Social Contract and National Unity

Details

Category: Social Contract and National Unity

Published: Saturday, 20 September 2008 23:28

Posted by various

CPI will be running a series of articles on the Theme -- Social Contract and National Unity, covering a wide spectrum of views to encourage Malaysians to think and share their views in an open and rational discourse. There have been certain quarters declaring that discussions on certain socalled "sensitive" issues affecting Malaysians should be conducted within "closed doors" only, whatever that means or implies. If a forum on conversion of Malaysians of one faith into another organised by the Bar Council could not be trusted to discuss issues of concern to  Malaysians that affect their daily life, with certain parties gate-crashing the forum to bring it to an abrupt end, then we must pose this question -- ON AN ISSUE WHICH INVOLVES MANY LEGAL POINTS, IF THE BAR COUNCIL AND THE "VICTIMS" INVOLVED WERE NOT THE RIGHT AND PROPER ORGANISERS, SPEAKERS AND PARTICIPANTS, WHO WOULD THEN QUALIFY?

Do we leave national issues to be debated by the hawkers, taxi-drivers and medicine pedlars on the roadside or sidewalks on the one extreme, and just the politicians, partisan most times in segregated Government and Opposition party chambers and hotel suites, on the other extreme?

CPI welcomes rational discourse from all segments of society equipped with the medium/language to put their views and concerns as responsible Malaysians. I believe our country has reached a stage of development where the majority of her populace can appreciate opposing views well articulated, and capable of rebutting  in a rational and civil manner without going after each other's jugular! After all, I believe Malaysians in general -- except for a minute lunatic fringe which exists in all countries worldwide -- are all concerned and care for the wellbeing of this country. To promote civil society through discourse and sharing, there is one starting premise all Malaysians must respect and accept --  that one Malaysian is as loyal and patriotic to NegaraKu as his/her neighbour/s, contrasting political viewpoints and affiliations notwithstanding.

Today the series on the Social Contract and National Unity flags off with three articles, one from former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad sourced from his blog, chedet.com; second from a Commentary by Azri Mohd Amin, published by theSun Online; and last but not least, from an undergraduate, John Lee Ming Keong (aged 19), and a YouthSpeak Coordinator at cpiasia.net.

CPI welcomes well articulated articles and feedback on this topic as the Themed Features will be a continually running series. ~~ YL Chong, Editor, CPI

Artcile #1:

RACIALISM
http://test.chedet.com/che_det/2008/09/racialism.html#more

By Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad

Posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at September 16, 2008 6:02 PM

1. When the Barisan Nasional did very badly in the last general election many observers inside and outside the country claimed that the Malaysian people of all races have rejected race-based politics.

2. The remarkable increase in the opposition Members of Parliament is said to be due to their representing the alternative to the race-based politics of the BN. How they can ignore the entirely Malay PAS and the overwhelmingly Chinese DAP I do not know. These are race based parties.

3. If indeed the people as a whole reject race-based parties as represented by the component parties of the BN, then they would reject PAS and DAP. And we should see an improvement in race relations.


4. But is there any improvement in race relations?

5. I may be wrong and certainly the leader of the Government will say I am wrong, but what I see today is more extreme racialism raising its ugly head.

6. The latest is the case of Dato Ahmad Ismail.

7. The furore caused by him, a minor figure in UMNO, is out of proportion to the issue itself. But because of poor handling by the UMNO big guns it has become an issue that can split asunder the BN itself.

8. Now we have the MCA and Gerakan threatening to leave the BN.

9. We can appreciate the need of the Chinese parties to regain support of the Chinese by showing their strong stand against UMNO. But the only result of this would be the antagonism of the Malays against the Chinese. If this goes on, if the Gerakan and MCA leaves BN because of what Ahmad Ismail said, then who gains? Obviously the opposition Pakatan would gain. The choice for Gerakan and MCA is either to join the opposition or to degenerate into insignificant parties which can never aspire to win enough seats to form a Government. The end result will be victory for the opposition.

10. Do we really think the opposition with parties like PAS, an entirely Malay party with its Islamic State vision and DAP with its predominantly Chinese base and secular politics can form a good Government? The Pakatan is not a properly constructed coalition like the BN. It is just a collection of disparate parties which come together in order to win elections by not contesting against each other.

11. I know that PAS and the DAP are not happy with Johnny-come-lately Keadilan and its leader Anwar Ibrahim. They don't want to be subservient to Keadilan or to have Anwar as their Prime Minister. They don't want Keadilan playing the role of UMNO in the Pakatan.

