullest, its iron-grip on the entire spectrum of the local mass media (save the Internet) to advance its political fortune.
Such complete control is made possible through a combination of repressive legislations and media ownership, as the BN government possesses the arbitrary power to grant or terminate any media license (printed and electronic) without legal redress, and all such media are owned either by BN’s component parties or by their allies.

And public TV and radio, which are legally bound to be politically neutral, have long been corrupted by BN to serve its parochial political interests – a practice that has emphatically breached our Constitution.

GOLIATH vs DAVID MEDIA WAR

With such unlimited media power at the exclusive disposal of a ruling power as ruthless as BN, one can imagine what kind of scenario will be seen at a Malaysian national election. It will not be a democratic election for sure.  More likely, it will look like giant Goliath fighting little David,  as far media war is concerned.  And yet, it is the media that influence the mind, and the mind that influences the vote.

Granted that advancement in Internet has somewhat mitigated the unleveled playing field, but its current stage of usage in Malaysia is nowhere near the kind of level that would enable the opposition to meaningfully counter BN’s vicious propaganda perpetrated through the main stream media.  TV, radio and newspaper are still the regular information feeders depended upon by overwhelming majority of Malaysians, particularly those in the non-urban areas.

And the opposition’s serious handicap in information dissemination is further critically compounded by the 8 to 10 day campaign period (though allowable period is 60 days), a practice perpetrated in recent decades by an obviously manipulated Election Commission (EC) to favour BN.  With such a ridiculously short campaign period, it is impossible for the opposition to carry its message – not   to mention countering BN’s false propaganda – to the far flung territories that include the hinterlands across the South China Seas.

More than any other factor, BN’s monopolistic abuse and exploitation of the mass media, coupled with the indecently brief campaign period, has been accountable for BN’s unfailing victory in every general election in the past.  

BN NO MATCH FOR PAKATAN IN FAIR CONTEST

Surveying the current scenario ahead of the election, what we see is a fundamentally altered political landscape.  On one side of the battlefield, is an aged and decadent coalition with antiquated policy, kept in power by dint of its grip on the state machinery. On the other, a newly emerged coalition brimming with ideas to rejuvenate the nation, with proven record of  sound governance in its state governments.

Under such circumstances, it is fair to say that BN should be no match for Pakatan Rakyat in a free and fair contest, more so in the current trend of dissent against decadent and aged power that has swept across the world including our region.

But of course, we have never had a free and fair contest, and in fact, our unleveled playing field has gone from bad to worse.  It is in the realization that we may once again be cheated of a fair choice of government that hitherto docile voters have risen strongly to brave brutal crackdown to demand fair election in the Bersih 2.0 rally.
It is not difficult to surmise that, given the present extreme lop-sidedness of Malaysian election, whether the people will be given a fair choice in the coming poll hinges on how effective the current attempt at electoral reform will be towards rectifying the current flaws.

The recent focus by the parliamentary select committee (PFC) and EC on introducing indelible ink and advance voting in lieu of postal voting is of course a welcome improvement.  But we must be cautious not to allow such focus to blur our priorities, top among which is the mandatory practice of free and fair and non-discriminatory media coverage for all contestants. And of course, the current unconstitutional abuse of public media (TV, radio, news agency etc) to disseminate biased information in favour of BN has to cease forthwith.

FREE MEDIA NON-NEGOTIABLE

This is something that BN can do right away without waiting for new legislation or alteration of election regulation.  All that is needed is the political will and commitment to honour the letter and spirit of our Constitution.

Knowing the critical importance of free media to democratic election, it should be made a non-negotiable issue.

I have no doubt that Bersih 2.0, political parties and all who cherish democracy and the Constitution will stand very firm to demand that BN gives its solemn pledge to restore free and fair media coverage as pre-requisite to the return to democratic election.

30 December 2011

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

KENYATAAN MEDIA
30 DISEMBER 2011
UNTUK EDARAN SEGERA

 
Saya mengalu-alukan keputusan Jawatankuasa Terpilih Parlimen Untuk Menambahbaik Pilihan Raya (PSC) semalam yang mengumumkan pindaan ke atas peraturan pilihan raya bagi mewajibkan penggunaan dakwat kekal dalam proses pilihan raya menjelang 1 Februari 2012. Namun demikian, perubahan kecil ini tidak seharusnya dilihat sebagai jaminan kepada proses pengendalian pilihan raya yang telus, bebas dan bersih sepenuhnya.
 
Merujuk kepada senarai tuntutan yang dikemukakan oleh Gabungan Pilihanraya Bersih dan Adil (BERSIH), saya percaya demokrasi dan proses pilihan raya bebas dan adil sewajarnya turut didukung dengan amalan serta pendekatan yang menjurus kepada kebebasan media dan kempen terbuka. Agensi media awam seperti RTM dan BERNAMA sewajarnya bersikap lebih adil dalam memberikan liputan untuk semua parti politik dan kempen politik parti-parti pembangkang sewajarnya tidak didiskriminasi menerusi tapisan melampau yang tidak munasabah serta mencabul hak kebebasan bersuara.
 
