Thursday, 7 June 2018

Pengampunan DSAI dan Keadilan Kepada Saiful oleh Mantan Ketua Hakim Negara Tun Abdul Hamid Mohamed

Very interesting post from Former Chief Justice Tun Abdul Hamid Mohamad posted on 14 May 2018:

The original post is sourced here.

I do hope YAB PM Tun Mahathir and leaders of Pakatan Harapan will read the post by Tun Hamid because he raised many pertinent questions in regards to the now famous quickie pardon.

I hope Saiful being Anwar's victim will one day get the justice that he truly deserve. Aamiin InsyaAllah.

....and I pray that there will never be a  time where Malaysia have a PM who has been convicted of sodomy with another man because he can easily be manipulated by people with evil intention foreign or domestic. 

Wallahualam - God knows Best.

Read Also:

Tuesday, 6 February 2018

Federal Court ruling on Indira Gandhi case in line with Islam - Dr. Chandra Muzaffar

This is great commentary by Dr. Chandra Muzaffar about the above said landmark Federal Court decision:

THERE is a degree of disquiet within a segment of the Muslim populace over the landmark Federal Court decision on January 29 that nullifies unilateral conversions of minors to Islam and affirms that the consent of both parents is required. This is because the majority position in Islamic law is that the child follows the religion of the parent who has converted to Islam, be it the father or mother.

However, if the Federal Court decision is viewed from the perspective of the underlying values and principles of the Quran and the example of the Prophet Muhammad, it makes a lot of sense. The well-being of the child is paramount in Islam.

In concrete language, a 2-month-old baby who is being breast-fed should remain with her non-Muslim mother, even if the father has embraced Islam. In this case, it is not the religious identity of the baby that should be given priority. The bond between mother and child, which the Quran treasures, is of utmost importance.

Prioritising the welfare of the child, the mother-child bond, and other principles implicit in the Federal Court decision – such as the rights of both parents, gender equality, the prohibition of coercion in all matters of faith, conversion with full knowledge of what the testimony of faith signifies, the importance of harmony in society, the protection of the dignity of both Muslims and non-Muslims, and ensuring social justice for all citizens regardless of their religious and cultural affiliation – are consonant with the Islamic public law doctrine of siyasah shar’iyyah.

This doctrine, which is recognised by all leading mazhabs, authorises the lawful government to issue ordinances and enact rules and procedures, including legislation and policy measures that serve the cause of justice and good governance, especially in situations where the rules of shariah may have fallen short of addressing a certain situation or development.

As Professor Hashim Kamali, one of the world’s leading Islamic jurists, and other authors point out in a policy paper published by the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies (IAIS) in 2012, “siyasah is an instrument of flexibility and discretion that enables government leaders to respond effectively to extra-shariah issues, emergency situations, and now modern society dilemmas, which may or may not have been regulated under the established shariah”.

“As the term suggests, policy measures that are so taken must be in conformity with the goals and purposes (or maqasid) of shariah, even at the expense of a departure from some ijtihadi rulings of fiqh.

“Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah thus characterised siyasah as ‘any measure which brings the people nearer to beneficence (salah) and moves away from prejudice and corruption (fasad), even though the measure in question has not been approved by the Prophet nor regulated by the revealed words of God.’

“When a siyasah-based initiative serves the cause of justice, it is deemed to be in harmony with the religion and can never be against it.”

The IAIS policy paper was translated into Bahasa Malaysia and updated and enhanced in 2016 by IAIS deputy chief executive officer Dr Mohamed Azam Adil and Ahmad Badri Abdullah. The Bahasa version has been widely circulated, and yet in almost all the analyses and commentaries on the Federal Court judgment, there is no evidence at all of the impact of the arguments advanced by the IAIS policy paper. This is a reflection of a much larger problem.

Apart from the fact that literate Malaysians do not really appreciate serious stuff, whether in Bahasa or English, there is a certain mindset within the Muslim population in the country which constitutes a formidable barrier to intellectual discourse on matters pertaining to Islam. Positions associated with and advanced by the established, conventional ulama are invariably perceived as the indisputable, only truth – even if there are other different views which are legitimate from a Quranic perspective.

This is not just a Malaysian-Muslim problem. In any number of Muslim majority societies, the word of the ulama on religious issues is almost sacrosanct. This gives them a grip over the Muslim mind – a grip which impedes reform-oriented ideas, especially in relation to Islamic law and Muslim identity, from striking root within the community.

Continuous and conscious efforts at building awareness will help to change attitudes among the masses. As shown by the experience of other Muslim majority societies, this time-consuming process is often accelerated by a courageous and committed civil court system that is prepared to make decisions which, on balance, are seen as fair and just.

An even greater impetus for change is a political leadership that has the integrity to push for reform through legislation and policy, even if it means incurring the wrath of diehard conservative voices that have never really understood the progressive essence of Islam. – February 6, 2018.

* Dr Chandra Muzaffar is chairman of the Board of Trustees of Yayasan 1Malaysia.

My thots:

The Federal Court judgement is superb and should be accepted by all Malaysians.

