Sabtu, 22 Mei 2010

Ghosts' of Guantanamo Bay

Apa komen anda?

When Former US Army Captain James Yusuf Yee objected to the systemic and sanctioned mistreatment of detainees at Camp Delta, Guantanamo Bay, the very government he served turned on him. Here, the prison camp’s former chaplain spoke to The Paper That Cares about his ordeal and his now relentless pursuit to educate the world about Islam
Tuesday, May 18th, 2010 14:43:00
UPHOLDING TRADITION: Yee comes from a family of military servicemen
WHEN Chinese-American Captain James Yusuf Yee was assigned in November 2002 to be the Muslim chaplain at the now infamous Guantanamo Bay US military prison camp for 'alleged terrorists', he thought his job was to give a better understanding to his supervisors about Islam and its practices, in order for his commanders to better treat the prisoners.
Little did he know that it was the start of a journey which would expose the prisoner abuses in the camp, also known as 'Gitmo', located on the south eastern corner of Cuba.
"My job was to defend religious freedom, religious rights and to advocate for religious accommodation," said Yee, in a one-on-one interview with The Malay Mail after a visit to the Home of Hope, a shelter for orphans, underprivileged children, single mothers and the elderly that is run by Pertubuhan Al-Khaadem, a non-governmental organisation.
"My understanding was that I was also to advise the commanders of the Muslim religious customs and practices."
Yee stated that during the time he was stationed there (Nov 2002 to Sept 2003), Gitmo had close to 700 prisoners, all of whom were Muslims.
In his opinion, they were mostly innocent of any acts of terrorism.
"The US government has characterised the prisoners there as 'alleged terrorists'. The reality is that most of them had nothing to do with any act of terrorism. That is evident because by today, about 600 have been released, with about 180 still held."
He added: "Some of the prisoners thrown into Guantanamo were still minors, some as young as 12 or 13 years old. What I've learned is that only 5 per cent of the prisoners in Guantanamo were captured by US Forces during the so-called war on terror in the Middle East.
"The rest were brought in by Afghan warlords and tribes at war with each other - and these warlords were rewarded handsomely by the US military for bringing in the 'enemy combatants'.
"Naturally, what happened was that the warlords would simply kidnap individuals from the opposing tribes, or foreigners working there, and hand them over just to claim the monetary rewards, some as much as US$5,000 per head."
SPREADING THE WORD: Yee speaking during the Al-Khaadem Home for Hope fund raising dinner last Sunday
Yee said it was clear from the very beginning that the prisoners in Gitmo were abused and mistreated.
"I would say that their treatment was cruel, inhumane and degrading.
"From the perspective of a US military chaplain, what was most disturbing was how religion, how Islam was used as a weapon against these prisoners.
"They were persecuted for their faith. US personnel in Gitmo understood how Muslims revere and respect the holy Quran. So they abused it, desecrated it and disrespected it in front of the prisoners.
"The US personnel also understood the culture of Islam, where there is separation between men and women. Many of the prisoners came from very conservative societies, and many of them were young men who were not married.
"Many of the female interrogators were very ready to strip of their own clothes in front of the prisoners, inappropriately harass and rub their bodies against these men who could not resist, being shackled to their chairs. The interrogators intentionally exploit this aspect of the prisoners to sexually humiliate them."
Yee added that there were also forced shaving of beards, or guards turning of the water supply right before prayer times to prevent prisoners from performing their 'wuduk' (ablution), and mocking the 'azan' or the prayer itself, as the prisoners were praying.
"The US military personnel did all that in hopes that it would 'break' the prisoners, and believing that this would gain confessions or information from them," said Yee. "Instead, it only caused disturbances and prison riots at the camp."
The 42-year-old Yee, who comes from a family of servicemen, said that the practices in Gitmo were a violation of the very values of the United States constitution.
"It was also against Army values, which are respect, honour, dignity and integrity. As a chaplain, as a US military officer, and as a US citizen it was my duty to report those abuses.
"There were, to my understanding, war crimes committed in Guantanamo. However, the US president at that time, George W. Bush, had declared that the Geneva Convention, the international body of law that governs armed convicts, did not apply in Guantanamo.
"Other administration officials had stated things like 'the gloves are off'. This opened the doors for prisoner abuse in Guantanamo and other CIA black sites (secret prison camps) around the world."
Yee said while his immediate superiors were happy with his report of prisoner mistreatment, some personnel higher up got upset.
"In raising my concern about the abuses, I believe my own supervisors got valuable information to help them try to correct some of the problems they were facing. In Guantanamo, I received official military awards and an outstanding officer evaluation report, among other things. I was being rewarded for the job I was performing there.
"However, as that information moved further up the chain of command, where I believe these abuses were authorised and dictated, some felt threatened that it would expose what was happening exactly in Gitmo. Remember, this was in 2002, 2003, when most of the world had no idea what was going on in Guantanamo."
Happy with his performance and service, Yee's superiors gave him a well-earned vacation. This, however, was when things got really bad for the decorated officer. En route to his family home in Seattle, Yee was detained at the airport in Florida.
"As a military officer for many years, I was confident in my ability to perform my job and my ability to educate others about my being a Muslim chaplain. Being harassed a bit, that was something I expected and I could deal with, being on Sept 10, 2003, a day before the anniversary of the World Trade Centre and Pentagon attacks.
"But then officers from military intelligence (NCIS) and the FBI appeared out of nowhere. I was arrested, put in shackles and thrown into a prison cell. I thought the situation was simply ridiculous, (got) out of hand. Still, I thought things would be cleared up in a matter of hours. I was, of course, very naive."
The gravity of the situation was clearer days later. Held in a cell in Jacksonville, Florida, Yee was accused by military attorneys of spying, espionage, aiding the enemies - charges one could be put to death for.
FIGHTING FOR HONOUR: Yee and his counsels
during their legal battle
"They then transported me to this maximum security prison in Charleston, South Carolina," Yee related.
"They shackled me up at the waist, the ankles, the wrists and my eyes were covered with these blacked-out goggles, plus they put on my ears these industrial earmuffs, so I could neither see nor hear. I recognised this as something called 'Sensory Deprivation', a method to instill fear and intimidation in detainees in Guantanamo.
"It was at that time that I feared the worst, because I understood that the prisoners who were treated like that had no rights whatsoever, and I feared that my own government was stripping away my rights as a US citizen.
"Then they put me in this solitary cell, and I was there for 76 days." Yee said that he felt he was being betrayed by his leaders.
"I was a West Point graduate. My brothers serve in the military and my father was drafted during World War II. All of us patriotically served, and here I was, with the government out to get me.
"Why? One word that comes to mind is 'Islamophobia', or an irrational fear of Islam or Muslims. Because I'm a Muslim, and because the people in Guantanamo saw how I read the Quran, how I prayed, and how it was similar to how the prisoners prayed, they felt threatened. Maybe it was due to ignorance, or even bigotry - people who hated the Muslims.
"Perhaps because I was also Asian," he added. "Someone at Gitmo once said, 'Who the hell does this Chinese Taliban think he is, telling us how to treat our prisoners?'
"No doubt, I was betrayed by the leadership within the military. I believe the policies that were set in place after 9/11 by the then president and the secretary of defence contributed to the hysteria and how I was treated."
Fortunately, after 76 gruelling days, the military dropped the charges. However, that wasn't the end of the ordeal for Yee.
"After they knew I was not a terrorist spy, they tried to smear my reputation with lesser charges - of adultery and storing pornography in a government laptop! But as history proved, despite raiding my home, my workplace and my chapel to find any shred of evidence, they could not find any to support their allegations, all the charges were dropped, and I was exonerated of all the accusations."
Yee was reinstated, but once he returned to his homebase in Washington state, the captain resigned his commission from the US military.
"I received an honourable discharge, and was conferred a second US Army commendation medal for 'exceptionally meritorious service'. To me, receiving those things were an admission by the US military that they knew they had made a mistake. They would not apologise, however."
FOR GOD AND COUNTRY: The inside story on Guantanamo Bay available in major bookstores
Yee published a book to document his experience and what went on - and still goes on - in Guantanamo.
"The military wouldn't respond to my book. But later they stated that all the claims I put in my book about Guantanamo - all of which is public knowledge and confirmed by other sources now - would be 'thoroughly investigated', without denying any of them.
"I believe the treatment found in Guantanamo is also applied in other detainment centres around the world. Things that happen in the secret CIA black sites are even worse than those in Guantanamo."
Yee also added that if the US military intelligence was looking for information, they were not doing it the right way.
"In my view, torture and abusive methods don't work. In fact, they are counter-productive.
"These methods are actually benefitting for adversaries of the United States, damaging the country's reputation as the leader in human rights and the rule of law. I don't believe any useful information and reliable confession regarding any terrorist operation were obtained using these methods."
Yee now spends his days trying to educate the world about Islam, believing that by showing the world the good values in Islam, it could bridge the gap between Muslims and non-Muslims.
"My objective now is to help get Guantanamo closed and start the rebuilding process of America's reputation. I am also committed to properly educating others about Islam and Muslims, and show that there is no inherent conflict being American and being Muslim."
The father of one hopes that while he has forgiven those who had wronged him, someday some will be held accountable for the way he was mistreated.
"We have the expression, 'Never Forget'. Forgiveness is a part of my faith, but so is accountability."
Sumber dari sini

Jelajah Anwar sasar kerusi genting

Ada atau tidak pilihan raya mengejut, PKR mahu bersiap-sedia menghadapi pilihan raya umum yang akan datang dengan turun padang, khususnya di kerusi-kerusi genting dengan majoriti tipis.