Saya juga ulangi desakan agar tempoh masa kempen pilihan raya dilanjutkan dalam memastikan sebaran maklumat sepanjang tempoh berkempen dapat dicapai oleh segenap lapisan rakyat. Tempoh masa berkempen yang terlalu singkat – 10 hari – sepertimana yang berlaku sewaktu Pilihan Raya Negeri Sarawak baru-baru sewajarnya tidak berulang.
 
Manakala pengawasan terhadap komitmen Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR) juga perlu dijamin menerusi pengukuhan badan kehakiman yang lebih bebas dan adil. Justeru, Pakatan Rakyat komited dan menuntut supaya pihak PSC turut menumpukan penambahbaikan proses pilihan raya ini dengan mengkaji serta menimbang secara menyeluruh ke semua tuntutan yang dikemukakan oleh BERSIH dalam menjamin pilihan raya yang bebas, telus dan adil.
 
ANWAR IBRAHIM

29 December 2011

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

Berikutan kenyataan saya semalam, Muhamad Yamin Ismail, Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan menyatakan bahawa pembiayaan kos guaman Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom, Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri dan dua lagi pegawai kanan MAIWP dalam menghadapi kes permohonan qazaf Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim diambil daripada geran
kerajaan.

Dalam kenyataannya, beliau juga menyalahkan Anwar dan pihak-pihak tertentu yang ‘menyalahgunakan’ proses mahkamah terhadap penjawat awam yang menyebabkan dana dan wang rakyat terpaksa digunakan bagi melayan proses mahkamah.

Pada Jun 2011 juga Jamil Khir menafikan penggunaan wang zakat untuk membayar kos guaman ini.

Malangnya Yamin tidak menyebut tentang ‘pendahuluan’ RM63,650 daripada wang zakat yang telah disahkan oleh Ketua Audit Negara pada November
2011.

Yamin juga harus sedar bahawa apabila seorang itu dizalimi, beliau
mempunyai hak yang diiktiraf di dalam syarak dan sistem Perlembagaan kita untuk mempertahankan diri mereka.

Saya berharap Jamil Khir sebagai Menteri yang bertanggungjawab ke atas hal ehwal agama Islam Malaysia dapat segera tampil ke hadapan dan bukan menyorok di belakang pegawai kerajaan bagi menjawab isu ini.

Pada Jun lalu juga bekas Mufti Wilayah Persekutuan, Datuk Md Hashim Yahya telah menegaskan sebarang salahguna wang zakat yang disalurkan selain daripada asnaf yang lapan adalah kesalahan dan dosa besar.

Sekurang-kurangnya apabila isu ini mula-mula timbul peguam Zainul
Rijal Talha dan Amir terbuka dalam bertanya tentang pandangan Mufti Wilayah Persekutuan.

Persoalannya, adakah pandangan tersebut diberikan dan sekiranya ya,apakah pandangan beliau? Yang nyatanya Ketua Audit mengesahkan wang zakat dibayar kepada peguam sebelum dipulangkan hampir enam bulan kemudian pada Disember 2010.

Juga mengapa wujud dwi-standard dengan kes amil zakat di Johor Redzuan Mohd Said yang menyalahgunakan RM19,510 dan memulangkannya tetapi dipenjarakan empat tahun dan dihukum tiga kali sebatan tahun ini?

Umat Islam yang menyumbang berbilion ringgit wang zakat setiap tahun di seluruh negara tidak mahu timbul sebarang keraguan terhadap
pengurusan wang zakat.

NIK NAZMI NIK AHMAD
PENGARAH KOMUNIKASI
PARTI KEADILAN RAKYAT

29 December 2011

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

Saya difahamkan sepucuk surat sedang disebarkan secara online. Ingin saya jelaskan di sini bahawa dakwaan dalam surat tersebut adalah palsu dan tidak benar. Saya menggesa semua rakyat Malaysia untuk menumpu segala usaha demi merealisasikan Malaysia yang lebih baik.

YB Nurul Izzah Anwar
Ahli Parlimen Lembah Pantai dan
Naib Presiden KEADILAN

=====

MEDIA STATEMENT
29 December 2011
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

It has come to my attention that a particular letter is being circulated online. I would like to categorically state that the contents of said letter is false and mischievous. I call on all Malaysians to focus all our efforts towards realizing a better Malaysia.

