A Question of Malaysian Fairness.

This case bothers Malaysians a lot because one of the big questions that has to be answered is whether the mutual parental consent of both parents in a marriage or divorce are needed when one parent converts to Islam and permits the Islamic authorities to convert a child who is under the age of consent.

The court has just ruled that one parent could have the child converted without the consent of the other marriage partner!

Subashini case: Divorce comes under civil court
Soon Li Tsin | Dec 27, 07 12:24pm

The Federal Court today ruled that the syariah courts cannot dissolve a civil marriage and all dissolutions made in the religious court is only effective within the confines of the Islamic law.

“The non-Muslim marriage between the husband and wife remains intact and continues to subsist until the High Court dissolves it pursuant to a divorce petition by the unconverted spouse under the LRA,” said justice Nik Hashim Nik Ab Rahman.

This is a minor victory for company secretary R Subashini as her marriage with Islam-convert husband T Saravanan was a civil marriage and she could go to the civil courts for her divorce.

Subashini, 28, a Hindu, is trying to stop her husband, who has converted to Islam and assumed the name Muhammad Shafi Saravanan Abdullah, from taking matrimonial proceedings to the Syariah Court.

Her husband converted in May 2006 along with their eldest son, Dharvin Joshua, 4. The husband then launched proceedings in the Syariah Court for divorce as well as the custody of their second son, Sharvin, 2.

However, the issue of custody of their children remain unclear as the Federal Court today also ruled that Saravanan did not abuse the law by converting his four-year-old son to Islam without the knowledge of the mother.

It said that according to the Federal Constitution, only the consent of one parent is sufficient in the conversion of a child.

The court also ruled that it was within the right of Saravanan as a Muslim to file the divorce proceedings in the Syariah Court.

Nevertheless, the Federal Court three-member panel today delivered a blow against Subashini by throwing out her case on a legal technicality - that her divorce petition was 'premature and invalid'.

In a 2-1 decision, the country’s highest court said that Subashini’s divorce petition was prematurely filed under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (LRA).

According to the act, the wife can only file for divorce three months after the date of her husband T Saravanan’s conversion to Islam, as stipulated under Islamic law.

However, Subashini’s divorce petition was filed about two weeks before the three months expiration date. The divorce petition is deemed null and void. Nevertheless, Subashini can apply for a fresh application.

Justices Nik Hashim Nik Ab Rahman and Azmel Ma'amor struck out Subashini’s case while justice Abdul Aziz Mohamad was the lone dissenting voice.

Federal Court overruled lower court

During her appeal to the Court of Appeal on March 13, justices Suriyadi Halim Omar and Hassan Lah who made the majority 2-1 decision told her to take her case before the Syariah Court instead, while justice Gopal Sri Ram dissented.

According to the majority decision, the injunction sought by Subashini was unsustainable because the Syariah Court is competent enough decide on the matter.

However, on March 30, Subashini was granted an interim injunction by the Court of Appeal restraining Saravanan from pursuing his claims in the Islamic court.

The injunction also effectively restrained him from converting their Sharvin to Islam and from pursuing his custody claims in the Syariah Court.

It was also held in the landmark ruling that a Muslim could apply to the Islamic court to convert his or her underage children without permission from the non-Muslim spouse.

Anwar: Malaysia's JFK

I'm gradually convinced Anwar is going to be a great leader. He speaks out on issues that matter most to Malaysians, reacting at the right time and providing practical solutions.

As a once ago naive die-hard government supporter... I am increasingly seeing the potential Kennedy-Reagan-Clinton leadership style in a prime-ministerial role.

Here is an insightful look at the leader as reported by Malaysiakini-the news portal that rocks.

Anwar tells PM: Negligence is greater threat
Terence Netto | Dec 27, 07 1:25pm

Malaysia is in greater danger from the negligence of those in power than from the rage felt by its recalcitrants, said PKR's de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim.

"Our society is in greater danger from executive negligence than from the extremism of its recalcitrants,” he said in an immediate response to Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's Christmas Day strictures on religious extremism.

On Dec 25, Abdullah had taken the opportunity of his attendance at the Christmas Day tea party, jointly organised by the Christian Federation of Malaysia and Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur Murphy Packiam, to inveigh against religious extremisn.

The prime minister called on moderates in Malaysia to speak up to pre-empt fanatics from taking centre stage.

This drew an immediate riposte from Anwar, who with his wife Wan Azizah, also attended the tea party at the invitation of Archbishop Packiam.

"On the birth celebration of the Prince of Peace, it is right and fitting to remind every citizen of his or her value as a channel of peace, moderation and tolerance,” said Anwar, who also former deputy prime minister.

"But bear in mind that peace is not just the absence of conflict; it is the presence of justice. Where there is little or no justice, there will be a deficit in peace."

Anwar’s advice to PM

Anwar observed that Christian social teaching held peace and justice to be obverse sides of the same coin.

Of Abdullah's strictures on extremism, Anwar opined: "He is a purveyor of platitudes. He keeps his counsel when he ought to speak up.

“When he does speak up, he mouths pious platitudes which are about as useful as buying an umbrella after it has started to rain."