Menunggu di seluruh negara, 'pemikat ceramah' Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Setiausaha agung Saifuddin Nasution berkata PKR kini memasuki 'mod kempen pilihan raya' untuk tempoh tiga hingga empat bulan lagi.

"Kita telah menganalisis keputusan pilihan raya umum, dan mengenalpasi kerusi berdasarkan faktor 'kebolehmenangan', kita akan hantar Anwar ke kawasan itu untuk gemblengkan sokongan," katanya.

Antara kawasan yang ditandakan dalam kempen jelajah 'Selamatkan Malaysia' merupakan Tanjung Karang di mana kawasan sekitarnya dianggap sebagai kubu BN hingga sekarang.

Pakatan dispels shaky Kedah government image

ALOR SETAR, May 22 — Pakatan Rakyat tonight proved the Kedah government remained stable when all three of its PKR assemblymen spoke at a rally, dispelling the notion they planned to quit the coalition.
The three were touted to be among the next few from the party to defect, thus triggering the fall of the Kedah PAS-led government.
As promised and contrary to rumours that were spreading like wildfire this afternoon, the three turned up at the mammoth rally in Kota Sarang Semut here to address the crowd and quell all fears of their possible defections.
Sidam assemblyman Tan Show Kang led the charge and was the first speaker of the night when the rally started at 10pm.
Speaking in halting Bahasa Malaysia to the Malay-majority crowd of over 1,000 people, he expressed anger and dissatisfaction at the vicious rumours.
“I am tired and fed up and having to answer the same things over and over again. Let it end tonight,” Tan said.
He also said that he would no longer entertain the media’s requests for comments.
“How many times must I say I must not jump? I keep having to tell them the same thing — no. The media told me to hold a press conference so I told them ok, once and for all, we will end this.
“I will be here tonight on May 22 and this is the last time that I am going to say that no, I am not jumping and no, the Kedah government will not fall,” he said.
Tan stirred laughter in the crowd when he sighed and said, “This is not like a nice song which you can hear over and over again. If it were a song, I would not mind hearing it. This is the same silly question which I will give the same answer to. So why bother asking me so many times?”
PKR has been rocked with resignations since Election 2008, losing a total of 10 lawmakers including one who was sacked.
The party also lost another seat when it failed to hold on to the Hulu Selangor in a by-election last month.

How Umno stripped the Rulers naked

The measure, which included a rule to allow commoners to criticise the Sultans, even the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, or king without fear of the Sedition Act other than questioning the legitimacy of the monarchy itself, was passed overwhelmingly by the parliament, apparently without outcry over Dr Mahathir's rather tough treatment of the country's nine monarchs.