YB Nurul Izzah Anwar
MP for Lembah Pantai and
Vice President of KEADILAN

28 December 2011

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

Saya meneliti secara serius perkembangan mutakhir gerakan kebebasan akademik yang dipimpin oleh kelompok mahasiswa yang kini berdepan dengan pelbagai tekanan politik UMNO. Tatkala kesedaran menuntut kebebasan di kalangan mahasiswa mulai berkembang dan matang, pimpinan UMNO semakin gusar dan resah dalam menghadapi asakan ini serta bertindak melulu dengan menzahirkan ancaman fizikal bersifat biadab dan semberono.

Komitmen pentadbiran Dato’ Sri Najib Razak, kononnya mahu meminda Seksyen 15, Akta Universiti Kolej Universiti (AUKU) dan memberi lebih kebebasan kepada mahasiswa dalam politik kepartian kini dilihat tidak lebih sekadar omong kosong. Perkembangan membabitkan Adam Adli, mahasiswa dari Universiti Perguruan Sultan Idris (UPSI) yang kini berdepan dengan tindakan di bawah AUKU sememangnya menzahirkan ketakutan UMNO terhadap gelombang kebangkitan mahasiswa. Tindakan sama turut dilihat dalam beberapa kes terdahulu dengan tindakan keras oleh pihak universiti termasuk risiko dibuang kampus.

Insiden remeh di depan ibu pejabat UMNO di PWTC yang dikaitkan dengan tuntutan mahasiswa tempoh hari diangkat oleh media milik UMNO seolah-olah ianya jenayah besar walhal isu-isu yang berkait dengan fitnah, ugutan bunuh, jenayah dan rasuah seringkali diketepikan.

Tindakan menghukum dengan menggunakan peruntukan AUKU terhadap mahasiswa selepas insiden tersebut jelas bertujuan untuk menakut-nakut dan sebagai langkah untuk mengendurkan semangat serta iltizam mahasiswa.

Saya menggesa agar dihentikan semua bentuk tekanan terhadap mahasiswa kerana jelas ini merupakan kehendak politik pimpinan UMNO yang terdesak. Saya juga mengulangi tekad dan komitmen Pakatan Rakyat untuk memansuhkan AUKU serta memberi penumpuan kepada usaha mengangkat mutu pendidikan yang berteraskan prinsip kebebasan akademik, pencerahan dan pemerkasaan intelektual.

ANWAR IBRAHIM

28 December 2011

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

Jawapan Ketua Audit Negara November lalu mengesahkan Menteri di
Jabatan Perdana Menteri Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom, Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan Datuk Che Mat Che Ali dan Shamsuddin Hussain Ketua Pendakwa Syarie Wilayah Persekutuan menggunakan RM63,650 daripada wang zakat untuk membiayai kos guamannya mengadapi kes permohonan qazaf Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Isu ini yang telah dibangkitkan oleh YB Saifuddin Nasution di Parlimen dan dibawa ke Jawatankuasa Kira-Kira Wang Negara.

Ketua Audit memaklumkan bahawa pada 11 Januari 2010 MAIWP menerima bil berjumlah RM63,000 daripada peguam Tetuan Zainul Rijal Talha dan Amir kerana mewakili ketiga-tiga mereka di atas bagi kes permohonan qazaf Anwar.

Che Mat telah meluluskan bayaran RM31,500 daripada peruntukan am pada 28 Januari 2010.  Namun memandangkan geran kerajaan masih lagi belum diterima, bayaran dibuat menggunakan peruntukan zakat pada 9 Februari 2010.

MAIWP membuat pembayaran baki kos guaman RM32,150 pada 29 April 2010 menggunakan peruntukan zakat.

MAIWP telah menerima geran kerajaan pada 22 Jun 2010 sebanyak
RM700,000. Namun MAIWP hanya membuat pembayaran semula daripada peruntukan am kepada wang zakat pada Disember 2010.

Persoalannya, adakah begitu mudah untuk MAIWP menggunakan wang zakat yang dibayar umat Islam bagi asnaf-asnaf yang khusus untuk perbelanjaan lain?

Datuk Mat Zain Ibrahim, bekas Ketua Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Kuala Lumpur di dalm surat terbukanya kepada Ketua Polis Negara hari ini telah membangkitkan dwi-standard kes ini dengan kes membabitkan bekas imam di Kulaijaya, Johor, Redzuan Mohd Said yang didapati menyelewengkan RM19,510 kutipan zakat antara Ogos dan September tahun ini.

Redzuan yang kemudiannya memulangkan wang tersebut telah dihukum empat tahun penjara dan tiga sebatan atas kesalahnnya.
Adakah wujud perbezaan antara seorang amil zakat biasa yang melakukan kesalahan dengan seorang Menteri dan Ketua Pengarah JAWI?

Jamil Khir tidak sepatutnya diam membisu dan segera menjawab persoalan ini yang pastinya menimbulkan kegusaran di kalangan umat Islam negara
ini.