Monday, 18 December 2017

"Aku akan pergi tak lama lagi" - Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad

Listen, listen, listen:

Tuesday, 5 December 2017

#1MDB is kleptocracy at its worst - Jeff Sessions, US Attorney General

From M'kini (5 December 2017):

Almost half of the US$3.5 billion corruption proceeds which have been seized by the US government came from the 1MDB-related civil forfeiture suits, revealed US attorney-general Jeff Sessions.
“Nearly half of the US$3.5 billion in corruption proceeds we have restrained is related to just one enforcement action.
“That action was related to a Malaysian sovereign wealth fund known as 1MDB,” Sessions said during his speech at the Global Forum on Asset Recovery in Washington DC yesterday.
He said that allegedly corrupt officials and their associates had reportedly used the 1MDB funds for a “lavish spending spree” such as US$200 million for real estate in South California and New York, US$130 million in artwork, US$100 million in an American music label and a US$265 million yacht.
1MDB officials allegedly laundered more than US$4.5 billion in total, he said, through a complex web of opaque transactions and shell companies with bank accounts in various countries such as Switzerland, Singapore, Luxembourg and the US.
“This is kleptocracy at its worst.
“Today, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) is working to provide justice to the victims of this alleged scheme,” he said.
He was speaking on the ways the US has cooperated with their law enforcement partners around the world and how that has benefitted them all.
The US has returned more than US$255 million worth of corruption proceeds to compensate victims since 2004, he said.
“That recovery has only been possible because of cooperation with our foreign law enforcement partners,” he said.
Drawing on his 14-years' experience as a prosecutor, he said the best evidence in such corruption cases is often things like bank records, airplane records and telephone records.
If such information is not properly shared between nations, then “justice cannot be done” in many cases.
“It is essential that we continue to improve that kind of sharing.
“That is why we must all do more to expedite mutual legal assistance requests.
“These requests ensure that prosecutors have the evidence that they need to bring criminals to justice,” he said.
The DOJ has filed three civil forfeiture suits to seize US$1.7 billion worth of assets allegedly purchased with misappropriated funds from 1MDB, with the third one being filed last June.

Wednesday, 29 November 2017

An open letter from Dr. Mahathir Mohamed to Dear Brothers in Islam in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States:

An open letter from Dr. Mahathir Mohamad former Prime Minister of Malaysia to Dear Brothers in Islam in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States:

News from Yemen:

My Thots:

The Saudi led coalition should stop this senseless war and must seek a peaceful resolution to this man made tragedy. 

Death and destruction will only lead to more death and destruction. 


Sunday, 26 November 2017

Pemimpin Melayu tidak takut siapapun dalam mengerjakan kemungkaran - TS Sanusi Junid


Tan Sri Sanusi Junid

Pemimpin Melayu tidak takut siapapun dalam mengerjakan kemungkaran

oleh Tan Sri Sanusi Junid | 8 November, 2017


Pagi tanggal 1 Hijrah, 1439 saya terdengar dalam satu dialog dalam TVONE di Jakarta Professor Salim Said dari Universiti Indonesia menjawab pertanyaan ‘Kenapa Indonesia tidak menjadi sebuah negara yang maju?’

Jawapan kepada pertanyaan ini juga relevan bagi Malaysia.

Professor Salim dengan fasih, bersemangat dan meyakinkan mengajak para pendengar untuk melihat negara-negara yang maju di dunia ini seperti Korea Selatan, Taiwan, Singapura dan Israel.

Katanya, Korea Selatan maju kerana mereka TAKUT kepada Korea Utara;

Taiwan maju kerana TAKUT kepada China;

Singapura maju kerana TAKUT berada di tengah lautan bangsa Melayu di nusantara; dan

Israel maju kerana TAKUT kepada umat Islam Arab yang berada di sekeliling mereka.

Indonesia, kata Professsor berkenaan TIDAK TAKUT WALAU KEPADA TUHAN sekalipun, makanya ianya tidak maju.

Pemimpin Melayu di Malaysia juga nampaknya tidak takut pada siapapun dalam mengerjakan kemungkaran.

Professor Salim mengajak para penonton TVONE Jakarta supaya lihat saja kepada mereka yang dihadapkan ke KPK (sama dengan MACC, atau dulunya bernama BPR, di Malaysia) yang beragama Islam dan Kristian tetapi jelas sekali mereka RASUAH kerana TIDAK TAKUT KEPADA TUHAN.

Kesimpulan yang dibuat oleh Professor ini juga RELEVAN untuk Malaysia.

China di Malaysia maju kerana TAKUT kepada orang Melayu yang menguasai politik dan boleh menggunakan kuasa politik untuk mengancam kuasa ekonomi mereka.


Melayu adalah satu BANGSA YANG BERANI kerana:

1. 9 orang raja melindungi ugama dan adat istiadat Melayu oleh itu Melayu TIDAK TAKUT jika tidak beradat, tidak beradab dan tidak beramal nilai-nilai Islam kerana sudah ada raja yang melindungi ugama Islam dan adat istiadat Melayu.

2. Kakitangan Perkhidmatan Awam, Tentera dan Polis dikuasai oleh Melayu oleh itu Melayu TIDAK TAKUT terancam keselamatan diri dan boleh bermaharajalela kerana merupakan tuan di dalam negara ini.

3. Perlembagaan Malaysia menjadikan Bahasa Melayu sebagai Bahasa Kebangsaan, oleh itu Melayu TIDAK TAKUT jika mereka tidak menguasai bahasa Melayu yang baik, dan TIDAK TAKUT tidak memahami bahasa lain kerana sudah ada bahasa Melayu sebagai bahasa Kebangsaan.

4. Perlembagaan Malaysia memberi hak istimewa kepada orang-orang Melayu dan Bumiputera dengan (a) pemberian tanah, (b) pemberian biasiswa dan (c) pemberian lessen-lessen perniagaan.

Oleh itu bangsa Melayu TIDAK TAKUT jika tanah tidak diusahakan, TIDAK TAKUT tidak lulus peperiksaan dengan cemerlang kerana biasiswa dari kerajaan, dan TIDAK TAKUT lessen dialibabakan kerana tanah, biasiswa dan lesen mudah diperolehi kerana adanya peruntukan dalam perlembagaan.

