Seems like the PAS Youth have learned nothing after being slammed by the Sultan for their protest against rock queen Ella and dangdut singer Mas Idayu performing at the Sultan of Selangor Cup football match.

Frankly, if they can’t even stand the likes of Ella and Mas Idayu, we can kiss goodbye to most of the western artists if their wishes are granted; events like Super GT would probably be scrapped too… but I doubt the state government and royals would pay much attention to their plea at the moment.

It should remind people though, that PAS’ philosophy is not really aligned with PKR and DAP. If Pakatan Rakyat does take over the government by September… do bear in mind that PAS will have to part of the plan.

There are callings that we should not be shallow with PAS’ administration, that their governmental in Kelantan is better than some media is claming… but sometimes, what they are trying to do is plain annoying. They even tried to ban lipstick and high heels in Kota Bahru [Bernama], makes me wonder what they would come out next.

For those who are cheering that the Palace has won the tug-of-war between the Umno central leadership… please think twice of the complications involved.

There are flaws when it comes to appointment of a new MB… it’s a regret that the people would have no final saying of who should be the MB.

Thing is, the people have voted for a particular party to take charge of the state government… and shouldn’t we let that ruling party to decide on who is the best candidate since that the people have given them the mandate?

How is it supposed to be a good thing when the Sultan has veto-like power to defy the governing party’s decision in appointing the MB? How is it supposed to be a good thing when the Sultan has the power to intervene the people’s chosen state government’s decision?

Yes, the Sultan probably doesn’t need to listen to Badawi and central government as long as the new MB is approved by majority of the state assemblymen… but if Pak Lah didn’t give the approval, would the majority Umno assemblymen dare (or want) to defy their political leader in this matter?

And what would happen if Pak Lah and the Umno leaders decided not to back off? Terengganu would have a non-functioning state government continuously isn’t so? And before people start laughing at Pak Lah and Umno, do mind that it’s not them who put up the fire from the very beginning… it’s the special someone.

I am not a big fan of royals, I would admit that. I won’t stop others from worshipping the royals though; it’s their rights, and it’s obvious that some Sultans are popular figures among the public… but when it comes to administrative matters, I am not going to give approval for any of the Sultans to intervene.

By all means, I would be glad if the royals are using their influence for other projects to improve the quality of life of the citizens… but when it comes to governing matters, leave it for democracy.

Kenneth was found guilty in 2003 for murdering Linda Lee in August 2000. He was later sentenced to death in 2005 after an appeal by the prosecution. [Thestar]

I don’t know how many death row prisoners are granted clemency each year; I don’t know how the lucky people are chosen; and I am not sure if Kenneth Lee deserved the mercy.

I am just curious… if Kenneth Lee is not the grandson of HS Lee, would he be granted clemency? Or perhaps… if he is not from a rich family (money can do A LOT of things), would he be granted clemency?

It seems like something fishy is happening, but heck… I am not ready to go against the WISDOM of our Yang di-Pertuan Agong yet; I better stop pointing fingers now.

I felt sorry for Linda’s family though; they don’t deserve this.

HINDRAF
Hindu Rights Action Force
No. 135-3-A, Jalan Toman 7,
Kemayan Square,
70200 Seremban, Negeri Sembilan
Malaysia. Tel : 06-7672995/6
Fax: 06-7672997 Email waytha@hotmail.com

15.11.2007
The Rt. Hon. Gordon Brown
Prime Minister of the United Kindom
10 Downing Street, Fax: +442079250918
London, URGENT
SW1A 2AA

Dear Sirs,

RE: 1. COMMONWEALTH ETHNIC INDIAN PEACE LOVING SUBJECTS IN MALAYSIA PERSECUTED BY GOVERNMENT BACKED ISLAMIC EXTREMIST VIOLENT ARMED TERRORIST WHO LAUNCHED A PRE DAWN VIOLENT ARMED ATTACK AND DESTROYED THE KG JAWA MARIAMAN HINDU TEMPLE AT 4.00 A.M THIS MORNING (15.11.2007).

2. APPEAL FOR U.K TO MOVE EMERGENCY U.N RESOLUTION CONDEMNING “ETHNIC CLEANSING” IN MALAYSIA.

3. APPEAL TO REFER MALAYSIA TO THE WORLD COURT AND INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT FOR CRIMES AGAINST IT’S OWN ETHNIC MINORITY INDIANS.

We refer to the above critical matters in Malaysia but which generally gets the least attention locally even by the Opposition parties, NGO’s, the Malaysian Human Rights Commission and the media for this community is generally regarded as politically insignificant, do not draw local or international funding and are deemed not pressworthy. To the contrary the Malaysian government has successfully projected itself to the world as a modern Islamic thinking country which is not true.