NIK NAZMI NIK AHMAD
PENGARAH KOMUNIKASI
PARTI KEADILAN RAKYAT

28 December 2011

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

THE government’s response to my speech delivered on 15th December titled Debunking ETP: Widening Income Gap has  failed to address the signifcant issues raised. As I had said, the ETP is not only an obsolete economic policy but is calculated to impoverish the nation even further by benefitting the rich minority at the expense of the poor majority.

Come 2020, seven to 8.3 million Malaysian citizens will be earning less than RM1,500 monthly and will be consigned to the urban poor category. This represents 51% of the nation’s workforce in 2020, as compared to 56% for 2009 which is a dismal increase of 5%. For all the fanfare and self-serving publicity extravaganza that came with the ETP unveiling, this indeed is a serious let down for the people.

An economic program that fails to substantially improve the income of the majority while actually increasing the number of the poorest citizens is scandalous, reckless and represents an utter dereliction of duty of the government. This is the central issue that must be addressed by the Prime Minister himself and this he has failed to do so. Sloganeering and spouting sound bites may be a good PR exercise but will not deflect from the main concerns raised in my speech.

For instance, the projected annual growth in wages of 3.6% from 2010 to 2020 as compared to the decade preceding it represents a mere increase of 2.6% while the rate of increase in cost of living for the same period will far exceed it. A Labour Market Survey of 2009 involving 24,000 employers and 1.3 million workers shows that 33.8% of these workers earn less than RM 700 montly. Extrapolated against the nation’s entire work force, it would be tantamount to 34% being below the poverty line. The projected figure of 3.6% is therefore not only marginal but misleading in that it fails to show the increase in real wages which is a standard indicator of economic growth.

Additionally, the projection that inflation will be around 2.8% annually till 2020 is also unrealilstic considering that the inflation rate for the last 12 months has been constantly above 3%. The target for achieving a per capita Gross National Income of RM 48,000 by 2020 will not be achieved if the inflation rate exceeeds 2.8% in the coming years.

If the average inflation rate till 2020 reaches 4% per annum, an estimated 7.6 million Malaysians will be earning a montly income of less than RM 1,500 by then, an increase of one million compared to 6.6 million for 2009. But if the average inflation rate reaches 6% per annum the number will rise to a staggering 8.3 million!

The most crucial issue that has been completely ignored is my statement that under the ETP the nation’s wealth will be increasingly appropriated by the rich at the expense of the poor who will be incrementally marginalized. Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Najib has failed to challenge my analysis that the ratio of wages to the Gross National Income will shrink from 40% (for 2009) to 33% (for 2020). This is a matter of grave concern. Under the ETP, the elite, the families and cronies of those in power will continue to pillage and plunder the nation’s wealth while the vast majority of the people will continue to bear the cost of the self serving economic policies of a government which has no regard for accountability and transparency.

ANWAR IBRAHIM
HEAD OF OPPOSITION
DEWAN RAKYAT MALAYSIA

27 December 2011

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

Tay Choo Foo, a Barisan Nasional friendly business man, has lost all confidence in the Malaysian judiciary. When he was sued, he was sure the Courts will throw out the case. To Tay Choo Foo, the claim was a fabrication of lies. To his horror, the Court accepted the claimant’s witness hearsay evidence and threw out his testimony. The High Court ordered him to pay RM13 million. The Court of Appeal and the Federal Court upheld the High Court judgment. Tay Choo Foo feels like a victim of sexual assault, he feels violated except he does not have a video to prove it.

Tay Choo Foo now realizes from bitter experience what Alexander Hamilton warned Americans in 1787, more than 200 years earlier in the Federalist Papers, that:-

“A steady, upright and impartial administration of the laws” is essential because “no man can be sure that he may not be tomorrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be the gainer today.”

Tay Choo Foo is writing a book entitled “Lawless” to warn Malaysians of the dangers of judicial corruption and to stir citizens into action. The question is whether Malaysians having been warned will act on it. When it mattered most Malaysians did not act.

In 1988, Malaysians did not speak out when Tun Mahathir sacked the Lord President and the 5 Federal Court Judges. In 1998, many stood by when he sacked his Deputy Prime Minister and the Courts convicted and put him in jail for 6 years. The Federal Court judges, who had dedicated their entire career to the principle of upholding the Rule of Law, became victims of the Rule of Man. They suffered a grave injustice in being sacked, disgraced and robbed of their personal dignity and self-esteem. The monetary payment given twenty years later can never compensate for their pain and suffering. An even graver injustice was visited on Anwar Ibrahim when he was arrested, beaten and imprisoned for a crime he did not commit. All this was done for the purpose of destroying his political career in order to prolong that of others. It is not just heinous it is evil. The Federal Judges were sacked and the Deputy Prime Minster was imprisoned for political purposes.

