The origin of better food for ISA detainees

Teresa Kok's detention under the infamous Internal Security Act nonetheless had a silver lining to it. Kok, who had described the food given to her during her seven-day detention as “worse than.. er … similar to dog food”, sparked criticism from both Syed Hamid and the Utusan, who blasted her for the comments.

Kok, who initially denied making the remarks, also said that during her detention in a badly ventilated six-by-eight-feet cell she was given only water and bread or two boiled eggs and some curry for her meals.Kok accused her detractors for harping on the issue so as to trigger Malay sensitivities regarding the animal. Kok accused both Utusan Malaysia and Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar of “zeroing in” on her choice of words, instead of addressing the issues related to the injustices of the ISA.
Kok had earlier told Malaysiakini she did not purposely use the term’dog food’ in order to offend Malays. “Perhaps, as my friends have suggested, I should have said the food given to me in detention was worse than cat food,” she added cheekily.

The statement nonetheless prompted a response from one Government Minister who promised serious investigation. Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department T. Murugiah said he would personally meet with Kok soon to gather her input, and also visit the police station where she was held.
He said he wanted to know who bought the food, where it was bought, how much it cost, what the allocations are for meals for detainees, and what type of food is supposed to be served.
“I am shocked with Kok’s comments on the food she was given while in detention and I will be handing in a report on my findings to the Prime Minister and the Home Minister,” he told reporters after launching a football tournament between Tamil vernacular schools from Selangor and Kuala Lumpur .He said anyone arrested should be treated with respect and given proper food, and if Kok’s claims were true then what was done to her was patently unfair.
Murugiah, who is also the Public Complaints Bureau head, said the comments also put the Government and the police in a bad light. “The Government’s credibility has been damaged and I want to solve the problem as well as ensure there is no such recurrence in the future,” he said, adding that he was upset with the entire episode.During his investigations, Murugiah found that only RM4.50 was spent daily to feed each detainee and suggested that the allocation be increased.

Senator T. Murugiah was however taken to task by Syed Hamid who slammed Murugiah for implying that those in police custody were not given proper food.
He advised Murugiah to look after his own ministry and said it was not his job to complain about the quality of food, which he claimed met international standards.

However Senator T. Murugiah stood firm on his move to meet Selangor executive councillor Teresa Kok to probe her allegation of being served poor food while in detention under the Internal Security Act."As a junior (deputy) minister and head of the Complaints Bureau, I am receptive to criticism, but investigating complaints, even from the opposition, is one of my responsibilities." He said the government could not afford to practise double standards and that Kok's allegations of being served food that she compared to dog food, had tarnished the image of the country. Murugiah said he had obtained the green light from his minister, Tan Sri Bernard Dompok, to meet Kok.

At least one former ISA detaineee has come to the defense of Teresa Kok. Former Internal Security Act detainee Dr Jeffrey Gimpoi Kitingan remembers being hungry all the time while in two-year detention in the early 90s. “It was not because we were not given any food. Our rations were meagre,” recalled Kitingan, who is Sabah PKR chief. “So we had to supplement our rations.” Supplementing the rations was easier said than done.Unlike at the canteens in normal prisons, where one could buy food and drinks, the Kamunting Detention Centre in Perak didn’t have any such facilities. However, as luck would have it, Kitingan and four of his fellow inmates managed to catch a small snake on two occasions and a bird on a third occasion.They set a trap to one side of the courtyard where they were allowed to exercise, and made a barbecue of the animals over a crude fire.
Their luck however ran out after that.They didn’t snare a single animal for the rest of their stay there. The animal population around Kamunting must have been depleted by the hundreds of thousands of hungry detainees who made their way through Kamunting over the years. “During that time, you could see all of us in the camp getting skinny,” said Kitingan, who was held for allegedly planning to take Sabah out of Malaysia. He denied the charges.

adapted from
http://teresakok.com/2008/09/24/dont-turn-isa-into-outcry-about-dog-food/
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/9/20/nation/20080920195312&sec=nation
http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne+News/Malaysia/Story/A1Story20080926-90119.html
http://ngobalakrishnan.com/main/?p=280

So who won ? There is an interesting clue- Tan Sri Bernard Dompok. Nobody in his right frame of mind ( this also applies to those in the wrong frame such as Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar ) is going to mess around with an MP from Sabah. Not at this point of time.

Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi defends judicial reforms

Malaysia's prime minister has defended a new law aimed at promoting judicial independence even though it gives him the final say in appointing senior judges including the chief justice.
Malaysia's Parliament passed the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill late Wednesday, hours after Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi told The Associated Press in an interview that the legislation will rid the country's judiciary of its "negative perception."
The bill is a highlight of Abdullah's reforms program, which he is pushing through before handing over power to his deputy Najib Razak in March. This week Parliament also passed a bill to set up a new anti-corruption agency.
"Since I am retiring earlier than I was planning to do all these things have to be done very quickly," Abdullah said in the interview, adding that the drive against corruption and creating "a judiciary of integrity" were the cornerstones of his election campaign in 2004.
"If that can be fulfilled that's good enough. It doesn't matter whether you do it in a hurry or not," he said.The reputation of Malaysia's judiciary has suffered from a series of scandals including a secretly taped video showing a lawyer allegedly brokering the appointment of senior judge in a telephone conversation with someone who was later appointed the chief justice.
At present the prime minister appoints the judges at his discretion without the need to justify his choice or consult others. The recent appointment of a former ruling party lawyer as the chief justice has also triggered opposition criticism about the independence of the judiciary.
The Judicial Appointments Commission calls for setting up a nine-member panel of judicial and nonjudicial persons who would recommend to the prime minister a set of names for the job of senior judges.
However, the prime minister has the prerogative to reject the recommendations and ask for fresh names until he picks one that he thinks is a suitable candidate.
Abdullah said the judicial commission will lend "more transparency" to the system, insisting that no prime minister would misuse his power.
"I am sure the prime minister will not do anything that will ultimately put him in bad light. His reputation will be at stake," he said.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/12/18/asia/AS-Malaysia-Judicial-Independence.php

Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Bill clears Dewan Rakyat

JAC cruises through Dewan Rakyat

by Sharon Tan & Chan Kok Leong ( The Edge )