12. The result will be chaos for this country. There would be racial tension which may turn ugly.

13. What I notice is the unwillingness of the disenchanted Chinese parties in the BN to name the real culprit. Privately the Chinese, like the Malays would condemn the leadership of Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. But no one would openly say so. Instead as we can see UMNO is made the scapegoat.

14. Making UMNO the scapegoat is not going to improve race relations or improve the quality of the BN Government. Unless and until Dato Seri Abdullah is removed nothing that the Chinese parties and UMNO can do will help improve race relations or resuscitate the BN or improve the Government of the country.

15. I had said that instead of Dato Seri Najib apologising, UMNO should discipline Ahmad. His apology and its rejection by Gerakan simply angered the Malays. At the same time I don't think support for Gerakan and MCA would increase.

16. The BN leader should have called the parties concerned and persuade them not to use the race card. But the leader was too scared to face Ahmad Ismail one-to-one. Instead he resorted to the Internal Security Act (ISA) to prove that he is impartial. Now not only the Malays but the Chinese too will become more angry.

17. In my last article I have tried to reduce the anti-BN feeling. To me it is still a great coalition, still the best instituton in the multi-racial Malaysian politics.

18. The problem is incompetent leadership. You don't sink the ship because the captain is not handling it properly. You remove the captain.

19. I know the Chinese papers are calling me racist. I can deny it but they would not accept my denial. But good race relations in Malaysia is a must. Fighting between UMNO, MCA and Gerakan will only result in racial animosity and split BN. No one in the BN will gain.

20. UMNO, MCA and Gerakan leaders should try to heal the rift and help revive the BN.

21. However I must admit that this will be quite impossible if Abdullah still leads the BN and the Government. It is time that UMNO, MCA and Gerakan join together and force the resignation of Abdullah. Then and then only would we be able to revive the BN and perhaps restructure it. If not race relations will go from bad to worse and the whole country will suffer.


___________________________________

Article #2


 
Inter-racial dialogue and freedom of speech

http://sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=25735
by Azri Mohd Amin

Published by sun2surf.com
in EXTRA! :: Comment & Analysis

THERE have recently been innumerable public statements that we should stop discussing various subjects deemed inappropriate and dangerous.

Free speech cannot be legislated or regulated by such terminology as "responsible", "non-divisive" or "sensitive". The public relations effect of government officers attempting to forbid discussion of certain topics is dangerous and counter-productive because it only encourages people to rebel against control. Police especially should never be put in the position of enforcing notions of divisiveness or non-divisiveness without proper, detailed rules with review by competent authorities.

As Thomas Jefferson put it, government has no authority over the thoughts of the citizenry. It is only when such thoughts are expressed in actions deleterious to the public good – either by direct physical confrontation or "inciting" words which may probably result in such action – that government can take action. And to guarantee that this fundamental principle of free speech is secured, we must promote an effective and respectful network of communications among the major races and religions in this nation.

The definition of sedition has little meaning in a society in which so many thoughts and sayings are pronounced seditious by officials who may feel threatened by such talk; the word becomes political-speak for "you are dangerous to us and our established order". ISA detentions can be particularly destructive of public trust by the very virtue of this component.

Inter-faith dialogue in the service of "common cause" is always welcome to Muslims so long as it does not intrude upon matters of faith or rituals. This is because the differences between Islam and other religions, as for example glossed over by the principles of secularised Islam, are difficult to reconcile, but by discussion understanding evolves and respect for the beliefs of others grows.

Inter-racial dialogue, on the other hand, comes much closer to fulfilling the Qur’anic verse which explains creation of the different races and ethnic groups as a means of interest to each other and learning from one another, rather than confrontation. Malaysia must prove Samuel Huntington wrong in his thesis of "civilisational clash".

Nowadays, individual identity relates primarily to culture, whereas religious belief constantly crosses cultural lines. Therefore, dialogue among the cultures in Malaysia should be organised and promoted according to ethnicity rather than religiosity. We should have no shame in relating to others from the viewpoint of our culture, whereas inter-faith dialogue is much more difficult and must be approached more delicately and with both faith in your beliefs and openness to respect the faith of others.