Raja Petra Kamarudin
In a speech before Malaysia's Dewan Rakyat, or parliament, on February 14, 1993, then-Prime Minister asked that the body strip the country's sultans of their immunity to the law. In the speech, he accused them, among other things, of giving away parts of the country to the British, oppressing the people, breaking civil and criminal laws, misusing the money and property of the government and pressuring government officials. The measure, which included a rule to allow commoners to criticise the Sultans, even the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, or king without fear of the Sedition Act other than questioning the legitimacy of the monarchy itself, was passed overwhelmingly by the parliament, apparently without outcry over Dr Mahathir's rather tough treatment of the country's nine monarchs.
Asia Sentinel brings this up in light of the growing controversy in Malaysia over opposition protests against the Sultan of Perak's decision to oust the Pakatan Rakyat chief minister of his state and sanction the appointment of a member of the United Malays National Organisation as the new chief minister despite the fact that a 28-28 tie remained, and that the Pakatan Rakyat had asked for a snap election to determine which coalition should rule the state.
When Karpal Singh, national chairman of the Democratic Action Party, offered to sue Sultan Raja Azlan Shah in the courts to get his decision reversed, scores of UMNO members filed complaints and led rallies against Karpal Singh for insulting the sultan. Members of the press, including Jed Yoong of the Asia Sentinel, have also been cited.
It would appear from Dr Mahathir's 1993 speech that it is perfectly legal to sue members of the royalty. It would also appear that UMNO members, particularly prime ministers, can make allegations against the country's royalty that opposition leaders and members of the press can't. We invite readers to decide for themselves. We reprint Dr Mahathir's historic 1993 speech below in its entirety.
    Mr. Speaker Sir,
    I request to propose that is a Bill named “An Act to amend the Constitution” to be read for the second time. Speaker Sir, allow me to introduce and comment on the Act that I mentioned above
    2. When the country demanded independence, the country's leaders, who received a huge victory and united support in the 1955 General Election, decided that our country would be administered via Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy.
    3. This system was chosen because when the Malay states were administered via the feudal system with power vested in the hands of the Rajas, the Malay states were weak and its administration was in chaos. The states could not establish peace and enforce laws. As a negative result, the states were forced to put themselves under the influence of foreign powers like China, Siam and the West. Finally, all the Malay states were conquered by the British and ruled as a British colony via agreements between the Rajas that administered with the British Government.
    4. After the Second World War, the Malay Rajas hoped that when the British administered again, their positions as Rajas, under the advice of the British officials, would be reinstated. The Malay states would be ruled by the British although not like Singapore, Penang and Malacca, where the British had full power.
    5. For the majority of the Malay people in the Peninsular states, they were ready to accept a rule in which the Malayness of the Malay states was recognized by the British, although the administration was almost completely controlled by the British. Yet, there were opinions among some Malays that the Malay states should be completely freed from British colonial rule.
    6. Malays only realized that they might be marginalized and be made beggars in their own states when the Malay Rajas bowed to MacMichael's threats and signed a new agreement with the British to return the Malay states directly to the British to be ruled as British colonies like Singapore, Penang and Malacca.
    7. Because the Rajas so easily handed over Singapore, Penang and Pangkor to the colonialists and then the Malay states, the People (“rakyat”) could no longer accept a system that only gives power to the Rajas and the People are not given any role in the country's politics. Also, after World War 2, absolute monarchies decayed throughout the world. Everywhere, absolute monarchies were abolished. Where it was maintained, the powers of the Rajas were limited by the Constitution, or the country's basic law. Hence, when the Federated Malay States demanded for independence, the leaders of the People studied administrative systems while taking into account of the history of the Malay States and other administrative systems.
    Mr. Speaker Sir,
    8. The old administrative system in the Malay states was a feudal system in which the Rajas had absolute power without a written Constitution. This feudal system was determined by customs that were often manipulated by the people in power. If the people in power breached the customs, it was difficult for palace officials and the People to criticize and make charges. But when the situation became too bad, it was likely that customs were put aside and revolt occurred. But this method brought definite negative consequences without guaranteeing that the revolt would improve the situation.
    9. Therefore, the opinion that Rajas should be placed under a Constitution that determined the status and role of the Rajas was born. With this method, the Rajas could no longer act as they liked. The powers of the Rajas would be determined by the Constitution, that is the country's basic law. Yet, there were Rajas who were willing to hand over their own states to foreign powers while ignoring the Constitution.
    10. Yet when the Constitutional Monarchy was drafted for the Federation of Malaya, which at that time was moving towards independence, those drafters of the constitution still believed that the Rajas would abide by not only by what was written but also what was written between the lines, that is the spirit of the Constitution.
    11. During the British colonial period, because they could appoint or remove Rajas, therefore Rajas accept the advice of the colonial rulers. This matter is included in the agreement between the British and the Malay Rajas in which the advice of the 'British Resident' or 'British Adviser' must be sought and abide by the Rajas save those that relate to Islam and Malay customs. For the British, that the advice must be abided by the Rajas is not strange because in the Government system in Britain, their 'King' or 'Queen' must accept the Government's advice. If not, the King will be removed from the throne. Hence, when King Edward VIII married a divorcee, he had to abdicate the throne on the Government's advice, although there was no specific allocation for this action. What was enforced was not the law but the country's political interests, and the British Kings abide by the country's politics. That's the reason that even before that, the British Parliament decided that Queen Elizabeth pays income tax. She herself just decided to pay income tax. The British Constitution, although not written, is abided from the perspective of spirit and custom.
    12. Because the Malay Rajas in colonial times followed the advice, therefore it was believed that the problem of Rajas breaking the law would not happen.
    13. The drafters and founders of the administration of the independent Federation of Malaya also believed that the provision that the Rajas that could not be charged in court is only a sign of the majesty of the King and not as a right to commit crimes. Certainly, the drafters of the Constitution and the founders of our country's independence did not mean this provision gave the Rajas the right to be above civil and criminal laws. Constitutional Monarchy has never given privilege to the Rajas to commit crimes. But if the Rajas break the law while carrying out official duties, the Rajas are free from charges. This is because the Government is responsible and the party that should be charged.
    14. In the effort to oppose the Malayan Union and return the Malay states and Straits states to the 'status quo ante', that was the situation before World War II, the People played an important role although there is no legal provision. It was clear at that that time to the people that the Rajas without the People's support are easily controlled by the colonialists and other parties. Hence, the People had to be given rights in the country's politics and administration. The role of the People must be determined by the law.
    15. Looking at this reality and once again taking the example of Britain, the independent Federation of Malaya chose the Parliamentary Democracy system. The People will elect their representatives to the Dewan Rakyat (People's House or Parliament) and the Dewan Undangan Negeri (State Legislative Assemblies) who will be the main law and policy makers. This allowed the People to play their roles in an orderly and organized manner.
    16. Once again following the system in Britain, the laws can only be valid after they are signed by the Rajas. In Britain, this is not a problem because it is not possible that the King will reject the advice of the Cabinet. But in Malaysia, the word 'advice', that the drafters of the constitution believed would have the same meaning like in Britain and during the colonial period, is not clearly interpreted. Therefore, the Rajas can reject the Government's advice.
    17. If the Government admits to be made up of representatives chosen by the People to determine the People's power, but the advice of the Government may not be accepted, this meant that the Parliamentary Democracy does not exist and the People are not in power. In some matters, not only the agreement of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is required, but also the Council of Rajas.
    18. Although the representatives were free to speak in the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Undangan Negeri about any topic, but they could not touch on the Rajas because any criticism of the Rajas could be interpreted as sedition and they could be charged under the Sedition Act. This provision was a result of an amendment made in 1971. Before this, criticism of the Rajas could be made in the house. In Britain and other countries, the Parliament was free to criticize the Rajas. It is clear that that criticizing the Rajas does not destroy the Rajas' majesty.
    19. While this prohibition on criticism is said to protect the Rajas' majesty, but when the Rajas are not criticized, they will not be aware of the wrongs that they have committed. Hence, maybe more wrongs will be committed and these wrongs may become more serious. This not only contaminates the Rajas' majesty but can also cause the People to hate the Rajas. It is not true to say the prohibition on criticizing the Rajas will protect the Rajas' majesty. Actually, the majesty of the Rajas will be contaminated because of this prohibition.
    20. With the possibility that the Rajas reject advice while being free from criticism and any fair action, hence, the Rajas are actually not Constitutional Monarchs anymore but have become absolute Monarchs. Once again Parliamentary Democracy no longer exists because no action can be taken towards the Rajas that do not receive the advice of the People's Government and commit wrongs.
    21. In 1983, action was taken to amend the Constitution so that at the very least the power of the Agong to reject Bills written by Parliament was abolished. This effort was successful but not fully. What was approved in the end was the power of the Agong to reject Parliament Bills was reduced a little by having a new provision such that he can refer back to Parliament if he is unwilling to sign the Bill that has been approved by Parliament. If Parliament approves it again, whether with or without amendments, the Bill will be valid law in 30 days (Article 66(4) Constitution) although unsigned by the Agong.
    22. But approvals this way are limited to matters that do not touch on the rights and privileges of the Rajas. To amend the Constitutional provisions that touch on the Rajas, the Council of Rajas must give their agreement.
    23. At the state level, no amendments was made to state Constitutions. Hence, there are no laws that could be approved without being signed by the Rajas. This means the powers of the Rajas in the state is beyond the powers of the Dewans Undangan Negeri that represent the People.
    24. These provisions do not become problems if there are no opposing opinions between the Rajas and the Dewans Undangan, or there is no wrongdoing by the Rajas, or there is no Malay custom that does not like to jeopardize the relationships with the Rajas. Unfortunately, because the Chief Ministers and Prime Minister are Malays that are unwilling to be on bad terms with the Rajas, when the Rajas do something that is not supposed to be done, no effective criticism is made. Even if there is, the unwillingness of the Rajas to care about the criticisms of these official advisers does not bring about any action towards the Rajas.
    25. Hence, in the history of independent Malaysia, the actions of the Rajas and parties who hide behind the Rajas that exceed the rights and privileges of the Rajas become more serious over time. The possibility is that it will become more serious in the future. If there are no amendments to the law, like those suggested here, without doubt worse matters will happen that will cause the Raja Institution to be hated by the people. It is not impossible that if one day in the future, demands are made to completely abolish the Raja System although there are provisions in the Constitution.
    26. Hence this amendment that is suggested aims to avoid or prevent the escalation of hatred towards the Rajas that could bring about demands to abolish the Raja System. This amendment is to save the Rajas themselves and the Constitutional Monarchy system. To strengthen the Constitutional provisions to maintain the Raja System, provisions are made such that any suggestion to abolish the Raja System will be interpreted as sedition and falls under Sedition Laws.