5. Pemimpin Melayu TIDAK TAKUT pada Allah sehingga mereka sanggup –

(a) pinjam wang dari bank YAHUDI dengan bayaran RIBA yang tinggi, untuk dilaburkan dalam projek yang tidak menguntungkan hanya kerana boleh hantar orang-orang pilihan mengerjakan HAJI dengan wang yang dikenakan RIBA dan memberi BRIM untuk mengabui mata rakyat.

(b) menjadikan rasuah sebagai satu budaya dan amalan harian sambil mencuri dan menyalahgunakan wang negara melalui 1MDB dan syarikat-syarikat sekutunya. Tidak takut, malahan bangga, dengan gelaran sebuah negara yang amalan rasuahnya antara yang tertinggi di dunia.

(c) menjual tanah milik negara, termasuk tanah milik angkatan udara yang pernah dijadikan pusat kapalterbang berangkat untuk menyerang pengganas komunis, kepada pihak China komunis yang fahaman komunismenya bertentangan dengan Islam.

(d) memberi hak bermustautin kepada ratusan ribu orang asing, termasuk ramai dari China komunis, sehingga nanti mereka berhak menjadi rakyat yang akan mengundi dan mengancam kedudukan bangsa, ugama, bahasa, hak dan politik Melayu dan negara.

(e) menyiksa rakyat dengan GST, menghapus subsidi, menyebabkan kenaikan harga barang dan meningkatkan kos sara hidup yang menekankan penghidupan rakyat.

(f) mentadbir ekonomi negera dengan begitu buruk sehingga turun merudum nilai ringgit yang menyebabkan semua barang-barang impot menjadi terlalu mahal untuk pengguna.


Kita berasa malu apabila pemimpin kita –

1. TIDAK MALU pinjam wang dari bank Yahudi yang dilaknat oleh Allah.

2. TIDAK MALU membayar riba yang begitu tinggi sedangkan jika pinjaman itu diurus oleh Bank Negara Malaysia atau sindiket bank-bank tempatan faerah yang dikenakan sangat rendah dan tidak ke tahap riba yang menekankan.

3. TIDAK MALU membayar komisyen kepada bank Yahudi sedangkan jika pinjaman diurus oleh Bank Negara Malaysia tidak ada komisyen yang perlu dibayar.

4. TIDAK MALU mendapat gelaran ‘antara negara yang paling rasuah di dunia.’

5. TIDAK MALU di gelar pemimpin KLEPTOKRAT atau pemimpin yang menyalahgunakan kuasa dan rasuah, yang terkenal di seluruh dunia.

6. TIDAK MALU cuba memberi BRIA (Batuan Rakyat 1 Amerika) kepada Donald Trump, setelah membayar wang yang banyak kepada pelobi untuk mendapat 30 minit waktu mengadap Presiden Trump.

7. TIDAK MALU, dalam keadaan negara tidak berwang dan dibeban dengan hutang yang banyak, untuk mengambil hati Donald Trump berjanji untuk beli 25 buah kapalterbang Boeing 737 jet, 8 buah 787 Dreamliners dan 25 buah 737s untuk dibeli dalam masa yang singkat. Jumlah harganya ialah US$10 billion.

8. TIDAK MALU menjanjikan untuk melabur US$3 billion – US4 bilion wang Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja untuk membantu ekonomi Amerika Syarikat dengan membiayai pembinaan prasaranya.

9. TIDAK MALU sebuah negara yang kecil ekonominya berlagak sombong untuk membantu negara yang lebih kaya darinya. Wang yang dijanjikan untuk Amerika Syarikat sebenarnya diperlukan untuk projek perumahan orang-orang miskin di Malaysia.

10. TIDAK MALU juga apabila pihak MAS menafikan akan beli kapalterbang Boeing tetapi sekadar menyewa daripada sebuah syarikat lain yang membeli kapalterbang itu. Akhirnya CEO MAS yang menjelaskan keadaan sebenar terpaksa diberhentikan.

11. TIDAK MALU juga apabila ternyata pihak KWSP tidak memutuskan untuk melabur di Amerika Syarikat tetapi sekadar meminta supaya KWSP diiktiraf sebagai syarikat yang diberi keistimewaan cukai sebagaimana yang diberi kepada tabung-tabung awam di negara-negara lain. Kata Rafizi, lain yang di suruh oleh KWSP lain yang dibuat oleh yang mengadap Trump.

12. TIDAK MALU menambah hutang lagi apabila tidak mampu membayar bunga atau pinjaman yang dijanjikan.

13. TIDAK MALU memberi wang kepada anak tiri untuk buat filem lucah di Amerika Syarikat.

14. TIDAK MALU malu ditipu oleh anak muda JhoTeik Low

15. TIDAK MALU berbohong anak raja Arab memberi hadiah sedangkan duit yang diperolehi ialah dari 1MDB melalui syarikat-syarikat anak di seluruh dunia.


Ternyata kita:

1. LUPA kepada sejarah perjuangan yang murni dengan berbagai liku yang telah kita lalui.

2. LUPA kepada betapa perlunya nilai-nilai murni untuk menjamin masa depan bangsa kita terselamat dari berbagai angkara.

3. LUPA kepada pesanan orang tua dan guru ugama kita di waktu kita di bangku sekolah.

4. LUPA bahawa kita akan disoal setelah kita meninggalkan dunia yang fana ini buat selama-lamanya.


*Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Sanusi Junid adalah bekas Menteri Pembangunan Negara dan Luar Bandar dan Menteri Pertanian juga Menteri Besar Kedah Darul Aman.

My Thots:

Malu itu separuh dari iman, 
Hilang malu iman tiada,
Apabila Iman tiada maka hilanglah batas untuk
melakukan kemungkaran terhadap sesama manusia,
membawa kepada kehancuran bangsa dan negara.

Saturday, 25 November 2017

Extremism is a lot more dangerous than Atheism lah Asyraf

I hope Asyraf Dusuki do a lot more research on the Perlembagaan before he opens his mouth in Parliment again!