KUALA LUMPUR: The prime minister’s reform agenda has now passed the halfway mark after his second bill, on Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), cleared Dewan Rakyat yesterday.
But unlike the earlier Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Bill, JAC got through despite protests from opposition parliamentarians.
For what was initially thought of as an effort to liberalise or subject the appointment of judges to a separate commission, JAC is no more than an act of making the process more transparent.
Also absent was a widely expected block voting, as Barisan Nasional MPs outnumbered the Pakatan Rakyat representatives.
During the second reading, Deputy Speaker Datuk Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar had accepted the louder voice of BN representatives, although Wee Choo Keong (Wangsa Maju-PKR) asked for block voting.
Wan Junaidi brushed him aside, pointing out that Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had said it was not necessary. The third reading was passed 20 minutes later under Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin’s watch. Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was present throughout the winding-up session and watched as the bill was passed.
During the winding-up debate, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz dismissed claims of too much power being placed under the prime minister by repeatedly saying that it was never the intention of JAC to curtail his prerogative.
“This law is meant to make the process of appointing judges more transparent,” Nazri said. “It has never been the intention of this act to take away the prerogative of the prime minister to appoint judges, given to him under the Federal Constitution.”
He also assured Parliament that the prime minister would not abuse his discretion and ignore all the suggestions forwarded to him.
“If he (the prime minister) does that, he will look very bad in the eyes of the public.”
He was replying to questions from Mahfuz Omar (Pokok Sena-PAS) and Yusmadi Yusoff (Balik Pulau-PKR) on the absolute power given to him under Clause 37 of the JAC which empowers the PM to make orders for purposes of removing any difficulties.
The government, said Nazri, also disagreed with assertions by Karpal Singh (Bukit Gelugor-DAP) and Lim Kit Siang (Ipoh Timur-DAP) that JAC contradicts Articles 122(B) and 161 (E) of the Federal Constitution.
According to Karpal, JAC contradicts Article 122 (B) of the Federal Constitution and questioned if the King would still be consulted in the process of appointing judges.
Wee also raised the issue of JAC being against Article 161 (E) which states that the chief ministers of Sabah and Sarawak have to be consulted before the chief justice of Sabah and Sarawak is picked.
But Nazri explained that the process of consultation with the King and the chief ministers was already being practised since 1963 via written correspondence.
“JAC merely spells out the selection and vetting process of judges. This does not mean that we will ignore their voices and they will still be consulted before any appointment is done,” said Nazri.
Nazri rejected Anwar’s suggestion that the Federal Constitution be amended to address these issues. Despite the Permatang Pauh MP giving his assurance that Pakatan Rakyat MPs would support constitution amendments to put JAC in line with it, the minister said the government could not trust the opposition.
“Since election, the opposition has being trying to lure our MPs and take over the government. How can we trust you?” he added. Anwar and the opposition bench had stood up to assure Abdullah that he would have their support if he amends the Federal Constitution to vest constitutional powers with JAC.
During the debate on JAC earlier in the day, Anwar had also raised the issue of the appointment commission being given the status under the Federal constitution like the Election Committee.
“We worry because the power is in the PM. Hence the law cannot be held by the discretion of one person but must be anchored in law,” he said, suggesting that there should be instead a tenure for the commission so that they could work without intimidation from the executive.
Meanwhile, Dr Mohd Puad Zarkashi (Batu Pahat-BN) warned the government to be careful in the appointment of the eminent persons.
“The Prime Minister has the power to remove them without reasons and that must be explained. Will the removal without having to give reasons give rise to speculations that there is no transparency?
“When they are removed, it must be explained to the people,” he said, adding that the meaning of eminent persons should be defined.
On the same subject, Khairy Jamaluddin (Rembau-BN) asked how the government would guarantee that the four eminent persons appointed to the Commission would be truly independent and have no ties to the judiciary and corporate world.
He also questioned the consultation with Bar Council in the appointment of the eminent persons.
“Will the Bar Council be asked to discuss?” asked Khairy, who also wanted to know whether the Commission would tender a superficial or in-depth report on its recommendations.
Khairy also injected fresh air into the debate when he asked the government to restore the powers of the judges by amending Article 121 of the Federal Constitution to its pre-1988 status.
Prior to the amendment in 1988, Article 121(1) vested the “judicial power” of the federation in the courts. This was understood to mean that the superior courts had an “inherent power” to be the final arbiter on questions of law, to enforce rights and duties and to stand between the citizen and the state.
However, the law now says that the High Courts “shall have such jurisdiction and powers as may be conferred by or under federal law”.

http://www.theedgedaily.com/cms/content.jsp?id=com.tms.cms.article.Article_4811c1c1-cb73c03a-53897400-92f86415

The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) poses problems in appointment of Chief Justice and President of the Appeals Court

Judicial Appointments Commission can lead to problems: ex CJ

PUTRAJAYA: The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), the Bill of which was tabled for first reading in the Dewan Rakyat on Wednesday, will lead to problems where the appointments of the Chief Justice and president of the Appeals Court is concerned, said newly-retired Chief Justice Tun Abdul Hamid Mohamad.
He said problems would arise as among members of the commission would be those in line for the two posts.
"I just want to draw the attention of the Members of Parliament (MPs) in raising this so that they will give it careful thought before making their decision," he told Bernama Thursday.
"Under the provisions of the Bill, the JAC is empowered to appoint the Chief Justice (CJ), Appeals Court president, Appeals Court judges, Federal Court judges, Chief Judge of Malaya, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak and High Court judges.
"It is also noted the JAC comprises of nine members including five senior judges, four of whom are the most senior in the country.
He also referred to Clause 5 of the Bill which provided for the JAC to be made up of nine members comprising the CJ as the chairman, Appeals Court president, Chief Judge of Malaya, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, a Federal Court judge and four eminent persons appointed by the Prime Minister.
According to Clause 21 of the bill, the JAC is entrusted with the responsibility to select suitable and capable candidates as judges of the higher courts.
Candidate must meet several criteria including being persons of high moral values and integrity asides judicial capability.
In the interview, Abdul Hamid said according to the provisions of the Bill, appointments for judicial commissioners, High Court judges, Appeals Court judges, Federal Court judges, Chief Judge of Malaya and Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak should not pose a problem, but it need not be the case where the CJ and Appeals Court president are concerned.
"In making the choice for Appeals Court president, the Chief Judge of Malaya, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak and the Federal Court judge, who are members of the JAC, have a stake in the matter. This means they will have to abstain from participating in the proceedings.
"And as the Bill states that a minimum quorum of seven members must be met in making these appointments, it might be very difficult to meet this requirement.
"It becomes more complicated when it comes to appointing the CJ. The Appeals Court president, Chief Judge of Malaya and Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak have a stake in the matter and as such, they will have to abstain in the selection process.
Again the minimum seven persons quorum requirement cannot be met," said Abdul Hamid, who retired in October.
Should the CJ be unable to be present when the selection meeting is held, he said the meeting would have to be carried out without him, the Appeals Court president, Chief Judge of Malaya and Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak.
"This will have two consequences, first the quorum cannot be attained. Secondly it means for appointments at the lower rungs, there will be a full quorum including the four senior most judges but when it comes to the top judge, these four senior judges will not be able to partake in the meeting.
"It also means when it comes to appointing the CJ, the meeting will only be attended by a federal court judge and four nonjudges who are appointed by the Prime Minister.
"Is this the real purpose of the Bill? I am just bringing it up so that the MPs can ponder about it," he stressed.
Asked about his view on the setting up of the JAC, Abdul Hamid declined to comment saying it was a policy matter that came under the purview of Parliament.
The JAC was mooted to reform the Judiciary for greater transparency and integrity in the administration of justice. - Bernama

This Bill has sparked much debate. Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan President Malaysian Bar provides a wonderful analysis of the said Bill at http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/letters_others/bar_council_s_comments_on_the_judicial_appointments_commission_bill_2008.html

Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Bill sparks debate amongst MPs

Parliament: JAC debate continues unabated
By ZULKIFLI ABD RAHMAN and LOH FOON FONG