The ethnic minority Indians in Malaysia were brought in to Malaysia by the British some 200 over years ago. Since independence in 1957 the Malaysian Indians have been permanently colonialised by the Islamic fundamentalist and Malay chauvinists UMNO led Malaysian government.

Among the recent atrocities committed by this government are as follows:-

1.100 over Indians were slashed and killed by the UMNO controlled Malaysian government in the Kampung Medan mini genocide. Despite numerous appeals, the Malaysian Human Rights Commission has refused to hold a Public Inquiry. The UMNO controlled Malaysian courts struck off a victim’s public interest civil suit for a Public Inquiry to be held without even the said UMNO controlled government having to file in their defence. The UMNO controlled Attorney General and the Inspector General of Police refused to investigate and / or initiate an inquest into the death of at least six Indians in this tragedy despite.

2. Every week one person at average is killed in a shot to kill policy and in every 2 weeks one person is killed in police custody. About 60% of these victims are Indians though they form only 8% of the Malaysian population.

3. In every three weeks one Hindu temple is demolished in Malaysia.

The latest being the demolishment of the Mariaman temple in Padang Jawa, Shah Alam, Selangor early this morning (15.11.2007) and the next being the (Mutaiya) Hindu temple in Sungai Petani scheduled for the 29.11.2007.

A violent armed pre down attack at 4.00a.m this morning was launched by the UMNO controlled Malaysian government backed by about 600 police, riot police, Islamic extremist and armed terrorists which completely destroyed this temple.

In an attack two weeks ago, uniformed police, riot police and city Council officers hurled rocks and attacked unarmed Hindu devotees with knives, sticks and iron rods.

At least 20 Hindu devotees were seriously injured and 19 arrested including 4 of their United Kingdom trained lawyers in direct violation of Article 5 (Right to life) Article 8 (Equality) Article 11 (Freedom of Religion) Section 295 (defiling a place of worship), Section 296 (disturbing a religious assembly), 298A(causing racial disharmony) and Section 441(criminal trespass) of the Malaysian Penal Code.

These authorities are plagued by an above the law mindset and in fact liberally take the law into their own hands. These atrocities however does not happen to almost all Islamic places of worship. Please visit www.policewatchmalaysia.com for further and better particulars.

4. State sponsored direct discrimination against the Indians in Public University intakes, Indian (Tamil) Schools, skills training institutes, civil service and private sector job opportunities, business and license opportunities and in almost all other aspects of daily life.

Despite our hundreds of letters, appeals and pleas to the Malaysian King and Sultans, the Prime Minister, Attorney General, Inspector General of Police, Ministers, Chief Ministers and the latest being our letters to the Prime Minister dated 29.10.2007 and 30.10.2007 and to the Attorney General dated 1.11.2007 the Malaysian authorities are only proceeding with greater ferocity and with impunity with very little regard for the Federal Constitution and laws of Malaysia. So please help us.

CONCLUSION

We fear that this peace loving Indian community of Tamil origin having been pushed to the corner and the persecution getting worse by the day may be forced to into terrorism in a matter of time as what has happened to the Sri Lankan Tamils.

APPEAL

On our part we are committed to a peaceful and lawful struggle and pray and appeal that the Government of the United Kingdom:-

1. Moves an emergency United Nations resolution condemning these state sponsored atrocities and persecutions of Malaysian Indians in Malaysia.

2. Refers Malaysia to the World Court and the International Criminal Court for Crimes against it’s own ethnic minority Indians

Thank You,

Yours Faithfully

P.Uthayakumar
Legal Adviser

“50 Years of Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law”

Assalamaualaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh.

Salam Sejahtera.

Bismillahi Rahmanir Rahim.

This year marks the 50th year of our nation’s Independence. It is also the 50th year of our Merdeka Constitution.

Malaysia and its people have every reason to celebrate this joyous occasion as the country prospers as a constitutional democracy with a constitutional monarchy in the form as established by the Merdeka Constitution in 1957.

Not all countries that achieved their freedom at the end of the colonial period are today able to celebrate their independence with pride. Some are under military rule, whilst others have had their institutions undermined or even abolished.

The 50th anniversary of our independence is therefore an appropriate moment for all of us to reflect upon the strength of our constitutional system. As we rejoice in our success, It is important to be alert to the pitfalls of failure if proper regard is not given to our constitutional mechanisms.

We must ever be mindful that written constitutions are mere parchment pieces.

