Archive for February 13th, 2012|Daily archive page

Penang DCM II sues newspaper, journalist for RM10m Monday, February 13, 2012 – 20:10 – by Bernama

In Abuse of Power, freedom of speech, intent, media, media traps, media tricks, misplaced adoration, political correctness, politics, social freedoms, spirit of the law, spirit of the word on February 13, 2012 at 4:16 pm

KUALA LUMPUR: Penang Deputy Chief Minister II, Dr P. Ramasamy today filed a RM10 million defamation suit against a journalist of The Star and the newspaper publisher.

It was filed at the High Court Civil Registry here through the legal form of Messrs. A.Sivanesan & Co.

The suit, which named Ian McIntyre and Star Publications (M) Bhd as defendants, was over two articles, “Distress in DAP continues” which was published on Dec 23 last year and “What Ramasamy said in the interview with The Star”, published on Dec 27 last year.

In the statement of claim, Ramasamy said that on Dec 21, 2011, Ian interviewed him at his office in Penang and an article on it was published on Dec 23.

He claimed that the article, in its original meaning, implied him as a DAP leader who was corrupt, abused his power and position and of no integrity.

Ramasamy said that following the publication of the article, he called for a media conference on Dev 26 last year to deny having uttered the words, but another article was published by the Star Publications (M) Bhd on Dec 27.

He claimed that the following the publication of the two articles, his position as a leader and reputation had been seriously injured and that he had been brought into public scandal, ridicule and contempt.

He is seeking an injunction to prevent the defendants from further publishing the articles, defamatory damages, as well as aggravated and exemplary damages, cost and other relief deemed fit by the court.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

The DCM should not become another Chandra Muzaffar bullying Antares ( and just demand an apology or refute at most. Freedom of speech remember? This is not PM Najib or any real opponent to score points by insulting or demanding apologies from, but a ‘mere’ journalist and a newspaper that can be countered with another friendly newspaper’s article.

Besides, after 2 terms as DCM (unless term limitless minded – another Mubarak or Gaddafi, once they had the tase of power, they forget what TERM LIMITS (2 terms typically) are . . .), this will not even matter anymore.

Is the journalist or even the DCM worth 10M? Can they even earn that much in this lifetime? Don’t be greedy and illegical, this is about reputation not money Ramasamy. Even already valueless point scoring as just done by YM the quorumless parachute CM LGE against PM Najib by asking for apologies is unprincipled and meaningless enough, this is even worse – bullying AND greed for non-issues. Such pettiness.

Ask for an public forum with your ‘victims’ to refute, or publish an article to tell the readers why the article was wrong. People with this sort of attitude should not even be voted to begin with. Typical DAP behaviour – JUST LIKE SINGAPORE’S sicko PAP.

Don’t bully the already bullied, the Scots have not yet liberated themselves fro English colonialism, the action to sue a McIntyre clansman will doubtless end misery for another BN in formation, Braveheart style! Very ugly trend here in DAP’s mindset . . . vote for 3rd Force voters, if the DCM is as petty minded as this, one can imagine how the nepotistic Gaddafi and sons types will be like if they gain control of the cabinet.

Down with the nepotistic and term limitless (also bullying) faction in Pakatan Rakyat who have so much energy that they will target journos and newspapers rather than handle or address much less broach the APARTHEID of Bumiputraism !

Drop both BN and Pakatan’s racists and nepotist family blocs and vote for 3rd Force Coalition where : KITA, JATI, MCLM (whats left of it thanks to RPK’s sacrificing of LGBT to target Anwar, but homophobes could find it a good party that has 20 candidates), PCM, Borneo Front, Konsensus Bebas, HRP/Hindraf and PSM to grant the above 3 items.

Look at the below form as well and choose your canidates who will end all toll concessions and make all citizens equal.

(errata on the pic, GDP should read national average wage)

DCM Ramasamy . . . “You disgust us!” . . .

We voted Pakatan in to end APARTHEID and liberalise laws, not bully the citizens and curb freedom of speech with limitless terms and abuse power of local councils and worsen laws with more red-tape.

More instances of bullying below :

Compensation for Rep’s Kin – by Sunday Star – 18th APR 2010

The Gambier Threat – Mid 2010

Invasive By-Laws Against Sovereignty of Title/Land Owners

12 people were sacked by DAP by April 2011, and at least another 12 more prior to this, mostly Indian members. If they believe in ending APARTHEID and are willing to sign a contract to support the end of APARTHEID, any independent, even Malay candidates should be voted over power mad and nepotistic DAP.

DID NOT DECLARE ASSETS as promised (however pretend to declare to CM Guan Eng like BN Mps pretend to declare to PM – don’t insult the voters’ intelligence Pakatan . . . )

Failed the EXCO Election Quorum at 0.002% / Failed to Keep Promise of Local Council Elections

Kampung Buah Pala compensation lies

Sunset Bistro / Sabre Tours Destruction of 49 stalls – Traders plan to sue Teratai assemblyman for demolishing shop lots …

Ronnie Liu sand mining case

300 million (86 billion) sPICE fallout BUNKER

Various spats involving Malicious Compliance against Indian Muslim Traders Association,

Effectively ‘Robbing’ Gas Tanks from Small stall owners (this was overseen by Ng Aik Wei)

Watersports Facility owners (this is their Island too, who needs a DAP government that will not amend by-laws, kick them out take power and write your own laws Beach Boys . . . ) Quiet beaches due to water sports ban | theSundaily –

Sponsorship and support (planning???) of Kitten Killer? Fate will extract the appropriate number of pure hearted kittens slain (as opposed to evil hearted humans) – with interest applied.

KOMTAR Lockdown / (Nearly a Mr. Kerosene Tunisia style . . . )

Beachboy harrassing via collusion by writing Insurance into by-laws (20+ watersports operators and 400 watersports workers)

Horse Riding harrassing

Gas tank stealing

Condominium staircase destruction

We voted Pakatan in to end APARTHEID, not bully the citizens and curb freedom of speech with limitless terms and abuse of power.

Totalitarian Collectivism – Are You a ‘TC’ Proponent? – SARTRE – March 10, 2001

In 1% tricks and traps, Apartheid, domestic terrorists in the political sphere, Equality, separation of powers, unprofessional behaviour on February 13, 2012 at 1:44 pm

Most have heard all they want to know about ‘PC’ or political correctness. But how many of you have come into contact with a much more hideous and sinister value system called ‘TC’? And even more important, are you an advocate of this behavior and its imposition on society? So just what is this conduct and who are the people who accept its tenants?

Fiat money creators that enslave the public with their hatred for honest money; are the designers of TC.

If you support the estate tax, progressive income tax, its graduated increase on greater income and redistribution of wealth; YOU are a TC.

Advocates of direct elections for the Presidency (as well as Senators), and the abolishment of the Electoral College; YOU are a TC.

Proponents of the UN involvement’s that conflict with American interests and impose compliance upon nations that differ with the world community; are TC.

Champions of criminalizing more non violent conduct, while applying lenient standards for the political and attorney class; are the creators of TC.

Supporters of the Corporate economy, with its designed elimination of small business; is a key element of TC.

Accountants that defend insane tax policies that force producers to adopt behavior and decisions that have no economic value, but will reduce tax obligations; are implementers of TC.

Whiners that demand special treatment from government at the expense of the rest, are truly TC.

Shapers of public images and editors of news that tell only a favorable account of their masters and refuse to speak ill of corrupt political, business and public leaders; are the messengers of TC.