Malaysians allowed political powers to exert influence over the judiciary for political ends. They did not realize that like in all usual public private initiatives, economic entities would also gain influence over the Courts. Thus were spawned judicial decisions:-

·         That interfered with the shareholding control of a public listed company such as the infamous Insas Bhd v Ayer Molek Rubber Co Bhd [1995] 2 MLJ 833;

·         That allowed multi-million ringgit defamation suits against MCG Pillay, Param Cumaraswamy, Raphael Pura, Tommy Thomas and Skrine & Co for writing about judicial corruption;

·         That allowed contempt cases to be instituted against Zainur Zakaria, Tommy Thomas, Manjit Singh and prosecution of Karpal Singh who dared to challenge the unfairness of court proceedings;

·         That allowed a forger to acquire indefeasible title to property such as the Federal Court decision in Adorna Properties v Boonsom Boonyanit [2001] 1 MLJ 241 that made our country a forger’s haven for 10 years until corrected by the case of Tan Ying Hong v Tan Sian San [2010] 2 MLJ 1 FC;

·         That ordered an insurance company to pay an arsonist that set fire to his own factory to claim on his insurance policy and dismissed the insurance company’s application for review in Asean Security Paper Mill v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance (Malaysia) Bhd [2008] 5 AMR 377

·         In Tay Choo Foo’s case, the administrators of the estate of Tunku Mansur (deceased) sued him for the purchase price of 1.2 million Harrisons Holdings Berhad shares. Tay Choo Foo contended that the shares were given to him by Tunku Mansur as commission for arranging an investor to participate in the management buy-out led by Tunku Mansur. The High Court allowed the hearsay evidence of a purported conversation between the witness and Tunku Mansur to be admitted under section 32(1) (b) of the Evidence Act. Until the Federal Court upheld the High Court decision, section 32(1) (b) of the Evidence Act is accepted of only allowing a statement made by a deceased clerk in the entry of account books and records kept in the ordinary course of business. Tunku Mansur was not a deceased clerk and the statement was not an accounting entry or documents kept in the ordinary course of business. The Federal Court held that section 132(1) (b) should be given a broad and liberal interpretation. The Federal Court decision adopted a new approach that differed from what lawyers and academicians knew about section 32(1) (b). The decision may be a development of the law but it gave rise to the issue of satisfying the requirements of certainty and predictability which is so essential to the legitimacy of judicial decisions.

There are many more cases that are not reported. I have a friend who lost his family business built over several generations to a third party despite non-compliance of the clear provisions of the law. He dared not challenge the matter in the courts because the third party is well connected. If the rich are fearful to fight for their rights, the weak, the poor and the disadvantaged have no chance at all. Many are suffering in silence. This is because we did not speak up when it was needed to.

In 2008, the cycle of political interference has been repeated. The 2nd edition of the Anwar Ibrahim trials is instituted to clip the opposition’s momentum after the 12thGeneral Elections. The Guardian in its editorial on 13th December 2011 described what the Courts will do to Anwar Ibrahim as an egregious travesty of justice. The last vestiges of the judiciary’s legitimacy will be lost on 9th January 2012 if Anwar is convicted.

The public knows there is a clear distinction between a legitimate system of law and a mere system of commands coercively enforced. It is not necessary for the public to be lawyers or legally trained to know whether a judicial decision is legitimate or not. Each of us has a built-in antenna that can sense the truth from a lie and whether a judicial decision is fair or unjust.

The public can detect judges, who while hiding behind a veneer of fairness make intellectually dishonest decisions. They make procedural and evidential rulings to admit into evidence facts favourable to the outcome they want. They shut out facts that would make it inconvenient for them to arrive at the desired outcome. They are thus able to write impeccable decisions by adopting the applicable laws to the selected evidence.

However, to the losing litigant and the public such decisions are complied with only because of the coercive force the court can bring to bear. The decisions are not accepted as expressions of legal and valid authority. They lacked legitimacy. It is public confidence that gives legitimacy to the judiciary and its decisions. To enjoy public confidence the judiciary must honour the values and principles of consistency, coherence, legal certainty, predictability and not the least justice and objectivity. The citizens must always be vigilant and remind the Judges of their sacred duty. Sandra Day O’Connor said:

“If judges are to be independent guardians of rule of law values, they must be incorruptible. Judges are entrusted with ultimate decisions over life, freedoms, duties, rights, and property of citizens. But judges will never win the respect of the citizens if they are subject to corrupt influences. Whenever a judge makes a decision for personal gain, or to curry favour, or to avoid censure, that act denigrates the Rule of Law… If the judiciary is perceived as being corrupt, biased, or otherwise unethical, society’s confidence in the legal system and its respect for the Rule of Law will crumble”