    27. This amendment does not touch on the privileges given to the Rajas. Rajas will continue to be of Raja status, and facilities provided to the Rajas and the Royal Families according to the Constitution will be continued.
    28. To guarantee that Constitutional Monarchy is really effective, three amendments need to be made to the Federal Constitution. First, the Constitutional provision related with the immunity of the Rajas from any legal action as in Clause (1) Article 32 where after the word “court” is added the words “but only those related with whatever that is done or left to be done by him in the carrying out or that which resembles the carrying out of his functions under any written law”. This means no court action can be taken towards the Rajas who are carrying out their official duties.
    29. Sovereign Immunity is a feudal concept – a concept in which allegedly 'The King can do no wrong'. According Dr. Hogg in his book 'Liability of the Crown', this concept is based on the excuse that a King cannot be charged in his own court. This excuse has long been questioned and rejected by European law experts like Adams who feel that there is no doubt that feudal lords are under their own courts – 'No doubt at all of the subjection of feudal lords to their own courts'.
    30. Under the Government of India Act 1935, the Governor General or Governor is only immune when carrying out official duties.
    31. In the United States, President Nixon's demand such that he is exempted from a legal provision is rejected by the Supreme Court.
    32. In England, the Queen cannot be arrested and the arrest of anyone cannot be made on palace grounds. Even charges towards the Queen cannot be made in court.
    33. But in a paper that discussed the Constitutional Law of India, under the Crown Proceedings Act for England the original provision has been amended such that 'Civil proceedings by and against the Crown' can be made. Hence, the difference of 'proceedings' towards the 'Crown' is equivalent to the People.
    34. In the same paper it was mentioned that it has become a 'fundamental general rule' that 'His Majesty cannot sanction any act forbidden by the law'. When he cannot sanction, he also cannot do something wrong. Hence, 'His Majesty is under and not above the laws (and) he is bound by them equally with his subjects'.
    35. Provisions in the Constitutions of Spain, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Luxemborg all give immunity to the King only when carrying official duties as King. Any wrongs in carrying out official duties fall upon the Government or Ministers.
    36. There are no special provisions in any Constitution in European countries that give immunity to the King when carrying out unofficial activities. Yet, the Kings in the respective countries are still recognized and sovereign. They continue to be sovereign and did not lose their sovereignty. The opinion that Kings are only sovereign if the Kings can commit crimes as they like is not supported by the practices of other countries in this era. Even in the older eras, the King is often punished when he commits any wrongdoing, like in the case of Charles I in England and Louis XVI in France.
    37. Only in the Constitution of Malaysia is a specific provision under Article 181(2) that 'no proceedings whatsoever shall be brought in any court against the Rules of a State in his personal capacity'.
    38. Almarhum Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra al-Haj, this country's first Prime Minister, had written that immunity is not 'satisfactory' because 'Rajas can kill anyone without any action taken against him'. The result of provision 181(2) is very wide. Because the Constitutions of the Federation and States are also law, Article 181(2) actually allows Rajas to breach the Constitution. Because of that, when Rajas conduct business, although prohibited by the Constitution, nothing can be done by the Government. The Agong cannot be charged in any court. But the Council of Rajas can sack him from his position. On the contrary as a Raja, Article 181(2) will protect him.
    39. If Malaysia intends to become a country that practices Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy, the immunity that is given to the Rajas must be abolished. Because the Constitution in countries that practice the Constitutional Monarchy System doesn't give immunity to their Kings, the abolishment of the immunity of the Malay Rajas cannot jeopardize their sovereignty. In the modern era, only because the King can't commit crimes as they like, the King's status will not be jeopardized, especially in a country that practices Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy.
    40. To guarantee the effectiveness of the abolishment of immunity, two more provisions in the Constitution needs to be amended. The first is related to the provision in Article 63(2) that protects a person from taking part in a debate in Parliament or Parliamentary Committee from being questioned in court, which has been amended by Article 63(4) if it touches the provision of the Sedition Act. This provision is made in 1971. This means criticism towards the King can be made before 1971 without jeopardizing the Raja's sovereignty. Hence, it allows again the People's Representatives to criticize the Rajas who were wrong without denying the original rights and privileges of the Rajas. The amendment of Article 63 after Clause (4) reads:- “(5) Notwithstanding Clause (4) no one can be charged with any proceedings in any court related with anything that is said by him about the Agong or a Raja while taking part in whatever proceedings in any of the Parliamentary Committee or any of its task force except if it organizes the abolishment of the Constitutional position of the Agong as the Head of the Government of the Federation or the status of the Constitutional Monarch of a state, according to whichever applies”. Article 72 of the Federal Constitution is amended by inserting after Clause (4) the following Clause:- “(5) Notwithstanding Clause (4) no one can be charged with any proceedings in any court related to anything that has been said by him about the Rajas in any state while taking part in any proceedings in the Dewan Undangan in any state or in any committee unless if he organizes the abolishment of the status of the Raja as the Constitutional Monarch of the state”.
    41. The interpretation of the sedition towards the King in the Constitution is so wide until no criticism is can be made in Parliament by members of the Dewan Rakyat or Dewan Undangan. Hence, the media also has no opportunity to report. Criticism can only be made by the Rajas' advisors behind closed doors. If this criticism is ineffective, there is nothing that can be done.
    42. Actually all three former Prime Ministers, as advisors to the Rajas, have already criticized the Rajas many times while they were in service. I know criticisms have been made because this matter has been repeatedly reported in Cabinet meetings and also the UMNO Supreme Council.
    43. Allahyarham Tun Hussein Onn, as Prime Minister, had in his written speech in a Raja Council Meeting, only attended by His Highnesses or their representatives, harshly criticized the doings of the Rajas that should not be done.
    44. But all these criticisms are not effective. The matters touched upon continued to be done, even intensified. What was never done during the British era and in the early years of independent Malaysia are now done obviously and widespread.
    45. Although almost all Prime Ministers and Chief Ministers report to the UMNO Supreme Council, there are problems that they face but the public are not told. Hence, the public do not know the problems faced by the Government. Most of them continue to believe that the system of Constitutional Monarchy is operating smoothly with the Rajas honoring all the provisions in the Constitution. Only a small portion of the People know and they are not comfortable with the Rajas' doings. But they can't express their views and feelings because there is a Sedition Act.
    46. The Sedition Act and the relevant provisions for sedition towards the Rajas in Article 63(4) of the Constitution prohibits the People from getting information and voicing their opinions. They can only talk among themselves. Political leaders, including Government leaders, definitely hears and realizes that the views and anger of a number of People that knows about the Rajas' doings. Such is their anger till there are, mostly among the young generation, that consider the Raja System to be behind times.
    47. But because of the Sedition Act and prohibitions on criticizing the Rajas, Rajas do not listen and do not believe their advisors when such information is conveyed about the People's anxiety. The Rajas and the Royal Families seems to opine that all of these are inventions of the advisors to the Rajas to scare them or snatch the Rajas' rights.
    48. In this situation, the Rajas not only continue their habits that the People dislike and are uneasy with but also matters that are hated by the People. If this trend is not stopped, the feelings of the People towards the Raja will boil over and become so bad that at a point of time in the future, the People may no longer be able to control their feelings. Letters to newspapers that expressed such feelings have existed for a long time.
    48. With your permission Speaker Sir, I wish to read an excerpt of an article sent to The Straits Times in 1946 by a prominent Malay leader, when the British suggested the formation of the Malayan Union. This leader went on to hold a high position in Government. This article was not published in the Straits Time but was passed to me recently by the writer.
    50. This writer says, with your permission, 'All intelligent Malay leaders ought now seriously to give most profound and careful thought to the question whether the time has not ar- rived when the Malay Royalty (I mean the Sultan and Raja) should gracefully withdraw themselves altogether'.
    51. If opinions were already like this in 1946, is it not possible that it will arise again in 1993 if the Rajas are not stopped from doing things that are undesirable?
    52. The protection and privilege given to the Rajas aim to put the Rajas in a high and majestic place. The protection and privilege is not to allow the Rajas to do whatever they like including committing crime. Rajas who are aware and understand the true meaning of these provisions will always take care to prevent contaminating itself in acts or behaviours that are not good and disliked by society. Rajas who are aware will know acts that ignore the feelings and opinions of society will cause the People to finally remove the Rajas, and even abolish the Raja System. This is what happened in countries that are now republics.
    53. In Malaysia, the protection given is very thick. Sovereign Immunity from laws and prohibitions from criticism, although only by members of the Dewans Undangan that has been entrusted to administer the country, separates the Rajas from the real world. In this situation, the acts and behavior of the Rajas will become worse in the long run. This is happening in Malaysia.
    54. Hence, it is important Members of the Dewan are given back the right to criticize the Rajas in their debates. Without this right, the Members of the Dewan will fail to practice the Parliamentary Democracy system and will fail to prove that the People are the ones in power in this system. Without this right, the ones in power are the Rajas and not the People.
    55. With the existence of a prohibition on criticizing the Rajas, Members of the House actually cannot protect the Raja Institution and Raja System. Hance, the freedom of Members of the House to speak in the House should not be blocked by the Sedition Act like provided for under Article 63(4) and 72(4). With the addition of Article 63(5) and 72(5), the Members of the House not only can protect the Raja's position but also the Constitutional Monarchy that is clearly protected by the Constitution, because it is mentioned in Article 63(5) and 72(5) that the exception from the Sedition Act does not include organizing the 'abolishment of the Constitutional status of the Agong as the Head of the Federation or the status of a Raja in a state'.
    Mr. Speaker Sir,
    56. The second matter that can void the abolishment of the Rajas' immunity is when doing something that breaks the law in a non-official matter is the Rajas' right to pardon as provided for in Article 42. With this provision, a Raja can pardon himself if he is convicted by a court after immunity from legal action is withdrawn. This means the withdrawal of immunity is meaningless and ineffective.
    57. Hence, the Government proposes that Article 38 and 42 of the Federal Constitution be amended as in Clause (2) Article 28 and Clause (12) Article 42. Clause (2) Article 38 of the Federal Constitution is amended – (a) by substituting the comma at the end of the paragraph (c) with a semicolon; and (b) by inserting after paragraph (c), the following paragraph: “(d) giving pardon, reprieve and respite, or to remit, suspend and reduce sentences, under Clause (12) Article 42,”. Article 42 of the Federal Constitution is amended by inserting, after Clause (11), the following Clauses: “(12) Notwithstanding the contents of this Constitution, if the powers mentioned in this Article – (a) have to be carried out by the Yang di-Pertuan of a State and are required to be carried out on himself or his wife, his sons or daughters, these powers have to be carried out by the Chief Minister of the State that will act on the advice of the Board of Pardons formed for the state under this Article and needs to be chaired by; (b) are required to be carried out on the Agong, a Raja of a State, or his Consort, according to whichever is applicable, these powers needs to be carried out by the Council of Rajas and the following provisions are required to be used: (i) when attending any proceeding under this Clause, the Agong cannot be accompanied by the Prime Minister and other Rajas cannot be accompanied by their Chief Ministers; (ii) before making any decision about any matter under this Clause, the Council of Rajas must consider whatever written opinion that may be given by the Attorney-General about this matter. (c) are required to be carried out by the Agong or the Raja of the related State with his sons or daughters, according whichever is applicable, the powers have to be carried out by a Raja of a State named by the Council of Rajas and that Raja has to act according to the advice of the relevant Board of Pardons formed under this Article. (13) For the meaning of paragraph (b) and (c) Clause (12), the Agong or respective State Raja, according to whichever is applicable, and the State Yang di-Pertuas cannot be made members of the Council of Rajas”.