Anwar offered this piece of advice to the prime minister: “Look to the causes of disorder and not its symptoms, just don't treat the bark when the roots need remedy, reach for the panacea and not be satisfied with the placebo."

David Marshall: What is Justice?

Continuation of extracts from Alex Josey's The David Marshall Trails (Singapore: Times Books International, 1981) pages 246-7:

They found out about him pestering Mei-lin*. They were not surprised: in Johore, Bellows* had a reputation for manhandling girls whenever he had had a drop too much. He had been involved in several nasty fights over bargirls in some of the more disreputable night haunts.

Altogether they seemed to be plenty of evidence that Ah Tong* might have a good cause for assaulting Bellows but hardly enough to suggest murder. In any case was Ah Tong strong enough to swing a heavy parang (long sharp knife) with such murderous intent? It must have been a very determined blow that struck Bellows, a blow that needed considerable effort and strength. Hatred brings strength, sometimes. The evidence in the diary could not be ignored.

When the police told Ah Tong that they might have to arrest him in connection with Bellows' murder, two things happened very suddenly.

Firstly, a young man stepped forward and confessed to the murder. His name was Foo Chan*. Second, the village headman telephoned the Old Man's (David Marshall's) office to retain his services, "no matter what the cost", he said.

The Old Man hurried to the village, talked to the headman and to the young man who had confessed to killing Bellows.

Then the Old Man inspected the scene of the crime. He was puzzled by the young man's attitude. He seemed not the slightest bit worried. He had no remorse. When the Old Man asked him why he killed Bellows, the young man said, in translation, that he'd picked up the parang in the store, followed Bellows and struck him.

"Yes, yes," said the Old Man. "That was how you killed him. But why?"

"Why?"

"Yes, why did you kill him?"

For a moment Foo Chan hesitated. Then he said, as though remembering his lines in a play: "Oh yes. Because he was a bad man."

"That hardly seems sufficient reason for you to crease his skull with a parang." muttered the Old Man.

No man looked less like a murderer than Foo Chan. He did not look like a peasant. He looked more like a studious student, a research student. What was he doing in this village? His place was in the classroom, or a laboratory in a university, not in the padi fields. Short, plumb, gentle, he wore wore large spectacles, clean white shirt, creased white trousers. His nails were short and clean. Try as he could the lawyer could not visualise Foo Chan creeping up behind the taller Bellows and summoning enough rage and strength to plunge a parang into Bellow's head. He didn't look capable of swatting a fly.

The Old Man was experienced: he had defended many men accused of murder. Murder was usually a one-time affair, unpremeditated, emotion playing the predominant part. Most murderers look unlike the conception of a killer. But Foo Chan! He appeared entirely without emotion. He treated the Old Man with respect, having apparently no fear that in this man's hands rested his future existence. He sought no assurances. He seemed perfectly satisfied that he was in no danger.

The Old Man went back to the headman and told him that he could only take the case and defend the young man on the distinct understanding that Foo Chan permitted him to decide the method and form of defence. Willingly, the headman at once agreed. Any conditions the Old Man laid down would be faithfully carried out. The village had absolute confidence in him.

"You realise, of course, that if I fail, this young man will hang?"

"Because you are defending him, we know that he won't," replied the headman with a bland smile.

"Let us not carry trust too far," warned the Old Man, a little shaken.


TO BE CONTINUED


*fictitious names but real persons

I Salute You, Sir.

For a long, long time I was a cheer-leading supporter of the government and did things that some could consider as 'patriotic' wherever I was but times have changed and I have seen and heard the pain and suffering of my fellow citizens. Indeed, my half-blinded eyes have now truly opened to the reality of the present situation.

I am not saying I am against the government; on the contrary, I have not given up my support on many other matters.

I do not agree though with the disturbing decisions rendered by the judiciary on certain matters in the past and these decisions affect the lives of not only us in the present but the many generations to come after us. Their future is of paramount importance to me as a responsible , law-abiding citizen and also a God-fearing loving parent.

It is because of this simple concern about justice and fair play for all that I am critical of how the government is attempting to resolve the present possible law-breaking Lingam case and the questionable independence and integrity of the judiciary.

It is therefore, a welcoming breath of fresh air that we hear such good news as that of victory over barbaric inhuman human actions.

The following letter is taken from Malaysiakini-the must read online news portal that is many more times better than all the mainstream papers put together in Malaysia.

I proudly salute this honorable gentleman of steely courage and conviction.

A history-making judge
Kim Quek
Oct 23, 07 12:20pm

For the first time in history, a Malaysian judge heavily punished the government for gross abuse of its draconian law – the first big slap on the face of the Executive, long accustomed to unrestrained and unconstitutional persecution of political dissidents with virtual impunity from compliant attorney general and judiciary.

In a judgment that is bound to illuminate the Malaysian judiciary for a long time to come, High Court Judge Hishamudin Mohd Yunus ruled on Oct 18 that the state has violated the constitution and awarded political detainee Abdul Malek Hussin RM 2.5 million in total compensation.

Malek was arrested by the police under the dreaded Internal Security Act (ISA) in September 1998 in the tumultuous days of Reformasi (reform movement) following the sacking and imprisonment of former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim.