Government bureaucrats that live for benefits and pensions, while the policies that they administer destroy the lives of honest citizens; are the foot soldiers of TC.

Local elected officials that routinely accept unconstitutional laws from State and Federal departments and courts, and do nothing to challenge their fraud; are subverters for TC goals.

Educators who impose an official line for acceptable thought and refuse to debate the merits of contrary views; are the keepers of the TC keys.

Tree huggers that force unemployment upon families with their belief in senseless and unscientific theories; are TC members.

Civil Rights advocates who’s notion of fairness justifies stealing from others to establish equality; are the robbers for TC.

Private Property destroyers who rationalize piracy from others for the greater good of themselves or their ‘so called’ society; are TC thieves.

Feminists that promote killing as a ‘RIGHT’ of woman and seek to cheapen all life as a means to express yourself; are TC harlots.

But the most disgusting of all, are the hypocrites who know exactly what TC is, understand that it is indefensible and evil, and continue to advocate it’s use upon the sovereign individuals of America; are the worst of all TC’s.

So by now you may want to know just what TC stands for? Well TC is ‘Totalitarian Collectivism’. It is much more dynamic than the guilt and peer pressure tactic of Political Correctness. For force is the operative word in the T. Imposition of penalties and sanctions are the means upon which individuals are compelled to accept the tenants of TC. TC is based upon the power of the State to control people. Their methods are designed to coerce acceptance and mold behavior. The C is the object of the elite’s dream of complete dominion. Collectivism encompasses all the ism’s that seek to enslave man. Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and the current ‘Third Wave’, are all part of the same scam that has been used to deceive mankind into willingly giving up their individual rights for the false promises, of a dishonest slave master. The correctness in PC is the secular relativism that justifies accepting an erroneous assemblage of political doctrines. While the collectivism in TC is the absolute aim and ultimate goal for the domination of humanity.

PC is bad enough, but TC will secure the shackle and chains of despair and suffering, on the vast hordes of humankind. You are urged to start using this term in your writing and conversations and start explaining the threat that really is before us. TC is real and the operative dictum of this age. Our mutual duty is to resist it in any and every form it takes. Our aspiration is to empower the greatest number of individuals to seek and realize the excellent and ability of their talents to achieve wealth, health, meaning and purpose for their life. This goal cannot be realized within a TC culture. The enemy of the human race are the proponents, protectors and defenders of TC. Will you join the crusade against this infidel or are you content to accept the fate that is planned for you? This is one war that we are all involved, one that cannot be escaped or one that cannot be ignored. The destiny of mankind rests upon your decision to resist.

Totalitarian Collectivism

Much of western civilization political thought is devoted to the nature of the STATE. Centuries of experience and aspiration are embroiled in the fundamental dichotomy between the individual and the state. When the understanding of this chronicle is applied to the American Saga, a central question emerges. By what authority does the state claim legitimacy?

If we really believe that authority stems from the consent of the governed, how is it possible that in today’s Totalitarian Collectivism governance is taken as an inescapable inevitability? Wikipedia says “Consent of the governed is a phrase synonymous with a political theory wherein a government’s legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and legal when derived from the people or society over which that power is exercised.”

Under the most tortured perversion of logic, “We the People” are supposed to accept the claim that society has determined that the form of government that controls our country is legitimate, even when only the most avid toady claims it is moral. The existential scope of the demise of our nation is real and a present danger. At present, as events proceed there is the assumption and appearance of inescapability. Yet is it inevitable?

As long as you have not been living under a rock, you know that the march of progress has been a retreat into oblivion. People rationalized that society takes two steps forward for everyone back. By any objective measure, progress is now equivalent to the advancement of enslavement.

The American Saga bleeds with betrayal of the American Revolution. How fond a world it would be if all we had was the petty oppression of King George III assaulting our birthright? In the beginning, there were Federalists and ant-Federalists. Alexander Hamilton won the infidelity prize and betrayed the American Revolutionary War much more than Benedict Arnold. For all the reasons, review the essays on Inherent Autonomy. The anti-Federalists understood the predictability for tyranny of the central government under the U.S. Constitution. Those who force a constitutional convention wanted to substitute their rule and vision of Imperium, for that of a British Empire. Ratification of that constitution was not a noble act, but was a treacherous renunciation of the very reasons rebellion occurred and the principles of liberty.

Fast forward to the 21th century. The A-Z Index of U.S. Government Departments and Agencies is but a partial database of the executive bureaucracy, on the federal, state and local level. Such a list never encompasses a final total. The living organism, especially the federal executive branch, is not even able to list all the alpha soup entities in the budget. Is this the end result of consent of the governed or even representation in a republic? Legal scholars endlessly debate precedent, jurisdiction and equity; but the law never addresses the purpose why the nation was born out of a blood struggle to achieve sovereignty. Governments want you to accept that sovereignty means their legitimacy for controlling you. Autonomy requires self-governance under any form the STATE may design for organization.

Totalitarian Collectivism regimes all share common traits. Force is the ultimate stick. Compliance is the objective with state dependency as the means. A government check, benefit or inducement, are all methods of achieving a docile and obedient public. Degrees of payment vary by the level of cooperation. Federal employees become a ‘privileged class’ because they own their economic existence to the ultimate criminal syndicate, the STATE; and are willing to employ the levers of coercion and force against the populace.

The American Saga is a tragic example of a capitulation to the elements of fascism. Consent can be positive if government respects the individual liberty of citizens. Consent can be negative if individual citizens assume the function of cogs in a wheel of an all-powerful controlling governing octopus. Government agencies act as overseers above citizens, with virtual impunity from accountability. The executive apparatus actually designs and administered the rules, outside the constraints of judicial review, legislative oversight and public indignation.

Who among us believes that this system of oppression is legitimate? Sadly, the majority treats this repression as a fait accompli. They resign their fate to the whims of faceless masters. Henry David Thoreau, once again, has it correct, “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.  “What is called resignation is confirmed desperation.” This communal despair is indicative of the latter days of the American Empire. The eternal optimism, that is so often associated with the founding of the country, is fading into a shadow of past times.

The STATE degenerates into a prison for the masses. The elites, especially the “Beltway Oligarchy”, bond with the “Plutocrat Overlords”, in a collaboration of malefic dimensions. Scores of authors have named names and documented the dealing of the “Masters of the Universe”, in every age. Up to now, Americans viewed themselves to be different. The scourge of other empires would not destroy their own country. The government would protect us. A democracy is a superior form of rule. A U.S. global presence is a force for good. How many times have you heard this argument defending the system?

Well, does this viewpoint reflect the reality of the current state of world affairs? More to the point, is this a reasonable conclusion based upon the facts of a diverse society and the deeds of a dominating government? Since our form of government is supposed to be a republic, what role does the citizen retain in a system that now operates by fiat pronouncements?

In order to answer these questions, presuppose that people share an intentional willingness and responsibility to attain a meaningful degree of self-reliance and authority over government. The goal is to achieve liberty, both personal and for the nation.

Today, the STATE effectively extinguishes the objective of liberty. Besides the elites, who else shares the blame for allowing the viral contamination of the body politic? The malignant disease that facilitates and allows the elites to dominate government and manipulate our lives originates in the minds of commonplace citizens. Call it apathy, denial, rationalization or sloth. It all translates into the same results. The excuse that one “I cannot fight City Hall”, leads to the inept justification that “I was just following orders”.

