Malaysiakini
By Mat Zain Ibrahim

Regardless of its terms of reference, the people will have to contend with the independent panel to investigate violence during the Bersih 3.0 rally that has been handpicked by the government. And we may have to wait a little while before judging whether the panel is fair or biased, or simply redundant.

This is in view of the attorney-general’s pre-emptive moves in charging several people under the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012, as well as having advised the government to sue the Bersih steering committee for damages.

The investigations, or any other action pertaining to Bersih 3.0, should have been put on hold once the government announced the formation of the said independent panel. Similar action was taken during the black eye incident, when I was instructed to put investigations on hold the moment the cabinet announced the setting up of the RCI. Abdul Gani Patail is fully aware of this precedent.

Be as it may, the impartiality of the panel has been a subject of contention since its formation was announced, particularly the appointment of Hanif Omar as the chairperson. The test of their impartiality will be whether the panel is willing to raise the issue on the position of Gani Patail, to whom the panel’s findings will be submitted for a decision.

Where goes the panel report?

Although many will disagree, but if there is need for a panel to investigate Gani, then I suggest that both Hanif and retired Chief Justice of Borneo Steve Shim are the most appropriate persons to be in that panel. I am also of the view that Gani’s antics cannot get past these two distinguished gentlemen.

For the benefit of all, this is Steve Shim’s decision on Gani’s conduct in Zainur Zakaria vs PP [2001] 3 CLJ:

“In the circumstances, was he (referring to Anwar Ibrahim) not justified, on a prima facie basis, in complaining that the AG’s (Gani Patail’s) conduct at the meeting on 2 October 1998 was an attempt to get Nalla to fabricate evidence in order to perfect charges against him (Anwar) for other alleged sexual offences?”

The former CJ is expected to defend his decision on the above and he will certainly be backed by Hanif, who knows the truth of what exactly happened in 1998 and how the facts were manipulated and by whom. Particularly now, since the panel’s report will eventually be scrutinised by none other than Gani himself.

The government of the day, then and now, cannot deny being fully aware of Shim’s decision on Gani. The government must recognise the former CJ’s decision in the same manner Dr Mahathir takes cognisance of another Federal Court decision, as found in his memoir A Doctor in the House (page 695):

“Most Malaysians are ignorant of the contents of the judgment of the Federal Court, which acquitted Anwar on a technicality due to the error relating to the date of the incident. They are not aware that the majority of the Federal Court had held that in their judgment they found ‘…evidence to confirm that the appellants (Anwar and Sukma) were involved in homosexual activities and we are more inclined to believe that the alleged incident at Tivoli Villa did happen’…”

No one saw Anwar sodomise Sukma or anybody else, or having sex with any woman. The Federal Court came to that conclusion merely relying on evidence gathered or manufactured by Musa Hassan and presented before the judges by Gani and his prosecution team.

But where falsification and fabrication of evidence are concerned, several people saw what Gani did. Musa Hassan and Dr Rahman Yusof not only saw it but were parties to it, willingly or otherwise. Another pathologist from Hospital Kuala Lumpur testified in court that Anwar’s blood sample for DNA tests was stolen from the doctor’s custody on Oct 15, 1998.

Over and above that, I not only saw with my own eyes what Gani did, but I went to the extent of warning him of the complications that could be expected in the near future when he (Gani) is discovered, besides telling him of the stern instructions and warning from the prime minister himself, whom I briefed on Oct 8, 1998, that there should not be any cover-up in the investigations involving Anwar Ibrahim. Most importantly the products of the falsifications are available for all to see.

One important question immediately comes to mind: Which of the two Federal Court decisions cited above should be given more weight? It must be noted that Shim’s decision on Gani came first.

Does that mean that if the court decides against Anwar, then the decision is said to be correct or is in the right direction, but when a court decides in favour of Anwar, then the court is wrong or the judge has a political agenda or may be labelled as a communist sympathiser?

If Shim’s decision on Gani is not given its due weight nor respected by the government of the day, then Shim should not be allowed to remain on the panel. Should the government have some decency to accept a legitimate judicial decision of the highest court of the country, then Gani should henceforth be suspended and made to face the due process.

The government of the day must explain how on earth was Gani Patail, despite allegations of having a tainted resume, chosen to be the attorney-general in 2002 and how such conduct could have escaped the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s scrutiny.

Ulterior motives involved?

Either the government had ulterior motives or the government was simply negligent in exercising due care in vetting Gani’s suitability and competency before he was recommended to be appointed as the AG.

Either way ,the Agong was deceived into believing that Gani Patail was the most suitable and not encumbered with any criminal culpability if compared with at least two other candidates. The Agong would not have appointed Gani had he not been so deceived.

Former Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson was fired just four months after his appointment, for merely allowing two inaccuracies on his qualifications to appear in his biodata that was filed with the securities regulators – one in accounting and the other in computer science.

It was not about qualifications he didn’t have. It was all about honesty. If a CEO can cheat about his qualifications, then he can cheat about everything else pertaining to the affairs of the company.

Similarly, if the EC chairperson and his deputy can deceive the Conference of Rulers and the Agong with no feelings of remorse, then they can cheat on everything and anything concerning the electoral roll.

If our government copied the American model of gerrymandering, then it should also adopt their model of testing the honesty of the EC chairperson, as the Americans did with the former Yahoo CEO.

One must also not forget that Musa Hassan was reported to have committed perjury during a trial in 1998 by claiming to have a qualification that he did not, just like Scott Thomson. The only difference between them is that Thompson was caught once and given the boot, while Musa was caught three times in all and yet cleared of any wrongdoing.

If Gani Patail, who has a damning decision on his head and a preponderance of evidence in several other allegations of wrongdoings, can still be allowed to remain in office and carry on with his illegitimate ways of doing things;

If both the EC chairperson and the deputy are said to have secured their positions through fraud and misrepresentations and by concealing their present or previously held membership in a political party and yet are allowed to remain as custodians of the electoral roll;

If the prime minister himself, who could be proven to have affirmed false affidavits in September 2011 and knowingly filing the same in a High Court to avoid having to give his testimony before the said court and yet nothing was done by the appropriate authorities, then;

Are we not in a state of lawlessness already? No?

MAT ZAIN IBRAHIM is a former Kuala Lumpur Criminal Investigations Department chief.

The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, May 25 — A PKR ceramah featuring Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and daughter Nurul Izzah Anwar turned ugly when the crowd as well as opposition leaders were pelted with stones and eggs.

Tensions were already running high before the event began last night, as the scheduled PKR function was located a mere 100 metres away from another ceramah — one organised by Umno.

Lembah Pantai Umno youth members were earlier seen carrying banners near the venue which read “Anwar causes violence in this country.”