During the 57 days of detention, Malek was subjected to - in the words of Judge Hishamudin - “vile assault, unspeakable humiliation, prolonged physical and mental ill-treatment”, and completely deprived of legal counsel.

In March 1999, Malek filed a civil suit, citing a police special branch officer Borhan Daud, the then Inspector General of Police Rahim Noor, and the government as correspondents.

In his judgment, Hishamudin found no evidence of Malek posing any threat to national security but every indication that the detention and torture was politically motivated arising from Malek’s support to Anwar Ibrahim and his reform movement.

As such, Malek’s detention was unlawful, and a violation of his constitution right under Article 5(3).

In hard hitting language, the judge described the defendents’ behaviour as “inhuman, cruel and despicable”.

He awarded an exemplary damage of RM 1.0 million “to show the abhorrence of the court of the gross abuse of an awesome power under the Internal Security Act, and to ensure that the extent of abuse is kept to the most minimal, if not eliminated completely.”

In his 41-page judgment, Hishamudin pin-pointed several police officers for breaching the law and concocting evidence.

He also expressed displeasure at the Deputy Public Prosecutor for having implicitly colluded with police officers in thwarting Malek’s complaints.

Courageous judgment

Justice Hishamudin is no stranger to human rights watchers, who have been impressed by his consistent record in delivering independent and impartial judgment - a remarkable feat in a judiciary perceived to often bend to the wishes of the high and mighty, in scant regards to the constitution.

His most notable judgment is perhaps his decision in May 2001 to free two Reformasi activists – N Gobalakrishnan and Abdul Ghani Haroon – arrested under ISA at the height of repression against the Reformasi movement under former autocrat Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

In the present judgment, Hishamudin’s courageous and righteous act has undoubtedly brought cheers to a nation long dismayed by unrelenting decline in judicial integrity and most recently shocked by the stunning revelation of the Lingam video clip.

In this latest scandal, lawyer VK Lingam was allegedly conspiring with present Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim in a telephone conversation to “fix” judicial appointments, apparently inspired by their personal loyalty to then premier Mahathir in 2002.

Subsequent events had turned out to tally with the scenario outlined in the Lingam-Fairuz conversation, thus strengthening the credibility of this tape.

Such subjugation of judiciary to political manipulation has in fact been common knowledge, as evident from many cases of glaring perversion of justice whenever the interests of the ruling power so dictate.

The deterioration of our judiciary has however hastened in recent years as seen in the rapid promotion of judges of dubious records in a process shrouded in secrecy.

Some of these promotions are seen as rewards for having “delivered” in the shameful Anwar trials and appeals.

Skewed judicial system

A prominent example of this skewed system of promotion is seen in the contrast of fortunes between Justice Hishamudin and Justice Augustine Paul (of the infamous Anwar trial fame).

While Paul, newly promoted to High Court to handle the Anwar case in 1998, had leapfrogged to the nation’s highest court (Federal Court) by 2005, Hishamudin has remained stagnant as a High Court judge since 1995, despite his illustrious judicial record.

Another example is Court of Appeal judge Gopal Sri Ram, the most senior judge who has made Malaysians proud for his many impartial and courageous judgments, has been by-passed for promotion to the Federal Court 14 times by his juniors since his direct appointment to the Court of Appeal in 1994.

Some of these promoted on the express train had stayed in the Court of Appeal for only one year, notably those who were seen to have “delivered”.

The moral of the story in our judiciary is obvious: fortune only smiles on those who are obedient and submissive, but woe to those who are steadfastly principled.

Under such a system, is there any wonder why our judiciary has been traveling on a downward slippery way?

While our spirit is buoyed by the Hishamudin judgment, we must temper our joy with the realization that the likes of Hishamudin and Sri Ram are rare gems that numerically could not influence the course of our judiciary.

As they say, one swallow does not a summer make. Judicial reform is a long journey, and we haven’t even started yet.

But start we must, as the Hishamudin judgment has already opened our eyes to the immense benefits that a just judiciary can bring to the nation.

Judicial reform a must

Imagine our courts are filled mostly with judges of Hishamudin’s integrity – from High Courts to Court of Appeal to Federal Court – and led by a chief justice of impeccable honesty and competence.

Wouldn’t that be the best deterrent against the rampant breeding of corruption and abuse of power that is raging in every strata and section of our government – the cabinet, judiciary, attorney general’s chambers, police, government departments, anti-corruption agency, election commission, statutory bodies and GLCs (government linked corporations)?

In fact, a competent judiciary can act as a powerful agent to cleanse our political and administrative systems of corruption.

Corollary to that, wouldn’t a revamped judiciary bring about a more level playing field for political contests through restoration of citizens’ constitution rights while suppressing similar infringement by the incumbent power?

Through such restoration of democracy, we will surely see the natural replacement of the corrupt and the incompetent by the bright and the dedicated to lead the nation.

In summary, a cleaner administration in a more vibrant democracy, served by a competent judiciary, is certainly the right recipe to restore investors’ confidence, which has seen steady decline in the last decade.