‘Freedom of religion includes freedom to opt out of religion’

PETALING JAYA: Lawyer Azhar Harun today responded to a deputy minister who claimed atheism was in contradiction with the Federal Constitution, saying freedom of religion includes the choice to “opt out of religion”.

In a Facebook post addressed to Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki, Azhar, popularly known as Art Harun, said just because the Federal Constitution made no mention of the freedom not to have any religion, it did not mean that atheism was unconstitutional.

“Implied within the word and concept of freedom is the exercise of choice.

“When the constitution guarantees freedom of religion, that freedom carries with it the choice to opt out of religion.

“That provision is not an imposition to profess a religion. It is merely a guarantee to all citizens professing a religion to practise their religion freely,” he said.

Yesterday, Asyraf said atheism had no place in Malaysia as it contravened both the constitution and the Rukunegara.

Speaking in the Dewan Rakyat, he said in the Malaysian context, freedom of religion did not mean freedom from any religion.

He added that atheism attacked other religions, which would contravene laws on public order.

However, Azhar said the Federal Constitution also guaranteed freedom of association and expression, with no mention of a person’s right not to associate or express themselves.

“Using your superior logic, not associating oneself with any party or not expressing oneself is unconstitutional.

“The Federal Constitution also does not guarantee freedom to buy a car, drive an Alphard or the right to marry more than one. Or to be autistic. Are those things also unconstitutional?” he said.

The issue of atheism surfaced earlier this year, when the Kuala Lumpur chapter of a group known as the Atheist Republic posted a picture of its members attending a gathering.

This sparked an uproar among some Muslims and led to threats of death and violence against the group on social media.

The government subsequently said it would investigate whether any Muslims had joined the group.

Asyraf said then that any Muslims found to be in the group would be sent for counselling, while attempts to spread atheist ideas could be prosecuted under existing laws.

Monday, 13 November 2017

Time for Judicial Reform?

From the FMT:

Time for far-reaching judicial reforms

November 12, 2017

By Gerard Lourdesamy

The recent allegations by the fugitive blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin that the former chief justice of the Federal Court and the current chief justice and president of the Court of Appeal purportedly had a meeting with the prime minister in 2015 on a supposed plot by the former attorney-general and others to bring down the government through the 1MDB and SRC International investigations, which is at present the subject matter of a police investigation following a report lodged by the current attorney-general, while seeming to be far-fetched given the source of the story, cannot be simply disregarded because it has the tendency to erode public confidence in the judiciary, the administration of justice and the rule of law.

It is unfortunate that none of the three senior judges implicated in the article that was published in the Malaysia Today website has denied the allegations or made a police report either individually or through the chief registrar of the Federal Court to refute these highly inflammatory allegations that not only question their personal integrity and fitness for high judicial office but also the ideals of an independent and impartial judiciary that is the cornerstone of any functioning democracy. It is not the role of judges to get involved in the machinations of politicians. Even if there existed such an infamous plot, it was a matter for the sitting prime minister, Parliament and the King to resolve.

It is also surprising that the Bar Council did not issue any statement on the matter and one is left wondering whether this was due to the government’s not so subtle attempts to control the Bar Council through the wide-ranging amendments being proposed to the Legal Profession Act 1976 that would effectively weaken and undermine the independence and authority of the Bar Council.

It may be prudent not to comment on the allegations made by Raja Petra since they are the subject of a police investigation but this story again calls into question the public perception of the judiciary as an institution that is supposed to defend the Constitution and the rule of law and dispenses justice without fear or favour. It is often said that a truly independent judiciary is supposed to be the final bastion against tyranny.

However, some of the recent decisions of the Federal Court have caused alarm and disquiet not just among legal practitioners but also the general public. The constitutional jurisprudence of the apex Court seems to be regressing in the last couple of years. Rather than giving the Constitution a broad and liberal interpretation in so far as the provisions of the fundamental liberties are concerned, the Court has been taking a literal view on such freedoms by giving a very restrictive and at times pedantic interpretation to the bill of rights in the Constitution in favour of ordinary laws passed by Parliament that effectively deny if not deprive the citizens of any effective exercise of these fundamental rights in any meaningful or purposeful manner. The Court has refused to consider the reasonableness of a restriction imposed by Parliament in favour of the more limited proportionality test contrary to the established jurisprudence in most Commonwealth countries with a written constitution.

Equally disappointing is the apex Court’s increasing tendency to disregard new developments in constitutional jurisprudence from Commonwealth countries that have a written constitution like ours or where the constitutional provision is similar to ours despite some of these countries having a much older constitutional and common law tradition compared to us.
The Federal Court seems to want to be shackled by precedent from decades ago when the constitutional jurisprudence of countries like India and even England that does not have a written constitution, favoured a restrictive approach to the interpretation of fundamental liberties in the constitution by allowing parliament to qualify these rights in order to preserve public order, security and morality.

But what is surprising is that the apex courts in countries like India, England, Australia, Canada, South Africa and even Pakistan have moved with the times and have either departed from or overruled their own earlier decisions in favour of a more far-reaching, profound and holistic interpretation of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed in the constitution in an age of increasing concentration of power in the executive to deal with matters of national security and public order.

The recent decision of the Federal Court not to grant leave in the Tony Pua case is a case at hand. Given that there were at least eight conflicting decisions of the same Court on the purport and extent of Article 5 in the Constitution with only two decisions of the Apex Court dealing exclusively with the Immigration Act 1959/63, the least the Court could have done was to allow the leave application and constitute a full bench of the Court to hear this important constitutional challenge.