The rules of courtesy should regulate our inter-ethnic relations precisely because almost no one can agree about the various priorities followed in the name of religion. If government does not wish to follow a policy of "forced assimilation", it must promote inter-racial dialogue at every opportunity, to avoid degeneration into religious conflict. It must also have a similar strategy on religious issues to encourage an understanding of this component of the different cultures. We do not interfere with each other’s religion, and we follow our Qur’anic admonition to approach each other with sincere interest, which especially implies full personal security. There is no other way to achieve civilised life.

The author is a Kuala Lumpur-based lawyer and the vice-president of Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia (Abim). The views expressed are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the institution to which he is affiliated. Comment: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 

Updated: 11:16PM Tue, 16 Sep 2008 

__________________________________



Something Has Changed in Malaysian Politics

http://www.infernalramblings.com/articles/Malaysian_Politics/774/

Written by John Lee Ming Keong

Sept 16, 2008.

Immediately after the political tsunami of March 8, a number of Malaysians rejoiced at what they thought was a clear rejection of racial politics by the silent majority of the electorate. Others however feared that this was no systematic realignment in political attitudes towards race, but rather a simple rejection of government incompetence and corruption. Apparently believing this to be so, the ruling party has chosen to blast its racist rhetoric from the rooftops as a last-gasp attempt to reclaim its power; to denigrate and deny the basic rights of Malaysians who happen to be of a different race than them. But the events of the past two weeks, however, have proven beyond all doubt that something fundamental has changed in the political world — that racialism can no longer be the order of the day.

Before March 8, comments like Ahmad Ismail's were so common as to be unremarkable. The whole country was shocked in 2006 when the UMNO AGM was beamed live into their homes, revealing threats of violence from various leaders if they did not have their way. The infamous brandishing of the keris, the blatant disregard for the citizenship of non-Malays — all were on full display. And this was just the continuation of a fine tradition: this is how UMNO, especially its Youth Wing, has always conducted itself.

So when Ahmad Ismail told the audience at his ceramah in Permatang Pauh that the Chinese and other non-Malay communities in this country were little more than squatting foreigners, he was not expecting much, if any backlash. Maybe the DAP would kick up a little fuss, and maybe even some of the other opposition parties would follow suit. But at the worst, some Barisan Nasional component parties like MCA and Gerakan might merajuk sikit and take offense; Ahmad would just say he'd been quoted out of context, or was misunderstood, and they would let it slip by.

As we all know, that is exactly what did not happen: not only did the federal opposition Pakatan Rakyat lambast Ahmad's rhetoric, but MCA and Gerakan turned up the heat on Ahmad too. They did not just issue a statement and then maintain a stoic silence; their state divisions severed ties with UMNO Penang. In essence, Ahmad's comments — which previously were the norm for any UMNO leader — caused Barisan to completely collapse in Penang.

The whirlwind Ahmad stirred up had such an immense backlash that the Deputy Prime Minister himself was forced to give an unreserved apology on Ahmad's behalf, and state unqualifiedly that all Malaysians have a place in this country, as equal partners and stakeholders in its future. This is all the more ironic, considering that Najib Tun Razak has never apologised for threatening to bathe a keris in Chinese blood and supporting similar sentiments at the height of racial tension in the 1980s. A reversal of this nature has never, ever happened before in Malaysian politics.

And now, UMNO itself has been forced to act for once: it has suspended Ahmad's party membership for three years. While this is definitely little more than a slap on the wrist for someone who has destroyed the coalition in Penang, the fact that UMNO has taken any action at all is something; the last time a similar flap occurred, over very similar remarks made at the 2006 AGM, they simply declared that the leaders' rhetoric had been misunderstood and pronounced the whole matter resolved. For the first time, UMNO has actually had to disavow racism and actually punish party leaders who preach the ridiculous belief that some Malaysians have less of a right to be here than others.

This alone is proof enough that something very fundamental has changed in Malaysian politics. UMNO has been forced to alter tack, to shift its course. This could not, would not, should not have happened before March 8.

As tempting as it may be to attribute this shift to the wisdom of UMNO and Barisan, this also would not have happened if not for Pakatan. It is purely because of Pakatan's strength that MCA and Gerakan reacted the way they did; it is purely because Pakatan's agenda of multiracialism and a nation belonging to all resonated with the public so strongly that UMNO has had to reverse direction. Without a viable challenger to its own agenda, the UMNO/Barisan political farce would never have ended.