It is important that there must be, in the hearts and minds of those who are entrusted to administer and uphold the constitution, a belief in the values and principles that animate the august document.

I had occasion to observe when sitting in the Federal Court in 1977 that the “constitution is not a mere collection of pious platitudes”. I spoke then of the 3 essential features of our constitution. I said:

“It is the supreme law of the land embodying three basic concepts: One of them is that the individual has certain fundamental rights upon which not even the power of the state may encroach.

The second is the distribution of sovereign power between the states and the federation…

The third is that no single man or body shall exercise complete sovereign power, but that it shall be distributed among the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, compendiously expressed in modern terms that we are a government of laws, not of men.”

The prescription that “we are a government of laws, not of men” describes the basic principle that runs through our entire constitution-the principle of the Rule of Law.

The Rule of Law is the defining feature of democratic government. In delivering the eleventh Tunku Abdul Rahman lecture in November 1984, I again defined it as follows:

“The Rule of Law means literally what it says: The Rule of the law. Taken in its broadest sense this means that people should obey the law and be ruled by it.

But in political and legal theory it has come to be read in a narrow sense, that the government shall be ruled by law and be subject to it.

The ideal of the Rule of Law in this sense is often expressed by the phrase “government by law and not by man””

In a speech delivered in Kuala Lumpur in April 2004, Lord Woolf spoke of the ‘Rule of Law’,

“The Rule of Law is the rule by the laws that govern a true democracy.
They are the laws that provide for a proper balance between the protection of human rights and the interests of the State. Laws which an independent and responsible judiciary can enforce to protect all members of society from abuse of power.”

The reference by Lord Woolf to the role of the judiciary is highly significant. I wish to state with all fortitude that without a reputable judiciary-a judiciary endowed and equipped with all the attributes of real independence-there cannot be the Rule of Law.

All countries, including those that are totalitarian regimes, have courts. But as I observed previously:

“The [mere] existence of courts and judges in every ordered society proves nothing; it is their quality, their independence, and their powers that matter.”

In matters concerning the judiciary, it is the public perception of the judiciary that ultimately matters. A judiciary loses its value and service to the community if there is no public confidence in its decision-making.

In this regard the principal quality a judiciary must possess is “impartiality”. Lord Devlin said of “judicial impartiality” that it exists in two senses-the reality of impartiality and the appearance of impartiality. He emphasized that the appearance of impartiality was the more important of the two.

Impartiality also means that judges are not only free from influence of external forces, but also of one another. No judge however senior can dictate to his brethren as to how a decision should be arrived at.

It is of the essence of a judge’s character that he must be a person of unquestionable integrity who brings an unbiased mind to his task. Like Caesar’s wife, he should be above suspicion.

It is said that public confidence in the judiciary is based on four evaluating criteria. They are:

(1) the principle of independence of the judiciary;

(2) the principle of impartiality of adjudication;

(3) the principle of fairness of trial; and

(4) the principle of the integrity of the adjudicator.

How does our judiciary measure today against these criteria?

Sadly I must acknowledge there has been some disquiet about our judiciary over the past few years and in the more recent past. In 2004, I had stated that it grieved me, having been a member of the judiciary, whenever I heard allegations against the judiciary and the erosion of public confidence in the judiciary.

Recently there have been even more disturbing events relating to the judiciary reported in the press. We have also witnessed the unprecedented act of a former Court of Appeal judge writing in his post-retirement book of erroneous and questionable judgements delivered by our higher courts in a chapter under the heading “When Justice is Not Administered According to Law”. There are other serious criticisms.

I am driven nostalgically to look back to a time when our Judiciary was the pride of the region, and our neighbours spoke admiringly of our legal system. We were then second to none and the judgements of our courts were quoted confidently in other common law jurisdictions. As Tun Suffian, a former Lord President of the then Federal Court, said of the local judges who took over from the expatriate judges after Merdeka that the transformation was without “any reduction in standards”.

Admittedly society is more complex today and the task of judges may be more difficult then what it was before, but the values I speak of are universal and eternal.

There is no reason why judges with the assured security of tenure they enjoy under the Constitution should not discharge their duties impartially, confidently and competently.

Judges are called upon to be both independent and competent. In these days, judges must ever be mindful that the loss of independence can come from many sources, and not just from the executive. Therefore, judges must piously resist the lure of socializing with business personages and other well connected people. They may discover at their peril that they have compromised themselves in the cases that come before them with the unedifying spectacle of recusal applications.