The Peter Principle is the principle that “In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.” Apply the standard of citizenship and you get, people lose their dignity when they allow bureaucrats to dictate and enforce illegitimate regulations. In any level of organization, incompetence is the norm. Adherence to ethical measures risk discipline and retribution, while obedience to autocratic administration enhances upward mobility. The subtle acknowledgement that ineptitude is a prerequisite for qualification into the civil service, is well established. However, the Peter Principle breaks down when the gears of Totalitarian Collectivism plays upon the inadequacies of the public. ‘TC’ requires a ‘PC’ politically correct culture to move the public into submission.

All individuals are flawed and most are prone to peer pressure. The STATE excels at destroying personal initiative and independence, using the most incompetent tools that money can buy from the government coffer. Notwithstanding the marginal caliber that is attracted to implement government dictates, the plan to exert total compliance and mastery, is brilliant in its evil composition.

The STATE purports to be innate, intrinsic and normal, while it consistently violates the natural rights of human beings. Governments want you to accept that its authority is instinctive, for no other reason than it is in charge. So what is immutable about the STATE, when the only possible legitimacy for government, rests upon the conveyance of authority to it, by individual citizens? Of course, the answer is that the STATE retains only conditional authority.

America is not the government. The country is not the STATE. Moreover, the nation is certainly not the tyrannical regime that seeks to establish a global New World Order.

The ‘TC’ mentality that permeates the culture is a direct result of the lack in public courage to overturn an irrational devotion towards the STATE. The enormous capacity of government to punish is real and horrifying. Nevertheless, the inborn spirit of the power in human dignity and individual self-worth is much greater than all the torment that the STATE can muster against citizens.

The Patriotic movement long ago understood this simple adage. “A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.” Edward Abbey. Morally founded in natural law, individual independence and inherent human rights; the means of that defense should maintain non-violent resistance and civil disobedience. The STATE seeks to demand divine reverence. It deserves continuous vigilance from ‘TC’ oppression and continual defiance when it becomes a tyrant.

SARTRE – 03/14/10

“A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers…. The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth.” Aldous Huxley



[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

. . . something to get those brain cells firing – we need to end apartheid and abolish taxes as well as all nuisance laws . . .by voting MPs or Governors who are focused . . .

Random PCM political party (3rd Force coalition in formation – get formalized/those colours raised) before GE13 3rd Forcers!) articles – reposted by @AgreeToDisagree – 13th February 2012

In 3rd Force, Bumiputera Apartheid, Malaysia on February 13, 2012 at 1:39 pm


Youth chief’s bravado draws mixed views Thursday October 27, 2011

GEORGE TOWN: Parti Cinta Malaysia (PCM) national Youth chief Liew Yeow Hooi received ‘roses’ and ‘brickbats’ for chaining a wheel of an illegally parked government vehicle Friday at 2:33am near Kuala Lumpur.
While Penang Gerakan chief Datuk Dr Teng Hock Nan congratulated Liew for his action, state executive councillor Law Choo Kiang said Liew should not have taken the law into his own hands but should have notified the relevant authority instead.

Dr Teng praised Liew for his bravery, saying that the latter’s intention was to make a point that even high-ranking officers must obey the law.

“PCM was not trying to enforce the law but to point out that the law should be equal for everybody,” Dr Teng told a press conference after a walkabout by Penang Barisan Nasional leaders in Little India here on Tuesday.

Law, who is the state Agriculture, Agro-based Industries, Rural Development and Flood Mitigation Committee chairman said: “People must always remember that they do not have the power to enforce laws. An offence should not be resolved by another wrongdoing.

“Perhaps what he (Liew) did was more of a political gimmick.”

He said this after visiting a hospice home here on Tuesday to inspect the reconstruction of a wall which recently collapsed due to river erosion.

While pointing out that Liew could be sued for his action, Law said government officials must also set an example by parking their vehicles properly.

Liew, had during the first day of the current Penang state assembly sitting on Monday, chained the wheel of a state Economic Planning Unit 4WD vehicle which was illegally parked on Light Street in front of the state assembly building.

He claimed that he called the Penang Municipal Council to issue a summons to the vehicle but left after five minutes when no one from the council turned up.

He left without unlocking the chain and placed a note written in Chinese on its windscreen. The note read: “Don’t park your car wherever you like. Please show good example to the people. Our world will only look up to knowledgeable people, not those who act in an uncivilised manner.”

Liew had admitted that he ignored instructions from the police on duty at the state assembly building who told him to remove the chain.
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Marah Freedom I recently lost a spare tyre, who stole it? “Don’t park your car wherever you like. Please show good example to the people. Our world will only look up to knowledgeable people, not those who act in an uncivilised manner.”

Word of Law vs Spirit of Law. If the parking does not affect anyone to any degree, leave them alone. Think ORGANIC not faux-knowledgeable, yer supficial git. If you keep being ‘civilised’ then imposing punishments, society will end up poorer for the inconvenience and waste of time aqnd effort and mean spiritedness of people who think to impose what they consider civilisation or not, even though they could just simply leave the issue to resolve itself. The car will only be parked for a few hours and will be driven off later, why so petty and controlling?


DAP man under scrutiny
BUTTERWORTH: A DAP state assemblyman and his brother were given a 60-year lease on a piece of agriculture land in Bukit Mertajam with an 80% discount on the premium, claimed Parti Cinta Malaysia (PCM) vice-president Huan Cheng Guan.

He claimed that the land, measuring about 1ha at Jalan Song Ban Kheng, was leased to Padang Lalang assemblyman Tan Cheong Heng, 50, and his brother, Datuk Tang Chong Hock, 51, effective July 2011.

He said a photocopy of a land search on the plot, together with an accompanying land map, was left in his letterbox recently.

Huan claimed that Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng had stated that DAP leaders would not be allowed to apply for state land after Pakatan Rakyat took over Penang following the 2008 general election.

“Since everyone will be busy with the 2012 Budget today, I am giving Lim three days till Monday to reply to this allegation, failing which I will go to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission,” he told a press conference at the PCM headquarters in Chai Leng Park, near here, yesterday.

Huan said he did not have anything personal against the assemblyman but merely questioned the rationale behind such a thing which he claimed contradicted Lim’s Competency, Accountability and Transparency (CAT) policy.

Lim was quoted in a 2008 report as saying that DAP MPs and state assemblymen were banned from applying for land in Penang.

Cheong Heng said the land was a family inheritance from his late maternal grandfather Ng Hak Chooi @ Eng Hup Chooi who held a 30-year lease on the plot.

“My mother, Eng Siew Im, who is the only child in her family, was named the sole beneficiary of the piece of land.

“Sadly, she overlooked paying the land’s quit rent after my grandfather died in 1961 and so the land was automatically acquired by the state land and district office,” he said.

After the land lease expired in 1982, he said they submitted an application to renew the lease in 2003 but were given a temporary occupancy licence that was renewable annually.

Cheong Heng said they resubmitted a similar application last year and were recently awarded with a 60-year lease with an 80% discount in land premium.

He said they had obtained a discount on the premium charges as provided for in the National Land Code for property beneficiaries, adding that they paid RM98,097 in premium charges. They had also paid more than RM10,000 in quit rent arrears dating back to 1982.

Cheong Heng said the land was presently cultivated with oil palm, adding that the family had not made any decision to change the land status for the time being.


PCM questions DAP rep’s land acquisition 10:37AM Oct 7 2011

Parti Cinta Malaysia (PCM) has revealed an alleged non-compliance with Penang’s much-touted CAT government, delivering an apparent blow at Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng over an assemblyperson’s questionable purchase of state land.