The ruling party still has a long way to go to heal its internal fractures and present a viable alternative to Pakatan's ketuanan rakyat. The Prime Minister's attempt to reshape ketuanan Melayu into a belief empowering the Malays to fend for themselves and to stand tall on their own, without falling into the trap of belittling or discriminating against other Malaysians, is admirable and commendable. But until Abdullah Badawi can silence the numerous UMNO men like Ahmad who persist in pushing the despicable notion that some Malaysians are innately superior and more entitled than others, until he can get Barisan united behind an ideology that puts Malaysians and Malaysia first, his party will not stand a chance against Pakatan in a fair and free election.

The simple fact is, something changed after March 8. I do not know what exactly that is; I cannot presume to know why things are different now. But the unmistakable reality is that one party's philosophy has been rendered obsolete, and another's has surged to the forefront of Malaysian politics. A strong blow may still set multiracial Malaysian politics back for decades. But in spite of this, it is inescapable: the people of Malaysia believe in a Malaysia where everyone belongs, and everyone has a place; a Malaysia where nobody is a pendatang or a penumpang, but everyone works together, bergotong-royong, to forge a better future for all of us in the only country we can call home.
 

Hearsay and speaking from the grave (1)

Details

Category: Statutory Declarations

Published: Friday, 11 July 2008 03:35

Posted by Haris Ibrahim

By Haris Ibrahim
July 6, 2008

Rocky Bru, in an earlier post, took the view that Bala’s SD is ‘based on hearsay, a lot of hearsay’.

In my view, firstly, not quite.

Secondly, it must not be assumed that hearsay is per se inadmissible for all purposes.

Let’s first try to clear up what is hearsay.

Section 60(1), Evidence Act, 1950 provides :


Oral evidence shall in all cases whatever be direct, that is to say -

(a) if it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it;

(b) if it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it;

(c) if it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense or in that manner;

(d) if it refers to an opinion or to the grounds on which that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds.

Let’s say I brag to Rajraman that I had stolen a pair of jeans from the local mall.

Rajraman now reads that I have been charged with the theft of a pair of jeans and, as is rightly so, feels it his bounden duty to come forward and give evidence as to what he knows.

Would his evidence of what I told him be hearsay?

Well, yes and no.

It would be hearsay and inadmissible if the purpose of the evidence is to prove that I stole the jeans, because Rajraman would not be giving evidence in this regard of what he himself had seen ( see section 60 (1) (a) above ).

It would not be hearsay if the purpose was to prove what was said in the conversation with me ( see section 60 (1) (b) above ). This might amount to circumstantial evidence and, if admitted, its value, if any, would depend on the weight the court gives to such evidence.

However, that would not be the end of the matter.


Look at Bala’s SD, which Howsy has posted HERE .

I’d agree that the following would be hearsay insofar as the truth of what is alleged in these statements go, and would, at best, be admissible to prove that this was what Bala heard in his conversations with the various parties alluded to in these statements.

Para 5 - that ARB received a harassing phone call from a Chinese man calling himself ASP Tan who had threatened him to pay his debts.

Para 7 - that Altantuya Shaaribuu had been given some powers by a Mongolian ‘bomoh’

Para 10 - that Altantuya Shaaribuu was a great liar and good in convincing people. She was supposed to have been very demanding financially

Para 13 - Suras managed to control the situation and had persuaded Altantuya and her two friends to leave the premises. However Altantuya left a note written on some Hotel Malaya note paper, in English, asking Abdul Razak Baginda to call her on her handphone (number given) and wrote down her room number as well

Para 14 - Altantuya had introduced herself to Suras as ‘Aminah’ and had informed Suras she was there to see her boyfriend Abdul Razak Baginda.

Para 15 - These 3 Mongolian girls however returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang again, the next day at about 12.00 noon. They did not enter the building but again informed Suras that they wanted to meet Aminah’s boyfriend, Abdul Razak Baginda.

Para 18 - the 3 Mongolian girls recognized Suras. They become friends with Suras after that and he ended up spending a few nights in their hotel room.

Para 37 - ARB called DSP Musa Safri

Para 39 - ARB had been advised to lodge a police report about the harassment he was receiving from these Mongolian girls.

Para 40 - Amy had sent the same SMS to ARB.

Para 41 - DPS Musa Safri had introduced ARB to one DSP Idris, the head of the Criminal division, Brickfields police station, and that Idris had referred him to ASP Tonny.

Para 48 - Bukit Aman had apparently retrieved the sms message “delay her until my man arrives???from ARB’s handphone.