Nothing destroys more the confidence the general public, or the business community has in the judiciary than the belief that the judge was biased when he decided a case, or that the judge would not be independent where powerful individuals or corporations are the litigants before him.

Confidence in the judiciary may also be eroded where the business community perceives incompetence in decision-making. A judgement in a banking or commercial transaction that is contrary to the established norms or which is incomprehensible in its reasoning is bound to give rise to suspicion and loss of confidence.

It therefore becomes apparent, that our attempts to establish ourselves as a leading financial and commercial center will fail, if we do not have a competent judiciary to decide on complex commercial disputes. In this regard, it is utmost importance that the foreign investor have faith in the competence and integrity of our judiciary.

The international foreign investor also expects a speedy resolution of their cases before the courts. Delays cause a loss of profits to the business community. In the recent World Bank survey on resolution of commercial disputes, Malaysia ranks poorly, 63 amongst 178 economies. A similar report by the US State Department warns American businessmen to be wary of the slow process of adjudication of cases before the Malaysian courts. This is indeed a poor reflection on our courts.

Countries such as Singapore and Hong Kong, who have a similar legal system and who share similar laws, and whose judges and lawyers are trained as ours, are ranked in these surveys as amongst the best in the world (Hong Kong is placed first and Singapore ranks as fourth in the world).

The reason is obvious: these countries have undertaken major reforms in their court structure and procedures and have introduced more efficient and transparent commercial courts so as to attract the foreign investor.

Maybe it is also time for us to consider such changes in our legal system and introduce a strong central commercial court in Putrajaya as in London, with especially trained judges who are familiar with the new and ever changing commercial laws and their developments, so that we too can become the center for the resolution of commercial disputes in the region.

I should point out that mere cosmetic changes alone would not suffice. If we wish to achieve this goal, it is imperative that major reforms are introduced. Many other countries have taken such steps to establish specialized commercial courts. Recently, the Dubai Commercial Court (where one of our own former Chief Judge has recently been appointed to sit as a judge in this new court), and the Qatar Commercial Court have been established.

I know that judging is an arduous task calling for a good mind and a capacity for hard work. The inevitable consequence of incompetence is delayed judgments and backlog in cases leading to all round dissatisfaction.

Only last week, I read in a latest Malaysian law report that a case of medical negligence involving a death of a lawyer took 23 years to reach the Court of Appeal. Similarly there have been reports that some judges have taken years to write their grounds of judgements involving accused persons who have been convicted and languishing in death row.

Surely, such a situation cannot be tolerated in any progressive nation.

It will also be appropriate for me to say a few words on lawyers.

The administration of justice is not just the role of the judiciary. I had said previously in July 1984 on the occasion of a farewell dinner speech to the Bar Council on leaving office as the Lord President, that there cannot be an independent Judiciary without an independent Bar. I stated further that the judiciary cannot function without legal profession.

This symbiosis calls for a proper understanding of the relationship between the Bench and the Bar. The Bar and its leadership must ensure there is a high standard of integrity and ethics among its members. A Bar that is riddled with bad practices cannot assist the administration of justice.

In this respect the relationship between judges and lawyers must be a roper and correct one. As I have said earlier, judges are supposed to be no respecters of persons who appear before them. This rule applies not only to litigants but also to lawyers. It is not just a matter of prudence and good practice, but fundamentally one of ethics.

As is often said, there are good lawyers and bad lawyers. Whilst the majority of the lawyers discharge their duties as officers of the court with professionalism and dedication, there have been cases of some others who have brought disrepute to the legal profession. There have been allegations against some lawyers that in clear dereliction of their responsibilities, they have either misled the courts, or attempted to choose the judges or courts for their cases to be heard so as to obtain a favourable decision in their client’s favour. This is serious interference with the administration of justice and the process of the court.

There is one further important point that I feel compelled to say.

This deals with a judge’s quality in decision-making. We in Malaysia live in a multi-cultural and multi-religious society. Our founding fathers accommodated this diversity into our Constitution that is reflected in the social contract, and saw this diversity as strength.

Judging in a diverse society is not an easy task. Judges in many parts of the world face similar difficulties. Those of you who were present at the lecture delivered by Justice Albie Sachs at the Second Tun Hussein Onn Lecture last week will know how the Constitutional Court of South Africa, as the guardian of the constitution, wrestle to arrive at a just decision when dealing with the issues relating to diversity or discrimination.

Judges in Malaysia must be ever mindful that they are appointed judges for all Malaysians. They must be sensitive to the feelings of all parties, irrespective of race, religion or creed, and be careful not to bring a predisposed mind to an issue before them that is capable of being misconstrued by the watching public or segments of them.