The public is aware that the Anwar Ibrahim trials lacked legitimacy:-

  • In the first Anwar Ibrahim trial for corruption, the Judge attracted adverse worldwide criticism for the manner he conducted the trial. The Judge threatened and charged defence counsel for contempt for complaining the court was not impartial and fair. The words “Irrelevant! Irrelevant! Irrelevant!” were uttered so often that it was only matched 10 years later by a subsequent refrain of “Correct! Correct! Correct!” The trial did not meet the requirement of impartiality, justice and objectivity;
  • In the second Anwar Ibrahim trial for sodomy, the High Court Judge applied the wrong law in convicting Anwar Ibrahim. It is a well established law that the court cannot convict on uncorroborated evidence of the complainant in a sexual offence. The Judge can only do so upon reminding himself of the danger of convicting on uncorroborated evidence. The Judge is required to set out in his judgment the reasons he found the complainant’s evidence were sufficiently convincing to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court Judge failed to do this and the Court of Appeal did not pick up this error. It was only after the change of Prime Ministers that the Federal Court pointed out that the complainant’s evidence lacked credibility and that the confession of sodomy was extracted by torture and improper means. The second trial did not meet the standards of consistency and coherence to existing legal principles;
  • In the 2008 edition of the Anwar trials, Ragunath Kesavan, Chairman of the Malaysian Bar Council said that the Federal Court’s decision to dismiss Anwar’s application for access to key evidence was a regressive decision. The decision contradicted the clear language and intent of Parliament in section 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code. The section imposed on the prosecution a statutory duty to provide to the accused before the commencement of the trial the documents that the prosecution intended to use at the trial. This was made in the interest of enhancing an accused person’s right to a fair trial. By barring Anwar access to CCTV footage, medical reports, chemist reports and witness statements, Anwar was severely and unfairly impaired in defending himself. The Federal Court decision did not meet the standard of coherence, consistency, certainty and predictability, impartiality and justice;
  • Anwar applied under Rule 137 of the Federal Court Rules 1995 to review the Federal Court’s decision in dismissing his application for disclosure under section 51A Criminal Procedure Code. The second Federal Court dismissed the application on the ground that the Federal Court does not have jurisdiction to review an earlier Federal Court decision. NH Chan said that the decision fly in the face of the plain words of Rule 137. Rule 137 provides that nothing shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the court to hear any application or make any order as may be necessary to prevent an abuse of the process of the court. The Federal Court decision was clearly incoherent and inconsistent with the clear words of the Rule;
  • The trial was filled with rulings on procedural and evidential matters that left the public with the distinct feeling that the decisions did not satisfy the standards and values of impartiality, legality, certainty, predictability, transparency and justice;

International and domestic observers with a sense of fair play have a bad taste in the mouth at the injustice perpetrated. The New York Times in an article published on 13th December 2011 reported that human rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have criticized the trial.  Condemnation has also come from Al Gore, the former US Vice President who with Paul D Wolfowitz, the former US Deputy Secretary of Defense wrote in the Wall Street Journal that the trial “threatens not just Mr. Anwar but all those who have struggled for a freer and more democratic nation.”

Malaysians had twice missed the call to stand up and speak out against injustice in 1988 and 1998. If we miss the third chance on 9th January, it will be strike three and Malaysia shall be struck out. It is therefore not inappropriate to recall the famous words of Martin Niemoller who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler:-

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out

Because I was not a Socialist;

Then they came for the Trade Unionists and I did not speak out

Because I was not a Trade Unionist;

Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak out

Because I was not a Jew;

Then they came for me- and there was no one left to speak for me”

Martin Niemoller’s quotation reminds us that the people were complicit through their silence in the Nazi imprisonment, persecution and murder of millions of people. We will similarly by our silence be complicit in the erosion of our society’s foundation.  By staying neutral, by keeping silent, we will allow the rule of law to be replaced by the rule of man, criminals to go unpunished, the innocent to be deprived of a fair trial and the poor losing out to the rich. This country has deteriorated not because of bad people but because good people did not stand up and speak out against injustice. Tay Choo Foo is now standing up and speaking out. Many more must do so otherwise, they will take Anwar, then Tay Choo Foo and when they finally come for you, no one is left to speak for you.

William Leong Jee Keen
Member of Parliament for Selayang
27th December 2011

27 December 2011

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

Saya meneliti jawapan kerajaan Dato’ Seri Najib terhadap kritikan saya yang terkandung dalam satu ucapan di ibu kota bertarikh 15hb Disember 2011. Ucapan tersebut yang berjudul Debunking ETP: Widening Income Gap menegaskan kaedah yang sedang dilaksanakan kerajaan, Program Transformasi Ekonomi (Economic Transformation Programme) merupakan suatu kebijakan ekonomi lapuk dan gagal membawa sebarang perubahan.

Jawapan tersebut tidak menjawab persoalan utama yang saya lontarkan, iaitu menjelang tahun 2020, sekitar 7 hingga 8.3 juta rakyat Malaysia akan berpendapatan di bawah RM1,500 sebulan dan bakal digolongkan sebagai miskin bandar. Jumlah ini merangkumi sehingga 51% tenaga kerja negara ini dalam tahun 2020, berbanding 56% bagi tahun 2009. Angka itu menunjukkan selepas berbilion ringgit dibelanjakan, hanya penambahbaikan yang tidak seberapa.