Some 100 Lembah Pantai Umno youth members were earlier seen blocking the main road leading to the PKR ceramah venue, carrying banners which read “Anwar causes violence in this country.”

PKR’s ceramah had an unceremonious start as guest speakers tried to speak as loudly as they could to compete with the Umno ceramah nearby.

Chaos occurred when Nurul Izzah was about to speak — the wiring to the sound and lights system was cut, delaying the Lembah Pantai MP’s speech by a good 15 minutes.

Shortly after she spoke, Anwar arrived and that was when the stone- and egg-pelting commenced.

The night saw one major casualty where a senior citizen suffered injuries to the head after being hit with a stone.

The PKR de facto chief ordered the bleeding man to be brought to the nearest medical centre for treatment. Anwar also immediately blamed Umno for the incident.

“This is the way of Umno youth. A man has been injured because stones were thrown at him by the accursed Umno youth!

“I challenge (Datuk Seri) Najib (Razak) to a debate, not to send his thugs to do this,” said Anwar to cheers from the 1,000-odd crowd who were mostly PR supporters.

“Throwing stones, it means a total lack of respect for democracy in Malaysia… it is a sign of an Umno-BN that is desperate to hold on to power,” added Nurul Izzah.

In contrast, Umno’s 500-odd ceramah attendance degenerated into a verbal shouting match as its star speaker Ummi Hafilda Ali screamed verbal abuse each time Anwar or any PR leader spoke.

“Anwar is al-juburi. He is pro-Jewish. He is the father of womanisers,” shouted the woman whose complaint led to Anwar’s first sodomy trial, as she tried to drown the former deputy prime minister’s speech.

This prompted Anwar to say: “We want to win the elections not by insulting people but by rule of law.

“I am used to getting insulted every night, for 14 years I have been insulted by TV3 and Utusan Malaysia,” he said to cheers from the PKR crowd.

This marks the third time a PR function has been disrupted after similar incidents in Merlimau and Malacca last weekend.

Kompas.com

Pemimpin oposisi Malaysia Anwar Ibrahim dan dua rekannya, Selasa (22/5/2012), didakwa melakukan sejumlah pelanggaran hukum selama demonstrasi besar untuk menuntut pemiliu yang jujur beberapa waktu lalu.

Dakwaan itu bisa mengganggu persiapan Anwar Ibrahim dalam pemilihan umum yang kemungkinan dilaksanakan pada September mendatang.

Anwar didakwa bersama Azmin Ali yang merupakan deputi presiden untuk Partai Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) dan pengurus organisasi pemuda partai itu, Baharul Hisham Shaharin.

Pengadilan Kuala Lumpur mendakwa ketiganya melawan larangan pengadilan tentang berkumpul di tempat publik di Kuala Lumpur bulan lalu dan menghasut pengunjuk rasa lainnya untuk menerobos barikade polisi di Lapangan Merdeka.

Dalam persidangan itu, ketiganya menyatakan tidak bersalah dan menghadapi hukuman maksimal, yakni enam bulan penjara dan denda total 12.000 ringgit jika terbukti bersalah. Persidangan berikutnya dijadwalkan pada 2 Juli untuk menentukan tanggal-tanggal sidang selanjutnya.

“Ini jelas dakwaan bermotif politis. Pemilu sudah di ambang pintu,” kata Anwar yang dikerumuni wartawan.

Dakwaan itu merupakan yang pertama bagi Anwar setelah dia dibebaskan dari dakwaan kasus sodomi pada Januari lalu. Pemerintah membantah tuduhan Anwar bahwa persidangan kasus sodomi itu direkayasa untuk melemahkan aliansi oposisi yang secara mengejutkan mengalami peningkatan dukungan pada pemilu 2008.

Anwar, Azmin, dan Baharul bergabung dengan puluhan ribu demonstran pada 28 April silam untuk menuntut perbaikan undang-undang pemilu. Polisi menggunakan gas airmata dan water cannon setelah sejumlah demonstran menerobos barikade yang dipasang di Lapangan Merdeka yang tidak boleh dimasuki.

Deputi direktur Asia Human Right Watch, Phil Robertson, mengatakan dakwaan terhadap para pemimpin oposisi itu “tidak menunjukkan bahwa pemerintah Malaysia berkomitmen melindungi hak-hak untuk kebebasan berekspresi.”

Perdana Menteri Malaysia Najib Razak dan para pejabat lainnya menuduh oposisi berusaha menciptakan kekacauan di demonstrasi itu. Beberapa bahkan menuduh Anwar dan Azmin memprovokasi para pengunjuk rasa agar melempari polisi.

Jika Anwar dan Azmin mendapat vonis maksimum, mereka terancam kehilangan kursi parlemen.

Pemilu nasional memang baru akan digelar pada 2013, namun spekulasi yang kini berkembang adalah Najib akan membubarkan parlemen dalam waktu dekat. Pemerintah koalisi yang berkuasa di Malaysia sejak 1957, kini hanya menguasai kurang dari dua pertiga kursi parlemen setelah mengalami kekalahan pada pemilu 2008.

Dalam unjuk rasa April lalu itu, para demonstran menuntut pengunduran diri para pejabat Komisi Pemilu dengan alasan mereka berpihak. Mereka juga menginginkan dibersihkannya daftar pemilih yang mereka tuduh berisi nama-nama palsu, selain menuntut aturan pemilu yang adil untuk memastikan setiap partai mendapat akses ke media-media besar.

Malaysiakini

If the elections are called immediately, Pakatan Rakyat would win at least 105 parliamentary seats said PKR’s strategy director Rafizi Ramli.

“We have improved! Five or six months ago, BN thought we might win 92 seats, and even then, they were worried.

“Months later when they studied this again, Umno itself knows that if it calls for an election now, they would face an opposition that has 105 seats from the start,” he said at the launch of the party’s Selangor election campaign machinery today.

Rafizi (right) urged party workers to push for 10 more seats to secure a simple majority for Pakatan.

“We are confident of winning because we have witnessed the mood and the rise of the people outside (the party). It is not us, but the people are ready to win,” he said.

The 105 seats tally is seven short of an outright parliamentary majority to claim power.

Nevertheless, such a close result should destabilise BN enough to either create a possible round of defections as well as a change of leadership in the ruling coalition.

‘Go ahead, call GE now’

Meanwhile in his speech officiating the event at the Petaling Jaya Civic Hall, party deputy president Azmin Ali challenged Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to call for immediate elections.

“If Umno is strong as seen on television and newspapers (reporting) in (its 66th anniversary celebration) in Bukit Jalil, I challenge the prime minister to dissolve the Parliament tomorrow and call for fresh elections,” he said, to the applause of the 700 who gathered there.