Judicial reform is therefore a crucial move that will bring about a turning point in our history - arresting the present decline in government quality, rejuvenating the leadership, while serving as a major catalyst to boost our economy.

It is for this reason that we cannot afford to compromise on our quest for a royal commission of enquiry to look into the judicial rot revealed by the Lingam video clip, as a first step towards full reform.

And you can contribute towards making this objective a reality by supporting a petition to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to set up such a royal commission.

All you need to do is to email your name with IC number to: savethejudiciary@gmail.com. The full text of the petition can be read at: http://harismibrahim.wordpress.com.

A Digital Age Lesson

I find this letter in Malaysiakini-the independent online news portal that helps you think out of the box-so compellingly convincing that I have to share it with my visitors around the world.

ACA, copies are as good as originals
Digitalized Man
Oct 26, 07 9:18pm

I find it ridiculous that the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) is demanding for Anwar Ibrahim to surrender the original copy of the VK Lingam tape.

What original copy? What do they mean by that?

I doubt if such a copy exists even with Anwar, since the original owner of the copy will most likely has it in his handphone or in a smart card that was used to record the video in the first place, and he had downloaded it to a disc for public display, which has led to the show that had unfurled before us.

Or Anwar could have been given the video by phone or email. So to get the original copy, one has to get the handphone or whatever device the video was recorded on.

I hope that ACA better realises quickly that we are now living in the digital world and not analogue anymore. It is a world of fascinating wonders and 'original copies' of any video recording look the same in form and structure as the subsequent ones. One can make millions of copies of the Lingam tape and none will look any different than the other, and all will look like the original copy.

It is unlike analogue recording where each subsequent copy or transfer of the video will render a lesser quality and this is how the FBI or any organisation trained in electronic and video recording can determine if any video footage is original or not.

Even then, why bother whether the video is original or copy? What the ACA should do is to get on with the show, and deal with the issue at hand, and not the medium.

The FBI did not bother to verify if the photos of the Canadian pedophilia were genuine or fake when they first saw them in the Internet. They acted on the photos even though they were not the originals and the photographer's identity was not determined. Hence, the Canadian was nabbed in Thailand based on the photos that were posted in an anonymous website.

If the FBI had bothered to check to see if the photos were original and demanded that those who had posted them be confirmed, they would not have come to this stage where the culprit is in custody and be charged in court based on the said photos.

What the ACA should be concerned the most, if they truly want to get on with it, is to find if the 'actor' in the video is original, and not a copy (meaning, a fake Lingam). This can be done very simply by getting Lingam to admit that the person in the video is not him. If he admits that it is him, then there is no need to backtrack in the investigation on the case.

Could the ACA mean that they are looking for the original cameraman who had shot the video? Why must the focus be on him? It should be on the substance and material, not on the medium and worse, the messenger, who in this case is Anwar.

What the ACA is doing is baffling. Even the police readily accept information if it is given to them on paper that does not have any fingerprints and sent in the mail without the sender's identity. And many serious crimes had been solved using information that was given to them by individuals who wish to remain anonymous.

So why does the ACA demand that the source of the video be determined before they could act on it?

Why can't they check with the telecommunications companies for the itemised bills for Lingam's and the senior judge's numbers to see if they had made calls to each other at the stipulated time?

From itemised billings of Lingam's and the judge's and other personalities' handphones, the authorities can find out how many times they had made calls to each other and how frequent their telephone communications were.

So my message to the ACA is - welcome to the digital world.

Defending the Wrong Person

One of the greatest Legal Eagles, whom I truly admire is undoubtedly a Singaporean Eurasian, the late Jewish ex-Prime Minister David Marshall. He was a man of great integrity and believed in truth and justice for every person.

Here is an extract of an interesting case with a slight sprinkle of dark humor, which he took up during the colonial era in Malaya. It is an excerpt from Alex Josey's The David Marshall Trials (Singapore: Times Books International, 1953).

In Defense of the Wrong Man

Twenty-five years ago, as Fred told the story, Alf Bellows, a European security man, a sort of district officer, was murdered in a small Chinese village in Johore, just across the Causeway, a couple of an hours' drive from Singapore. The man was a drunken sadistic bully. After a bout of heavy drinking, he would torment the keeper of a general store, a scraggy, unhappy Chinese with a large family and a wife dying of cancer.He was known to all the villagers as Ah Tong.Whenever Ah Tong could, he would try to fondle Ah Tong's teenaged daughter, Mei Lin who helped her father in the store. She was terrified of Bellows.

To be continued....

Sharia Law Offenders Face Justice

VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED!
The video you're about to watch contains highly disturbing scenes of the ultimate horror of two men being punished by stoning to death for committing adultery. Before the actual stoning, another man is seen being flogged many times for his alcohol consumption.

This video was secretly filmed and smuggled out to the West by Iranian Muslims who were sick of the inhuman punishment meted out on fellow Iranians.

It would serve as a reminder to all citizens who live in democratic countries which practise Common Law justice to appreciate how humane, just and civilized their Law is.