KUALA LUMPUR: The debate on the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Bill 2008 brought forth opposite viewpoints from Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat MPs.
The Barisan side supported the Government’s move to improve the judiciary’s independence and integrity, but Pakatan MPs wanted the Bill revoked, saying that the Prime Minister wielded too much power in the appointments of judges.
“The formation of the JAC is the right move to bring confidence into the independence of Malaysia’s judiciary, in line with international standards of judicial systems,” Khairy Jamaluddin (BN-Rembau) said.
In urging the House to approve the JAC Bill, Khairy said the process of selection and elevation of judges would be transparent to all. “The bill should be supported because the Commission is a reflection of the country’s respect of democratic society. “It also ties the Prime Minister to a duty to ensure that continuous freedom of the judiciary is maintained and defended,” he said in debating the Bill. Khairy suggested that former distinguished lawyers and legal stakeholders be appointed to the Commission as its members. “The members should also be free of pressure from lobbyists or corporate influence,” he added.
Add a clause
Datuk Wilfred Bumburing (BN-Tuaran) said the country’s courts would be able to carry out their responsibilities freely and not be hindered by “unnecessary outside interference.”
He suggested that a clause be added to the Bill to include an advisory that the Prime Minister would confer with the state governments of Sabah and Sarawak in the appointments of judges.
“This is to ensure that capable judges from the two states have equal opportunity to be elevated to higher posts,” he added.
Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timur) feared that the JAC would be become a toothless tiger when it comes into force next year.
“The existence of the JAC itself does not adhere to the requirements of the Constitution, which means that at any time in the future, its decisions can be challenged in court,” he said.
Constitution amendments
Lim said the Government should look into the bigger picture of finding out the root causes of failure in the judiciary’s integrity and independence. “There is also no attempt to return Article 121(1)(a) of the Constitution to its original form in the Bill to ensure there’s separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary. “We shouldn’t forget the judicial crisis of 1988, which brought scandal to Malaysia’s image,” he added. He called for the Bill to be referred to a parliamentary select committee first to allow Parliament to investigate the causes of the loss of confidence in the judiciary.
Khalid Abd Samad (PAS-Shah Alam) said the Bill would not settle the problem of executive interference in the judiciary. He cited the fact that the Prime Minister is featured prominently in the Bill, which showed his pivotal role in the judiciary’s make-up. The Prime Minister must support the freedom of the judiciary otherwise the Bill’s purpose would fail, he added.
“If the present or future Prime Minister is tainted by scandal, that will affect his capability to ensure the judiciary’s independence is maintained. “The Bill states that it’s a pivotal requirement that the Prime Minister must defend the independence of the judiciary. “I hope (if something like the) the 1988 judicial crisis recurs, Barisan MPs will join us in moving a motion of no-confidence against the Prime Minister because he had failed to protect the judiciary’s independence,” Khalid added.
Government’s responsibility
The appointment of judges is the Government’s job and is not tantamount to interference, Dr Mohd Puad Zarkashi (BN-Batu Pahat) said. It is considered interference only when there are orders to overturn a judge’s decision and cause it to be partial to certain parties, he said.
“The question is whether there is a monitoring system to ensure that judges make impartial judgements,” he said, adding that interference could come from the Government, corporations, relatives or individuals. The judges themselves must be competent, he said during the JAC Bill debate after the second reading.
PM’s powers
Puad quipped that lawyers would be the first to enter Hell because they “defended the wrong as right.”
Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim interjected and said that it was judges and not lawyers, which caused some to snigger.
Puad said that further clarification needed to be made on the issue raised by Anwar on the fact that the Prime Minister can revoke the appoinment of “eminent persons” to the Commission without needing to give any reason, as stated in Section 9 (2). He said that this power to revoke would not help in the cause of improving public perception of the transparency of the judiciary.
“This is dangerous. The public needs to be told why they are dropped; this would boost confidence in the Bill,” he said. Puad said that he agreed with Wee Choo Keong (PKR-Wangsa Maju) who said on Tuesday that there should be a clearer definition of “eminent persons” as stated in Clause 51 (F), to ensure that the right candidate was appointed. He also said that the Government should also look into the conflict that was created between the Bill and the appointment of the Borneo Chief Justice because the Chief Ministers in Sabah and Sarawak have the right to appoint or sack their own judiciary heads.
In this case, the proposed new provision that gives the Prime Minister the power to decide, with the recommendations of the JAC, runs contrary to the provision in Article 161E (b) of the Federal Constitution.
Karpal Singh (DAP-Bukit Gelugor) pointed out that there was no guidelines in the JAC Bill on who could be appointed and who should be promoted. He also asked if there were guidelines on actions that could be taken against judges who committed offences outside of the Bill.
“Are there actions possible against a judge, for instance, who makes sexist remarks against women lawyers?” he said. Karpal said that since the Bill was in conflict with Article 122B of the Constitution, the DAP will not support it. “In principle, we accept that what is in the Bill is good, but whether it can be accepted is a separate matter,” he said.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/12/17/nation/20081217163646&sec=nation

Judicial Appointments Commission Bill introduced

2008/12/11
PM has power to sack JAC member

By : V. Vasudevan ( NST Online )


KUALA LUMPUR: The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), when formed, will recommend names for the appointment and promotion of judges to the Federal Court, Court of Appeal and High Court.
It will also be involved in the appointments of the chief justice of the Federal Court, the president of the Court of Appeal, the chief judge of Malaya and the chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak, and the appointment of judicial commissioners.However, the final say on all appointments remains with the prime minister who will advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the appointments.The 23-page Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2008, which will pave the way for the commission to be set up, was tabled by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi yesterday.The bill outlines the functions and powers of the JAC and its composition.
The commission will consist of the chief justice of the Federal Court, who shall be its chairman, the president of the Court of Appeal, the chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak, chief judge of Malaya, a Federal Court judge to be appointed by the prime minister; and four eminent people who are not members of the executive or other public service.The Bar Council of Malaysia, Sabah Law Association, the Advocates Association of Sarawak, the attorney-general, the attorney-general of a state legal service or any other relevant body, will be consulted on the appointment of the four eminent members.

Their term of office is for two years and they cannot serve more than two terms.The commission is required to submit an annual report to Parliament on all its activities. Apart from nominating judges, the commission is empowered to review and recommend programmes to improve the administration of justice and forward other recommendations to the prime minister.The appointment of any JAC member may at any time be revoked by the prime minister without assigning any reason. The members can also tender their resignations at any time with a written notice to the prime minister.The appointment of any commission member may also be revoked, among other grounds, when the member is convicted of an offence involving fraud, dishonesty, moral turpitude, corruption or any other offence punishable with imprisonment of more than two years. The JAC members are obliged to disclose their relationship with any of the candidates under consideration.The bill defined these relationships as spouse, former spouse, sibling, uncle, aunt, cousin, sibling to spouse or former spouse and their uncle, aunt and cousin.The commission members are also required to disclose their connection with any candidate, which among others include their nominee, partner, former partner, spouse of a partner or former partner, a person practising in a firm linked to the commission member and a trustee of a trust under which the commission member or their family is a beneficiary.The bill outlined penalties if any of the members failed to disclose their interest in the candidate.Members who failed to disclose any connection are liable to a fine not exceeding RM100,000 or imprisonment up to two years, or both.The commission will meet when there is a request and it is required to select at least three people for each vacancy in the High Court, or at least two people for each vacancy in the Court of Appeal and Federal Court.In selecting the candidates, the commission will have to take into account the candidates' "integrity, competency, experience, objectivity, impartiality, fair and good moral character, decisiveness, ability to make timely judgments and good legal writing skills, industriousness and ability to manage cases well, physical and mental health".The bill states that any serving judge or judicial commissioner will not be considered for any appointment if they have three or more pending judgments or unwritten grounds that are overdue by 60 days or more.Once it had made its selection, the commission shall submit to the prime minister a report which will name the candidates and the reasons for selection. Should the prime minister be unhappy with any of the recommended candidates, he can ask for two more names to be added for his consideration.The prime minister will be required to tender his advice to the king on the candidate as stipulated under Article 122B of the Federal Constitution.
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Thursday/National/2425246/Article/index_html

Opposition MP Teresa Kok takes local publication to court for alleged defamatory material

Teresa Kok files suit against Utusan, columnist (updated)
By M. MAGESWARI
KUALA LUMPUR: Seputeh Member of Parliament (MP) Teresa Kok has filed an RM30mil defamation suit against Utusan Melayu Sdn Bhd, which publishes Malay daily Utusan Malaysia, and its columnist Datuk Chamil Wariya.
Her lawyer Sankara Nair filed the suit for Kok at the KL High Court civil registry here at 8.32am on Friday.
On Oct 12, Utusan published a cerpen or short story written by Chamil, the Malaysian Press Institute chief executive officer, titled Politik Baru YB Josephine, which Sankara claimed referred either directly or by innuendo to his client.
Kok said she decided to take legal action against the defendants as the article made baseless allegations.
She said the impugned article contained defamatory content about her either in direct reference or by implication or by imputation. Kok contended that the said article implied she is a racist, untrustworthy person and a bad politician. Besides that, she claimed that the article portrayed her as a danger to the society who should be assassinated. Kok further contended that the defendants published the article with the intention to disparage her in both her private and official capacities.
The Selangor state senior excutive council member alleged the defendants' acts were actuated by express malice and done in bad faith as well as to instigate public hatred against her. She said it lowered her esteem in the eyes of the public and exposed her to public scandal, ridicule, odium and contempt.
Among others, she is seeking compensatory damages of RM30mil from the defendants. She is also asking for High Court to grant her an injunction to restrain the defendants -- whether by themselves or through agents and/ or servants -- from further uttering, speaking or publishing the impugned article or similar words concerning her. Kok is also asking for costs and other relief deemed fit by the court.
In late October, she had sent letters of demand to the defendants which also demanded a public retraction by Utusan and an apology to be published in newspapers of her choice.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/12/12/nation/20081212094241&sec=nation

Malaysian MPs make sexist remarks about menstruation

Never has a comment caused such a sensation and raised quite a number of eyebrows as the now infamous " Bocor " comments by two Barisan Nasional MPs. Photoshoppe images of the two as orang utans were all over the blogs,

"mana bocor? Batu Gajah pun bocor setiap bulan" (Where is the leak, Batu Gajah [MP Fong Po Kuan] also leaks every month)

MPs Datuk Mohd Said Yusof (Jasin – BN) and Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin (Kinabatangan – BN) during a heated argument in Parliament over a leaked ceiling.