But this was not done and instead, the Court reaffirmed its 1979 judgment in Loh Wai Kong which was a case largely influenced by the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the Gopalan v. State of Madras case which was decided in 1950. But the same court in 1978 in the celebrated case of Maneka Gandhi v. The Union of India effectively consigned Gopalan to the dustbin of history and ruled that the right to travel abroad was guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution which is similar to our Article 5. Later decisions of the Indian Supreme Court have extended the purport of Article 21 beyond what our Federal Court can even comprehend in the 21st century.

The apex Court failed to even consider if ouster or privative clauses so prevalent in ordinary laws passed by Parliament in this country under the guise of public order and security could muster the test of constitutionality given that they effectively deny the aggrieved party access to justice and due process which are housed in Articles 5 and 8 of the Constitution.
Before the dust could settle, the Federal Court in the Kugan case had effectively ruled that the estate of a deceased person who is the victim of extra-judicial killing while in the custody of the state cannot claim for exemplary damages against the government because it is not permitted under Section 8 (2) (a) of the Civil Law Act 1956.

Exemplary or punitive damages have been available in the common law since at least the 18th century for oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional actions by servants of the government, as confirmed by the House of Lords in Rookes v. Barnard in 1964. The unlawfully killing of a person while in the protective custody of the state is the most obvious example of a serious and egregious violation of Article 5 of the Constitution on the right to life and liberty.

And yet the majority of the court, elevated a pre-Merdeka law to a status superior to the Constitution rather than striking down Section 8 (2) (a) of the Act on the grounds that it offends Articles 5 and 8 of the Constitution or at least as suggested in the now celebrated dissent of her Ladyship Justice Zainun Ali to interpret the Act in conformity with the Constitution.

Rather than protect the sanctity of life, the majority of the bench favoured exculpating the government from liability in punitive damages. It is often easy to opine that the remedy lies elsewhere after the family of the victim of unlawful killing by the state have reached the limit of physical and financial exhaustion after years of meandering through the labyrinth of the judicial system.

Even the Bar Council was not spared the ignominy of defeat when the Federal Court refused to grant leave on the important constitutional question of whether the discretion of the Attorney-General under Article 145 (3) of the Constitution to institute, conduct or discontinue a prosecution was subject to judicial review notwithstanding dicta to support such a contention in two 1979 decisions of the Federal Court and the Privy Council and a more recent decision of the Singapore Court of Appeal.

Surely, even if the weight of jurisprudence from within and without Malaysia would favour a restrictive interpretation of Article 145 (3) for reasons of public policy the least the Federal Court could have done was to allow the parties to fully ventilate the issue in a proper appeal given the public interest involved rather than simply affirm a previous decision made by the Court in 1974.

The regression in the jurisprudence of the apex Court may be due to the mindset, experience and background of the judges appointed to the highest court. It is not disputed that the overwhelming majority of the bench are appointed from the Judicial and Legal Service of the federation. Most of them have exemplary service records and often view judicial appointment as a promotion or reward for their years of dedicated public service. Some after their appointment still have a sense of gratitude to the government for appointing them to the bench.
Therefore, there may be a tendency among some judges to still consider themselves to be part of the public service. By extension, there would be compelling reasons to defer to the expectations of the government when it comes to matters pertaining to public order and security or the national interest in more problematic areas of the Constitution and the law.
But I am not suggesting that the judges lack independence but rather that their view of judicial independence may be somewhat myopic given their circumstances as opposed to public expectation.

If an empirical study is carried out based on the statistics of the Federal Court it will show that in public law cases where the Court of Appeal has made an adverse decision against the government, leave to appeal to the Federal Court is more often than not granted and the decision is likely to be reversed on appeal. But the converse happens in similar cases where an individual or body is aggrieved by a decision of the Appeals Court. It cannot be that the Court of Appeal is always wrong on constitutional interpretation and the Federal Court is always right?

With an election around the corner, whichever party that wins a clear majority to form the next government must come out with far-reaching proposals to reform the judiciary so that public confidence in the institution can be further strengthened and augmented.
Some reforms that could be considered would be:

1. Legislating the creation of a Judicial Oversight Committee consisting of senior serving and retired judges to deal with matters pertaining to integrity and ethics. Judges should make asset declarations for themselves, their spouse and unmarried children to the committee and the MACC. The committee must have the power to censure judges if there is any impropriety or misconduct on their part and in the most serious cases recommend to the prime minister for their removal for misbehaviour in accordance with Article 125 of the Constitution;

2. The Judicial Appointments Commission be expanded to include not just a senior serving or retired judge but also representatives from the Attorney-General and the Bars of Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak and laypersons appointed from civil society. The commission must have the power to deal with all appointments and promotions within the judiciary. Notwithstanding Article 122B of the Constitution (which may need to be amended if there is a super-majority in Parliament), the Act setting up the commission could be amended to state that the prime minister is bound by the recommendations of the commission when tendering his advice to the King under Article 122B. In making appointments to the bench, the commission apart from the established criteria should ensure that at least 50% of the appointments come from the practising Bar so that the judiciary will have a cross-section of judges from different backgrounds and experiences;

3. The Fundamental Liberties in Articles 5 to 13 of Part II of the Constitution ought to be reviewed and amended so that where Parliament is given the right to restrict the exercise of these rights, such a restriction must be reasonable. In the absence of a super-majority to amend these Articles, an ordinary law called the Constitution (Interpretation of Fundamental Liberties) Act could be passed mandating that in interpreting the fundamental liberties in Part II of the Constitution the courts shall give a broad and purposive interpretation to those rights and where there are permissible restrictions those restrictions must be reasonable;

4. Article 121 (1) of the Constitution to be amended to its original wording if there is a super majority in Parliament and if not an amendment to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 could be made to insert a section on the doctrine of the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary including the inherent power and jurisdiction of the superior courts while conforming with Article 121 (1);