This video is from http://www.antijihad.com

Civics 3: Powers of the Judiciary

Part 3 Continuation of 1970s Compulsory Malaysian Civics Lessons: Powers of the Judiciary

Brother: In the last class, I talked about the Malaysian constitution. Today we talk about the powers of the judiciary.

In Malaysia, all judicial power rests with the Federal Court and the High Courts, which control all the subordinate courts.

The Federal Court of Malaysia comprises of the Lord President* as the Head, the two Chief Justices of the High Courts and two judges*. It is within its capacity to interpret the Constitution and to determine the validity of any enactment made by Parliament or a State legislature.

The Federal Court also has the exclusive jurisdiction to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, when called upon to do so, as to the effect of any provision of the Constitution.

Disputes between States, or between the Federation and any State, can be determined by the Federal Court.

So can appeals from the decisions of a High Court. In this case, the Federal Court decides on the propriety of these decisions, and may uphold these decisions or amend them.

However it may not pardon offenders in capital cases. Only the Yang di-Pertuan Agong has this right to exercise clemency, though he cannot interfere with the judicial proceeding while it is being conducted or administered, and though the judges are responsible to him for its administration.

There are two High Courts in Malaysia-one in Malaya, the other in Borneo. They have equal powers, though these are more limited than those of the Federal Court. They are equal in rank and status as well.

Each of these courts has a Chief Justice* and a number of other judges, the least of which is four. It exercises control over all the subordinate courts in its particular division, the Sessions Courts and Magistrates' Courts. Religious Courts do not come under its control.

Major offences against the law, criminal, civil or regulatory, are tried in the High Court, which may also hear and determine appeals from the subordinate courts. Criminal law offences are taken to mean those against the community, though the acts themselves may affect certain members. In cases where capital punishment may be involved, trial is by jury*. Such trials may be conducted only in the High Court.

Civil law matters concerns disputes between individuals, or groups of individuals, on infringements of rights and obligations; while regulatory law cases usually involve violations against registration and licensing rulings.

In criminal and civil law offences, judgement is not based solely on a written code of law, as new and more complex cases constantly arise. It is also based on precedence, where previous judgements on cases of a similar nature are taken as a guide. Thus the law, in this respect, is constantly changing, as new judgements are made and new precedents set.

In contrast, laws which regulate our daily lives and activities are codified and enacted by Parliament. However, such laws are open to interpretation, and in many past instances, the Judiciary has resorted to the use of its wide discretionary powers.

It may also exercise these powers when it determines the degree of punishment each criminal offender should receive. The kind of punishment he should receive for his offence has been established by Parliament. So were the maximum and minimum penalties...


* CHANGED PRESENTLY
** No longer practised in Malaysia.
To be continued

Merdaka Wishing

One of my Merdeka wishes sometime ago stated in my blog was that some famous politicians would show their sincerity in their character change by doing certain things. My wish for Tun Mahathir was that he would shave his head, a highly unlikely action... but it seems that his son's action would be the closest one could get to seeing the real thing happening to him! This pic of Mokhzani Mahathir is taken from Mahathir's daughter's blog.

On the topic of Pak Lah's great Malaysian predecessor, I like the guy and think he did a lot of amazing stuff for the nation such as building those high iconic towers in KL, etc.

I prefer not to mention big Putra Jaya because I am told he had not made it into a multi-religious city with non-Islamic worship facilities.

I also prefer to overlook certain distracting actions: his government's executive attack on the judiciary resulting in the sacking of the Lord President; the sacking of his DPM; the amendments to the constititutional clauses with regard to the powers of the monarchy and on Islamic jurisdiction and last but not least, the excessive Operation Lallang which caused pain and misery to those persons, including family members, affected by the loss of their basic civil liberties.

I always thought he could be one of the greatest world leaders, despite all those actions and his typical tough talk and harsh criticisms of anything under the sun. Here was the forceful (I think the term 'bullying' is too harsh) leader who could be the next Ghandi or Mandela: uniting our people in a fair way, perhaps even removing the unsuccessful NEP with all its abuses and special exclusive elitist beneficiaries; ensuring meritocracy would be woven into our society's fabric so that there would be little teasing, less mockery about unfair educational opportunities, benefits and free hand-outs to a special segment of our society.

The end result of all the Ghandi and Mandela-like actions would surely be the birth of a new Malaysian spirit that takes pride in a truly multi-cultural society that will share in the diversity of our races and creeds. In accepting various creeds, no religion will be allowed to force another to follow it and no religion will also be allowed to prevent others from leaving it.

There can always be wishes and dreams... but the visions are the ones that I wish our leaders will have and achieve them in fairness and justice. May they do so legally under our just and fair constitution and not undermine it. Merdeka would be a hollow word if the nation goes to the dogs, so to speak and we end up as a nation with more and more loss of civil liberties and miserable Fourth World conditions.

Having said all these, I don't believe Mokhzani was reacting to my challenge anyway but it's a nice thought to think that who knows, our Cosmic Joker above made it all possible... indirectly and it is a sign that our ex-tough master statesman, is really a changed man.... A man who now believes in true justice for all regardless of status and the full liberty of all Malaysians (You got it, Rousseau's "Man is born free" and all that idealistic noble stuff) .... I wish he would retract his words about Malaysia being an Islamic state... I wish ... I wish... Here I go again with so many never-ending wishes on this special day!