Makanya, sebuah program ekonomi yang tidak berjaya meningkatkan pendapatan rakyat terbanyak malah menambah bilangan rakyat termiskin adalah perancangan ekonomi yang tempang dan membelakangkan kebajikan rakyat. Persoalan utama ini wajar dijawab dengan berkesan oleh Perdana Menteri sendiri.

Apatah lagi apabila hujah saya dikemukakan dengan mengambil kira unjuran-unjuran ETP meragukan. Misalnya unjuran pertumbuhan upah 3.6% setiap tahun, dari tahun 2010 sehingga tahun 2020 yang bertentangan dengan pertumbuhan upah pekerja tahun 2000 hingga 2009 yang hanya menokok sekitar 2.6% setiap tahun manakala kos sara hidup meningkat mengatasi pertumbuhan upah. Kenyataan ini diperkukuhkan oleh Kajian Pasaran Buruh 2009 yang melibatkan 24,000 majikan dan 1.3 juta pekerja. Laporan tersebut menyatakan 33.8% dari jumlah pekerja tersebut mendapat upah kurang dari RM 700 sebulan. Angka ini sekiranya diunjurkan kepada keseluruhan tenaga kerja negara menyimpulkan 34% dari jumlah keseluruhan tenaga kerja negara berada di bawah paras kemiskinan. Justeru berdasarkan fakta-fakta ini, unjuran pertumbuhan upah pada paras 3.6% adalah tidak tepat.

Manakala itu unjuran kerajaan bahawa inflasi akan berada pada paras 2.8% setiap tahun sehingga tahun 2020 juga tidak realistik apabila kadar inflasi sejak 12 bulan lalu sentiasa melangkaui paras 3%. Sasaran untuk mencapai pendapatan kasar kebangsaan (gross national income) per kapita sebanyak RM 48,000 setahun pada tahun 2020 tidak akan dicapai sekiranya inflasi melebihi dari 2.8% untuk tahun mendatang.

Jika inflasi purata sehingga tahun 2020 mencecah 4% setiap tahun, dianggarkan seramai 7.6 juta rakyat Malaysia akan berpendapatan kurang dari RM 1,500 sebulan dalam tahun 2020, meningkat sebanyak 1 juta berbanding jumlah 6.6 juta dalam tahun 2009. Keadaan ini lebih parah sekiranya inflasi purata mencecah 6% setiap tahun bila mana jumlah rakyat Malaysia yang berpendapatan kurang dari RM 1,500 sebulan adalah 8.3 juta orang.

Persoalan paling utama yang langsung tidak dijawab adalah kesimpulan saya bahawa kekayaan negara akan semakin dibolot golongan kaya di bawah ETP sementara rakyat terbanyak dipinggirkan. Perdana Menteri Dato’ Seri Najib langsung tidak menafikan analisa saya bahawa nisbah upah pekerja kepada pendapatan kasar negara akan berkurangan dari 40% (tahun 2009) kepada 33% sahaja (tahun 2020). Walhal, ini merupakan permasalahan utama di negara kita, manakala golongan kecil, keluarga dan kroni mengaut kekayaan, sementara majoriti rakyat dibebankan dengan kos sara hidup yang melonjak sedangkan pendapatan tidak meningkat.

Persoalan-persoalan ini adalah isu besar ekonomi negara apabila pentadbiran sedia ada menyalurkan seluruh kekayaan negara untuk membiayai projek-projek besar di bawah ETP. Malang sekali apabila kesannya kepada rakyat adalah menambah golongan miskin dan melebarkan jurang di antara yang miskin dan kaya menjelang tahun 2020 nanti.
 
ANWAR IBRAHIM
KETUA PEMBANGKANG
DEWAN RAKYAT MALAYSIA

27 December 2011

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

Telah sampai kepada pengetahuan saya bahawa terdapat mesej-mesej pesanan ringkas (SMS) yang sedang disebarkan kepada orang ramai yang kandungannya menyebut bahawa Setiausaha Agung Parti KEADILAN Rakyat telah mengeluarkan suatu surat pekeliling meminta semua anggotaKEADILAN untuk berkumpul pada 9 Januari 2012 ini di Mahkamah Tinggi Jalan Duta Kuala Lumpur dan mengajak untuk mencetuskan huru-hara di Kuala Lumpur.

Saya menafikan sekeras-kerasnya bahawa terdapat arahan seperti ini,yang saya yakin merupakan satu lagi fitnah jahat UMNO yang sememangnya sedang semakin gentar dengan kebangkitan rakyat menentang kezaliman dan kekejaman mereka yang terus rakus merompak dan menyeleweng harta rakyat dan negara.