However, he sarcastically cautioned his colleagues that Umno has a new wing – the Election Commission (EC).

He pointed out that between the last election and the latest electoral roll, the number of voters in Selangor has increased from 1,565,493 to 1,906,008, a jump of 340,515 new voters – the largest increment among the states.

Azmin (left), who is also the PKR elections director, urged the campaign workers especially the Youth wing to go to the ground to verify if these are genuine voters, because a large portion of the voters are young voters.

To aid their mission, he demonstrated the capabilities of the software Sistem Menang Pilihanraya (Sismep) 3.0 launched on May 11, which among other features, can highlight movements of voters between constituencies, voters above a specified age, and even point out their latest addresses on a map.

“Sismep is only effective if we make good use of it at the grassroots level,” he said.

Leaflet warfare

The government has until April next year to dissolve the 222-seat Parliament. However, many including Azmin, anticipate that it will be held as early as this June.

At today’s launch, thick volumes containing lists of voters who had been added, moved or removed in the electoral roll were given to division and branch election chiefs in seats where PKR plans to contest.

The launch is part of a series that has already covered Perak, Penang, Malacca and Negri Sembilan, with Kedah, Sabah and Sarawak scheduled for the coming week.

Other items distributed at the event were party paraphernalia such as caps and T-shirts, and a password-protected thumbdrive containing the Sismep 3.0 software, the 2011 fourth quarter electoral roll (the latest to be gazetted), a video from the Bersih 3.0 rally and soft copies of Pakatan Rakyat’s ‘Buku Jingga’ policy framework, photos of PKR senior leaders, and 13 sets of leaflets.

Rafizi said the leaflets are part of PKR’s strategy to keep BN on the defensive.

“If Pakatan Rakyat attacks BN from Day One of the election campaign period, and BN has to fend them off each day of campaigning, then God willing we will win,” he said.

If well-played, he said this would allow the people to focus on Pakatan Rakyat’s message while forcing BN to respond to it rather than the other way around, despite the ruling party’s control over the mainstream media.

A million of each of the 13 two-page leaflets will be printed by PKR’s central leadership, whilst the branch and division offices will print the rest as needed.

The leaflets highlight a range of issues. Some contain the coalition’s promises such as to lower fuel prices or to abolish the National Higher Education Fund (PTPTN).

Others are responses to Umno’s attacks such as allegations that PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim (right) is an Israeli agent. The rest attack BN on issues such as the National Feedlot Corporation scandal and the Scorpene submarines scandal.

Rafizi urged campaign managers to remind speakers to frequently make references to the leaflets in hopes that listeners would at least read it, lest the funds spent printing it go to waste.

He added that the party’s central leadership would be monitoring the campaign effort at every branch on a weekly basis, armed with a score-sheet.

Candidates still under wraps

At a press conference later, Azmin kept the party’s election candidates list under wraps.

“Our political culture is very dirty and disgusting, where they could threaten and intimidate our candidates with all sorts of tricks and enticements.

“We will discuss and decide a suitable date to announce our candidates to avoid Umno and BN trickery,” he said.

Nonetheless, Azmin said a majority of the candidates will be fresh faces, and in his speech earlier pledged that the candidates would be vetted more carefully to avoid a repeat of the turncoats disaster that plagued the party shortly after the 2008 general election.

When asked about seat allocations, he said a decision is expected in the first week of June, with agreement on all but the last seat in most states presently to be resolved.

He added that Selangor is the first state where Pakatan Rakyat’s seat allocation has been finalised.

From The Guardian
By Nick Cohen

Authoritarian governments have learned from the Arab Spring that the best way to nip revolution in the bud is to exploit the new technologies

For a moment at the Oslo Freedom Forum, it was possible to believe that Pyotr Verzilov was the coolest guy on the planet. Breathless and unshaven, the young performance artist arrived in Norway from the street protests in Moscow. With the élan of an exultant radical, he explained the personal and political reasons for taking on Putin’s kleptocracy.

He had been lucky enough to persuade a member of Pussy Riot to be his wife. The celebrated feminist collective had been outraged when Patriarch Kirill continued the Russian Orthodox Church’s subservience to whatever autocrat occupied the Kremlin by announcing that Putin’s leadership had been a “miracle of God”, and adding for good measure that the regime’s opponents were a degenerate minority in love with western culture.

Pussy Riot responded with a “punk prayer” at Moscow’s Cathedral of Christ the Saviour. The protest was not the offence to delicate religious sensibilities it seems on the web, Verzilov explained. The women danced for about a minute in their balaclavas and fluorescent tights before security guards told them to leave. They added the screaming soundtrack to “Holy Mother, Blessed Virgin, Chase Putin Out” later. For this impromptu stunt, the FSB jailed his wife, and threatened her with a seven-year sentence, even though she was pregnant.

They would not win, said Verzilov with indomitable confidence. As soon as the conference was over, he would return to Russia to take part in a revolution that would free his wife and unborn child. All the other Russians on the stage agreed that regime change was coming – even Garry Kasparov, who is hardly an adolescent hothead.

It was easy to feel that way in Norway. The Oslo Freedom Forum is a Davos for revolutionaries. Activists who have overthrown dictatorships meet activists who want to overthrow dictatorships. Even if they need translators, everyone speaks the same language. They agree on the radical potential of the new technologies. The magnificent Egyptian feminist Mona Eltahawy said that when Mubarak’s interior ministry police beat and sexually abused her, she knew her first task was to get to her mobile and tweet that she needed help to her 133,000 followers. Help came.

The audience was not surprised. It took for granted the ability of the web to mobilise support – a power that would have been incredible even five years ago. They agreed on tactics – non-violent civil disobedience. They had a common programme – secular democracy, the rule of law and human rights. And they agreed that they should look west for support. Not necessarily to western governments. But to the west of the human rights movements, George Soros, activist charities, concerned journalists and academics: Europe and North America’s network of altruists. The camaraderie generated the exultant feeling that a new world was not only possible, but inevitable.

Thor Halvorssen, founder of the Oslo Freedom Forum, exemplifies the best the west can offer, but he is a realist with no time for light-headed optimism. He pointed me to statistics from the human rights monitoring group Freedom House. Despite globalisation, “Twitter revolutions” and the Arab Spring, the numbers living under oppressive regimes have not shifted in a decade. Freedom House defined 86 of the 192 countries in the world in 2000 as “free”; 58 as partially free – authoritarian states with some liberties but restrictions on full democratic participation; and 48 as straight “unfree” dictatorships. In 2010, 87 of the by then 194 countries were free, 60 partially free and 47 unfree.