The remarks caused a nationwide furore, leading various women’s groups to protest against the two MPs outside the Women, Family and Community Development Ministry . Joint Action Group for Gender Equality (JAG), a coalition of seven non-governmental organisation handed over a memorandum to Women, Family and Community Development Minister Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil on her part called for an end to sexism in Parliament. Sisters in Islam programme manager Zaitun Mohamed Kasim said this was not the first time that such insensitive comments were made by the MPs which reflected a deep culture of sexism in Parliament . “It also reflects badly on men that these MPs have a shallow mind and can only think of these things and nothing more,” she added. Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang said the Cabinet should issue a public apology to Parliament and women in view of the disgraceful episode. “The entire Cabinet should be sent for intensive gender-sensitivity course so that ministers will set a good example for all the MPs,” he told reporters when met at the Parliament lobby.

MPs Datuk Mohd Said Yusof (Jasin – BN) and Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin (Kinabatangan – BN) later apologised to all Malaysian women for making the now infamous bocor remarks in Parliament."I am very sorry. I apologise to all women. It was a slip of the tongue, said in the heat of the moment," said Mohd Said, adding, "I respect all women and the liberation of women."
In Kota Kinabalu, Bung Mokhtar also expressed his apology to all women for his "unintended remarks.It was not my intention to hurt any woman. I said it in the heat of an argument with DAP members, who were calling me binatang (animal) and accusing the Barisan Nasional of corruption. I strongly feel that women's feelings should be respected," he told The Star.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said Malaysia’s image was also not affected as the case was not one of systematic sexism but comments of two individuals. He was replying to Lim Kit Siang who had wanted the Prime Minister to state whether the handling of the controversy had caused Malaysia’s name to be affected badly.

adapted from : The Star Newspaper

Bar Council's forum on conversion to Islam forced to end by protestors

Protesters rally outside Bar Council (update 2)
By SHAILA KOSHY, ZULKIFLI ABDUL RAHMAN and ROYCE CHEAH

KUALA LUMPUR: A large group of people demonstrating against the Bar Council's forum on conversion to Islam forced the forum to end early after police told organisers to wrap it up over safety concerns.
The group of about 300 people from various non-governmental organisations, including two Opposition MPs, gathered at about 8.20am outside the Bar Council building on Jalan Lebuh Pasar Besar here to protest the forum which they said would undermine Islam. The group threatened many times to storm into the building if the forum was not stopped. About 50 police and Federal Reserve Unit personnel lined themselves between the crowd and the building entrance. The police also found two bottles of alcohol by the building that were believed to be unlit Molotov cocktails.
At about 9.15am, Dang Wangi OCPD Asst Comm Zulkarnain Abdul Rahman, went into the building to talk to Bar Council representatives to stop the forum by 10am in the interest of safety.
The group eventually sent Kulim-Bandar Baru MP, Zulkifli Nordin, together with Gabungan Pelajar Melayu Semenanjung and Umno representatives to ensure the forum had ended. While this was going on, Kubang Kerian MP Salahuddin Ayub addressed the crowd asking them to be patient. When those who attended the forum made their way out of the building, they were greeted with loud boos, obscenities and vulgar words.
Zulkifli later emerged from the building to tell the crowd that the forum had indeed ended and to tell the crowd to disperse and make space for those who wanted to leave. He shouted "Shutup!" at one point to one particular demonstrator who kept insisting that the Bar Council apologise for having held the forum. Later, Zulkifli told reporters that asking for an apology was not the issue now and that he had warned the Bar Council from ever holding such forums again.
Asst Comm Zulkarnain said the situation was controlled well by the police and that it still could not be established if the two bottles that were found were Molotovs.
When asked if it was fair to break up a function held in private premises, he said: "We have to. It depends on the level of risk and if the threat is increasing, then we have maintain public order."

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/8/9/nation/20080809093359&sec=nation

Hacker faces 10 years in prison on computer hacking charges.

An 18-year-old New Jersey man will plead guilty to the January online attacks that took down the Church of Scientology’s Web site, federal prosecutors said Friday. Dmitriy Guzner of Verona, New Jersey, was part of an underground hacking group called Anonymous that has made the church a target of several attacks. He was charged Friday but has agreed to plead guilty sometime in the next few weeks, the U.S. Department of Justice said in a statement. He faces 10 years in prison on computer hacking charges.
The attacks began Jan. 19 , 2008 and managed to knock the Scientology.org Web site offline by hitting it with several bursts of unwanted Internet traffic. The attack, known as a distributed denial of service (DDOS) attack, flooded the site with as much as 220M bps of traffic, according to computer security firm Arbor Networks. That’s considered to be a decent-sized DDOS attack and was enough to disable the Web site temporarily. Anonymous quickly followed its attacks with a series of YouTube videos, claiming its actions were a response to what it said were efforts by the Church to suppress a video of movie star Tom Cruise professing his admiration for the religion.
Source: PC World - RLSLOG

The world’s biggest court complex opens in Jalan Duta

The world’s biggest court complex became fully operational in Jalan Duta in May 2007. The complex houses 30 High Courts, 21 Sessions Courts and 26 magistrate's courts. It also has 500 parking bays for the public, 300 bays for court staff and 200 bays for judges and magistrates.Four courtrooms will be designated for the use of television to air court hearings or for child witnesses to give evidence.It was reported in Malaysiakini that the government forked out more than RM5 million since May 2007 for the electricity bill for the new Jalan Duta Court Complex, revealed de facto law minister Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz .

Nine Years on Death Row because grounds of judgment not written

MALAYSIA-DEATH PENALTY: Nine Years on Death Row, Denied Appeal

By Baradan Kuppusamy

"Hang me or release me but don’t leave me to suffer a slow death," is the cry of anguish from Baha Jambol, 45, who has been suspended helplessly here on death-row for nine long years, unable to appeal a death sentence. Jambol’s desperate predicament is not unique. It is caused by a serious flaw in Malaysian criminal justice system. Jambol was sentenced to death in April 1998 for being in possession of 50 kg of cannabis. He is unable to appeal because the trial judge has failed to put pen to paper and give the grounds sentencing him to ‘death by hanging’. "Without a written judgement we can’t appeal," Karpal Singh, Jambol’s lawyer and prominent human rights campaigner, told IPS. Jambol, a driver, was at the wheel of a car when cannabis was found inside. But the car owner, who was with him at the time, was acquitted. The scandal of the ink-shy judge, loath to put his judgements on paper, has shocked the nation and led to renewed demands for a swift end to the death penalty. "This case is a severe travesty of justice," said Singh. "Jambol has been languishing on death row for nine years… what can be crueller than this? I urge the government to immediately abolish the death penalty and end the misery of people on death row." Like Jambol, dozens of others wait in great misery in the country’s overcrowded jails unable to appeal their death sentences because trial judges have skipped their duty of spelling out their judgements on paper. Aziz Sharif, 28, was sentenced to death in 2001 for murdering his girlfriend, a conviction that his lawyer Harbahjan Singh says is deeply flawed. Six years on, Singh is still blocked from filing an appeal because there is no written judgement. Aziz is suffering severe mental torture while waiting to know his fate, his family, poor rice farmers from the southern state of Negri Sembilan, told the newspaper The New Straits Times earlier this month. They have appealed to the court numerous times to get the judge to write his judgment but without success. "I wrote five letters to the court over the matter and sadly they did not have the decency to reply to any of the letters," Singh told the paper. The same predicament is currently being endured by Haszaidi Hasan, also sentenced to death for drug trafficking in 2001. Opposition politicians and rights activists are now pressing for action against Malaysia’s indolent judges. "Their lackadaisical attitude has hamstrung the administration of justice to people who need it the most," opposition lawmaker Kulasegaran Murugesan told IPS. "If the judges had done their basic duties the convicted persons could have speedily filed their appeals and probably been acquitted. A long delay is a mark of a poor criminal justice system," he said, urging the government to set free death-row inmates caught in such a tragic predicament. He added: "A more lasting and more humane solution is to abolish the death penalty." The cases have also been taken up by the rights organisation Malaysians Against the Death Penalty. "Prisoners facing capital punishment are under severe pressure if their appeals are delayed," Charles Hector, the organisation’s co-director and lawyer, told IPS. "Judges should understand the tremendous pressure the death penalty generates… delaying their right to appeal is an act of utmost cruelty. Family members are also left emotionally drained by the uncertainties and the long meaningless delays. It is an intolerable form of torture."