CAT is competency, accountability and transparency, Lim’s motto for governing the state in an open and fair manner since Pakatan Rakyat took over the state in 2008.

DAP is more of BN except in BN it is UMNO, near 50% of DAP is unvotable because of nepotism or conflict of i9nterest of unlimited term issues. Kit Siang is another Mubarak, we cannot allow unlimited terms in politics if we don’t want another PAP style family dynasty killing meritocracy in Penang and Selangor via DAP’s self serving 750K funeral policies. Voting for BN and UMNO’s apartheidpolicies is no better, lets instead have independents who are aware of the above issues be voted in instead. Every RM200 they give you will be taken away via another policy that will take RM2000 from someone else from another sector. Forget about DAP, but will PCM be aware of the above issues and address them? Engage the voters Major Huan, and address the above issues honestly. If PCM can do the above suggested, then PCM is that 3rd Force party that voters will look to to remove Pakatan’s nepotism and self serving 750K funeral policy paradigms, and BN’s extreme corruption, neurotech and psychiatric establishment abuse and apartheid against the near 2/3rds population of the world in the Indian and Chinese voters. PCM ready to endorse the end of APAERTHEID, as an alternative 3rd force to the problem causing Pakatan (50% unvotable) and BN (90% unvotable) types?


Guan Eng broke land pledge’ 2011/10/06 by Sharanjit Singh and Adie Suri Zulkefli

Parti Cinta Malaysia vice-president Huan Cheng Guan showing the land in Bukit Mertajam which has been leased to DAP Padang Lalang assemblyman Tan Cheong Heng. — NST picture by Zulfa Mohamad

GEORGE TOWN: The state government has been urged to explain why a prime piece of land at the heart of Bukit Mertajam has been leased to a DAP assemblyman — a move which contravenes Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng’s promise that no elected representatives under his administration would be allowed to apply for state land.

Lim made the promise weeks after becoming chief minister in 2008 but Parti Cinta Malaysia vice-president Huan Cheng Guan yesterday revealed how the state government had leased out a one-hectare plot to Padang Lalang assemblyman Tan Cheong Heng.

Huan said a search at the Seberang Prai Tengah district and land office showed Tan and his brother, Chong Hock, were registered as fifty-fifty owners of the land at Jalan Song Ban Kheng in Bukit Mertajam.

The registration of the document for the 60-year lease was dated July 28 this year.

“This is truly shocking as the state land has clearly changed hands to a DAP representative and his brother, who is the treasurer at the Bukit Mertajam PKR division.

“Everyone in Penang remembers Lim loudly proclaiming that DAP representatives in Penang will not be allowed to apply for state land.

“He must now explain what has happened to this promise.”

Huan also called on Lim to explain why the land had been given to the two brothers at a massive discounted rate of 80 per cent.

“He has always linked Barisan Nasional to corrupt practices… Now, it is his turn to explain this land deal.

“After all, he is also the state land committee chairman and I am going to give him three days to answer everything.

“If he fails to come clean, I will lodge a report with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission.”

On March 24, 2008, Lim was quoted in the New Straits Times as saying that he would not entertain any land application from DAP elected representatives, and that he would take action against those who persisted in doing so.

He said the decision was reached following a meeting with all seven DAP members of parliament and 19 assemblymen in Penang.

In response, Tan denied the claims by saying that the land, which used to be an oil palm estate, was originally leased to his grandfather until it lapsed in the 1980s.

He said the land was subsequently seized by the state government but the family did not realise it until much later.

“My family made enquiries about the land again in the early 1990s but decided not to renew it as by that time, the cost to pay the assessment arrears and penalties were too high.

“However, we managed to get a Temporary Occupancy Licence (TOL) to occupy the land somewhere in the mid-1990s and it was renewable on a yearly basis.

“In early 2002, my brother and me decided to try and convert the TOL to lease status but it was rejected by the previous state government,” he said, adding that he and his brother decided to apply again last year.

He said their application was finally approved several months back.

Tan admitted that he and his brother had paid only RM98,097 for the land premium after the 80 per cent discount.

“As a family member of the former landowner, we are entitled to the 80 per cent discount as stated in the National Land Code.

“I am prepared to be investigated and if Huan is still not happy with my explanation, he may proceed by taking the matter up with the MACC or any other agency,” he said.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

This is what 3rd force parties should be about, removing abuses caused by the hagelian dialectic of dual party systems. PCM needs to address APARTHEID and demand for equality. As a former military linked man, I am sure Major’s voice will be heard loud and clear on behalf of the Indian and Chinese citizens across the world for Malaysia and the Malay Rulers to end the apartheid inflicted upon goodly and hardworking citizens whse aspiration if UN’s mandated EQUALITY.

I suggest a meeting of leaders from all the above parties to formalise a truly democratic 3rd Force to challenge the outdated and self serving BN and PR coalitions.

BN – Racist, Corrupt, Nepotistic

PR – Less Racist  (nothing about ending Apartheid, but lots about Hudud), Corrupt, Nepotistic

3rd Force – Corrupt at worst?

Leaders of 3rd force, meet and prepare. Voters, prepare to be free of all ill intentioned parties.

Criminalising liberty (First Segment) —Aston Paiva ( – 6th Jan 2010

In advice, Apartheid, Fundamentalism, intent, Malaysia on February 13, 2012 at 1:36 pm

This article will be divided into four segments. Each segment will be published two days apart for ease of digestion.

The first segment shall deal with the distribution of legislative powers between the federal legislature and the state legislatures in Malaysia. The second will consider the legal source of the issue at hand while briefly touching on certain policy considerations. The third  will look into the constitutional aspects of the issue at hand. The fourth will assess Malaysia’s representations to the world, its international human rights obligations and the legitimate expectation of the people of Malaysia as well as other ancillary matters.

The Issue

I was scrolling through the papers a few weeks back when I stumbled across an interesting piece of news. It was a news report published in the The Star on Dec 2 titled “Newlywed who gave birth faces legal action”.

The report states that a 21-year-old woman who gave birth to a baby girl 24 hours after her akad nikah was approached by a group of religious enforcement officers from the Jabatan Agama Islam Melaka (Jaim), while she was still in the Malacca Hospital, to take statements from her and her 28-year-old partner.

The Jaim chief enforcement officer, Rahimin Bani, said that the woman would be charged under section 54 of the Enakmen Kesalahan Syariah (Negeri Melaka) 1991 (En. 6/91) (”the enactment”) for being pregnant out of wedlock and her partner shall be charged under section 55 of the same enactment for being an accomplice in forbidden sexual intercourse. Anyone found guilty for either offence is liable to a fine not exceeding RM 3,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 24 months or to both.

I found all of this very disturbing indeed. For here you have a piece of law, section 54 of the enactment that is essentially criminalising the conception of a human being and imposing sanctions upon a woman for exercising her reproductive functions. In other words, what the Malacca state government is saying is “as a woman you have committed a crime by bringing another life into the Earth”.

Section 54 of the enactment, a state-enacted law, is in violation of Article 5 and Article 8 of the Federal Constitution. The fundamental liberties of the woman in this case are being trampled on.

But before we go into a discussion on fundamental liberties, there is much confusion among the public as to the source of power for federal and state law, so I shall dedicate this first (I) segment of this article to this nebulous area.


Malaysia is a country based on the federal model of government. Malaysia is a federation which consists of 13 states and three federal territories.