Catholic Merdeka Message

This is a message from the Catholic Church:

Message of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Malaysia on the Golden Jubilee of Merdeka

The Catholic Bishops of Malaysia rejoice with all Malaysians as we celebrate the Golden Jubilee of Merdeka, 50 years of independence, freedom and nationhood. There is much for us to celebrate as we have made outstanding progress and achieved great development to stand out as one of the most developed countries in South East Asia.

However, as we celebrate our success, we should also be aware of areas of concern which have surfaced in recent years, namely religious and racial tensions, corruption and a rising crime rate.

Racial and religious tensions have been heightened by increasing infringements on the fundamental right to freedom of religion which is enshrined in the Constitution, and a growing perception that non-Muslims’ religions and concerns are diminished or neglected. To move ahead and for Malaysians to continue to be united, we must adhere to the social contract arrived at by our founding fathers, the Federal Constitution and the Rukun Negara, our national ideology.

We urge the government and elected Representatives of Parliament and State legislatures as custodians of the rights of all Malaysians to address these issues directly. They should not let the growing number of individuals of a predominant group in the civil and armed services and the executive branches of governance to act in ways which are prejudicial or hurtful to the sensibilities of non-Muslims and those of other faiths.

In addition, the government should hold dialogues between followers of various religions in the country, not only to foster greater understanding and harmony among our people of different faiths, but also to resolve by consensus, the various problems and obstacles to the peace and prosperity of our beloved nation.

We are concerned about continued reports of corruption and lack of transparency and accountability, and urge the Government to be more proactive in the eradication of corruption and more transparent in its administration of public funds and projects.

We are concerned with the rising crime rate and fear that our country may be heading towards a breakdown of enforcement of law and order if the situation is allowed to continue. It is timely for the Government to reform the Royal Malaysia Police Force for effective implementation of a better policing system.

In our role as Malaysian citizens and as leaders in the Catholic Church, we work towards and pray for the very best that our nation deserves.

As such, urge you not to be dispirited by such recurring problems and to become catalysis of nation-building especially by promoting inter-racial and inter-religious harmony, “For he is the peace between us, and has made the two into one and broken down the barrier which used to keep them apart, actually destroying in his own person the hostility caused by the rules and decrees of the Law” (Ep 2:14-16) and integrity in your civic duties.

May Almighty God continue to bless Malaysia with continued peace and prosperity.

Sincerely in Christ,
Archbishop Murphy Pakiam
President
21 August 2007.

Haunting the British...

GOODNESS GRACIOUS ME! I can almost imagine the British, whom if I may add, I admire, exclaiming just that if they open their early morning papers and read the headlines that screams "Ex- Colonial Subjects Sue Us". It's a brilliant move by our Malayan Indian brothers. Even if the British courts strike it down, the mere proceedings will surely highlight the plight of Malayan Indians today. Frankly speaking, I think even if the repentant British allow the grave injustice to be righted, even if the Indians get compensated one penny each, the case would have shown the world that rosey-dovey (Gotta check out this term that just popped up in my head) real Malaysia is far from being perfect today. I know because I was in West Malaysia in the late 1970s and I noticed how the Indians lived from Penang to Johore. Yet, in the Interact conference in Penang, I was astonished and yes, impressed to see and listen to the eloquence of many if not most of the Indian student delegates who presented working papers... They seemed to be everywhere... So what went wrong with the East Indians in those days? What about today? Karpal Singh is of course the most famous Indian ...But seriously, we don't see too many Indians in the civil cervice, etc....Have they been marginalised all these years before and after independence? And yes, the butt of a political joke about the Indians is their Barisan representative party, MIC... We say it means Must I Come for cabinet meetings and decisions because their representation, voices and powers are so obviously negligible. My apology here if that's an offensive joke-don't sue me, brilliant Indian lawyers! The following article is borrowed from Malaysiakini-the must read 'Think out of the box' paper. M'sian sues UK gov’t for ‘oppression’