Technological and economic changes are strengthening the ability of autocrats to dominate. Authoritarian men have learned the lessons of the Arab Spring well. They are exploiting the sinister potential of the new technologies to ensure that the net-literate activists never surprise them again. Western companies are eager to oblige them. A recent documentary on Swedish television exposed double standards in the Nordic telecoms giant TeliaSonera. Its executives in Stockholm have a fine line in progressive babble. They talk about their commitment to democracy and respect for the privacy rights of their customers, while giving the security services of Azerbaijan, Belarus, and Uzbekistan unrestricted access to the phone system previous generations of secret policemen could only have dreamed of.

A young member of the Belarusian opposition, Franak Viacorka, told me how the state’s new powers disorientate and demoralise. After hiding with friends in the Minsk underground for 10 days he made the mistake of alerting the KGB to his presence by turning on his mobile. When they tracked down the signal and hauled him in, the interrogator showed him copies of all his texts to parents, friends and political allies. The intercepted messages filled 20 sheets. “These are moments you want to cry,” he said. “You feel undefended. Very weak. It looks like Sweden helps the regime to suppress, to isolate and control the opposition. Europe does not live by its principles. Business interests come first.”

The traditional response of human rights activists has been to force the west to behave with at least a minimum of morality. I worry they will not win their arguments in a recession. We are living through a crisis in western economies as far-reaching as any since the 1930s – and historians among you will know that liberty, equality and the pursuit of happiness did not flourish in that “low dishonest decade”. The British and American banking systems have collapsed. America has a feeble recovery but Britain’s leaders have no idea how to repair the damage. Meanwhile, the eurozone has become a machine for wealth destruction, which Europe’s politicians cannot turn off. Those who want governments to put human rights before jobs or spend blood and treasure on humanitarian interventions are going to have an even harder time of it than before.

The economic crisis is also a crisis of political legitimacy. It may be vulgar to say so, but in the late 20th century, many wanted to be free because they wanted to be rich. Last week a global survey by the BBC World Service showed how the crash of the west had shifted attitudes. Respect for democratic EU countries had gone down and admiration for authoritarian China gone up. The post-2008 lesson appears to be that repression works. It makes money. It is good for business. Who are liberals from declining countries to lecture others?

I am not arguing that we should stop lecturing. Quite the reverse. Simply that we should not fool ourselves. It has always been hard to win a change worth having, and it will soon get harder.

Pada 18 Oktober 2011 jam 11 pagi, pengurusan Felda Global Ventures Holdings Sdn Bhd (FGV) telah mengadakan Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Penyenaraian FGV yang ketiga dipengerusikan oleh Tan Sri Isa Samad. Antara lainnya, mesyuarat tersebut membincangkan kesediaan pengurusan Felda dan pandangan mereka mengenai penyenaraian FGV dan penstrukturan korporat yang akan berlaku berikutan penyenaraian tersebut.

Boston Consulting Group (BCG) adalah salah satu daripada juru runding yang dilantik untuk menerajui proses penyenaraian ini. Selain menyediakan pelan langkah-langkah penyenaraian, BCG juga bertanggungjawab menilai kesediaan dan pandangan pengurusan Felda mengenai tindakan Barisan Nasional menyenaraikan FGV dan aset-aset berkaitan Felda.

KEADILAN telah berjaya mendapatkan salinan laporan yang dibentangkan oleh BCG kepada pengurusan Felda dan FGV di dalam mesyuarat tersebut.

Mukasurat 4 dari laporan tersebut yang menyentuh mengenai kesediaan dan pandangan pengurusan Felda ada disertakan bersama.

Kesimpulan yang dibuat oleh BCG setelah menemuramah dan mengadakan kajiselidik melibatkan 30 orang pengurusan tertinggi Felda dalam bulan Oktober 2011 adalah seperti berikut:
 
1.      Cabaran terbesar untuk menjayakan proses penyenaraian ini adalah pandangan pengurusan tertinggi Felda sendiri yang menentang keputusan tersebut;
 
2.      Lebih separuh dari pengurusan Felda (55%) tidak bersedia untuk melalui proses penyenaraian ini;
 
3.      Hanya 20% dari pengurusan tertinggi Felda yang benar-benar menyokong proses penyenaraian; dan
 
4.       65% dari pengurusan tertinggi Felda percaya proses penyenaraian ini akan gagal kerana Felda masih belum bersedia.

Pendedahan ini mengesahkan bahawa proses penyenaraian yang cuba dilakukan Barisan Nasional mendapat tentangan hebat dari kalangan pimpinan tertinggi Felda sendiri. Ini memberi gambaran bahawa mereka yang lebih arif dan mengikuti proses dalaman sepanjang keputusan menyenaraikan Felda berpandangan penyenaraian ini lebih membawa keburukan daripada kebaikan kepada Felda dan peneroka.
Tentangan pengurusan tertinggi Felda ini akan menyulitkan proses penyenaraian dan membawa risiko bahawa ia akan gagal kerana tidak mendapat kerjasama kakitangan Felda.
Makanya, adalah menjadi tanggungjawab Dato’ Seri Najib Tun Razak dan Tan Sri Isa Samad untuk memberikan penjelasan kenapa pandangan dan tentangan pengurusan tertinggi Felda ini tidak diambil kira dan penyenaraian Felda diteruskan jua.
Mereka juga perlu memberi jaminan bahawa pengurusan Felda sedia ada tidak diketepikan dan muka-muka baru yang lebih akur dengan kehendak Barisan Nasional akan dilantik mengisi sebahagian besar jawatan baru di dalam Felda.
 
MOHD RAFIZI RAMLI
PENGARAH STRATEGI KEADILAN

The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, May 15 — The Malaysian Bar accused Putrajaya today of feeling “threatened by an independent Bar” after Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz proposed a law academy to be “an alternative” to the statutory body of lawyers and called on the Bar Council to dissolve itself.

The de facto law minister had said this in response to the Bar’s resolution condemning “excessive” and “indiscriminate” use of force by police during the April 28 Bersih rally and its demand that the government and police chief apologise for alleged acts of police brutality.

“The announcement lends itself to the perception that the proposal is revived from time to time when the government feels threatened by an independent Bar that does not countenance the abuse of power by the institutions of the state (the police, in this case), and speaks up in defence of the public at large.

“The Bar, in doing so, is fulfilling its duty under section 42(1)(a) of the Legal Profession Act, namely, ‘to uphold the cause of justice … uninfluenced by fear and favour’,” president Lim Chee Wee said in a statement, adding the Bar was “flabbergasted” at Nazri’s statements.

Nazri and Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein had accused the Bar Council, which administers the Malaysian Bar, for being prejudiced in condemning the police and government after the April 28 rally spiralled into chaos.