I am reminded of the proud accolade of the late Tun Suffian in his Braddel Memorial Lecture in 1982, when speaking of the Malaysian judiciary to a Singapore audience he said:

“ In a multi-racial and multi religious society like yours and mine, while we judges cannot help being Malay or Chinese or Indian; or being Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu or whatever, we strive not to be too identified with any particular race or religion – so that nobody reading our judgement with our name deleted could with confidence identity our race or religion, and so that the various communities, especially minority communities, are assured that we will not allow their rights to be trampled underfoot.”

I have found it necessary to speak at some length on these matters because it is my earnest hope that the Malaysian judiciary will regain the public’s confidence and it will once again be held in high esteem as it once was held.

In conclusion, I wish to say as I have said on previous occasion ‘in the judiciary, people place their trust and hope’.

It now gives me great pleasure in officially declaring open the 14th Malaysian Law Conference.

I wish all of you a fruitful and meaning full discussion and exchange of ideas.

It’s nothing new that IIUM female graduates have to wear tudung… I am not sure if the dress code is written in official regulations now, but the dress code has been practiced for years. I just can’t understand why those who are against the dress code have decided to get into IIUM at the first place. [IIUM graduates' dress code]

Don’t get me wrong… I don’t think that forcing non-Muslims to wear a tudung is proper.

You see, the rulers (Agung, Sultans etc) are the head of Islam, but I can’t recall anyone being forced to wear a tudung or songkok when getting into the Palace. [Istana Negara dress code] Shouldn’t IIUM take that as an example to follow instead?

Despite its term as an Islamic university, IIUM is still a public place. If they want to enforce their strict dress code, they shouldn’t be enrolling non-Muslims at all.

The only places that such strict dress code should be enforced is at holy places… unless it’s a mosque or something, nobody should be forced to wear a tudung.

Umno has filed a police report against political website Malaysia Today for allegedly publishing disparaging remarks against the King and Islam.

From Thestar…

Umno has lodged a police report against MalaysiaToday for carrying a series of comments and remarks that it deemed as insulting the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, degrading Islam and as inciting hatred and violence in Malaysia’s multi-racial society.

Party information chief Tan Sri Muhammad Muhammad Taib lodged the report at 12.57pm at Tun H.S. Lee police station here Monday. He said the comments and remarks, consisting of criminal elements and inciting religious and racial sentiments which could affect the country’s security, were carried by the blog on July 11.

The report was lodged under Section 121 (B) and Section 123 of the Penal Code, Section 4 of the Sedition Act 1948 and Section 263 and Section 266 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998.

First Nat Tan, now Raja Petra (webmaster of Malaysia Today)… the battle has just begun.

I am not a fan of absolute freedom of speech; I believe that bloggers (or whoever) have to take responsibilities on their articles… but the recent situation really irritates me, as it indicates that we have to be responsible for the comments posted on our blogs as well, and that is ridiculous.

It’s like asking the Prime Minister to be responsible for every wrong-doings of his UMNO members, parents to be responsible for their kids’ crime, and perhaps asking the king to be responsible for all their citizens’ improper acts… doesn’t make sense at all ain’t so?

Some thoughts from other bloggers…

Screenshots: Something brewing, RPK?
Lim Kit Siang: Axe coming down in Malaysian cyberspace
Susan Loone: Next victim: Malaysia-Today
Rauff: UMNO should take a more pro-active role in defeating scepticalism
Walski: Police report filed against Malaysia Today
Sagaladoola: Malaysia Today, What is 50th Merdeka?

Update July 25 – Raja Petra Kamarudin has been called to the Dang Wangi district police station in Jalan Tun HS Lee this morning regarding the police report filed by Umno information chief Muhammad Muhammad Taib. [Malaysiakini]

Tengku Abdullah did not give any reason for his resignation; Bernama thinks that his decision to quit from all posts in FAM is seen as his reaction to fulfil the requests of football fans that the present FAM leadership make way for new blood who could bring changes to the local football scene. [Bernama]

I actually think that Tengku Abdullah should resign much earlier; his reign at FAM was not working well obviously. I don’t really blame him though… he is not solely responsible for the slump of our nation football. In fact his apology to the fans on Wednesday after the China defeat has earned some respect from me.

The troubling thing with Malaysian football these days is that nobody has a real clue on what is happening and what can be done to turn back the tide. The fans and critics could only slam the players and the management for the poor performances, but nobody seems capable to come out with a solid plan to revitalise Malaysian soccer.

I can only hope that a real capable person with the right vision and capability will take over Tengku Abdullah’s position.