Briefly put, in a federal model, there is a central governing authority that makes all the big decisions that affect all citizens of Malaysia as well as the country. The source of federal legislative power resides in the Parliament. The laws passed will be called federal laws.

There are then 13 states which have their own respective governments which are led by chief ministers and whose source of state legislative power resides in the state assemblies (Dewan Undangan Negeri). The laws passed will be called state laws.

The Federal Constitution in the Ninth Schedule provides the subject-matter that both the Parliament and the state assemblies can make laws on.

Let’s have a look at some examples: In List I of the Ninth Schedule, the Parliament can make laws on external affairs (international treaties, conventions and agreements), defence (military and national service), internal security (prisons and police), civil and criminal law which affect all regardless of race or religion, citizenship, the machinery of government, finance, education, medicine, labour, publications, censorship, tourism, communication, transport, trade, commerce and industry, among many others.

A cursory glance at this list is enough to convince anyone that these are big areas of socio-political life that have a huge bearing on the life and liberty of Malaysians and the structure and direction of this country.

Now, let’s have a look at some examples of the state’s power: In List II of the Ninth Schedule, the respective state assemblies are able to make laws on land matters (Malay reservations, permits and licences, transfers, land tenure and acquisition), agriculture, forestry, municipal corporations, local services (burial grounds, markets, cinemas, etc.), works and water (roads and bridges), libraries, museums, the machinery of state government and Islamic law and personal and family law of persons professing the religion of Islam.

The list, as one would notice, is highly localised in nature. It caters to the community, history and culture of the respective states. It seeks to afford the state assemblies power to make laws that are most expedient and necessary for the citizens of that state.

There is also a List III where both Parliament and state assemblies have powers to make laws on but a discussion on List III will not be necessary for this article.

Thus, unless you live in Putrajaya, Kuala Lumpur or Labuan (the three federal territories), everyone is both a citizen of a state and a citizen of the federation.

It must be stated at this point that the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the federation and any law that is enacted which is inconsistent with the Federal Constitution shall be void (Article 4). The word “law” after the word “any” in Article 4 relates not only to federal laws but also state laws (Article 160(2)).

What this means is that the states cannot make laws which are inconsistent with the Federal Constitution (FC). State laws must themselves be compatible with the fundamental liberties enshrined in the Constitution.

Let’s have a quick glimpse at what our fundamental liberties are; life and personal liberty (Article 5), prohibition of slavery and forced labour (Article 6), protection against double jeopardy (Article 7), right to equality (Article 8), freedom of movement (Article 9), freedom of speech and expression, assembly and association (Article 10), freedom of religion (Article 11), rights in respect of education (Article 12) and right to property (Article 13).

These gems (Articles 5-13) are guaranteed to all who reside in this federation regardless of ethnicity, religion or state. These are the gifts inherited by all Malaysians by the mere fact that they are Malaysians. We elect our legislators into power to ensure that they will protect these liberties of ours and in the event they falter, the judiciary must rise, without fear or favour, to protect those who have been discriminated.

Conclusion of Part I

I have laid out the distribution of legislative powers between the federal legislature and the state legislatures in a nutshell. I shall go on to consider section 54 of the Enactment in greater detail in the second segment of this article.

As an addendum to Part I, I must add a recent report was also published in The Star on Jan 2 involving a woman who sat on a 20cm-wide ledge outside a window on the fourth floor of a hotel to evade being caught during a Pahang Religious Department raid for khalwat.

This is indeed a pressing issue riddled with many questions for the consideration of civil society.

Are we to allow officials from the state to violate the privacy of the citizens of Malaysia? Do “raids” and measures such as these truly serve the purpose of curbing immorality? Are there other more humane and thoughtful ways of dealing with immorality e.g. advising, counselling and raising awareness? In fact, is sex between consenting adults even an “immorality”?

Will charging people for khalwat really solve the problem? Is there even a problem that needs to be solved? Should sex between consenting adults be an issue for the determination of states? Should the state be concerned with what people do with their bodies? Is a person’s personal thoughts, expression and sexuality a matter for someone else i.e. legislators or judicial officers, to decide?

Should we be policing what people do to each other consensually if they pose no direct harm to society? What moral superiority do we pose to make moral judgments on another human being? Are we to punish people for their religious sins now or should they be punished in the afterlife? Aren’t we all such sinners that we ought to just leave punishments to God?

It is also no place for the non-Muslims in this country to argue “Ini bukan aku punya pasal sebab aku bukan Islam”. We are all children of this federation. As long as one of us is hurt, we must stand up for that person.

Neither is it an argument for the Muslims to say “Ini hal Islam, bukan Islam jangan masuk campur”. As long as a person is being treated unjustly and inhumanely by the law, the people of this federation must rise against such unjust laws.

It is wise to remember, the battle against slavery and racism was won because all regardless of colour, ethnicity or religion stood up against it.

In the chilling words of Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) during the rise of the Nazis:

“In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist; And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew; And then… they came for me… And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”

Criminalising Liberty (Second Segment) — Aston Paiva (

JAN 9 — Segment II of this article will look at section 54 of the Enakmen Kesalahan Syariah (Negeri Melaka) 1991 (En. 6/91) and certain policy considerations.

Let us consider section 54 of the enactment. I shall firstly reproduce it here in full:

“Seksyen 54. Hamil di luar nikah.

Seseorang perempuan yang didapati hamil atau melahirkan anak di luar nikah adalah merupakan suatu kesalahan dan apabila disabitkan kesalahan boleh dikenakan hukuman denda tidak melebihi daripada tiga ribu ringgit atau dipenjara selama tempoh tidak melebihi dua puluh empat bulan atau kedua-duanya sekali.”

Section 54 is passed by virtue of the Ninth Schedule List II of the FC which allows for State Assemblies to create offences and the punishment of those offences by persons professing the religion of Islam against precepts of that religion.

Section 54, in my contention would very clearly be criminal law, as it is found within the “Syariah Criminal Offences” of the state of Malacca. It is not, in my opinion, “Islamic Personal Law”, as might be argued by some, for if it was then it ought to be within the relevant Islamic Family Law Enactment of the state of Malacca.

Further, what lends credence to this is the fact that Islamic Personal Law is elaborated on in List I Item 4(e)(ii) of the FC as being laws relating to marriage, divorce, guardianship, maintenance, adoption, legitimacy, family law, gifts or succession, testate and intestate. This, I submit, is also the legal understanding of the phrase “Personal Law” and it does not entail a criminal sanction of any kind. Thus, section 54 would not be “Personal Law”.

Precepts of the religion of Islam

One might ask, what are “precepts of the religion of Islam”? That would be up to the determination of the relevant state legislators after, presumably, a series of rigorous dialogues with the office of the Legal Adviser of Malacca and Islamic officials and Islamic bodies namely; the Mufti, Jabatan Agama Islam Melaka, Majlis Agama Islam Melaka, His Royal Highness, Islamic NGOs, ulamas and jurists of as much schools of thought and theological backgrounds as possible (“the relevant parties”).