Nazri said yesterday the proposal to set up a law academy will be discussed by the Cabinet and the Attorney-General soon as it is high time a new organisation, other than the Bar Council, be formed to represent those who have studied law.

The Padang Rengas MP had said the setting up of the academy was aimed at avoiding a monopoly in the issue of legal interpretation.

“I’m sure those in academia would have a better interpretation of the law. The Bar Council may not get it right all the time. They are very partisan. I don’t think they should be given a monopoly,” he said.

But Lim said today the Bar was opposed to Nazri’s proposal of a legal academy, “which appears similar to the proposal that the Government had mooted, and subsequently withdrawn” in 1996 and 2002.

I’m sure those in academia would have a better interpretation of the law. The Bar Council may not get it right all the time. They are very partisan. — Nazri Aziz

“Regrettably, this third occurrence appears to have come about purely as a reaction to the Bar’s strong message… of grave concern and condemnation of the use of excessive force by the police during the public assembly.

“The test of a mature and democratic society is the manner in which it treats the weakest amongst it. On April 28, 2012, when the mighty weight of the police was unleashed without restraint onto the streets of Kuala Lumpur, many innocent participants were undeservedly harmed.”

Lim also urged the Barisan Nasional (BN) administration “not to attack the messenger, but to act on the message contained in the Bar’s final report and the extraordinary general meeting resolution instead.”

The Malaysian Bar approved the resolution on Friday after only 16 out of 1,270 lawyers opposed the resolution, which contained findings of alleged police brutality against protesters and members of the media.

A total of 939 votes were recorded in support of the resolution. There are some 14,000 members of the Malaysian Bar.

The April 28 rally, which saw tens of thousands gather at six different locations before heading to Dataran Merdeka, was peaceful until about 2.30pm when Bersih chief Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan asked the crowd to disperse.

But the former Bar Council president’s announcement was not heard by most of the crowd who persisted to linger around the historic square which the court had already barred to the public over that particular weekend.

Just before 3pm, some protestors breached the barricade surrounding the landmark, leading police to disperse the crowd with tear gas and water cannons.

Police then continued to pursue rally-goers down several streets amid chaotic scenes which saw violence from both sides over the next four hours.

Malaysiakini

Sidang meja bulat ‘BERSIH 3.0 dan Masa Depan Malaysia’ berakhir dengan resolusi termasuk menyokong penuh lapan tuntutan BERSIH 3.0 dan wacana terbuka di antara Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Abdul Razak dan Ketua Pembangkang Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim sebelum Pilihanraya Umum ke-13.

Sidang meja bulat yang dianjurkan oleh Institut Forum Siswa (i-FORSIS) kelmarin menghasilkan sebelas resolusi bagi meningkatan kesedaran dan penyertaan mahasiswa dalam agenda pembangunan masa depan negara serta menentukan halatuju dan jalan penyelesaian alternatif terhadap sesuatu masalah atau isu yang berlaku.

Dalam satu kenyataan semalam, Presiden Gabungan Mahasiswa Islam Se-Malaysia (Gamis),  Akram Ikrami Taib Azamudden menegaskan mengenai keperluan berkongsi platform serta membina kefahaman di kalangan aktivis gerakan mahasiswa berhubung isu-isu penting dalam negara.

Katanya, dalam resolusi yang diluluskan dalam sidang meja bulat itu, pimpinan gerakan mahasiswa, menuntut dan mencadangkan kepada pihak yang berkenaan, supaya:

Menghidupkan dan menyuburkan semula ‘Speaker Corner’, dialog bebas dan program baktisiswa bagi meningkatkan nilai idealisme dan aktivisme mahasiswa serta partisipasi dalam menunaikan tanggungjawab terhadap masyarakat.  

Meneruskan kebersamaan gerakan mahasiswa untuk mengadakan perbincangan bagi mencari kata sepakat dan jalan penyelesaian terhadap pelbagai masalah dan isu yang melanda rakyat Malaysia dan umat Islam.
 
Meningkatkan nilai kematangan dalam isu-isu semasa, masyarakat dan ummah, selaras dengan tahap keintelektualan sebagai seorang yang terpelajar.

Memberi dan meningkatkan kesedaran mahasiswa tentang tanggungjawab sebagai pembela masyarakat dan jurubicara ummah.

Menyokong penuh lapan (8) tuntutan BERSIH 3.0 dan menuntut pihak SPR dan kerajaan melaksanakannya sebelum diadakan Pilihanraya Umum ke-13.
Menyeru ahli politik dalam negara meningkatkan kematangan berpolitik dengan meningkatkan kewibawaan masing-masing pada kaca mata rakyat dan tidak menggunakan politik kotor.

Kesepakatan atas agenda Islam mestilah diutamakan melebihi sentimen politik kepartian.

Memberi fokus kepada pembangunan jati diri Islam kepada mahasiswa.
Menolak sebarang bentuk pemikiran dan tindakan yang di luar batasan syarak.

Menyeru gerakan mahasiswa dan mahasiswa untuk mengemukakan alternatif atau cadangan tambahan terhadap bantahan atau sokongan yang dibuat terhadap pelbagai pihak.

Mengadakan wacana terbuka di antara Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Abdul Razak dan Ketua Pembangkang Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim sebelum Pilihanraya Umum ke-13.

“Dengan ini kami berikrar, untuk meneruskan momentum membela dan memperjuangkan nilai-nilai kebenaran dan keadilan yang dituntut oleh Islam demi masa depan Malaysia yang lebih cemerlang dan dirahmati Allah,” katanya.

Menurutnya, resolusi tersebut dipersetuju sebulat suara oleh wakil-wakil dari PKPIM pusat, PKPIM UIAM, JK Informasi & Maklumat PEMBINA pusat, PEMBINA UIAM, GAMIS, SIGMA-GAMIS, KARISMA Daerah Gombak, GPMS UIAM dan Ma’ruf Club UIAM.

Dari JalanTelawi.com

Oleh Najwan Halimi

Saya dibesarkan dalam persekitaran Melayu yang kuat. Sejak dari kecil, orang-orang tua dalam keluarga sering memomokkan saya akan bahaya yang dibawa oleh bangsa Cina dan India.

Kata mereka, Cina ini kaum pendatang yang suka menipu dan mahu merampas hak orang Melayu. India pula bangsa yang kuat mabuk, suka mencari gaduh dan melakukan jenayah. Untuk mendukung teori celaka ini maka minda Melayu saya disogok dengan satu kisah puaka yang terjadi empat dekad yang lalu.