Sep 3, 07 12:24pm

One million pounds sterling for every one of the two million Indian Malaysians - an Ipoh-based lawyer is seeking this staggering sum of compensation from Britain for alleged failure to protect the minority community’s interests during independence talks. P Wathya Moorthy, who is also Hindu Action Rights Force chairperson, filed the suit against the UK secretary of state for foreign and commonwealth affairs last Thursday at the Royal Court of Justice in London. The suit captures the lingering resentment of the Indian Malaysian community over 50 years of independence with the claim for compensation based on their “pain, suffering, humiliation, discrimination and continuous colonialisation”. In his statement of claim, Wathya Moorthy also sought declarations that: Colonial Britain was responsible for the exportation of labour from India to Malaysia; The Reid Commission Report dated Feb 11, 1957 and the Malayan Federal Constitution prepared on the respondent's defendant be declared null and void; The Reid Commission Report had failed to incorporate the rights of the Indian community; There has been gross violation, segregation, discrimination, marginalisation and apartheid of Indian Malaysians; and Article 153 of the Federal Constitution, which provides for Malay special privileges, is in contravention of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Labour Organisation legislation with regard to racial discrimination. In a press statement issued yesterday, Wathya Moorthy explained that the suit is necessary to let the international community know how Indian Malaysians have been affected. “The UK now cannot detach itself permanently or partially from colonial problems,” he said. “It had a moral, legal, social and political responsibility to ensure there existed fair governance throughout her colonies and any violation of rights must be attended to immediately before it becomes a menace causing (an) international crisis.” Long-standing issues Wathya Moorthy said it is an undisputable fact that the respondent was principally responsible for “illegitimate” export of human resources from British colonial India to serve their interests in Malaya. “Before independence was declared to Malaya, the peculiar position of the Indians was assured to be protected by the British government. But this assurance was never translated into action by the British in the creation of the Federal Constitution,” he said. “They have grossly neglected to discharge their legal and moral duties... The framework provided by the British government to Malaya resulted in severe imbalance and prejudice which are presently irreversible and beyond correction. “As a direct consequence the Indians today have effectively become the underclass citizens of Malaysia and remain colonialised forever. Moreover, there exist no mechanisms under the present governance to remedy the gross imbalance.” Wathya Moorthy said Indian Malaysians are now suffering as a result of being “colonised” by the current government with little chance of upward mobility. “(The Indian Malaysians have formed a) new underclass... and (are) under-privileged citizens of Malaysia and remain permanently colonialised by the ruling Muslim-majority government led by Umno,” he said in his statement of claim. He listed the government policies allegedly utilised against the community, including: Bumiputera special privileges Not fully aiding the 523 Tamil schools No affirmative action policies for poor Indians vis-a-vis similar policies for bumiputeras Denying Indians top- and mid-level postings in the civil service Demolition of Hindu temples Victimisation by enforcement authorities He argued that these problems are a direct result of the failure of the Reid Commission to safeguard the community’s interests. “(The colonial government) gave in to the Malays as a quick-fix solution to wash their hands off Malaya after having successfully used the Indians for their financial gains for 200 years,” he alleged. The Reid Commission was an independent body formed to draft the Federal Constitution - the team of foreigners received 131 memoranda from organisations and individuals. In February 1957, it submitted its working draft which was scrutinised by a committee comprising four representatives of the Malay rulers and four representatives of the Alliance government. The Alliance coalition - comprising Umno, MCA and MIC - was the predecessor of the present ruling Barisan Nasional coalition.

Sarawak's and Sabah's Special Rights

I fully agree with the following letter by Patriotic Anak Sarawak which appeared in Malayskini yesterday, rebutting some points made by a certain Uncle Yapp in his letter.

We didn’t beg to enter Federation of Malaya

Patriotic Anak Sarawak Aug 23, 07 2:33pm Adjust font size:

I refer to the letter Why Malaysia is 50 years old and not 44. I do not agree. Remember this, we were invited to join the Federation of Malaya. We didn't beg to be part of the federation; as a matter of fact many then were - and even now - are not happy with being dragged into the federation. We could easily have survived on our own like in the case of Brunei or Singapore. We had all the natural resources to keep us going. We have a hardworking population made up of various ethnic groups and races all ready to work hand-in-hand without having to prove who is superior or inferior. In short, we are one peaceful, harmonious and tolerant population. As Uncle Yap is aware, we didn't 'enter' the federation. In fact, we came in together with Sabah to form and give birth to Malaysia. So is it so wrong for the peoples of these two states to point out that Malaysia is 44 years old and not 50? Sarawakians are very unhappy with the goings-on in the Peninsula where the politicians there appear to have nothing else on their minds except to harp on racial and political superiority. Sarawakians dread the day when Umno, MCA or even the toothless MIC set foot on our shores. Sarawak cannot afford to have disunity as a result of the infiltration of these extremist and racially-biased politicians. Which explains the reason why we should fight to keep the 20-point Agreement initiated by our forefathers - to protect future generations of Sarawakians and Sabahans.

Aussie Justice's View on Lina Joy Verdict

G'day, mates! The latest opinion piece in the Brisbane Times by a New South Wales Supreme Court Judge, David Hodgson regarding the Lina Joy case shows the concern of one of our many Aussie mates down-under.

I also wish to add that I'm so impressed with the objectivity of his opinion. I would truly be a jolly swag man and not just be an orang utan if I ever have a just judge like him in my jungle kingdom here.

Malaysia's shackles on religious freedom

David Hodgson | June 22, 2007

Can Islam be compatible with religious freedom? I certainly hope so, but doubts are raised by a decision of Malaysia's highest court, given a month ago. Lina Joy is a 43-year-old Malay woman who became a Christian some years ago and wished to marry a Christian man.

To read more, please click this link, go to Brisbane Times' "Opinions" and read David Hodgson's piece

OK, I GET IT!

O.K.! I Get it! But no more blood be spilled!