This is a very interesting process for we see an interplay between Islam and secular lawmaking under the FC. It is a very unique “coming together”. It seeks to extract the relevant Islamic precepts under the guidance and wisdom of the relevant parties with the participation of the office of the Legal Adviser of Malacca and the state legislators to see it passed consistently with the fundamental liberties enshrined under the FC. This is an extraordinary aspect about lawmaking within the states in Malaysia. It is in line with what Lord President Salleh Abbas (as he then was) said in Che Omar bin Che Soh vs Public Prosecutor [1988] 2 MLJ 55, when referring to the state of affairs after the British had arrived in Malaya:

“The development of the public aspect of Islam had left the religion as a mere adjunct to the ruler’s power and sovereignty. The ruler ceased to be regarded as God’s vicegerent on earth but regarded as a sovereign within his territory. The concept of sovereignty ascribed to humans is alien to Islamic religion because in Islam, sovereignty belongs to God alone. By ascribing sovereignty to the ruler, i.e. to a human, the divine source of legal validity is severed and thus the British turned the system into a secular institution. Thus all laws including administration of Islamic laws had to receive this validity through a secular fiat … the law in this country is still what it is today, secular law, where morality not accepted by the law is not enjoying the status of law.”

Of course, whether this “coming together” is indeed being done by the state legislators and the office of the Legal Adviser of Malacca with the relevant parties is questionable. Why is it an unconstitutional law like section 54 (and its equivalent in other states) continues to remain in the law books? And most importantly, how did it even make its way into the law books?

Clearly, the state legislatures in this country are not functioning as it ought to. This must be cured immediately through active advocacy by civil society groups, the Bar Council and the Federal Government.

Malaysia and Islam

Malaysia, as a country with a Muslim majority, has received a lot of attention from the rest of the world, particularly Europe, as well as a lot of compliments from Islamic nations. This, I would think, is driven by the fact that we were once extremely pluralistic, tolerant and broadminded in our ways.

I think what makes this country noteworthy is the fact that, since our independence, we have tried to sow Islam in accordance with the values, culture and principles of the people of Malaysia whether they be Muslims or not. It is part of our shared heritage; our diversity.

But, of course, that slowly began to change during the latter half of the Mahathir administration where, in my opinion, Islam was arrogated by politicians and used as a trump card against Western nations and their policies.

In wanting to adopt an “identity” predicated on “eastern values”, the Mahathir administration had sought to make Malaysia the very anti-thesis of a “Western liberal democracy”; curtailing civil liberties, removing political dissidents and policing morality, thoughts and behaviour among Muslims — all in an effort to cultivate a “holier than thou” disposition when compared to the “greedy”, “ignorant” and “arrogant” Western nations.

It is most unfortunate that the fallout of this vendetta against the West was the resultant spiritual penury and intellectual poverty among the Malaysian population.

Noticing this fallout, the Abdullah Ahmad Badawi administration began sowing the seeds of Islam Hadhari (Civilizational Islam), a progressive Islam, whose principles included “Freedom and independence to the people” and “Protection of the rights of minority groups and women”.

Sadly, in the quest towards establishing this moderate model of Islam, the Abdullah administration was inundated with allegations of corruption, political scandals and internal politicking. Islam Hadhari, from where I see it, was neither successful nor fruitful as an initiative. We are now in an unpredictable state of limbo where fervent religious extremists continue to utilise religious demagogy to exert pressure unto the lives of Muslims in this country; attempting to police morality, thoughts and behaviour under the guise of divine authority. This is a very dangerous and highly volatile situation. It will ruin all the ideals this country was built upon; our pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness will dissipate.

We must always remember that the Federal Constitution is our final compass and regardless of ones religion or ethnicity, no one must be subjected to any law that violates the all-pervasive fundamental liberties enshrined within the Constitution.

Conclusion of Segment II

I must add, as a legal point, that Article 74(3) of the FC states that the power of the relevant state assemblies to make laws must be subject to the conditions or restrictions imposed by the FC and that the civil courts are at liberty to assess the constitutionality of such laws i.e. State Enactments (Latifah bte Mat Zin vs Rosmawati bte Sharibun & Anor [2007] 5 MLJ 101 @ Para 53 & 54).

In conclusion, when it comes to state- enacted Islamic laws, especially so syariah criminal laws, both state legislators and the relevant parties must work together for only then will there be no conflicts or inconsistencies with the FC thereby offering all Muslims in this country adequate protection under the State Islamic Laws and the Federal Constitution.

I shall be dealing with the unconstitutionality of Section 54 in the next segment of this article.

written by Katharina Sri (former: Noor Aza), January 09, 2010
Speak truthfully will you? I was censored in your blog yesterday; despite that I’m only targeting Dark Age Muslims, especially Al-Qaeda bred! Further, the Sharia ‘Laws’ have always been oppressive, way before Mahathir. How come if you are fighting for progressive Islam such as so-called Islam Hadhari, there are secretive concentration-camps like, where no relatives are allowed and surrounded by barbed wire such as in the notorious Ulu Yam rehabilitation camp in Selangor, to imprison ‘deviant’ Muslims, for minimum 6 months. Where such Muslims, if not jailed in normal prisons have to undergo ‘rehabilitation’ in becoming ‘true’ Muslims again! Including converts such as the case of the tortured Revathi – see…icle&sid=5

I’m a convert myself to Christianity, and have to escape to Germany, since my sentence would be harsher, being a Malay! The rest of so-called ‘deviant Muslims including those detained for simply clubbing, for wearing ‘immoral’ dressing or for behaving ‘immorally’ – even in their private lives! Where are the brave so-called human rights lawyers, especially Muslims ones, to fight against such injustice towards such ‘deviant’ Muslims and non-Muslims like Revathi and myself. I’ve written to many lawyers but none are willing to take my case unless I pay up very high amount! Thus, at the moment, I’m campaigning through my writings – thank Christ for that! Anyway, my last point is – Why should I hide my Christianity as many had suggested if I want to stay on in Malaysia – it’s because as you said it, I simply find that the Sharia ‘Laws’ that criminalize my liberty is despicable!

Criminalising liberty (Third segment) — Aston Paiva (

JAN 12 — Right to Privacy – Article 5

In the recent Federal Court case of Sivarasa Rasiah v. Badan Peguam Malaysia & Kerajaan Malaysia Civil Appeal No. 01-8-2006(W) 17th November 2009, it was held that the word “personal liberty” in Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution, which reads: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law” and includes within its compass other rights such as the “Right to Privacy”.

I am in complete support this decision by the Federal Court. All State bodies and public authorities should be urged to adhere to this decision and to respect the constitutional “Right to Privacy” of the citizens of Malaysia.

Following international human rights norms and case laws from foreign jurisdictions, the “Right to Privacy” is a wide and encompassing right. The “Right to Privacy” is, succinctly put, the “right to be let alone”.

The purpose of such right is to secure conditions favourable to the pursuit of happiness while recognizing the significance of humankind’s spiritual nature, of its feelings and intellect; to protect people in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations (Gobind v State of MP, (1975) 2 SCC 148)(Olmstead v. United States, 277 US 438 (1928)).

A citizen, by virtue of her personal liberty, has a right to safeguard the privacy of her own, her family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child bearing and education among many other matters (R. Rajagopal v. State of TN, (1994) 6 SCC 632). Thus, in other words, the “Right to Privacy” would be a right for the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted government intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person (Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 US 438 (1972).

Matters such as pregnancy, child birth and sexuality are matters of great confidentiality and privacy. These matters involve important deliberations on part of a person with regards to their own body, well being and health. These are also matters which require a critical personal assessment on part of the person affected and the State should not be allowed to undermine a person’s decision or the autonomy one has over herself.

The woman and her husband in this case ought to be let alone to determine the status of their family life and marriage on their own. These are not matters for the State or for Jaim to decide but instead should be left to the personal consideration and private contemplation of the couple.