(i)

Teori celaka – Cina penipu dan India suka cari gaduh – ini terbawa-bawa sehingga ke alam persekolahan rendah menerusi pergaulan saya yang hanya terbatas dalam kelompok anak-anak Melayu sahaja. Saya tidak berkawan dengan murid-murid bukan Melayu dan sering memandang curiga terhadap apa saja yang mereka lakukan.

Sewaktu darjah lima, seorang teman sekelas (budak Melayu yang saya lupa namanya) membuka kisah 13 Mei. Katanya, ini cerita benar yang didengar dari datuk dan bapa saudara yang (didakwanya) terlibat secara langsung dalam peristiwa tersebut. Saya jadi tertarik dan bertanya lanjut.

Maka dikatakan bahawa waktu itu orang-orang Cina bertindak biadap dan kurang ajar kerana menghina dan mencerca orang-orang Melayu. Orang Cina mengutuk hak istimewa Melayu dan merendah-rendahkan bahasa Melayu. Kerana merasakan bahawa maruah bangsa telah dicabar, orang-orang Melayu mengangkat senjata dan mengamuk dengan menyerang dan membunuh orang-orang Cina yang celupar itu.

Orang Cina bertindakbalas dan turut bertindak agresif. Maka saat itu parang, kayu, keris dan segala macam senjata melayang ke udara, cerita teman saya itu. Tambah beliau lagi (entah betul atau tidak), datuknya juga turut ditetak di dada oleh seorang Cina namun langsung tidak cedera kerana memiliki ilmu kebal yang menyebabkan badannya tidak lut senjata. Saya kagum dan teruja dengan cerita teman saya tadi.

Kemelayuan saya semakin jitu dan teori celaka – Cina penipu dan India suka cari gaduh – kini saya yakini sepenuhnya. Melayu itu hebat, pantang dicabar. Kalau dicabar, nahas!

Di rumah, saya bertanyakan bapa tentang 13 Mei. Kata beliau, waktu itu dia masih kecil dan tidak tahu menahu kerana peristiwa itu hanya berlaku di Kuala Lumpur sedangkan beliau menetap di Pahang. Tiba-tiba, bapa saya bercerita tentang Tun Razak, Dasar Ekonomi Baru dan UMNO.

Sekali lagi, teori celaka – Cina penipu dan India suka cari gaduh – bergema dalam minda saya. Ya, saya Melayu. Saya bangga jadi Melayu!

Hidup Melayu!

(ii)

Sewaktu bersekolah menengah, saya sekelas dengan ramai pelajar berbangsa Cina. Kesan daripada puaka 13 Mei ini, saya kekok dan sukar bergaul dengan pelajar-pelajar lain yang bukan berbangsa Melayu. Saya hanya senyap dan menyendiri di dalam kelas sehinggalah saya ditegur oleh seorang anak Cina yang fasih berbahasa Melayu.

Budak Cina ini bernama Tan Chien Liang. Dia anak orang kaya yang dihantar dan dijemput setiap hari oleh pemandu keluarganya. Ya, bapanya ahli perniagaan dan memiliki rumah banglo yang mewah.

Mulanya saya prejudis dan gemuruh dengan budak Tan ini. Puaka 13 Mei dan teori celaka – Cina penipu dan India suka cari gaduh – masih lagi bersarang dalam benak Melayu saya. Namun demikian, lama kelamaan saya mulai senang dengan Tan. Dia baik dan tidak menipu. Setiap kali saya terlupa membawa wang belanja, dia akan meminjamkan wangnya untuk saya beli makanan di kantin. Dia juga tidak akan beri jawapan kepada saya setiap kali saya cuba menirunya waktu peperiksaan. Tidak baik katanya.

Kami bersahabat. Macam belangkas, kata pelajar-pelajar lain. Dan saya semakin terlupa akan teori celaka – Cina penipu dan India suka cari gaduh – yang sering dimomokkan oleh orang-orang tua dalam keluarga saya. Saya senang dengan Tan. Dia fasih bercakap Melayu. Dia suka makanan Melayu. Dan dia juga menaruh cinta pada gadis Melayu!

Suatu hari, Tan bertanyakan saya tentang Islam. Dia mahu saya mengajarkannya perihal Islam. Katanya, dia suka berkawan dengan saya sebab saya baik. Sebab dia nampak orang Islam baik. Saya terpinga. Namun saya bersetuju.

Maka saya pun mula belajar dan pada masa sama mengajar Tan tentang Islam. Saya kaji Al-Quran, saya baca hadith. Oh, rupanya semua manusia ini bersaudara. Semua manusia ini berasal dari Adam. Melayu, Cina dan India rupanya manusia bersaudara. Cuma faktor sejarah, geografi dan budaya yang membezakan mereka. Hakikatnya – menurut pembacaan saya itu – semua manusia bersaudara.

Tiba-tiba teori celaka – Cina penipu dan India suka cari gaduh – cuba menyerang kesedaran yang baru terbina. Ada bisikan puaka yang mengingatkan saya tentang 13 Mei. Tentang kebiadapan Cina terhadap Melayu. Tentang kehebatan Melayu yang tak lut senjata. Tentang keris. Tentang Hang Tuah. Bisikan puaka ini menyuruh saya menafikan kenyataan bahawa manusia itu bersaudara dan sememangnya Cina penipu dan India suka cari gaduh.

Ah, tak mungkin! Tan baik orangnya. Dia tidak pernah menipu saya. Dia jujur sewaktu jawab peperiksaan dan dia mahu belajar tentang Islam. Dia suka berkawan dengan saya sebab saya juga baik kepadanya.

Dan bisikan puaka 13 Mei serta teori celaka – Cina penipu dan India suka cari gaduh – mendiamkan diri. Barangkali bengang kerana saya tidak melayani.

(iii)

Di universiti, saya belajar kejuruteraan. Sewaktu hari pertama kuliah – waktu sesi memperkenalkan diri – seorang budak India bernama Ganesan dengan bangganya mengatakan beliau seorang ateis.

Selepas kuliah, saya menghampiri Ganesan dan bertanyakannya kenapa dia tidak meyakini Tuhan. Dia hanya tersenyum sambil menyatakan bahawa dia sebenarnya masih dalam pencarian ke arah kebenaran. Saya berjabat tangan dengannya dan kami ke kafé untuk minum. Cukup mengejutkan kerana Ganesan juga fasih bertutur Melayu!

Ganesan, meski tidak percayakan Tuhan merupakan seorang siswa yang pintar. Dia rajin dan tidak lokek berkongsi pengetahuannya dengan saya. Dia juga tanpa silu selalu meminjamkan saya tugasan kuliah untuk ditiru. Kata Ganesan, hidup ini mesti tolong-menolong.