Hector added: "This tragic delay is another reason to review the death penalty. We demand an immediate moratorium on all executions pending the abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia." Amnesty International has also expressed shock at the long inordinate delays and the resulting mental torture death row inmates suffer. There should be an immediate moratorium on all further executions, the organisation agrees.

The Malaysian Bar Association has taken up the scandal, calling on all the country’s lawyers to report back cases where clients are enduring a "slow death" because of long-delayed or non-existent written judgements. The association plans to present Malaysia’s Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Halim with a list of serious cases. The hope is the offending judges will be penalised, a sanction that might finally end the torment of many dozens like Jambol and Aziz left dangling on death-row. Malaysia imposes the death penalty for a raft of offences, from drug trafficking (15 grams of heroin and 200 grams of cannabis) to poisoning the water supply. Mandatory death penalties are also given for murder, possession of firearms, treason. Over a thousand persons have been executed since independence in 1957 and some 300 are currently awaiting execution on death row, many of them Acehnese from Indonesia convicted of trafficking cannabis.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39018

A 16-year-old girl charged with attempting to commit suicide.

A 16-year-old girl was charged yesterday in the Court for Children with attempting to commit suicide.
The teenager was alleged to have committed the offence at the YT Midtown Hotel rooftop on Nov 21 by attempting to jump off the building.Prosecution was handled by Nelson Ensit. The girl, accompanied by her mother, was unrepresented. Court registrar Kahirul Anuar set bail at RM2,500 in one surety and set Jan 22 for mention.It was reported on Nov 22 that the teenager threatened to jump off the ledge of the 10-storey hotel following a quarrel with her boyfriend.
This is the first in many years that anyone has been charged with attempted suicide.The measure is being taken after a spate of suicides and attempted suicides in recent weeks prompted Deputy Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Ismail Omar to tell the New Straits Times that police were considering enforcing the law.

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Thursday/Frontpage/2425174/Article/index_html

This has to go down as a lazy and simplistic attempt by the authorities to deal with something which has far more complex reasons behind it and especially something so delicate as suicide. There are two ways of looking at it. The first is the need to prevent in future suicide amongst the general public. The second way is to look at the impact on the said suicide attempt victim. Apparently the authorities are more concerned with the first in providing a form of deterrent. This overlooks the welfare of the present suicide attempt victim .This also overlooks suicide attempt cases as a special type of case which cannot be equated with other offences such as robbery where deterrence would be more appropriate.

What is saddening is that no attempt has been made to deal with the underlying reasons which led this victim to such a course. Therefore there can be no assurances that despite whatever the outcome of the case , this particular person will not resort to such action in the future. This person needs help , not thrown behind bars and made the subject matter of juicy tabloid tales. She needs therapy to get her mind thinking straight and to realise that suicide is not the only option.

Such actions by the authorities would leave those who are pushed to such actions with little choice but to go ahead with their plans if only to avoid the wrath of the authorities should they not do so. If the authorities are so concerned, then there should be a concerted effort by all to seek out the reasons.This would be a far more intelligent approach. Malaysia has no shortage of experts in this area who would be more than willing to lend assistance. Some in-depth study could be undertaken. We should find out the reasons for such suicide cases. Is it because of the influence of drugs and alcohol? Or are there underlying psychiatric problems? Such findings can then be used to formulate an approach to deal with such a problem . It will also enable the identification of persons who are at risk. Such preventive measures would be far more beneficial in the long run than simply throwing the book at those who attempt it. In Dublin, Drs Patrick Mc Sharry and Kim Wilson, examined suicide cases dealt with by the coroner's court over the 13-year period. The research was then presented at the winter meeting of the Irish College of General Practitioners in Dublin in 2007. It is such an approach which we should adopt. Not all laws are good laws and the law cannot always solve all problems. Sometimes there are other options which we need to look at.

Revisiting the Federal Court Decision in Highland Towers

In view of the recent actions by the residents of Bukit Antarabangsa in suing MPAJ it is worth looking again at the law laid down in this area. The liability or rather immunity of the Local Authorities were clearly spelt out by the Federal Court in the Highland Towers tragedy. There it was held that by the Federal Court that Local councils cannot be held liable for losses suffered by anyone should a building collapse.
The court said this when it held that the Ampang Jaya Municipal Council (MPAJ) was not liable for losses suffered by 73 residents of two blocks of the Highland Towers condominium who had to evacuate after the collapse of Block One 13 years ago, killing 48 people.The three-member panel presided by Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Justice Steve Shim Lip Kiong and Federal Court judges Datuk Abdul Hamid Mohamed and Datuk Arifin Zakaria ruled that the MPAJ was not liable in the pre-collapse period as well as post-collapse period of Block One.
They said local authorities such as the MPAJ were given full immunity under Section 95 (2) of the Street, Drainage & Building Act 1974 (Act 133) from claims for the pre-collapse period.
The court was unanimous in allowing the MPAJ’s appeal to set aside the Court of Appeal’s decision holding the MPAJ 15% responsible for the pre-collapse period.
As for the post-collapse liability, it dismissed with a 2-1 majority the cross-appeal by the 73 residents of Block Two and Three against the Court of Appeal’s ruling that the MPAJ was not liable for losses suffered during the post-collapse period. Justice Shim gave a dissenting judgment.
Justice Abdul Hamid Mohamad said that if the local councils were made liable, it would open the floodgates to further claims for economic loss, and this would deplete the council’s resources meant for the provision of basic services and infrastructure. “Projects will stall. The local council may go bust. Even if it does not, is it fair, just and reasonable that taxpayers’ money be utilised to pay the ‘debts’ of such people? “In my view, the answer is no,” he said.
In overturning the trial judge’s decision to allow the post-collapse claims, Justice Abdul Hamid said vandalism followed every disaster, natural or otherwise, in undeveloped, developing or developed countries.“Recent events showed that even the most-powerful military and the best-equipped police force in the richest and most-developed country in the world were unable to prevent it,” he said. “In my view, the provision of basic necessities for the general public has priority over compensation for pure economic loss of some individuals, who are clearly better off than the majority of the residents in the local council area,” he said. He said a local council has an endless list of duties to perform for its residents and relied mainly on assessment rates and fees for licences. Justice Arifin concurred with Justice Abdul Hamid’s findings.
In his dissenting judgment on the post-collapse liability, Justice Shim said the MPAJ could not seek shelter in Section 95(2) of the Street, Drainage and Building Act because this was a case of negligence in failing to formulate and implement the master drainage plan so as to ensure the stability and safety of the adjacent Blocks Two and Three.
He said there was an assumption of responsibility by the MPAJ to do what it had promised. “I do not think it would be in the public interest that a local authority such as the MPAJ should be allowed to disclaim liability for negligence committed beyond the expansive shelter of Section 95(2) or other relevant provisions of the Act nor would it be fair, just and reasonable to deprive the respondents of their rightful claims under the law,” he said.
In 2000, High Court Judge James Foong ruled for the 73, and apportioned liability as follows: Arab-Malaysian 30%, Metrolux and MBf Property Services together 20%, Highland Properties 15%, MPAJ 15%, draughtsman Wong Ting San 10% and engineer Wong Yuen Kean 10%.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/2/18/nation/13435157&sec=nation&focus=1

Man stabbed to death by customers at a karaoke bar for singing too much and refusing to share the microphone

Police say a Malaysian man has been stabbed to death by customers at a karaoke bar for singing too much and refusing to share the microphone.
A district police official says witnesses saw a group of men punch and stab 23-year-old Abdul Sani Doli with a knife at the bar late Wednesday in eastern Sandakan town on Borneo island.
The official says a brawl broke out because the men were furious that Abdul Sani was hogging the stage. He says police detained two suspects after Abdul Sani was found dead outside the bar.
The official spoke on condition of anonymity Friday because he was not authorized to make public statements.