Any law that makes pregnancy and/or sexual intercourse between consenting adults an offence is both unjust and unconstitutional.

Of course, the next line of questions would be:

* Is it not the case that the sanction imposed upon her was in accordance with law? (following the words of Article 5 of the FC).

Indeed that would be the case. Section 54 of the Enactment is law.

* What is the meaning of the word “law” within Article 5?

For that, we must look at Article 160(2) of the FC which defines “law” as written law and the common law of England.

* Holistically speaking, what would “law” then encompass?

It would encompass the procedural and substantive dimensions of the Rule of Law; as AV Dicey highlights — that there be no arbitrariness, equality before the law and the Constitution is the consequence of the rights of individuals.

Thus, whatever law that is enacted must not be arbitrary, it must place everyone equal before it and be subservient to the fundamental liberties enshrined within the Constitution.

Having outlined these, we now proceed to the next area, where we see the principles of the Rule of Law beautifully entrenched within Article 8 of the FC in relation to “law”.

Equality – Article 8

Following Sivarasa’s case, it was held that, when a violation of a constitutional right takes place, Article 8(1) of the FC, which states that: “All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law” will be engaged immediately in that the State action in question, might it be legislative, executive or administrative, must be shown to be fair and just and proportionate to the aims being sought.

Equal before the Law

In order to show whether one is placed ‘equal before the law’, it must be shown that a particular law is fair and just in that a person from one class is treated the same as another person from the same class (PP v Khong Teng Khen [1976] 2 MLJ 166).

It can thus be argued that Section 54 is unfair and unjust for it treats the pregnant Muslim woman in this case unfavourably compared to all other Muslim women that live in this Federation, as it imposes a criminal sanction upon her for being pregnant when such a sanction does not apply to other Muslim women.

This argument is taken under the basis that there ought to be no discrimination on a woman for being pregnant whether she is married or not. What she wishes to do with her own body is entirely her own prerogative. Nobody has the right to instruct her on how she should exercise her reproductive and bodily functions.

Equal Protection of the Law

Now, in order to show that one is being given “equal protection of the law”, it must be shown that the law in question is proportionate to the aims being sought i.e. the means must justify the end. One must not use a sledgehammer to crack open a nut. Laws must not be arbitrary.

It will thus be argued that Section 54 and the subsequent decision to prosecute the woman is disproportionate to whatever aim presumed to be sought.

If it is indeed the case that the Malacca State Government and Jaim intends to curb incidences of children being born out of wedlock in order to, presumably, preserve public morality, it would be far more proportionate an action to work with Jabatan Pelajaran Melaka to introduce sex education and gender studies in schools and universities to educate the youths on ethical behaviour and safe sex practices.

It would also be proportionate to the aim being sought for the Malacca State Government to work together with Jabatan Kesihatan Negeri Melaka, Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat Negeri Melaka and Pejabat Pembangunan Wanita Negeri Melaka to provide counseling to the public about family life as well as offering free contraceptives to increase awareness among the general public; positive efforts to reduce incidences of unwanted pregnancies, backdoor abortions and discarded infants (buang bayi).

Prosecuting a woman for being pregnant out of wedlock will not solve anything for the public still remains to be uninformed about matters pertaining to family life and safe sex practices. Further, the State government must also be mindful and respect the decision of the woman if it was her intention to have the child, whether she is married or not.

It is also the case that in the event the woman is found guilty and is sentenced to prison, her child would be deprived of a mother (and even a father if the man in the said case is also found guilty under Section 55).

Discriminatory Legislation

Additionally, Section 54 is in violation of Article 8(2) of the Federal Constitution, which reads: “Except as expressly authorized by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender in any law.”

Section 54 of the Enactment is a provision of law that discriminates against women. As a provision of law, Section 54, aside from expressly referring to women also penalises women for exercising their reproductive functions; functions not exercised by men.

Comparatively speaking, this places women at a detriment compared to the men. A criminal restriction is placed on all women but no such restriction shall or will ever apply to men for the lack of such reproductive functions. In other words, a male can never be charged under Section 54. Such a law treats women unfavourably owing to their gender and their reproductive functions.

“Personal Law” Re-visited

There will also be no conflict with Article 8(5)(a) of the FC which states that Article 8 does not invalidate or prohibit any provision regulating personal law. I have stated in the second segment (II) of this article that I do not believe Section 54 is “personal law” for there is an imposition of a criminal sanction, taking it out of the ambit of “personal” and into the domain of the “public”. This is solely a criminal offence; an offence that is blatantly in violation of the fundamental liberties guaranteed by the FC.


Likewise, even in instances where people are arrested and prosecuted for close proximity/Khalwat, questions still remain:

1. Would invading a couple’s home/room in order to arrest them and charge them for being together violate their constitutional Right to Privacy?

2. Are such actions even proportionate to whatever aim is being sought, presumably, the preservation of public morality?

3. Should the State be concerned with actions done privately by consenting adults?

4. Are there other more pragmatic ways of trying to instil awareness among the Muslim population rather than treating them without dignity i.e. humiliating and embarrassing them, arrest, charging them, imprisoning and/or fining them?

5. Are Malaysian Muslims truly being afforded protection under the Federal Constitution?

These are questions that civil society must ponder on to reach a logical, rational and reasonable resolution.

Conclusion of Segment III

Jaim’s decision to prosecute the said woman would not only be contravening her Right to Privacy and her Right to be Free from Discrimination as enshrined by the Federal Constitution but it would also be disproportionate to the aims being sought.

At this point, it would be up to civil society and the relevant Women NGOs and Islamic NGOs to vehemently urge the State Legislative Assembly of Malacca to repeal Section 54 of the Enakmen Kesalahan Syariah (Negeri Melaka) 1991 (En. 6/91) for being unconstitutional and unjust.

In the fourth segment (IV) of this article, I shall be dealing with Malaysia’s representations to the world, its international human rights obligations and the legitimate expectation of the people of Malaysia as well as other ancillary matters.

Criminalising Liberty (Fourth Segment) — Aston Paiva (

JAN 15 — In the previous segment, we considered the the constitutional validity of Section 54. I shall now conclude with a consideration of Malaysia’s representations to the world, its international human rights obligations and the legitimate expectation of the people of Malaysia as well as other ancillary matters.


The Government of Malaysia has formally acceded to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) on July 5, 1995. Under CEDAW, State Parties (SP) are to:

* accord to women equality with men before the law (Article 15);

* take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to family relations and to ensure same rights and responsibilities as parents, irrespective of marital status, in matters relating to their children (Article 16(d));

* eliminate discrimination against women by; ensuring that public authorities and institutions shall not discriminate against women (Article 2(d));

* take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination by any person or organization (Article 2(e));

* modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices which constitute discrimination against women (Article 2(f));

* take all appropriate measures in social and cultural fields to ensure the full development and advancement of women, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms (Article 3);

* ensure that women have sufficient access to specific educational information to help to ensure the health and well-being of families, including information and advice on family planning (Article 10(h)); and most importantly,

* ensure that family education is provided and this includes a proper understanding of maternity as a social function and the recognition of the common responsibility of men and women in the upbringing and development of their children (Article 5(b)). Nonetheless, as the constitution of Malaysia is dualist in nature i.e. it supposes a distinction between National Laws and Internationals Laws, and international conventions will not bind Malaysia as against the local populace unless and until the Malaysian Parliament enacts a domestic Federal Act to give international law legal effect domestically. An example is the Diplomatic Privileges (Vienna Convention) Act 1966 which Malaysia enacted on Dec 9, 1965 after ratification of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations on Nov 9, 1965.