Setiap petang selepas kuliah, saya akan melepak di kafé dan bertukar cerita dengan Ganesan. Kami akan berbual pelbagai isu termasuk agama, politik, budaya dan sukan. Saya terharu tatkala Ganesan menyatakan bahawa dia amat mengagumi adat dan kebudayaan orang Melayu. Kata Ganesan, orang Melayu merupakan bangsa paling budiman dan halus pekertinya. Ganesan juga meminta tolong saya untuk memikat seorang siswi Melayu yang diminatinya.

Pengetahuan dan keprihatinan Ganesan terhadap budaya dan adat Melayu mendorong saya untuk mendalami budaya dan adat masyarakat India pula. Maka saya mengkaji dan menelaah makalah-makalah sejarah tentang ketamadunan India silam.  Agak menarik kerana rupa-rupanya, pembinaan tamadun Melayu banyak dipengaruhi dan berasal dari tamadun Hindu klasik dari India.

Saya teruja sebaik mengetahui bahawa asal moyang orang-orang Melayu dahulunya menganut ajaran Hindu dan bertutur dalam bahasa Melayu yang disaring dari perkataan-perkataan Sanskrit. Parameswara, pengasas kesultanan Melayu Melaka juga asalnya merupakan seorang Hindu sebelum diislamkan oleh saudagar Arab yang berdagang di Melaka.

Keterujaan saya pada ketika itu sekali lagi cuba digugat oleh bisikan puaka 13 Mei dan teori celaka – Cina penipu dan India suka cari gaduh – namun ianya gagal lagi. Ungkapan ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ dan ‘Hidup Melayu’ dipandang sepi oleh jiwa saya yang semakin mengerti hakikat kemanusiaan.

Ganesan dan saya kekal akrab. Meskipun dia ateis dan saya aktivis gerakan mahasiswa Islam, rutin minum petang di kafé selepas kuliah kekal diteruskan sehingga tamat pengajian.

(iv)

Hari ini, puaka 13 Mei sudah tidak mahu mendampingi saya lagi. Ianya telah jauh menghilangkan diri. Teori celaka – Cina penipu dan India suka cari gaduh – juga sudah tidak wujud dalam kematangan intelektual saya.

Selepas 8 Mac 2008, percubaan sesetengah pihak yang masih meyakini teori celaka – Cina penipu dan India suka cari gaduh – untuk menghidupkan semula puaka 13 Mei jelas sekali gagal. Manipulasi media untuk meracuni akal budi rakyat dengan menyemai sentimen kebencian melalui ego perkauman sememangnya keji dan menjengkelkan.

Saya bertuah kerana telah melalui kerencaman pergaulan sejak dari alam persekolahan rendah sehingga ke peringkat universiti dengan mengenali pelbagai bentuk karakter dan individu tanpa mengira latar bangsa dan kepercayaan. Semakin saya cuba untuk menegakkan ego kebangsaan dan keangkuhan ras, semakin terbentang ruang dan kesempatan untuk saya mendekati kepelbagaian dan keindahan multi-budaya.

Puaka 13 Mei dan pendekatan politik yang berlandaskannya harus dibunuh terus oleh kita semua. Teori celaka yang mewujudkan persepsi negatif terhadap ras-ras tertentu juga wajib disingkirkan daripada terus melatari keharmonian dan kelangsungan hidup warga negara ini.

Malaysia ini milik semua. Milik saya, Tan, Ganesan dan anak-anak cucu kami yang bakal mewarisinya nanti.

—

NAJWAN HALIMI adalah Ketua Penerangan AMK Selangor dan juga merupakan Timbalan Ketua Penerangan AMK Pusat.

Reporters Without Borders

Reporters Without Borders condemns the use of violence against journalists during a major civil society demonstration in Kuala Lumpur on 28 April, and the censorship of foreign TV coverage of the protest. The organization is also concerned about the scant coverage that the protest received in Malaysia’s mainstream print media such as Utusan Malaysia, New Straits Times and The Star.

Called Bersih 3.0 because it was the third of its kind organized by the Coalition for Free and Fair Elections (Bersih) in protest against the lack of government transparency about the next parliamentary elections, the demonstration was attended by a Reporters Without Borders representative, who witnessed the media freedom violations.

The Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) said coverage of the protest highlighted the print media’s lack of independence. Their inadequate and inaccurate reporting contrasts with Malaysia’s rise in international media freedom rankings and the promise of more media freedom in recent amendments to the Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA).

The media’s attitude is all the more disturbing in the run-up to such important elections, as it shows the degree to which they are still susceptible to pressure from the government and the political parties that own them.

Protest organizers and observers

The CIJ is one of the civil society organizations in the Bersih coalition, which also includes the Malaysia Youth and Students Democratic Movement and the Bar Council. The venue for its third demonstration was to have been Independence Square (Dataran Merdeka) in the centre of Kuala Lumpur. Smaller demonstrations were organized in other cities.

Bersih’s leaders had wanted to stage a sit-in (Duduk Bantah) in Independence Square from 2 to 4 p.m. but, two days before the protest, the Kuala Lumpur city authorities obtained a court order banning them from the square. On the eve of the protest, the police took up position on the main streets leading to the square, and barbed wire and plastic street barriers were used block access. Wearing the yellow Bersih T-shirt was not, however, banned this time.

On the day, a large crowd assembled at a nearby location and set off towards the square at 1:40 pm, led by Bersih members, journalists and Bar Council observers. Clashes broke out as they neared the square. When some of the demonstrators pushed past the barricades, the riot police on the other side used their water cannon, hosing them with a mixture of water and chemical irritants of the kind used in tear gas.

Violence and arrests

Police violence, attacks on demonstrators and arrests ensued. The Bar Council’s observers described the attitude of the police as “punitive.” In a statement the next day condemning the police violence as unjustified, Bar Council vice-president Christopher Leong pointed out that the interior minister had said before the demonstration that it did not pose a security threat.

As regards violence against the media, the Bar Council statement said: “The reported attacks by the police on members of the media, both local and international, and the confiscation and/or destruction of their photographs and video recordings, speaks to police action in covering up or preventing a full and accurate record of the Bersih 3.0 rally and the responses of the police.”

Al Jazeera reporter Harry Fawcett was forced to cover the protest using his iPad’s Skype app after the police damaged his crew’s camera. Describing the scenes of violence, he reported that the police “kicked, slapped and punched” demonstrators.

The Reporters Without Borders correspondent suffered no physical attack herself, but she was prevented from accessing an elevated position from which she could have taken photos of the crowd. Bar Council members, on the other hand, reported several cases of violence, including the clubbing of a lawyer inside a police truck after his arrest. A girl received several blows to the head before being rescued by a Bar Council member.