Para 51 - ARB had sent Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak an SMS the evening before.

Para 53 - ARB was arrested the same morning at his office in the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang

Except for what Altantuya is supposed to have disclosed to Bala and is narrated in the SD, and which I propose to deal with in another post, the rest of the SD, and in particular that which relates to Bala’s sworn statements relating to the suppression by the police of what he had disclosed whilst in remand, and the fact that the prosecution never touched on these matters during his evidence-in-chief, are all matters well within Bala’s own personal knowledge and which would come within the meaning of direct evidence as described in Section 60 above.

International Agencies

Details

Category: International Agencies

Published: Tuesday, 05 August 2008 02:31

Posted by Super User

List of international agencies:

• Amnesty International
• Electronic Frontier
• Greenpeace
• International Peace Research, Oslo
• New American Century Project
• The World Bank
• Third World Network
• United Nations
• International Hydrographic Organization
• International Seabed Authority
• Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
• World Trade Organization
• INTERPOL

Why Balasubramaniam's First Declaration Is Still Significant

Details

Category: Statutory Declarations

Published: Saturday, 05 July 2008 04:30

Posted by Malik Imtiaz

By Malik Imtiaz
Friday July 4, 2008
 
P Balasubramaniam has made an about turn and released a new statutory declaration. From media reports, it appears that he claims that those parts of his original Statutory Declaration that pertained to the Deputy Prime Minister were made under duress.

He has not been forthcoming with particulars of his purported duress. This is unfortunate as it raises many questions that the Malaysian public is deserving of answers to. As I understand it, the inflicting of duress in law requires the subjecting of a person to the kind of treatment that would leave that person with no doubt that he or someone close to him would be in grave danger, life and limb, unless that person cooperated with the person inflicting duress.

Is Balasubramaniam saying that representatives of Keadilan inflicted duress or that his previous lawyer did? We cannot overlook the statement given by Anwar Ibrahim at the same press conference yesterday in he explained how Balasubramaniam had come to make the Statutory Declaration. From this perspective, the accusation of duress is not a trivial one as it carries grave implications and consequences.

In the same vein, if in fact the police were in contact with Balasubramaniam yesterday, after the press conference at which he released his original (and now retracted) Statutory Declaration as the media suggests, the police should also make it clear to the rakyat what it is that transpired, if only to clear up any doubt as to the circumstances in which Balasubramaniam retracted his original statement.

I say this because the original Statutory Declaration was itself of grave importance and carried with serious implications. I have noted that some writers have been quick to question or dismiss the value of the original Statutory Declaration for it allegedly being hearsay, or put another way, containing only second hand information not directly within the knowledge of Balasubramaniam.

I do not share this view. Allow me to explain why.

The law requires direct evidence of a fact. Second-hand knowledge is considered to be unreliable. However it does not follow that ‘hearsay’ evidence is not admissible or irrelevant in all cases. Evidence is multi-faceted and is never merely proof of one fact. Considered from different angles, a single piece of evidence may tell more than one story.

For example, A tells B that A had stolen some money. B then tells C. C’s evidence of the conversation is not admissible as an admission by A or as proof of theft. Put another way, A could not be convicted purely on the say so of C. Evidence of A having committed the theft would have to be put before the court, in one form or the other. This is the essence of the hearsay rule.

However, this does not mean that the fact of B telling C is of no relevance. The fact is that A and B had that conversation and though C’s evidence may not be able to establish the truth of what was told to him by B, it can establish that such a conversation took place. The law permits this. If admitted, such evidence could be considered as ‘circumstantial evidence’.

Seen in this light, it is clear that the original Statutory Declaration was of great significance. In it Balasubramaniam categorically stated that he gave information to the police about the conversations he had had with Razak Baginda and Altantuya AND that such information was excluded from his statement AND that the Prosecution did not ask him any questions about this aspect of the information he gave to the police. These pieces of evidence were not hearsay as they were matters directly within the knowledge of Balasubramaniam. They were also manifestly relevant.

Additionally, for the reasons explained above, the fact of the conversations between Balasubramaniam and Razak Baginda and Altantuya respectively were also of relevance for equally suggesting an alternative or additional line of enquiry that the police ought to have looked into but apparently did not.

The about-turn and the possible, though as yet uncertain, involvement of the police do not do any good for the already seriously undermined confidence of the rakyat in the justice system.

We deserve better.