5. Article 122 (1A) of the Constitution to be amended to clarify that a person appointed as an additional judge of the Federal Court shall not at the same time hold the office of Chief Justice, President of the Court of Appeal, Chief Judge of Malaya or Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak as the case may be. In lieu of such an amendment, the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 could be amended to include such a provision to conform with Article 122 (1A);

6. Article 149 (1) of the Constitution to be reviewed if there is a super-majority in Parliament to ensure that any law that is passed pursuant to that article shall not impose any unreasonable restriction on the exercise of the rights provided for in Articles 5, 9, 10 or 13 of the Constitution;

7. A law is passed called the Law Reform (Repeal of Privative Clauses) Act whereby all privative or ouster clauses in any Act of Parliament currently in force are ipso facto repealed in their entirety. This will allow the unhindered right to apply for judicial review of all decisions made by any person or body exercising administrative or executive powers including in preventive detention cases subject to the procedural rules and establishing locus standi except for decisions made in the exercise of the royal prerogative;

8. The Civil Law Act 1956 to be substantially amended or repealed and replaced with new legislation in line with progressive jurisprudence from other Commonwealth jurisdictions. The awarding of damages compensatory, punitive or exemplary and aggravated should be at the discretion of the courts;

9. Requirement for leave to appeal to the Federal Court under Section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 be dispensed with in all cases that involve interpretation of the Constitution both federal and state; and

10. A comprehensive Contempt of Court Act is passed.

Gerard Lourdesamy is a lawyer in practice for 25 years and an FMT reader.

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.

Monday, 25 September 2017

Kemana hala tuju kita tanpa sikap toleransi untuk hidup aman dan makmur bersama

I do not know where we are headed in these times when political parties like Pas is allowed to impose their morale values on to other non-Muslims. 

Incidences and statistics showed that high unemployment, corruption, drug abuse, incest, babies born out of wedlock are many and mostly involved the Malay Muslim community... and what does a so called religious party do? they focus their attention on  concerts, dogs  and now on non muslim beer festival which is held indoors and does not involve any Muslims at all. With this kind of  so called religious political party and any other party that support Pas, the Malays will end up no where. Neither here nor there.

I think Pas in its current form would severely damage the religious and racial harmony in Malaysia patiently build up by our great leaders of the past which forms the bedrock foundation of the blessed Malaysia that we have now.

Pas offers nothing but extremism and bigotry and intolerance. Remember the Memali incident? Pas has not changed much since then, they will never change now. The moderate leaders in Pas had left to form Parti Amanah Negara.

Some interesting read:

Bekas ketua polis ingatkan kerajaan bahaya sokong golongan guna agama

KOTA KINABALU: Bekas ketua polis negara Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Noor berkata kini wujud satu trend yang membimbangkan dalam kalangan pemerintah untuk berusaha memenuhi permintaan golongan yang menggunakan agama untuk memperoleh sokongan daripada orang ramai.

Bercakap di forum “Malaysia in the Future” di sini semalam, Rahim berkata kecenderungan itu kini masih terhad di kawasan tertentu di Semenanjung Malaysia, tetapi memberi amaran boleh merebak jika tidak dikawal oleh pihak berkuasa.

Menurutnya, ia akan turut mendatangkan kesan terhadap kesatuan Malaysia yang menggabungkan Sabah dan Sarawak.

“Jika perkara ini diteruskan, persekutuan akan goyah dan mungkin pada masa itu, Sabah dan Sarawak akan fikir semula sama ada mereka mahu terus menjadi sebahagian daripada Malaysia,” katanya.
Rahim berkata ketika Persekutuan Malaysia ditubuhkan, ia tidak mempunyai niat menjadikan Malaysia sebuah negara Islam, kerana sekiranya demikian, ia akan menerima bantahan Sabah dan Sarawak.

Menurutnya, agama adalah isu utama yang dibincangkan oleh Suruhanjaya Cobbold, badan yang dibentuk bersama oleh kerajaan British dan Tanah Melayu pada 1962 untuk menilai pandangan rakyat mengenai gagasan Malaysia.

“Semua rakyat di Borneo, tanpa mengira kaum dan agama, tidak mahu agama rasmi untuk persekutuan baharu itu.

“Permintaan itu munasabah. Lagipun, terdapat banyak negara yang mempunyai majoriti orang Islam di dunia tetapi tidak menjadikan Islam sebagai agama rasmi mereka, seperti Mesir dan Indonesia yang mempunyai penduduk Islam paling ramai,” katanya.

Budaya Arab

Rahim dalam ucapannya berkata ramai umat Islam Melayu keliru antara Arab dan Islam. Katanya, ini menimbulkan kecenderungan di kalangan umat Islam tempatan mengamalkan budaya Arab, malah lebih daripada orang Arab sendiri.

Beliau menceritakan insiden di mana saudaranya mendakwa huruf bahasa Arab adalah milik umat Islam, tidak seperti huruf Rumi.

“Dia memang tidak begitu terpelajar. Tetapi ianya seolah-olah tidak ramai yang sedar, atau mungkin mereka pilih untuk tidak hiraukan yang Timur Tengah bukan sahaja didiami umat Islam, tetapi juga penganut agama lain,” katanya.

Rahim berkata beliau secara peribadi lebih suka kepada model “Pancasila” seperti di Indonesia yang tidak mengiktiraf agama rasmi.

Selepas 54 tahun, beliau berkata Malaysia masih mencari identitinya sendiri sementara rakyat kekal berpecah-belah, dan membawa identiti kaum dan puak masing-masing.

Ia diburukkan apabila penduduk di Sabah dan Sarawak tidak berasa mereka berkongsi persamaan dengan rakyat di Semenanjung Malaysia.