According to the CIJ, one journalist was badly hurt, sustaining a broken rib and possible internal injuries.

Merdeka Review reporter Chen Shaua Fui told Reporters Without Borders told Reporters Without Borders she was attacked by police when she tried to take photos of two demonstrators being beaten by police officers.

“Two men in yellow T-shirts were dining in a small restaurant on Jalan tun Perak Street,” she said. “It was 7 p.m. and most of the demonstrators had already dispersed. I was on the other side of the street when I saw two policemen go up to them and begin hitting them. I pulled out my camera but I was told not to use it. When I said I was a journalist, the policemen threatened me. I entered a nearby alley and saw a similar scene. I was already holding my camera and began taking photos.

“Four policemen approached me. One insulted me. Two others tried to grab my phone and camera from me. A fourth pulled violently at my backpack. They all insulted me although, in the confusion, I don’t remember what they said. I shouted several times that I was a journalist. In response, they snatched my press ID and threw it to the ground. I asked them several times if I was arrested but they did not reply to this. I think they just wanted to teach me a lesson. I finally succeeded in getting away and had the courage to pick up my press ID. I don’t think I will file a complaint. That serves no purpose here.”

Medical personnel reported that a total of 417 arrests were made and 117 people were taken to hospital.

Scant coverage, disinformation

On the whole, the violence was widely covered and commented in the alternative media and blogs even if they did not report all of the incidents.

But the CIJ reported in apress release on 26 April that coverage of protests in the print media had fallen dramatically compared with a similar period last year. Coverage of demonstrations was meagre in the leading Malaysian newspapers, and virtually non-existent in the newspapers that support the ruling coalition.

According to the CIJ release, there has been a 60 per cent fall in coverage by The Star and the Sun, and a 97 per cent fall in coverage by Utusan Malaysia and the New Straits Times. Such coverage as there was in these two newspapers was overwhelmingly negative, the release added.

Anticipating scant coverage by the main newspapers, the Bar Council mobilized around 80 lawyers and law students to monitor the demonstration. Many of these observers reported witnessing violence, including the use of tear-gas grenades and water cannon against demonstrators who had not provoked the police.

The lack of media coverage was compounded by government disinformation and attempts to minimize the size of the protest. It is not unusual for organizers and authorities to give different turnout figures but in this case only deliberate disinformation can explain the difference. On the one hand, the organizers estimated that 250,000 people took part and the CIJ estimated 100,000. On the other, the police put the turnout at 30,000 while a government press office went to so far as to claim that only 4,000 people participated.

BBC censored

The Sarawak Report, a news website run by investigative journalist Clare Rewcastle Brown, reported that Astro Malaysia, a satellite TV service owned MEASAT Broadcast Network Systems, censored the BBC World News’ coverage of the demonstration, eliminating more than 30 seconds of footage showing police water cannon hosing protesters and participants criticizing the government and Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak.

According to the Sarawak Report, the BBC is investigating Astro’s alleged censorship of its broadcast. Astro received the Cable and Satellite Broadcasting Association of Asia prize in 2009 for its contribution to pay TV in the region. The Sarawak Report said Al Jazeera’s coverage may also have been the victim of similar censorship.

The ruling Barisan Nasional coalition wants to prolong its decades-old control of the government in the general elections that must be held by April 2013. Prime Minister Najib’s party, the United Malays National Organization (UMNO), the coalition’s dominant member, is meanwhile due to hold its annual national congress in July.

Headed by former Bar Council president Ambiga Sreenevasan, Bersih is not a political coalition. It is a campaign for electoral reform that is supported by civil society organizations and opposition parties. The authorities banned it on the eve of its first big demonstration in 2011 and its current status is unclear.

Pak anjang Osman, mantan Ketua Cabang Nibong Tebal Pulang Kerahmatullah semalam. Allahyarham adalah reformis tegar, gigih bergerak mengasaskan Keadilan dan menjadi tunggak pergerakan sekian lama. Saya sempat menziarahinya di hospital seberang jaya bukan lalu, kagum dengan semangat tinggi.

Takziah kepada mak anjang Dan keluarga, kami mendoakan semuga ruh allahyarham di semadikan bersama para solihin.

Anwar Ibrahim

Harakah

KUALA LUMPUR, 8 Mei: Aktivis sosial Marina Mahathir berpendapat kerajaan perlu menubuhkan sebuah Suruhanjaya Siasatan Diraja (RCI) berhubung insiden yang berlaku dalam perhimpunan Bersih 3.0 Duduk Bantah pada 28 April lalu.

Katanya, kerajaan perlu menubuhkan suruhanjaya itu bagi membersihkan namanya dan rakyat akan menyokong kerana mereka mempunyai kepentingan di dalamnya.

“Saya tidak fikir sesiapa yang benar-benar akan tahu lagi yang bertanggungjawab. Kita mungkin perlu sebuah Suruhanjaya Siasatan Diraja (RCI) untuk sampai kepada mereka bawah ini.

“Kerajaan harus merasa insentif untuk menubuhkan sebuah suruhanjaya untuk membersihkan namanya, dan semua orang patut menyokong kerana setiap orang mempunyai kepentingan di dalamnya,” katanya dipetik daripada temubual Free Malaysia Today (FMT).

Beliau yang mengikuti perhimpunan Bersih 3.0 tidak menyaksikan apa-apa provokasi dari penyokong himpunan itu.

Katanya, perhimpunan itu bertukar huru-hara apabila melihat polis menembak kanister gas pemedih mata dan meriam air ke arah orang ramai, selepas peserta himpunan merempuh penghadang di sekitar Dataran Merdeka.

“Tiada siapa yang telah menjadi provokatif. “Terdapat semangat yang tinggi, ramai orang muda dan pihak polis sangat sabar.”

“Tetapi mereka tiba-tiba membawa trak, dan orang bertopi keledar dan perisai. Kami tidak benar-benar memahami mengapa. Saya fikir ia adalah satu faktor ugutan,” katanya.

Rabu lepas, Persatuan bagi Penggalakan Hak Asasi Manusia (Proham) telah juga menggesa Putrajaya untuk melakukan perkara yang sama dalam laporan yang bercanggah mengenai keganasan antara polis dan peserta himpunan dalam Bersih 3.0.

Bagaimanapun, pihak polis telah mempertahankan tindakan mereka mengatakan bahawa keadaan akan bertambah buruk jika mereka hanya berdiri tepi.

“Perkara yang Dahsyat berlaku (pada hari itu) kerana mereka melemparkan gas pemedih mata. Tidak mahu orang memasuki Dataran Merdeka kemudian dilepaskan gas pemedih mata,” katanya.