    58. With this amendment, the Raja cannot hear the plea and pardon himself. If the Raja or his Consort who pleas for pardon, the Council of Rajas will hear and decide on the respective case.
    59. The Raja also cannot listen to the plea of and pardon his offspring. The Council of Rajas will appoint another Raja to hear and decide on the pardon pleas of a Raja's offspring.
    60. With the abolishment of the immunity of the Rajas from legal action, except when carrying out official duties, it is believed that a Raja will not commit acts that can be charged in courts. With this, the Raja will be honored by the People.
    61. The abolishment of the ban applied on Members of Parliament and the Dewans Undangan Negeri by the Sedition Act will prevent the Rajas from committing any act that may attract the criticism of the respective members of the house.
    62. The abolishment of the powers to pardon himself will make legal action more effective.
    63. The real reason for these amendments is not because the Government or the People want to drag the Rajas to court as they like. The reason is so that the Rajas will constraint themselves from committing acts that can negatively cause legal action. Hence, the Rajas will be respected more.
    64. It should be reminded that the respect of the People towards the Raja cannot be determined by laws. With your permission, 'Respect must be earned'. Having laws that scare the People will not bring 'respect'. With the realization that the Rajas can be brought to court, Rajas will certainly avoid committing acts that will cause the people not to respect the Rajas. Hence, the Raja Institution will be better respected and better preserved.
    65. To strengthen the efforts to preserve the Rajas and Raja System, any suggestion or exertion to abolish the Raja System is interpreted as sedition and will be charged under the Sedition Act.
    Mr. Speaker Sir,
    66. I feel very sad that today I am forced to present to the august House a Bill to amend the Constitution that has in some way contaminated the good name of the Rajas and the Raja Institution. With a heavy heart I presented and explained the suggested amendments.
    67. That the Government made the decision to amend the Constitution is not without reason. Actually, as I have said, the Government has refrained from making these amendments since the start when we achieved independence. But this approach does not alleviate the situation. On the contrary, the situation became worse.
    68. In the end, an incident in which a Raja assaulted a citizen and before this another incident in which the son of a Raja assaulted a citizen. The Government cannot look lightly at such events without jeorpardizing the Government's credibility as responsible leaders.
    69. The Government is forced to make a firm stand to protect the People from being oppressed by the Rajas. Certainly, this stand was not made because of these two incidents only. Before this there were many incidents where the Rajas oppressed the People, Rajas broke civil and criminal laws, Rajas misused the money and property of the Government and country, Raja pressuring and oppressing officials.
    70. The incident in Johor is only, with your permission, 'the straw that broke the camel's back'. The People's reaction towards these incidents clearly shows that the People no longer accept and 'tolerate' these kind of acts.
    Mr. Speaker Sir,
    71. There are people that ostensibly wish to give powers to and defend the Rajas when the Raja commit crimes. They try twist the People's thoughts by accusing the Government is trying to abolish the Raja System.
    72. I wish to assert that the Barisan Nasional government does not at all suggest to abolish the Raja System. This is clear from the suggested amendments. Any suggestion to abolish the Raja System will be interpreted as sedition and the Government will take action under the Sedition Act upon anyone who suggest or act to abolish the Raja System.
    Mr. Speaker Sir,
    73. The government is aware that the People, specifically the Malays accept and support the Malay Raja Institution. The accusations that the Government is trying to abolish the Raja System is merely because of political interests. The Government represents the majority of the Malays and other races will abide by the wishes of the People and will not do something that is unpopular.
    74. Because it is clear that the majority of the people of all races still wants the Raja System, specifically the Constitutional Monarchy System, the Government will guarantee that this system is protected by the Constitution.
    Mr. Speaker Sir,
    75. There are parties that opine that the Malay Rajas are needed to protect the Malays. The MacMichael Agreement and the Malayan Union incidents clearly prove that those who are willing and able to protect the Malays are the Malays themselves. If not because they rose up and opposed the Malayan Union, today, the Malays would have been beggars in their own country.
    76. The attempts by some parties to scare the Malays towards the amendment are caused by those who wish to use racial sentiments for the interests of their own parties. Their history does not assure us that they are sincere. They are the ones who try to weaken the Malays by breaking up UMNO and working with certain parties that are viewed with suspicion by the Malays.
    77. Can merely barring the Rajas from committing crimes cause the Rajas to lose their sovereignty and no longer be Rajas? The opinion that the Rajas can only be Rajas if they are given rights and given privileges to commit crime contravenes the concept of Rajas as the source of law. In the old era in the West, Kings possessed the right to commit crime. For instance, according to the concept, with your permission, 'Droit du seigneur' (right of the Lord) or the Right of the Lord, the King has the right to spend a night with all newlyweds.
    78. But in the West, all these rights have been abolished. That is why Western countries that preserve the Monarchy System does not have specific immunity for the Rajas. Even if there is a mention that the King cannot be brought court, it is only a formality. King, Government and the People know if the King commits a crime, he will be brought to court, and he will be removed from his throne. Hence, the Kings in the Western countries will not intentionally commit crime.
    79. Although it is clear that the Kings in the West are not immune from legal and non-legal action, the Kings are still Kings. They are respected and admired.
    Mr. Speaker Sir,
    80. In the British era, the Malay Rajas were not only immune but were also under the orders of the British officials. They can be appointed and removed from the throne. One of MacMichael's threats so that the Rajas would sign the Malayan Union Agreement is they will be removed from the throne if they do not sign the Agreement.
    81. In this situation, the Rajas will continue to be Rajas. The People are not demanding the Rajas be dislodged or the Raja System to be abolished although the Rajas handed over the Malay states to the colonialists. Happily I am reminded that at that time the Rajas in Indonesia, India and Pakistan have been rejected by the People who demanded for independence. On the contrary, Malaysians, mainly the Malays and UMNO, have fought to save the Rajas and Raja System.
    82. The opposition of the Malays against the Malayan Union is clear because the fortunes of the Malays are in the hands of the Malays. The safety of Malays is not jeopardized with the Malay Rajas who do not have the right to commit crime. There are parties that say the abolishment of the Raja's right to commit crime, the Malays are no longer Malays and that will be the end of the special position of the Malays. This is not true. This is slander. Those who guarantee that the Malays will continue to be Malays and Malay rights are protected are the Malays themselves. They, through their representatives and the Government that they choose, create and implement various activities to protect and fight for the honour of the Malays.
    Mr. Speaker Sir,
    83. A Raja asked why the Constitutional amendments are related to Islam when the Government does not agree with the implementation of Sharia and Hudud law. According to him, he is ready to accept Islamic law without immunity but is unwilling to accept the country's laws which are not Islamic law.
    84. With or without his blessing, the position of the Malay Rajas since Merdeka has been determined by the law, that is the Constitution. These laws also give certain special privileges to the Rajas. Among these privileges is immunity from legal action. If the Rajas were willing to accept the immunity under laws which are not Islamic laws, why is the abolishment of immunity in the same laws are not accepted by the Rajas?
    85. In Islam there are two principals that are strongly held by the law. The first is there is no difference among Muslims in enforcement of Islamic laws. Raja and People are the same. The immunity for Rajas contravenes this principle. Rejecting the abolishment of the immunity so that the difference between Raja and People is preserved in the laws does not reflect a strong adherence to Islamic principles.
    86. Receiving immunity from laws said to be not Islamic law, but rejecting the abolishment of this immunity in the same laws clash with the allegation that only Islamic law is acceptable.
    87. Islam gives much leeway. Islam takes into account all factors and circumstances faced by its believers. Such that even in carrying out religious duties, environment, an individual's health and the current circumstances are considered. Therefore, praying can be made without certain movements, without facing the kiblat, before, after or together, in a congregation or alone. Palestinians, who were driven out by the Zionist Rule, could pray without taking off their shoes. In other religious duties, there is also leeway. Such is with the enforcement of hudud law. The state of the environment and society must be considered. That is the reason why not many countries in which the majority of the residents are Muslims do not establish hudud law. Those who do, also do not fully implement them.
    88. The Government does not reject hudud law. The implementation must take into account the situation of the country in which Muslims only make up 56 percent and they are still weak in many fields. The administration who rejects the leeway given by Islam actually does not follow Islamic teaching. Islam does not order Muslims or a Muslim Government to blindly implement Islamic law until one is destroyed. That is why the Prophet asks his followers to go to Habsyah to save himself. That is why the Prophet migrated to Medina to save Islam and the Islamic struggle.
    89. If the conditions allow, we will implement hudud law. But while waiting for hudud law to be implemented, we do something against Islamic teaching. Actually, crimes are prohibited by the country's laws and also Islamic laws. Does the said Raja want the freedom to commit crime only because we have not implemented hudud laws that prohibit the same crime?
    90. The second principle is there is no immunity in Islam. All laws are the same for all believers. A Raja that wants to be immune from the law certainly opposes this Islamic principle.
    Mr. Speaker Sir,
    91. Finally, I wish to touch on the problems related to advising the Rajas. Like I have mentioned, Rajas must accept the Government's advice. In other countries where the Monarchy System still exists although without specific provision that the Kings must act according to the Government's advice, the Kings never act contrary to the Government's advice. Hence, the relationship between the King and Government who represents the People remains good. More than that, in these countries, these Kings are respected and revered by society.
    92. Unfortunately, in Malaysia, although there are provisions that the Rajas should act according to the Government's advice, the Rajas hold on to the interpretation of 'advice' as widely accepted – that is advice can be accepted or rejected. This interpretation is wrong. In this area, there are also some matters that the Rajas consider no advice is required to be given. Hence, many things are done in opposition of the Government that represents the People.
    93. The problem faced today is caused by the opinion that Rajas could overstep the People's Government. This deceitful act occurs because advice is ignored. An impasse on this amendment is also caused by the unwillingness of the Rajas to accept advice.
    94. If this continues, the Parliamentary Democracy Government can no longer fully and truly exist. This is the reason the Government is bringing these amendments to the House. If this process is challenged, the decision can be brought to court. As a Government that holds firm to, with your permission 'rule of law', we will abide by the decision of the courts. At the same time, this matter should not be seen from the legal angle only. It also has to be seen from a political angle.
    95. When the Rajas handed the Malay states to the British, the People took the political action to get back the Malay states and preserved the Raja Institution. Although, from a legal point of view, the People do no have the right to as all agreements are made between the British and the Rajas only, the British honored the People's political action.
    96. I hope the Malay Rajas also take the lesson from our country's history, specifically the history of the Malayan Union and accept the political will of the country. Although the signs show that the Malay Rajas accept this amendment, I hope after the amendment is approved by the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara, the Malay Rajas will accept and approve these laws.