“Kita harus mengakui yang selain daripada mempunyai penjajah yang sama, Semenanjung Malaysia dan Borneo sangat berbeza dari segi budaya dan sejarah. Kita masih jauh untuk mencapai satu bangsa Malaysia.

“Meletakkan agama dalam perkara ini hanya akan menyukarkan lagi usaha ini,” kata beliau.

Art Harun dares PAS to prove negative impact of beer festivals

PETALING JAYA: Activist-lawyer Azhar Harun says PAS should provide statistics and proof to back its argument that the annual craft beer festival in Malaysia will increase crime rates.

“Has there been a study by PAS or survey by PAS to show that in respect of the beer festival every October the crime rate goes up? Or has the crime rate gone up in Germany every October?” he said when contacted by FMT today.

Azhar was referring to PAS central committee member Riduan Mohd Nor reportedly calling the annual beer festival a “vice festival”.

Riduan had questioned the authorities on what guarantee they could give to members of the public who are not participating in this annual event, “to ensure their safety from crime, free sex, rape and so on”.

The PAS leader had also warned that Kuala Lumpur could one day be known as Asia’s vice centre if such events are not stopped.

“It is something that is shameful for an Islamic country like Malaysia when ‘mungkar’ (treacherous) programmes can easily gain a place in society’s heart and it is allowed to be organised without obstruction,” Riduan was quoted as saying by Malay Mail Online.

Azhar, who is popularly known as Art Harun, said PAS objects to the beer festival on a yearly basis, adding that the party’s stance on this is not surprising.

He added that PAS should look at Palestine, a country Malaysia supports wholeheartedly, where the beer event is also celebrated.

“It is a Western non-Muslim event, it started in Germany and it caught on in other countries. It happens everywhere, even Palestine.

“So if people want to hold that in Publika, why are we objecting?” he said, referring to the annual Oktoberfest celebration.

Meanwhile, Azhar said in proposing the amendments to Act 355, PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang had claimed it would not affect non-Muslims, but now “they are already imposing their values despite what was said”.

“They said that when they want to amend Act355, it will not affect non-Muslims.

“Look at this, this is a non-Muslim event and they are already imposing their values and religion on non-Muslims.

“So where is PAS’ argument that hudud and the amendment of the law will not affect non-Muslims? It’s a blatant lie to me,” Azhar said.

According to him, Kelantan does not celebrate the beer festival, but the state has the highest drug addiction and AIDS rate there.

Referring to Riduan’s warning that there could be “extremist” actions in response to the “treacherous programme”, Azhar said it did not sound like a warning but like a threat instead.

“People will be worried. It is an irony PAS has come up with this when our Prime Minister (Najib Razak) has gone to meet US President Donald Trump,” he said.

Zaid says that if PAS is unhappy with the festival they should protest against Najib and not the people.

Zaid says that if PAS is unhappy with the festival they should protest against Najib and not the people.

Meanwhile, DAP’s Zaid Ibrahim said if PAS was unhappy with the festival, it should bring its concerns to Najib, not the people.

“Why protest and then make a political case out of it? You want to ban the festival go and see Najib,” Zaid told FMT.

FMT has contacted the organisers of the Better Beer Festival 2017, MyBeer Malaysia, and is awaiting their response on the issue.

The Better Beer Festival will be held from Oct 6-7 in Publika.

The festival is set to showcase 250 different craft beers from 43 independent breweries from 12 countries, and also includes a variety of food and live performances.

Stand up to bigotry, ex-Treasury sec-gen tells KL mayor

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 24 -- Former Treasury secretary-general Tan Sri Mohd Sheriff Mohd Kassim urged the Kuala Lumpur mayor today to defend the city’s cultural and entertainment life from racial and religious bigotry.

Expressing concern over Kuala Lumpur City Hall’s (DBKL) ban of a beer festival in a shopping centre following objections from Islamist party PAS, Mohd Sheriff said bending to pressure groups and cancelling music and cultural festivals last minute would affect the capital city’s economy.

“It is worrying to see that the DBKL is giving support to the anti-social elements who want to dictate our lifestyles according to their religious beliefs,” Mohd Sheriff said in a letter to the editor.

“We are seeing political and religious groups making demands for Muslims to be treated separately from other Malaysians at public laundry shops and toilets, at supermarkets, at cinemas  and for liquor sales to be outlawed in majority Muslim residential areas. The DBKL ban on beer festival has encouraged these groups to be more brazen in their demand,” he added.

DBKL rejected an application from Mybeer (M) Sdn Bhd to organise the Better Beer Festival 2017 scheduled next month at a shopping centre, with police claiming that the craft beer event had to be cancelled due to a terror threat. The festival was previously held annually since 2012 without incident.

Federal Territories Minister Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor reportedly said today that DBKL would not reconsider the ban despite the organiser’s assurances of security measures, claiming that the beer festival violated the law because it involved the sale of liquor in an open area.

Mohd Sheriff pointed out that despite terror attacks in Europe and the United States, Western authorities did not respond by banning public gatherings and festivals.

“Instead, the western leaders have reiterated the need for the civilian population to face the threats with vigilance and go on with their daily life as usual. These countries are determined to  stand by their values of freedom and show to the hate groups that the western democratic way of life will not change whatever the threats,” he said.

The former senior civil servant noted that the government was spending billions to make Kuala Lumpur one of the most liveable cities in the world and to improve the capital with trendy architecture and modern infrastructure.

“All this beauty will go to waste if the city administrators give way to the few religious ideologists who want to impose their conservative values on our lifestyles. KL must not be allowed to become a hermit city with no life,” said Mohd Sheriff.

Tuesday, 5 September 2017

After 60 years of Merdeka, Where art thou Malaysia?