Zaid hits out at attitude of UMNO leaders

The introduction of Datuk Zaid Ibrahim as a Law Minister was seen by many as reflecting seriousness on the part of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's wish to reform the legal system. He was especially chosen for this purpose and his appointment was greeted with much enthusiasm by the legal fraternity. But sometimes things have a habit of not following the script. After only a matter of months, Datuk Zaid Ibrahim resigned from his post after criticising the way the ISA was being used. The last few days saw him embroiled in further controversy after he met Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng . This proved the last straw and he was unceremoniously sacked from UMNO. However the revelations which he has chosen to make certainly raises eyebrows and gives a rare insight into the mindset of the powerbrokers in charge of this country. He spoke of many violations by some of its members but no action taken because they are powerful. There has always been suspicion about this but this is one of the few time that such a high profile figure has given credence to such suspicions. The mind boggles to think of the possibilities.

His response to attending the dinner by DAP and Pakatan was simple. “I did not attend the DAP dinner or Parti Keadilan Rakyat’s (PKR) dinner to provoke anyone. I was there to listen, on the invitation of friends. They are not our enemies but people who just have different opinions,” he said.

Commenting on the statement by Umno vice president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin that he was a ‘small guy’ in the party, Zaid said: “Yes, I am a small guy in the party without any influence, but even small men have the right to response or to defend themselves.” To Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, it would do well to recall the Malay proverb " sepandai -pandai tupai melompat, akhirnya jatuh juga". ( no matter how clever one may be, it will only be a matter of time bfore one fails).

If Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin regards Zaid as a ‘small guy’ , then what would he regard the majority of the ordinary rakyat? One shudders at the thought. Especially when you consider that this person could possibly be a Prime Minister in the future. Power does corrupt absolutely.

Zaid added that Umno has also lost sight of its original role as provider and caretaker of all the communities. He said it was difficult to establish strong race relations if a party keeps referring to other citzens as “pendatang” (immigrants) and suggest things like closing down vernacular schools. “You cannot just force people to do something, there needs to be a lot of understanding of the situation and in difficult time like the present, it helps to sit down and discuss things with each other,” Zaid said.

The author agrees wholeheartedly with the view of Datuk Zaid. We live in a sickening political climate. Even though the elections are over and done with , there are no attempts to reach out to build bridges. We should take a leaf from the recent American presidential elections. After the results are out , the loser concedes defeat and wholeheartedly throws his support to the winner. The whole nation in turn is urged by all the parties to unite behind the chosen President. Why can't we have the same in Malaysia? Apparently the word" working across the aisle " is a dirty word in Malaysian politics. And forget bipartisanship.

This criticism is directed at all. The people have chosen the Barisan. We should just let the Barisan government do its work. The Barisan government on the other hand should strive to reach out t0 the opposition parties and be transparent in good governance. As for reaching out, this can be done through dialogue as was being done by Zaid. In this atmosphere of uncertainty , there is more of a need to stand united. We should learn to accept differing opinions. And the politicians should stop playing with the race card. This is a habit which needs stopping as the damage done to national unity is simply non quantifiable. Politicians should stop playing to the gallery by championing racial issues.

At least in the case of Datuk Zaid Ibrahim we have someone who has the vision to look at issues through the national perspective . The nation needs more Datuk Zaid Ibrahims.

Doctor charged with molesting the modesty of his nurse

A 26-year-old nurse lodged a police report against an amorous doctor who molested her while they were alone together inside the X-ray room at a private hospital here. OCPD Asst Comm Azam Abd Hamid said the nurse was about to leave the room when the 32-year-old doctor suddenly slapped her buttocks and hugged her at 8pm on Tuesday.
“She managed to struggle free and left the room. She later lodged a report at the Jalan Patani police station.
“We will be arresting the doctor soon. The case has been classified as outraging modesty which carries a jail term of up to 15 years with possible whipping,” ACP Azam said yesterday.

Karpal Singh calls on the Bar Council committee members to resign over dinner paid by Government

Karpal Singh called on the Bar Council committee members to resign over the council's acceptance of more than RM80,000 in sponsorship from the government for a dinner in April. "By placing itself in a position of indebtedness to the executive for a mere dinner, the Bar Council cannot operate from a high moral ground any more. I call on the council to tender its resignation for bringing the entire legal profession into disrepute," he said at the Parliament lobby yesterday.He said it was interesting that the government footed the bill amounting to RM81,965.75 for the dinner hosted by the council for its guest-of-honour, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi."It is difficult to comprehend how the guest had to foot the bill instead of the host. To make matters worse, the bill was settled not through Umno or Barisan Nasional funds but from public funds."

The Bar Council is not above criticism. Even within the profession, it has come in for some sounding from fellow lawyers. The Malaysian Bar Council prides itself on being independent and ever vigilant of the welfare of the citizens welfare. On this basis how would the Bar Council justify the usage of public funds. RM 80,000 may be a small amount for most of these legal eagles who lead lives of luxury. Such money could have been utilised for far more noble purposes instead of catering to an evening of dinner at some posh hotel. On this basis it makes the usage of taxpayers money all the more obscene. Granted , the Governmnet may have volunteered to foot the bill, but the Chairperson of the Bar Council should have had the common sense to politely reject knowing full well that it is the taxpayers money.

Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak says ISA protects from terrorism.

The Internal Security Act (ISA) has been instrumental in combating terrorism in Malaysia, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak said.
He said the law has kept the nation secure from the threat of terrorism."There is a very strong raison d'etre for the Internal Security Act. Just look at Mumbai and you realise that we cannot take security lightly."The main reason why there have been no serious acts of terrorism in this country is because we have in place the ISA," he said on the Riz Khan Show on Al-Jazeera last night.Najib, who is also finance minister, acknowledged however that the government needed to look into some elements of the act that troubled the people.
"At the same time, what is important now is to realise that people are concerned about civil liberties... what is important is how you apply the ISA."I realise there are some controversies relating to how the act has been used lately, therefore, we intend to address them in future."

These are some interesting but rather ambiguous comments from someone who is going to inherit the mantle of government. It is an implicit acknowledgement of the existence of the Internal Security Act in that it was conceived to deal with the communist terrorists. What is disturbing is its continued and arbitrary use by the authorities for purposes which have no relevance to its objectives. If indeed the ISA has been used against terrorists, then Lim Kit Siang , Karpal Singh, Anwar Ibrahim and a host of other opposition leaders would amount to " terrorists". Yet these very terrorists sit in our Parliament. It is a given fact that the ISA has been used to stifle the opposition and that its usage has more to bear with political expediencies of the ruling coalition. It is this aspect of the ISA which is rather disturbing. Hopefully the Deputy Prime Minister was referring to this aspect of the ISA. Nonetheless the continued existence of the ISA is an affront to the very notion of the rule of law. No person should be denied his freedom without an opportunity of defending himself first before an impartial tribunal.

Gobind Singh Deo (DAP-Puchong) suspended after accusing Dewan Rakyat Speaker of biasness

Deputy Speaker Datuk Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar had ruled that Nazri had no intention to mislead the House when giving his reply on ex-gratia payments to the former Lord President and Supreme Court judges during the judiciary crisis in 1988.
“The minister did not know that the statement he gave was inaccurate and had no intention to mislead the House. Therefore it is not necessary for the minister to be referred to the committee of privileges,” said Dr Wan Junaidi at 11.30am. Wan Junaidi was ruling on Karpal's claim that Nazri had misled the House two week ago when replying to points raised on the Judicial sackings of 1988.
This then saw an exchange of words between Karpal Singh (DAP-Bukit Gelugor) and Wan Junaidi which saw several opposition members taking part.The exchange lasted a good 30 minutes . Salahuddin Ayub (PAS -Kubang Kerian) said Nazri should apologise in the House for not knowing his facts which had affected the integrity of the House. Dr Wan Junaidi told Salahuddin: “I do not need to ask the minister to apologise. My decision is based on the Standing Order. I do not want the Parliament to be a mockery.”
It was at this juncture that Karpal Singh told the Deputy Speaker that his decision was indeed a mockery of the House. Karpal Singh, amidst shouts of “tarik balik” from backbenchers, told Dr Wan Junaidi “jangan main-main (don’t play the fool) and the minister should apologise.
Gobind Singh Deo (DAP - Puchong), who stood up to support his father, ended up being suspended after he accused the Deputy Speaker of being biased."He (Nazri) makes the mistake and you are punishing me," he told Wan Junaidi after the deputy speaker and Gobind got into an argument over the merits of his decision not to refer Nazri to the rights and privileges committee.At the Parliament lobby later, Gobind Singh said: “If Nazri is prepared to apologise outside the Dewan, why can’t he do so inside the House?”
In the lobby, Nazri said there was no reason for him to apologise.“The Deputy Speaker has cleared me that I had not deliberately made that statement. Since there is no case to refer me to the Rights and Privileges Committee, there is no reason for me to defend myself,” he said.
“The issue from the beginning was never over an apology but about making the wrong statement, which I had admitted and cleared,” he said when asked why he initially apologised. ”The issue of apology does not arise. This was created by Karpal Singh,” he said.