'1Malaysia rahmat untuk seluruh rakyat' atau "1Malaysia malapetaka"

Konsep 1Malaysia yang diilham Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak merupakan satu rahmat kepada rakyat di seluruh negara walaupun mereka tinggal jauh di kawasan pedalaman.

Menteri Pembangunan Sosial dan Urbanisasi Sarawak Datuk Seri William Mawan berkata ini kerana konsep itu dapat memastikan seluruh rakyat tidak ketinggalan daripada proses dan program pembangunan negara.

Beliau berkata di bawah gagasan 1Malaysia, mereka yang masih memerlukan bantuan untuk maju dan bergerak seiring dengan yang lain, akan diberi perhatian khusus.

"Inilah 1Malaysia, ia adalah tentang keadilan sosial dan rakyat terutama golongan minoriti di kawasan terpencil diberi perhatian sewajarnya," katanya ketika berucap pada perhimpunan 1Malaysia pemimpin bersama rakyat di Rumah Panjang George Chungut di Pakan dekat Sarikei hari ini.

Mawan seterusnya menasihatkan orang ramai agar tidak menjadi mangsa kepada percubaan sesetengah pihak yang sengaja berhasrat memecah-belah perpaduan menerusi pelbagai cara.

"Mereka ini adalah orang yang gila kuasa. Mereka tidak akan teragak-agak untuk mengeksploitasi isu kaum, agama dan budaya bagi mencapai matlamat mereka.

Mereka juga akan cuba memaksa orang lain menerima sistem nilai asing mereka,"katanya dan menambah adalah penting bagi rakyat bersatu pada untuk menentang kumpulan ini.

-- Bernama

RPK speaking in London today

 SIHRG Malaysia Speaker Event: Raja Petra Kamarudin

IBA Media Law Committee: Media Law and Freedom of Expression

Saturday May 22 , 2010

  • By: SIHRG
  • Time: 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM
  • Time Zone: Western Europe Time, London, Lisbon, Casablanca
  • Location:
    BPP Law School
    Lecture Theatre, 68-70 Red Lion Street
    London, United Kingdom

Scotland Yard says RPK not wanted.ha..ha..ha...kah..kah..kah..!!!!!!

A visit to the New Scotland Yard office today revealed that there is no extradition request from the Malaysian government, nor is there any warrant of arrest issued against Raja Petra Kamarudin, as what The Malay Mail reported here:
A further check with Interpol in Paris revealed the same thing.
In fact, said Scotland Yard, there is no extradition treaty between the Malaysian and British governments so it would be extremely difficult for Malaysia to request for anyone to be extradited from the UK.

Pemotongan Subsidi Bahan Keperluan Harian Jejas Kehidupan Rakyat

SHAH ALAM 22 MEI: Angkatan Muda Keadilan (AMK) Selangor bimbang pelan pemotongan subsidi yang dilakukan pentadbiran Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Mohd Najib Razak bakal mencetuskan impak negatif kepada kehidupan rakyat. 

Ketua Penerangan AMK Selangor, Mohd Ezli Mashut berkata, rakyat tertekan dengan pemotongan subsidi kerana ia akan meningkatkan kos perbelanjaan rakyat ketika pendapatan kian merosot.

Justeru, katanya, AMK Selangor menyatakan rakyat sewajibnya tidak dibebani dengan kenaikan harga keperluan dan perkhidmatan, sebaliknya soal pembaziran, penyelewengan dan ketirisan dalam kerajaan perlu diberi perhatian.

"AMK Selangor membidas kerajaan yang hilang fokus dalam membawa idea yang boleh meningkatkan pendapatan rakyat," katanya pada satu kenyataan, hari ini.

Agensi berita Reuters melaporkan Kabinet akan bermesyuarat 26 Mei depan untuk membincangkan usul memotong rejim subsidi keatas minyak, gas asli, makanan dan tol lebuhraya.

Najib sebelum ini menyakinkan pengundi seluruh negara bahawa harga keperluan asas tidak akan naik, namun Reuters melaporkan BN kini mempertimbang semula keputusan itu kerana defisit negara membengkak ke rekod tertinggi sejak 20 tahun lalu.

Ezli berkata, kerajaan harus melaksanakan polisi yang menguntungkan rakyat khususnya yang berpendapatan rendah dan sederhana, apatah lagi kerajaan meuar-uar pertumbuhan suku pertama 2010 mencecah 10 peratus.

Beliau menggesa penstrukturan semula subsidi ini mengambil kira kesusahan rakyat khususnya perkara asas seperti subsidi bahan api, gula, tepung, makanan, pertanian dan bahan keperluan utama rakyat.

Katanya, AMK Selangor prihatin kepada nasib rakyat kerana penstrukturan semula subsidi mendatangkan kemudaratan kepada ekonomi dan kehidupan rakyat yang  dibebani dengan kenaikan kos sara hidup.

"AMK Selangor terus memastikan jika kerajaan pimpinan Najib melaksanakan penstrukturan semula subsidi kelak, jangan sesekali memangsakan rakyat dalam melaksanakan polisi baru," katanya.

Umno cadang adakan induksi terima anggota baru..ha.ha..ha...mereka sudah tidak percaya dengan diri sendiri..!!!!

PUTRAJAYA, 22 Mei — Umno bercadang mengadakan kursus induksi untuk semua anggota yang baru menyertai parti itu bagi menerapkan nilai-nilai perjuangan parti.
Setiausaha Agungnya Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor berkata cadangan mengenainya akan dikemuka pada mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Pengurusan Umno Rabu ini.
Kalau diterima oleh jawatankuasa, kursus itu akan diwajibkan ke atas semua anggota baru, katanya kepada pemberita selepas merasmikan mesyuarat Umno Cawangan Anggerik, di sini hari ini.
Mengulas lanjut, Tengku Adnan berkata kursus selama dua hari itu akan menerangkan kepada anggota berkenaan perlembagaan parti, tugas dan tanggungjawab mereka sebagai anggota dan sumbangan kepada parti dan Barisan Nasional (BN).
“Ini kerana kebanyakan mereka menjadi anggota tidak tahu kenapa mereka menjadi anggota,” katanya.
Mengulas mengenai mesyuarat peringkat cawangan yang bermula sejak 1 Mei lepas, Tengku Adnan berkata Umno berharap mesyuarat itu digunakan anggota akar umbi untuk meluahkan pandangan mereka berkenaan langkah transformasi yang dilaksana kerajaan. — Bernama

Panas : Gimik Samy Vello

Anak Perempuan Samy Vello

Mantan Ketua Bahagian Kongres India Malaysia (MIC) Petaling Jaya Selatan, Encik V. Subramaniam, meminta kelmarin ahli parti itu tidak terpedaya dengan janji Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu bahawa beliau akan berundur kerana ia sekadar gimik saja, katanya.

Sejak 2006 Presiden MIC itu telah berkali-kali berkata beliau akan berundur tetapi semua itu hanya untuk meredakan desakan oleh sebahagian besar ahli parti itu, ujar Encik Subramaniam.

Encik Subramaniam berkata tindakan Timbalan Ketua Pemuda MIC, Encik V. Mugilan, mendesak Datuk Seri Samy Vellu berundur tepat pada masanya demi menyelamatkan parti.

'Sejak 2006 ramai ahli tidak lagi mempercayai kata-kata beliau akan berundur kerana ia hanya janji kosong. Apabila beliau mengumumkan tarikh baru untuk berundur, ia menjadi bahan jenaka kerana ahli semakin muak mendengarnya.

Pasukan Anti Tuhan MIC...!!!! GAS..ayoo macha..itu GAS ada mabuk ka..!!!

Bekas Timbalan Ketua Pemuda MIC, V. Mugilan semasa mengadakan sidang akhbar di Petaling Jaya di sini hari ini. Kelmarin, Mugilan menerima surat pemecatan jawatannya selepas beliau dilaporkan mendesak presiden parti itu, Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu agar melepaskan jawatannya sebelum akhir tahun ini. Turut kelihatan ialah Ahli Central Working Committee (CWC) MIC, G. Kumar Aamaam.

Pakatan Rakyat Kedah Dedahkan Pembohongan Umno-BN Malam Ini

Satu himpunan besar-besaran dan ceramah anjuran Pakatan Rakyat akan diadakan di Kompleks PAS Kedah malam ini bagi membongkar kejahatan Umno-Barian Nasional yang cuba menyebarkan fitnah tidak berasas kononnya Dewan Undangan Negeri Kedah akan dibubarkan.

Ceramah tersebut yang dianjurkan PAS Kedah turut menampilkan tiga Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri daripada KEADILAN dan DAP yang kononnya bakal keluar parti dan menjadi wakil rakyat bebas.

Pengerusi KEADILAN Kedah, Ahmad Kassim ketika dihubungi Suara keadilan berkata ceramah tersebut merupakan satu pendekatan bagi menangkis segala serangan yang dilakukan Umno-BN yang menyebarkan dakwaan berkenaan.

"Ada desas-desus tak menyenangkan pimpinan Pakatan Rakyat di peringkat negeri dan rakyat jelata. Jadi kita akan buat sesuatu antaranya tampilkan individu dari KEADILAN dan DAP yang disebut-sebut akan melompat parti dan buktikan malam ini segala serangan Umno sebenarnya tidak berkesan dan berasas," ujar beliau.

Menurut Ahmad berkata, Menteri Besar Kedah, Datuk Seri Azizan Abdul Razak akan memberikan penjelasan mengenai isu itu di kompleks berkenaan yang boleh memuatkan lebih 5,000 orang.