*How to clear financial obligations*Clamor for lost East Malaysian rights* Key to dream vacations

Concerned Reaction to Lina Joy Decision

The following is a Malaysiakini report:

‘Denying all her rights’

Ooi Kelly May 30, 07 7:13pm

Below are some immediate comments from various concerned groups over the Federal Court’s decision to dismiss an appeal by Lina Joy today. Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO) president Meera Samanther said that the court’s decision “denied Lina Joy of her right to choose her religion, her right to choose her partner and her reproductive rights (in terms of bearing a legitimate child)”. Meera also felt that the decision also denied Lina’s right of living in this country as Lina’s only option now in pursuing her rights to profess the religion of her choice was to leave the country. “Malaysia is not honouring the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women treaty which was ratified in 5th July 1995,” she said. Although disappointed with the court’s rule, WAO Executive director Ivy Josiah said that she was nevertheless encouraged by the dissenting judgement and hoped to educate the public further with it. This what the rest had to say: Zainah Anwar, Sisters In Islam executive director suppy For us, the dissenting judgement was significant. The Federal Court, the apex court of the country, is divided over this issue, as the country is divided on this issue. Malik Imtiaz Sawar, Malaysian Bar Council suppy The fact that there was a minority judgement, a strong dissenting judgement, only indicated the need to re-address the issue. I think that it’s sad to note at this junction, looking at the minority and majority judgement of this court and I say this in respective of the majority view, there is no clear answer in what she’s suppose to do. Leonard Teoh, Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism suppy People like Lina Joy should not be trapped in a legal cage, not being able to come out to practise their true conscience and religion. Teresa Kok, DAP member of Parliament The verdict is a setback against religious freedom in Malaysia. Paul Tan Chee Ing, Christian Federation of Malaysia We note with much concern that this decision reflects a growing trend of decisions in the courts where civil courts are abdicating their responsibility of providing legal redress to individuals who only seek to profess and live their religion according to their conscience. As a result of this decision, it is now more pressing for the government and lawmakers to revisit the relevant legislation and to reinstate the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts so that equal protection of the right to choose and express one's religion is accorded to all Malaysians, as enshrined in Article 11. Rights movement Aliran This decision, looked at from another point of view, undermines the judiciary itself. The judiciary cannot be technical in delivering its verdict. Fairness and justice should be part of any judgment and should not be sacrificed on technical grounds. Where is the compassion for someone who has turned to the judiciary for a solution to free her from her predicament? Can justice redeem itself? Is there hope for the ordinary person in our judiciary? It is really troubling when an issue such as this is politicised and blown out of all proportion and pressure is mounted to deny justice.

REMEMBER OUR BOOK OF REVELATIONS...

Lina Joy Lost a Human Right in a Man-made Court Yesterday
Let us be faithful, steadfast and strong. Injustice triumphs today but The Truth will prevail. We need no show of ill-will, anger or coercion. No, we need not 200 self-righteous hypocrites to show the nation and the world religious pride, bigotry and zealotry when a human-made court decision is delivered.

This song is specially dedicated to our sister, Lina Joy and all our other sisters and brothers who are apostates and to all others of my animal kingdom who believe in truth, justice and liberty. WE SHALL OVERCOME SOMEDAY.

Fair Justice for Lina Soon!

Lina Joy to know fate next Wednesday

Soon Li Tsin

May 25, 07 6:02pm

Ten months after the final arguments were submitted in the Federal Court, the much-anticipated decision on the Lina Joy case will be revealed on May 30.

Contacted by malaysiakini today, Joy’s solicitor Benjamin Dawson confirmed next Wednesday as the date for the judgment which has deep impact relating to religious freedom in Malaysia. The time is set for 9.30am.

Joy, 43, whose Muslim name was Azlina Jailani, converted to Christianity in 1998 and is married to a Christian.

She had successfully applied in 1998 to change her name but the National Registration Department granted a card with her new name a year later but refused to remove her religion, stated as Islam, saying it needed permission from a syariah court.

Her attempt to quash and overturn this administrative decision at the High Court failed when the court on April 18, 2001 ruled that she could not renounce Islam and the issue should be decided by the Syariah Court.

She then took the matter to the Court of Appeal which upheld the lower court’s decision in a majority 2-1 decision.

Three key issues

The case then went to the Federal Court where justices Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim - who is also chief justice - Alauddin Sheriff and Richard Malanjum ruled that the case would be decided on three main issues.

The issues are:

* If the NRD is legally entitled to impose as a requirement a certificate or a declaration or an order from the Syariah Court before deleting the entry of ‘Islam’ from the applicant's (Joy’s) identity card;

* If the NRD has correctly construed its powers under the National Registration Regulations 1990 to impose the above requirement when it is not expressly provided for in the regulations and;

* Whether the landmark case, Soon Singh vs Perkim Kedah - which declared that the civil courts will retain their jurisdiction unless an expressed jurisdiction is conferred to Syariah Court - was rightly decided.

Arguments raised by both parties in the Federal Court covered Article 11 of the Federal Constitution, procedural matters, universal rights, women’s rights and Islamic law.

The landmark judgment is going to set precedent which would affect cases such as S Shamala and R Subashini which are both still undergoing trial.

Both cases concern the issue of jurisdiction - whether civil or syariah courts is more authoritative when one spouse converts to Islam - to be addressed.

After eight long years, Joy will know whether she has the right to remove 'Islam' from her identity card.