Nazri had told the House on Nov 6 that former Lord President Tun Salleh Abbas and five other Supreme Court judges were not sacked but opted to retire early. A few days later, Nazri told reporters that he had made a mistake and that three of them were indeed sacked but had been paid pension on compassionate grounds.
This prompted Karpal Singh (DAP - Gelugor) to ask for a ruling to refer Nazri to the Committee of Privileges under Standing Order 36(12) for misleading the House.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/11/26/parliament/2642087&sec=parliament

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Tuesday/Frontpage/20081125134657/Article/index_html

Gobind Singh Deo spoke to the reporters in the lobby. This is a transcript of what he said:

"How does the speaker know without an explanation in the House by the Minister . How does the Speaker know what his defence is. And not only that, kita lihat Tuan Speaker menyatakan bahawa Menteri telahpun minta maaf tetapi di luar Dewan. Saya hanya bangkit untuk tanya. If he is prepared to apologise outside kenapa tak berani nak minta maaf dalam Dewan ? We are all honourable members of the House. Tapi as usual when the opposition asks questions we get thrown out. Doesn’t matter. Doesn’t matter. Tidak mengapa pada saya. Does not matter. But this is what happens in politics in Malaysia. In fact I am disappointed. Disappointed with the ruling made by the Speaker. But never mind two days I think what is more important is principles.We stand up for our principles. If we have toget suspended for it then so be it. Kita ini perlu berdiri mempertahankan prinsip kami sebagai wakil rakyat, wakil Dewan Rakyat. Kalau kita perlu di gantung untuk menjalankan tugas , saya sedia menerima. Tak ada masalah. Tak ada masalah."

The said statement was not aired on the national television stations. But Gobind does raise some pertinent points. While the Chair of the Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat merits respect, the speaker should bear in mind that the MP's are merely discharging their duties in accordance with their oath of office. An order of suspension is not one which should be invoked often since it amounts to a denial of the voice of the constituency which forms the very bedrock of democracy.

Man charged with committing unnatural sex with beautician without her consent

A Kuala Lumpur City Hall general worker pleaded not guilty in the Sessions Court here today to committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature on a beautician without her consent.
Kamarul Zaman Abdul Rashid, 44, who wore green Baju Melayu was charged under Section 377CA of the Penal Code which is punishable with up to 20 years in jail and whipping if convicted.He was alleged to have inserted prayer beads and finger into the woman’s vagina at a house No.6, Block G (E Tambahan), Kampung Melayu Sri Kundang, Kuang, Rawang, at 11.30am, Nov 15.

Kamarul Zaman was arrested on Nov 19 while the woman was 33 years old.In applying for bail, defence lawyer Simon Sabapathy said Kamarul Zaman was married and had to provide for his five children aged between three and 19 years as well as his parents.Assistant Public Prosecutor Salwa Asmary Abdul Rahim objected to the application and said that if Kamarul Zaman was allowed bail, the amount should high and additional conditions should be imposed.The reason she gave was that such a case occurred frequently and could make the people worried.Judge Wan Mohd Norisham Wan Yaakob later fixed the bail at RM6,000 with one surety and ordered the accused to surrender his passport to the court and to report to a nearby police station every month.He also warned Kamarul Zaman not to harass the victim and set March 10 next year for trial.

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Tuesday/NewsBreak/20081125160403/Article/index_html

Section 377CA of The Penal Code provides for Sexual connection by object.Under this provision, "Any person who has sexual connection with another person by the introduction of any object into the vagina or anus of the other person without the other person's consent shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to whipping. [Exception: This section does not extend to where the introduction of any object into the vagina or anus of any person is carried out for medical or law enforcement purposes.]

The essence of the section is the introduction of any object into the vagina or anus of another. Thus prayer beads would suffice. However it was thought that this section would not cover the insertion of a human part such as a finger. But this would be interpreting the word " object" in a strict sense. From the case it would appear that " object" would cover a human part such as a finger.However this would be a matter for determination by the court. This section would apparently cover the insertion of a dildo . But Section 377CA The Penal Code depends on the consent of the other party. If the other party consents to such introduction , then no offence would be committed under this section. Interestingly the section would not apply despite the lack of consent where the introduction of any object into the vagina or anus of any person is carried out for medical or law enforcement purposes. Thus a doctor who inserts an object into the anus or vagina of a patient would not commit any offence under this section. Similarly law enforcement officers also could insert objects into the anus or vagina. But this exception should be qualified in the sense that the said insertion is for a purpose incidental to the work of these two professions.

Youth sentenced to 24 years in prison for incest with his sister

PUTRAJAYA: A youth who committed incest with his sister after watching pornographic videos will spend the prime years of his life in jail.
The Court of Appeal yesterday dismissed his appeal against the sentence of a High Court which enhanced the jail term to 24 years.The youth, who is now 22, will also receive three strokes of the rotan.Court of Appeal judge Datuk James Foong, who sat with Datuk Zainun Ali and Datuk Sulong Matjeraie, said they felt the jail term was appropriate as the offences were serious."We are aware that you are young but we will be sending a wrong message that those who commit a similar offence will be jailed only for a few years if the imprisonment term is varied," Foong said of the unanimous decision.
The jail term is to commence from Sept 11, 2004. He advised the youth to be serious in his religious lessons in order to distinguish right from wrong.Having come to the appellate court, the youth has finally exhausted his appeal. With one-third remission, the youth is expected to walk out of prison in 2020 at the age of 34.On Oct 23, 2004, the Sessions Court sentenced him to eight years' jail each after he pleaded guilty to three counts of incest between January 2002 and July 2004.However, he served eight years because the court ordered the sentences to run concurrently.On the third count, the court also ordered him to be given three strokes of the rotan as the youth was aged above 18 when he committed the offence.The incidents occurred at an unnumbered house in Kampar, Perak, when the girl was aged between 6 and 8 and the accused was aged between 16 and 18. On appeal against sentence by the public prosecutor, the High Court, on May 27, 2005, maintained the eight-year jail term for each count but ordered them to run consecutively, which meant a total of 24 years.The three strokes of the rotan were maintained.

Before the High Court, the youth, in mitigation, told the judge that he was spurred to commit the act on his sister after watching pornographic videos. The youth, who was unrepresented, then appealed to the Court of Appeal against the sentence.Deputy public prosecutor V. Shoba submitted that the appeal should be disallowed because the offences committed were separate.Facts of the case revealed a police report was made only after a welfare officer discovered that the victim had been sexually abused.Their mother had passed away when the incidents took place. The youth had dropped out of school after Form Four and worked in a factory in Gopeng.
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Wednesday/National/2412016/Article/index_html

Irene Fernandez acquittal a victory for freedom of expression in Malaysia

It is indeed heartening to note the release of Irene Fernandez. She was arrested in 1996 for reporting that illegal immigrants were tortured at detention centres. Fernandez's 1995 report was compiled from interviews with more than 300 former detainees and alleged that illegal immigrants died in Malaysian camps from malnutrition and torture. The government confirmed 98 detainees had died, but said they succumbed to diseases contracted in their homelands. Did we really expect the government to say otherwise? That illegal immigrants suffer all forms of abuse especially in light of the absence and enforcement of the law is a fact. One has only to glean the pages of the local newspapers. The action by the government reflects the heavy handedness in which dissenting voices are subjected to action in Malaysia especially if it is one which places the government of the day in a bad light.Credit must be given to Irene Fernandez for having the courage to face up to the authorities and not compromising her principles. We must never allow the authotities to stifle our right to express our views.