Ketika ditanya bagaimana spekulasi tersebut boleh tersebar, Ahmad yang juga Ahli Parlimen Kuala Kedah mendakwa ia adalah propaganda Umno-BN sendiri.

"Spekulasi ini timbul bermula dengan tulisan daripada blog yang ditaja Umno-BN. Mereka inilah yang memulakan cerita dan kemudian berita angin ini diambil oleh wartawan dan rakyat pun mula percaya," katanya.

Beliau menyifatkan spekulasi itu sebagai niat jahat Umno-BN yang cuba menipu rakyat setelah kehilangan kuasa di negeri itu pada pilihan raya umum 2008 lalu.

Propaganda Umno-BN juga berusaha keras untuk mengelirukan pemikiran rakyat dengan menyebarkan khabar angin melalui SMS dengan mengatakan Ahli Parlimen Kapar, S Manikavasagam akan mengadakan sidang media bersama dua ADUN Pakatan Rakyat Kedah pada pukul 2 petang tadi di sebuah hotel di Shah Alam.

Manikavasagam berkata desas-desus itu tidak benar dan menganggap ia satu provokasi Umno-BN untuk menggugat kestabilan Pakatan Rakyat.

"Tak ada la, ini semua tak betul. Saya baru balik dari pergi pancing bersama Dr Hamka (AJK Cabang Kapar) di Puncak Alam. Satu jam saya bersama dengan dia. Saya juga ke pusat khidmat dan malam ini akan ke Ampang ceramah bersama Zuraida (Ahli Parlimen Ampang).

"Saya nafikan sekerasnya perkara ini. Saya tetap akan lawan Umno BN. Biar mereka mimpi saya akan keluar parti, saya tetap setia dengan Pakatan Rakyat. Ini ada pihak yang 'provoke' dan bagi saya marah. BN akan dapat banyak kelebihan jika saya buat keputusan keluar Keadilan. -SK

MP Kapar masih bersama PKR

Ahli parlimen Kapar S Manikavasagam menafikan khabar angin bahawa beliau akan keluar daripada PKR hari ini.

"Ini semua cakap-cakap yang dicipta oleh si licik yang cuba merenggangkan hubungan saya dengan pemimpin parti.

"Semua mereka boleh terus bermimpi ahli parlimen Kapar akan melompat," katanya dalam blog.

Manikavasagam berkata, beliau menerima banyak panggilan telefon sejak pagi tadi bertanyakan tentang satu sidang media pada jam 2 petang di Shah Alam, di mana beliau dikatakan akan hadir bersama dua wakil rakyat Pakatan Rakyat daripada Kedah.

Mendengar khabar angin itu, kira-kira 30 wartawan sudah sedia menunggu pengumuman yang tak kunjung tiba itu di sebuah hotel.

Sehingga jam 2.30 petang, tiada sebarang kelibat pihak terbabit kelihatan.

Manikavasagam dipercayai dikaitkan dengan khabar angin itu apabila beliau dilihat 'bertegang' dengan Menteri Besar Selangor dan pemimpin Pakatan berhubung dakwaan penyelewengan dalam syarikat kerajaan negeri Kumpulan Semesta Sdn Bhd (KSSB).

Kes itu kini dirujuk ke Jawatankuasa Pilihan Khas Mengenai Keupayaan, Kebertanggungjawaban dan Ketelusan (Selcat), bawah DUN Selangor. -mk

Malaysia Bakal ‘Muflis’ Pemimpin Berwibawa

KUALA LUMPUR : Baru-baru ini empat mahasiswa UKM telah dikenakan tindakan di bawah Akta Universiti Kolej Universiti (AUKU) kerana dituduh melanggar undang-undang universiti.

Arahan itu telah dikeluarkan oleh pihak Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) susulan setelah mereka ditangkap oleh pihak polis di Hulu Selangor ketika Pilihanraya kecil berlangsung di sana.

Majlis Perwakilan Mahasiswa Nasional (MPMN) telah membantah keras terhadap tindakan yang tidak bertanggungjawab dan bertentangan dengan norma demokrasi yang telah diamalkan di negara kita.

"Sebagai mahasiswa, mereka berhak berada di mana sahaja dan bebas untuk menyuarakan hak mereka.

"Tindakan yang dikeluarkan oleh pihak universiti itu jelas melanggar hak kebebasan bersuara di negara ini," kata Pengerusi Majlis Perwakilan Mahasiswa Nasional(MPMN), Muhammad Syafiq kepada erapakatan.

Menurut beliau, pihak Universiti harus sedar mahasiswa ialah aset dan agen perubah kepada kepimpinan negara, ini dilihat sebagai salah satu latihan sebelum menceburkan diri selepas keluar dari menara gading kelak.

Bagi Syafiq, jika mahasiswa disekat pemikiran dan perjuangan mereka, sudah pasti negara akan lumpuh dan ‘muflis’ kepimpinan yang berwibawa suatu hari nanti.

"Mereka tertuduh juga merupakan mahasiswa jurusan Sains Politik dan semestinya mereka perlu turun kelapangan untuk menyaksikan sendiri suasana politik Malaysia lagi-lagi ketika pilihanraya sedang berlangsung.

"Ini ialah salah satu praktikal dan latihan bagi mereka selaku mahasiswa jurusan Sains Politik," kata beliau lagi.

Syafiq yang mewakili MPMN mempersoalkan mengapa pihak universiti perlu mengenakan tindakan tersebut?

Bagi beliau hal ini jelas pihak pentadbiran Universiti menafikan hak kebebasan akademik.
Sehubungan itu, MPMN menggesa pihak Universiti menarik balik tindakan yang telah dikenakan ke atas mereka dan memuji tindakan mahasiswa yang mempraktikkan hak demokrasi.

MPMN juga akan terus memperjuangkan kes tersebut dengan segenap rupa dan cara untuk membela dan memperjuangkan hak mereka.

"Pihak universiti jangan cuba untuk memperbodoh dan menakut-nakutkan mahasiswa dengan tindakan yang telah dikeluarkan.

Pihak Universiti seharusnya bertindak lebih profesional dalam kes ini.

Tertuduh ialah Hilman Idham, Ismail Aminudin, Azlin Shafina adzha dan Woon King Chai.
Mereka akan dihadapkan ke Mahkamah Universiti pada 2 dan 3 Jun 2010. pihak MPMN mengharapkan dan menyeru kepada gerakan-gerakan kampus, NGO, ahli politik dan indvidu agar terus membela dan memperjuangkan mahasiswa yang jelas telah dicabuli hak mereka oleh pihak Universiti.

Kit Siang demands Najib explain Bakun Dam, Sime Darby fiasco

KUALA LUMPUR, May 22 — DAP’s Lim Kit Siang today demanded the Prime Minister answer allegations of RM1.7 billion in cost over-runs of the Bakum Dam project and whether the government would be seeking a RM700 million bailout package for Sime Darby.
Lim claimed that Datuk Seri Najib Razak had dodged questions about the Sime Darby costs overruns scandal since the GLC-conglomerate’s May 13 admission of RM964 million losses for the second half of the Financial Year for 2010
Today Lim alleged that Bakun Dam cost over-runs amounted to RM1. 7 billion, making it “a different kettle of fish altogether.”
“It has been reported that Sime Darby has incurred more than RM1 billion in cost overruns from carrying out a civil works contract for the hydroelectric project, with one estimate putting the total cost overruns at RM1.7 billion, which is almost the same size as Sime Darby’s actual Bakun contract of RM1.8 billion.
“It has also been reported that the government has agreed to reimburse around RM700 million to Sime Darby, leaving the group with around RM1 billion to deal with,” said Lim in a statement today.
According to the Ipoh Timur MP, Najib’s statement asking Sime Darby to determine the cause of its RM964 million losses first “before the issue of responsibility” was wrong as the RM964 million losses are only for the second half of the financial year of 2010.
He said that the figure was a  “small portion” of the total losses of Sime Darby in its history of some RM3.5 billion write-offs, and with more to come.
Lim provided a list taken from The Star newspaper which showed Sime Darby’s history of write-offs.
For the financial year for 2004 and 2005, the Bakum Dam project incurred a RM132 million loss in cost overruns.
Sime Bank’s losses for the financial year of 1998 in turn amounted to RM1.8 billion.
“While investigations are ongoing to determine the causes of the losses and the persons responsible, Najib should not shirk responsibility from giving Parliament and Malaysians answers which are available to him now … whether the Bakun Dam project has cost overruns of  RM1.7 billion and that the government will be asking Parliament for a RM700 million bailout package for Sime Darby,” stressed Lim.
The DAP advisor remarked that former Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad “is gloating over the Sime Darby and Bakun Dam fiascos” and had gotten his revenge when he recently called on Tun Musa Hitam and the entire Sime Darby Board to resign over the cost overruns.
Musa was Mahathir’s nemesis in the mid 1980s Musa had teamed up with Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah to challenge Mahathir for his premiership.
But Lim conceded with Dr Mahathir when the former PM questioned why only the Sime Darby CEO, Datuk Seri Ahmad Zubir Murshid was made responsible for the conglomerate’s losses, while others who were involved with the project resulting in its cost overrun and delay for 3 years were not identified.
“However, Dr Mahathir should not be overhasty in his bombardment of Musa and Sime Darby, as during the Sime Bank Bhd financial crisis when it incurred losses amounting to RM1.8 billion during the 1997/8 Asian financial crisis, only the banking head Datuk Ismail Zakaria resigned while the group president and chief executive Tan Sri Nik Mohamed Nik Yaacob retired only in 2004.
“Zubir took over the position of chief executive after that.
“Who was the Prime Minister during the Sime Bank crisis of 1997/8?” asked Lim.