Wajar dinyatakan juga bahawa sifat jahat memfitnah, membohong dan menyebarkan berita palsu serta usaha memporak-perandakan keamanan rakyat Malaysia kini telah menjadi semakin sebati dan lumrah dalam setiap nafas dan gerak nyawa UMNO.

Saya seterusnya meminta orang ramai, anggota KEADILAN dan
penyokong-penyokong gerakan reformasi yang akan keluar beramai-ramai pada 9 Januari nanti bagi menunjukkan sokongan kepada Ketua Umum KEADILAN, Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim supaya berhimpun secara aman dan mematuhi arahan petugas-petugas serta tidak terpengaruh dan terjebak dengan tindakan provokatif golongan yang tidak bertanggungjawab pada hari berkenaan.

Sekian, terima kasih.

SAIFUDDIN NASUTION ISMAIL
SETIAUSAHA AGUNG
PARTI KEADILAN RAKYAT
27 DISEMBER 2011

26 December 2011

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

Malaysia Chronicle
By K.Suresh

Mahathir Mohamad’s claim that he did not go crawling to the World Bank in 1997-1998 for aid appears to be the result of a deliberate confusion, on his part, about the separate and distinct roles of this great institution and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The former Malaysian Prime Minister will probably claim another temporary bout of amnesia, as he once did in Court, in mistaking one for the other. Being already 86 since Dec 20, he will soon be able to claim not only amnesia but dementia and Alzheimer’s disease besides his usual paranoia.

When Mahathir was denying about having anything to do with the World Bank, he was actually talking about the IMF. No one seems to have noticed this so far.

It’s no big secret that in publicly rejecting IMF aid in 1998, the papers also quietly reported then that the rejection did not extend to the World Bank. Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim was not saying anything new but highlighting the facts when he mentioned World Bank aid to Malaysia.

The Mother of All Lies

So, there’s really no need for Mahathir to swear on the Quran and defile the Holy Book with his lies. It seems Mahathir will swear to anything to save his skin. Each time he swears, it will be just to cover up another big lie. A proverb in Malayalam from Kerala, from where Mahathir’s roots can be traced, goes as follows: “One will have to tell a thousand lies to cover up the first lie.”

To his critics, Mahathir’s entire life has been one big lie lived shamelessly and without a tinge of conscience or humanitarian considerations for others. Mahathir’s reason for rejecting IMF aid – the return of colonialism as he claimed – was another great self-serving lie.

Mahathir was thereby able to dip into our EPF monies among others to bail out his family, nominees, and cronies without instituting real reforms. He should be charged with abuse of power, corruption, economic sabotage and treason. The IMF would have never stood for aid packages merely designed to bail out a small group of his people at the expense of an entire nation.

Ruthless coup d’etat and blatant cheating (more…)

24 December 2011

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

Malaysia chronicle

Abraham Lincoln had this to say: “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

They say liars are sightless. They swathe their eyes to the truth and trust that people they talk to are as dim as themselves. Why do most politicians customarily lie? They discern that the majority will follow rather than think for themselves. A lie told often enough becomes the truth. To lie in politics is a Machiavellian mode of manipulation and conspiracy.

Mahathir’s intelligence and political astuteness are generally acknowledged by his acquaintances and enemies. Mendacity or mendacious propaganda is Machiavellian. The people are already familiar  with his political  slant as he understands the Malay minds better than any of the past and present leaders in UMNO. The book ‘The Malay Dilemma’ (1970) that he wrote 11 years before he became Malaysia’s 4th Prime Minister is worth reading. It is an insightful analysis of the Malay mind.  The Malays in general have a feudal mindset and Mahathir has acknowledged this in many of his writings and intellectual discourse. He either failed or did not want to do enough to change the mindset of the general Malays despite helming the nation for many years, for fear that an enlightened Malay race could not be easily manipulated. The Malays – especially the rural folks –  can be easily manoeuvred by leaders to make them believe a lie to be truth if it is well propagated.  The UMNO propaganda tools – newspapers and the electronic media – are ever ready to help their political masters to remain in power.

Must have lied routinely

Telling lies is for political expediency and we can expect this from Mahathir. He must have lied routinely in his political career. It is noteworthy, throughout his career as a prime minister and past this era he has seldom admitted his mistakes. It is not his character or principle to accept his mistakes or weaknesses. To Mahathir, ‘to admit one’s mistake is to admit one’s weakness’. Critics say that  ‘he has a very strong character’. The people seldom hear him apologise for his mistakes, hence dealing with this Machiavellian persona, his political enemies must learn to be equally incisive.

Understanding Mahathir’s wiliness is as simple as having to accept him as he is. Reading his 843-page Memoirs – ‘A Doctor in the House’ (2011) – noticeably, some relatively hard-to-believe facts are written about issues and personalities who were never in his good book. Anyway, this is only his side of the stories. (more…)

Switch to our mobile site