Irene Fernandez acquitted 12 years after arrest

A Malaysian court on Monday acquitted a prominent labor activist who was arrested 12 years ago for claiming that police tortured illegal immigrants in detention.
The Kuala Lumpur High Court ruled in favor of Irene Fernandez, the director of the human rights group Tenaganita, who had appealed a one-year prison sentence issued in 2003 for maliciously publishing false news. Justice Datuk Mohamed Apandi Ali acquitted Fernandez after the prosecution informed the court that it was not opposing her appeal against conviction and sentence on the grounds that the appeal record was incomprehensible.
"I'm so happy that finally truth and justice prevailed," Fernandez, 62, told The Associated Press. "I should never have been charged in the first place."
She was arrested in 1996 for reporting that illegal immigrants were tortured at detention centers but remained free on bail while fighting her case. Seven years later, she was sentenced to one year in prison but appealed.
Prosecutor Shamsul Sulaiman said the prosecution decided not to oppose the appeal because typed records from earlier court proceedings contained "systemic errors." The errors occurred when a court official typed up the judge's handwritten notes, Shamsul said. He told the AP he would have been "quite confident of fighting the appeal" had the records been in order.
Fernandez, 62, had been sentenced to 12 months jail by the Kuala Lumpur Magistrate's Court on Oct 16, 2003, for publishing a memorandum containing false news at the Tenaganita Sdn Bhd office at No. 28c, Lorong Bunus Enam, off Jalan Masjid India, on Aug 25, 1995. She was alleged to have exposed the poor conditions at immigration detention centres in a memorandum entitled, "Abuse, Torture and Dehumanised Conditions of Migrant Workers in Detention Centres" which allegedly contained 16 statements that were found to be false. Fernandez's 1995 report was compiled from interviews with more than 300 former detainees.The report alleged that illegal immigrants died in Malaysian camps from malnutrition and torture. The government confirmed 98 detainees had died, but said they succumbed to diseases contracted in their homelands.
Over the weekend, New York-based Human Rights Watch had called for the "politically motivated" charges against Fernandez to be dropped. "Irene Fernandez and her organization documented the government's sadistic and humiliating treatment of migrants," said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "Human Rights Watch has also documented such treatment."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jF97_ahzzHW3hKJZyK64lYMoIgNwD94L71200

Weird Sex Laws

Sexual conduct seems a taboo topic. Therefore laws on it are deemed to infringe basic notions of privacy. Almost everyone would want whatever laws which touch on sexual matters to stop outside their bedroom doors . Nonetheless there is still an abundance of such laws even in countries such as the United States. Check out some of these laws extracted from http://www.journalism.sfsu.edu/flux/gSpot/sexLaw.html-

• Places where oral sex is illegal: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and Washington D.C.
• An erection that shows through a man's clothing is illegal in: Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington D.C. and Wisconsin
• In Georgia those charged and convicted for either oral or anal sex can be sentenced to no less than one year and no more than 20 years imprisonment.
• In Missouri sexually deviant behavior between people of the same sex is classified as a class A misdemeanor
• In Harrisburg, Pennsylvania it is against the law to have sex with a truck driver in a tollbooth. (There's every woman's fantasy gone down the drain).
• In Nevada it is illegal to have sex without a condom.
• In Willowdale, Oregon it is against the law for a husband to talk dirty in his wife's ear during sex.
• In Clinton, Oklahoma it is illegal to masturbate while watching two people have sex in a car.
• In Washington State there is a law against having sex with a virgin under any circumstances (including the wedding night!).
• In Newcastle, Wyoming it is illegal to have sex in a butcher shop's meat freezer.
• In Washington D.C. there is a law against having sex in any position other than face to face.

The laws may not be used often but they are far from obsolete.The November 1996 issue of "Marie Claire" involved an Atlanta wife who tried to have her soon-to-be ex-husband charged with rape. She had persuaded her then hubby to tie her up and later used the bondage as a means of proving that the sex had not been consensual. Her sister came forward and informed the court of the plot against the man, but there was another twist in the story.
Although the man was acquitted on the rape charge, the man was sentenced to five years in jail for having performed oral sex on the woman. He had admitted to that during the course of the case and so he was charged and sentenced under Georgia law.

Even animal are not exempted-

• In Kingsville, Texas there is a law against two pigs having sex on Kingsville airport property.
• In Fairbanks, Alaska it is illegal for mooses to have sex on the city sidewalks.
• Lastly, even liberated California proves to be not quite so liberal for the animals...In Ventura County cats and dogs may not have sex without a permit.

Well , human sexual laws aside, Malaysia would be pretty liberal as far as animal sexual conduct is concerned. There should be no problem for pigs to have sex but first they will have to get a place. Now if only those folks in Selangor and Kedah could be more sympathetic.

Examining homosexual laws in Malaysia

Section 377 of the Penal Code criminalises gay sex.It also deals amongst other things with anus and oral sex. For purposes of clarity the author will confine the discussion to its relationship with homosexuality. It comes under Unnatural Offences 377. Under section 377A which relates to carnal intercourse against the order of nature it is provided that any person who has sexual connection with another person by the introduction of the penis into the anus or mouth of the other person is said to commit carnal intercourse against the order of nature. The explanation states that penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual connection necessary to the offence described in this section. The unnatural sex would also refer to oral and anal sex. As to why it is deemed "unnatural, a post in http://www.malaysiabrides.com/ referred to provisions of the Old Testament of the Bible, where oral and anal sex was considered to be "against" the order of nature because of the "waste" of sperm and the sex act itself. Traditional sex was deemed to be the typical vagina meets penis. Foreplay wasn't even discussed - of course kissing was allowed but anything else was considered to be debauch behaviour. The punishment for committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature under section 377B provides for imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to whipping. The learned view of Mallal's Penal Law (at page 643) states that penetration alone will suffice for an offence and it need not be a fully completed act.The degree of penetration necessary to constitute an offence would be a matter of fact to be determined by the courts. Since the section is dependable on the introduction of the penis into the anus or mouth of the other person, therefore the word "any person" would only make a male liable since only a male can make the said penetration. The male or female partner whose anus or mouth is penetrated by the offender, will not be liable under this section, even though they consented to the act [see Mallal's Penal Law at page 643].

The laws are a relic of the British colonial era. The sodomy laws were introduced in the late 1870s by British administrators, about 20 years after the first such law was drafted by Lord Thomas Macaulay for the Indian Penal Code.Similar sodomy laws were adopted by other colonies, such as Australia, Bangladesh , Canada, Hong Kong, the Straits Settlements , Pakistan and Sri Lanka.Australia, Canada, Fiji and Hong Kong, have all repealed the laws. The UK legalised sexual acts between two adult males in 1967. Indian activists are currently challenging Section 377 in court. So that these laws would be more of a British thing albeit from a far more conservative era. Interestingly homosexual acts remain punishable by death in several countries, including Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Sudan.Even some countries which have such sodomy laws are still reluctant to discard them.Malaysia's neighbour Singapore repealed Section 377 in 2007. But retained Section 377A, which specifies a 2-year jail term, as its Prime Minister concluded Singapore was still a conservative country uncomfortable with homosexuality.One needs to be careful when comparing the Malaysian Penal Code with that of Singapore. Malaysia's Penal Code is numbered differently from Singapore's. And its provisions differ too.

As for Malaysia do not expect the repeal of these laws any time soon . If these laws are repealed then it would pose a major headache for the ruling coalition . It would prevent them from throwing sodomy charges agaist politicians deemed to be a threat.So apparently there is some use of these laws although for the wrong reasons and against the wrong persons.

Post was written by the author of this blog with some provisions extracted from http://www.malaysiabrides.com

Police storm Gay Party

An entertainment centre and two massage parlours hosted separate parties with a difference on the 3rd of November.
Apparently, the humble bathroom towel was the "theme" of the three parties meant exclusively for men. As it turned out, most of the 73 men who came to have fun with one another, wore just a towel and nothing else.The guests, including a foreigner, were allegedly participating in a party meant exclusively for homosexuals.Thus, the police were far from amused when they raided the entertainment centre in Jalan Perai Jaya, and the massage parlours in Pulau Tikus, only to find the men frolicking with their male partners, clad merely in towels.
They also found new and used condoms scattered on the floor as they rounded up 73 men, suspected to be homosexuals, in the three separate raids between 5pm and 8.30pm.A police spokesman said that the men were aged between 20 and 50. He said police were tracking down the owner of the entertainment centre who was suspected to have held regular "gay parties" at the premises.

Homosexuality is unlawful in Malaysia. however the siad raid did make headline news around the world on the front pages of Gay newspapers.