I think this report is one of the better essays on the state of Malaysia's Education System after 60 years of Merdeka. From the Malaysian Insight:

A LOOK at developments in Malaysia’s education system over the past six decades show how the Malay language has largely dictated national education policies.

However, hopes that it would be a unifying language to achieve nation-building through the education system have not materialised, and in terms of academic performance, Malaysia has not yet scored above the global average in baseline assessments for pupils in mathematics, science and reading.

“There has always been contestation over language since the British,” Bukit Bendera MP Zairil Khir Johari said.

In the years leading to Merdeka, proposals were made to “unify” the Malay, English, Chinese and Tamil schools, which were using different syllabuses and languages.

But every proposal, Zairil said, attracted objections as each community felt it was at the losing end.

The Razak Report – named after then education minister Abdul Razak Hussein – marked the beginning of Malaya’s standardised national education system. It integrated all schools, classifying them as “national” and “national-type” schools.

“The Chinese and Indian communities were upset with their loss of vernacular secondary education. The Malays were unhappy with the prominence of English-medium schools, feeling that they were ‘too English and not enough Malay (language)’,” he said.

When the May 1969 post-general election racial riots happened, English-medium schools took a direct hit with the change of guards in the government. The then-education minister Mohd Khir Johari – Zairil’s pro-English school father – was removed.

Abdul Rahman Ya’kub from Sarawak, a Razak ally, became education minister and announced in July that English-medium schools would be phased out at all levels, starting from standard one in January 1970. 

DAP spokesman for education Zairil Khir Johari says phasing out of English-medium education and other education policies throughout the years have mainly been political decisions. 

DAP spokesman for education Zairil Khir Johari says phasing out of English-medium education and other education policies throughout the years have mainly been political decisions. 

By the end of 1982, the switch was completed at all levels. The policy, including the compulsory pass in Malay language to earn the school-leaving certificate, hit teachers, students and the standard of education hard.

This phasing out of English-medium education and other education policies throughout the years have mainly been political, Zairil said.

“Politicians have too much control over education. Whenever we get a new education minister, who may not even be an education professional, we get a new policy everyone must follow.  

“Many were flip-flop decisions. We saw that in PPSMI, school-based assessments and the compulsory pass in SPM English,” said the DAP parliamentary spokesman on education.

PPSMI is the 2003 “Teaching of Mathematics and Science in English” policy introduced by then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad to help Malaysia catch up with the English-speaking world in the age of globalisation. 

It took off but eventually came to naught in 2012 amid protests, and the teaching of the two subjects reverted to Malay.

A proposal in 2013 by then education minister Muhyiddin Yassin to make English a compulsory pass in SPM by 2016 never materialised after he was sacked from the Cabinet in July 2015.

In recent years, Malaysia's scores in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), although improved year-on-year, are still below the global average for mathematics, reading and science.

End one-size-fits-all policies

Zairil said long-term education policies often changed every few years before they could deliver results – a problem evident in Malaysia’s highly centralised education system.

Education matters like the syllabus and exams should be left to professional independent bodies to manage and decide, while the ministry should handle funding and making sure the system met the required standards.

“Putrajaya should not control and make one-size-fits-all policies for 10,000 schools, half a million teachers and five million pupils regardless of their different needs and circumstances,” he said.

“In the 1990s, successful education reforms in many Western countries involved decentralising the education system. You need to decentralise for education to flourish.”

In Malaysia, independent Chinese schools with their own governing bodies showed the same success, he said.

“You see better infrastructure there, and it is hard for principals and teachers not to do their best when they have parents and influential community leaders in the school boards to answer to.

“If parents have ownership over education and sit on the school boards, they will make the best decisions for their kids.”  

Political and social analyst Dr Wong Chin Huat also supports liberalising the education system. The government should respect the free market in providing education, while actively supporting weaker pupils in all schools and streams by helping them catch up.

“Our education policy so far, including the blueprint, believes in control rather than competition, and makes multilingualism a bogeyman in its reluctance to deal with the class implication of education.

“We must shift from this to embrace competition and diversity, and pursue social inclusion – the real guarantee of national cohesion,” he said.

Rethinking Malay-medium schools

Wong said Malay-medium schools have also not been successful in meeting government goals, such as nation-building, and are rarely the school of choice for parents with the means to send their kids to private schools.

Citing 2013 data, he said Malay national schools, which received the most funds, remained unattractive to non-Malays, compared with vernacular schools that were “deliberately neglected” by the government.

“There was a growing exodus of pupils from Malay-medium schools to vernacular ones, and from national schools to private and international schools, indicating a general decline in the Malaysia education system.”

As new vernacular schools are barred, Wong said, some of the top schools just become overcrowded like Johor’s Kuo Kuang primary school with 5,000 pupils at one time.

He also said vernacular schools in recent years saw more diverse enrolments than the national schools, with their more than 90% Malay population.

As schools became more homogenous, the National Education Blueprint 2006-2010 sought to address racial polarisation in schools.

In 2007, a pilot project to teach Chinese and Tamil in national schools kicked off in 220 schools, as the government hoped to make national schools more appealing to non-Malays.

Wong said the situation has not changed today, so it might be concluded that the dream of nation-building through monolingual schooling via Bahasa Melayu was dead.

“Malaysia should either give up Malay as the sole medium of instruction or allow different education streams to exist and compete.” – September 4, 2017.  

My thots:

At 56, as it is, I do not see where we are going in education for our young.

I am blessed with the English medium education and together with the Johor Religious education system had helped made me a balanced person.

As long as Education Policies are driven by politics, the system will be at the mercy of politicians in office and language and religion pressure groups with their own vested agenda which does not necessarily coincide with the interest of our young.

I pray that one day GenX leaders will come out to reinvent our education system to compete with current and future global challenges.

We are now living in a borderless, wired and connected world ...... change or get left behind.