Umno Kalabakan desak batal konsert gelek Inul di Tawau..ha..ha..ha..Wanita UMNO sudah panas akibat gerudi..!!!!

TAWAU, 22 Mei — Pergerakan Wanita Umno bahagian Kalabakan hari ini meminta pihak  berkuasa supaya membatalkan konsert ‘‘ratu gelek’’ Indonesia Inul yang dijadual berlangsung pada 29 Mei ini di Kompleks Sukan Tawau.
Ketuanya Datuk Hamisa Samat berkata pergerakan itu bimbang kehadiran penyanyi dangdut tersebut akan menyumbang kepada keruntuhan akhlak khususnya pada kalangan anak-anak muda di sana.
“Wanita Umno Kalabakan difahamkan bahawa persediaan sedang diatur untuk membawa  ratu gelek Indonesia, Inul ke Tawau,” katanya semasa berucap pada Program  Juara Rakyat Wanita dan Keluarga 1Malaysia anjuran Umno Kalabakan, di sini hari ini.
Beliau juga menyarankan agar pihak berkuasa mengharamkan terus Inul atau nama sebenarnya Ainul Rokhimah yang terkenal dengan tarian ‘‘gelek gerudi’’ daripada mengadakan persembahan di daerah itu.
Semalam beberapa badan bukan kerajaan (NGO) dan parti politik mengadakan demonstrasi  selepas solat Jumaat di Masjid Al-Khauthar di sini bagi membantah
konsert tersebut dan mendesak pihak bekuasa membatalkannya. — Bernama

Umno, Bijak Memang Bijak.....tapi

Kita lulus dulu......tengok macaman.....depa bising tak, mungkin depa dah letih atau terlajak pandang.

Oopsss, depa bising, depa keriau sana sini......jangan bimbang, kita akan buat kajian, kita memang peka akan kehendak rakyat.

al-brangi :

Umno, Bijak.

Amboiii Umno......dalam Al-Quran memang jelas judi haram.....takkan nak kaji lagi kot......lainlah si Mamat sorang tu,,,,,dia tak jumpa Ayat judi dalam Al-Quran, samada dia tak pernah baca Al-Quran atau memang 'buta-Al-Quran'.

al-brangi :

Umno, Memang bijak.

Maka jadilah Umno, Bijak Memang Bijak....tapi

Selebihnya baca di bawah:

Putrajaya will study reaction to sports betting plan

May 22, 2010
KUALA LUMPUR, May 22 — Putrajaya will study public feedback to its move to legalise sports betting following an uproar over the licence reinstated to tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan’s dormant online gaming company.
Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin said today the government recognised the public reaction on its move to legalise sports betting and would analyse the feedback from Muslims and non-Muslims.
“I have not been informed in detail what is the situation, to be frank, but we have also recognised the reactions from the public, Muslims and non-Muslims.
“I do believe we will take that into consideration. But as it is now I have not been briefed in detail what is the issue,” Muhyiddin told reporters here.
The DPM’s remarks come following stinging criticisms and public outcry over the Najib administration’s recent move in legalising sports footing ahead of the World Cup next month.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had issued a licence to Tan’s Ascot Sports Sdn Bhd, which is to be acquired by the Berjaya Group — also controlled by Tan. Berjaya will take a 70 per cent stake in Ascot.
DAP has accused Najib of “cronyism” for awarding Tan the sports betting licence without an open tender process, saying that it sounded the “death knell” to his New Economic Model (NEM) which was supposed to eliminate rent-seeking and patronage.
In contrast, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had rejected the Finance Ministry’s proposal to legalise sports betting during his reign as prime minister.
In Malaysia, illegal bookmaking activities are estimated to be worth up to RM20 billion a year.
Pakatan Rakyat leaders have accused BN of legalising sports betting as a means to boost flagging revenues amidst a wide deficit gap ahead of the 2010 Fifa World Cup in June.
The government’s latest decision has hit a raw nerve with sections of the Malay community, who have started protesting in mosques on the perceived dangers of the legalisation of sports betting.[theMalaysianInsider]

Agen Umno, pemecah belah, munafiq, kafir

Saya yakin, Sdr Aspan Alias menulis ayat-ayat di bawah dengan merujuk kepada para pemimpin Umno dan Barisan Nasional (BN). Tetapi, saya lebih yakin lagi, pemimpin parti lain pun patut ditujukan dengan ayat-ayat yang sama seperti yang saya petik di bawah ini:
Kenapakah pimpinan menganggap rakyat sebagai kumpulan manusia yang boleh dibohongi dan tidak payah dihormati walaupun yang menanggung kerugian itu adalah mereka yang membayar cukai.

Ini semua membuatkan rakyat yang sudah mula berfikir berkeyakinan bahawa pimpinan sedang main kong kalikong dengan mereka (lihat posting beliau hari ini "Main 'kong kalikong' dengan rakyat").
Para pemimpin politik selalu berfikir bahawa rakyat akan melupai pengkhianatan mereka. Tetapi, bagi rakyat yang waras dan tidak dilalokkan dengan 'asabiyyah kepada para pemimpin berkenaan, sekali dikhianati tak akan lupa sampai bila-bila. Sekali ditipu, tak akan lupa sampai bila-bila. Umpamanya, ketika pilihan raya menagih undi dari rakyat, termasuk yang beragama Islam, dengan janji untuk melawan Umno. Bila dapat beberapa kerusi lepas pilihan raya, berselingkuh politik pula dengan Umno di dalam gelap.

Mereka serta orang-orang yang 'asabiyyah terhadap mereka menggelejat dibakar segala api kemarahan apabila kita tak dapat melupakan pengkhianatan itu. Lalu mereka menulis hukum baru berdasarkan anutan 'asabiyyah mereka - menghukum orang-orang yang tidak dapat melupakan pengkhianatan itu sebagai agen Umno, pemecah belah, munafiq, kafir dan suka hati depalah!

People, wake up!

Dimana Ali Rostam (Lee Ketam)

Mana la si Wira Ali Rostam Ketua Menteri Melaka ni..
Satu-satunya negeri yang mengharamkan arak!
betul ka?

Masakan tidak, masa berkempen di Hulu Selangor hari tu,
bukan main lagi Hamba Allah ni ke hulu ke hilir menjaja yang Zaid Ibrahim ni kaki botol!
Siap geng-geng pemimpin UMNO yang lain dok jaja pulak Zaid ada Kuda lumba!

Perghh!! Macam depa tu malaikat pulak teman tengok!

La ni, Najib luluskan judi bola world cup??? Haaaa??
Apsal jadi 'syaitan bisu'?? takut kan Najib?

Wehhh!! kome semua faham tak apa sebenarnya maksud pemimpin UMNO nih??

Arak haram kalau lawan UMNO!
Kalau sokong UMNO, Arak jadi halal! Togok la banyak mana pun!!
Tak caye? tanya Duta Malaysia kat US la ni!!
Raba bontot perempuan bolehhh!! Janji sokong UMNO!

Hal judi pun sama la jugak!
Yang luluskan siapa?? Najib! Siapa Najib?
Presiden UMNO!! Wokehh!!

Judi Halal!!! Judi Halal!! judi Halal!!
Dalilnya? Sebab Najib luluskan!!
Kalau Khalid Ibrahim yang luluskan??
Haramm!!! Judi haram!! Judi haram!!
Dalilnya? Sebab Khalid Ibrahim tak sokong UMNO!!

huh! UMNO dulu kini dan diharapkan selamanya.. SESAT!
sunsnake 22052010
Judi: Mana pemimpin Umno lantang isu kalimah Allah
Mohd Sabri Said
PERMATANG PAUH, 21 Mei: "Mana dia pemimpin Umno terutamanya pemuda yang dulu begitu lantang bersuara isu kalimah Allah. Kenapa mereka sembunyikan diri tidak menentang isu judi bola yang telah ditandatangani oleh Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Razak.
“Mungkin kerana malu, segan atau takut dikenakan tindakan kerana menentang arus kerajaan," begitulah antara suara yang berkumandang daripada pemidato yang mengadakan demontrasi aman di hadapan Masjid Jamek Permatang Janggus, dekat sini selepas solat Jumaat tadi.
Program yang berlangsung selama 45 minit berjaya menghimpun 400 orang untuk membantah judi terbaru itu.
Ketua Dewan Pemuda PAS negeri, Ustaz Yusni Mohd Piah dalam kenyataanya membidas pemuda Umno seluruh negara kerana tidak bangkit untuk menyuarakan bantahan kerana isu judi yang merupakan sentiviti umat Islam.