Thus far, Malaysia has failed to enact any domestic law to give CEDAW legal effect. This is devious and crafty. While the Government boasts to the international community that it has ratified CEDAW, its own populace are deprived of the fruits of CEDAW owing to the Government’s refusal in enacting the enabling Act. Only with a loud yet focused support from civil society, the Bar Council and other international bodies can the importance of “Women’s Rights” be nailed into the heads of our lawmakers (especially those with thicker skulls).


But, one should bear in mind that aside from CEDAW, the Government of Malaysia has made numerous other representations to the world of its stand on eliminating discrimination against women and the upholding of human rights. We read about this in the newspapers all the time. We see it on the internet. We hear it over the radio. We watch it on television. These are information within the public domain. Surely all of this declarations and proclamations must or should mean something? Surely all of this confirms that we have a Government that truly does take an interest in international human rights affairs and the fundamental freedoms of its citizenry?

Surely, we as Malaysians have a legitimate expectation that when representations are made by the Malaysian Government that it is in support of international human rights norms, that it and its subordinate bodies as well as State bodies will not act inconsistently with those representations.

This issue came to great prominence in the phenomenal Australian High Court case of Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Ah Hin Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273. In that case, Mr Teoh, who had made an application for an entry permit into Australia, was married to an Australian citizen and had a number of children. He was convicted of an offence and was to be deported. Australia had ratified the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC) but there was no municipal law enacted to give CRC legal effect. It was held in that case:

“…ratification by Australia of an international convention is not to be dismissed as a merely platitudinous or ineffectual act? Rather, ratification of a convention is a positive statement by the executive government of this country to the world and to the Australian people that the executive government and its agencies will act in accordance with the Convention. That positive statement is an adequate foundation for a legitimate expectation, absent any statutory or executive indications to the contrary, that administrative decision-makers will act in conformity with the Convention and treat the best interests of the children as ‘a primary consideration’.”

In short, the Australian government had to consider the interest of the children and take into account the deprivation of their breadwinner and father must be taken into account before deciding to deport Mr Teoh. I must be very clear and state that this is not a backdoor measure of trying to enforce international law. It is simply a way of saying that the Government of Malaysia must be sincere in its representations to the world and to the citizens of Malaysia and must live up to its mandate. In other words, if it talks the talk, it is expected, that it will walk the walk. If the government does not intend to live up to its declarations it has no business making them.

It is under this ambit, that the woman vis-a-vis Section 54 is being unfairly treated. For a Government that has always laid claims to protecting the rights of women and to the empowerment of women, laws such as this should not exist within the Malaysian law books. Blatantly discriminatory laws like these should be repealed immediately so the woman cannot be charged.

Let us now take a look at some of the other representations made by Malaysia.


Malaysia adopted the Vienna Declaration shortly after the World Conference on Human Rights on 25 June 1993 where we gave our commitment to promote universal respect for, and observance and protection of, all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. More importantly, the Declaration also states in Paragraph 5 that while the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms. This must be staunchly adhered to by all arms of the Federal and State Governments in this Federation.


Malaysia has also adopted the Beijing Declaration on Sept 15, 1995 at the Fourth World Conference on Women where we affirmed our commitment to ensure the full implementation of the human rights of women (Paragraph 9) and the empowerment and advancement of women, including the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, thus contributing to the moral, ethical, spiritual and intellectual needs of women and men (Paragraph 12). Malaysia is also supposed to be convinced that the explicit recognition and reaffirmation of the right of all women to control all aspects of their health, in particular their own fertility, is basic to their empowerment.

Putrajaya Declaration and Programme Of Action on the Advancement of Women in Member Countries of the Non-Aligned Movement

This was adopted on 10 May 2005. Malaysia committed itself to:

“review and amend all laws in order to identify and eliminate negative traditional and customary practices that discriminate against women.” (paragraph 38(a)).

This is a bold commitment indeed, which unfortunately goes out the window with the prosecution of the woman under Section 54.


It now beckons upon various civil society groups, in particular Women’s NGOs and Islamic NGO’s to urge the Malacca State Government, Jaim and the Government of Malaysia to live up to the legitimate expectation of the citizens of Malaysia that they will act in accordance with the Articles in CEDAW, the Vienna Declaration, the Beijing Declaration and the Putrajaya Declaration.

It is of paramount importance, that the woman and the man in this case be allowed to lead their lives peacefully without any arbitrary interference from State authorities into their private and family life and that their fundamental liberties under the Federal Constitution be observed.

Is that not the least that we are all entitled to?

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Fabulous article, but when I asked this guy to endorse and run on the below ticket :

1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy.
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution.

(If not another), know what this guy said when asked to run for candidacy despite being a high minded article writer and trained lawyer? He asked that his own candidacy be paid for by someone. Real cynical.

2 Articles On Inequitable Sentencing In England, 1 Article on Narrowmindedness – reposted by @AgreeToDisagree – 13th february 2012

In Apartheid, Bad By-Laws, bad laws, checks and balances, critical discourse, Fair Chrges, intent, Media Neutrality, media tricks, neurolinguistics, political correctness, politics, preventing vested interest, racism, spirit of the word, subtle insults, unique, vested interest, word of the law on February 13, 2012 at 1:29 pm


Student, 20, arrested for ‘frying hamster in a pan for ‘laughs’ at wild house party’ – by David Baker – Last updated at 12:35 PM on 11th February 2012

Police have arrested a 20-year-old student who is alleged to have cooked a hamster in a frying pan when a raucous house party got out of control.

Officers were called to the flat in York and were left horrified to discover the pet rodent dead in a frying pan in the kitchen.

They had broken up the wild party after calls from neighbours complaining about the noise and it is thought an investigation will now hinge on whether or not the hamster was already dead before it was fried.

Cruel: A student allegedly cooked a pet hamster like this one in a frying pan at a house party in York (file picture)

North Yorkshire Police confirmed that a joint investigation has been launched with the RSPCA over the incident.

A spokesman said ‘A 20-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal.

‘He has been released on bail while inquiries continue.’

According to the RSPCA someone in the UK dials their 24 hour cruelty line, on average, every 30 seconds.

last year they investigated 159,686 cruelty complaints and secured 2,441 convictions by private prosecution to protect animals against those who break the laws.

Last month, Paul Henry was sentenced to six months in jail after he cooked

Callous: Paul Owen Henry, 45, put a cat in a microwave and killed it

a pet cat to death in a microwave in Gainsborough, Lincolnshire.

Lincoln Magistrates Court heard how 45-year-old Henry had cooked his friend’s beloved black and white moggy ‘Suzie’ after he was left home alone at his flat.

How brazen can you get? Thief steals phone from girl’s bag… and poses with it in front of good Samaritan passenger FILMING him

The cat’s owner Andrew Parsons, 38, returned from work to find the remains of the 18-month-old cat in the microwave oven and the words ‘Menu fried cat £1.20’ written on the kitchen wall of the flat.

District Judge John Stobart told Henry, that he was passing the maximum sentence the law allowed after describing it as the ‘worse case of animal cruelty’ he could imagine.

He told Henry the cat was killed in ‘the most brutal and sadistic way’ and added, ‘I can’t think of a worse case of animal cruelty.

‘When Andrews Parsons eventually returned home he was to find his TV broken, his light fitting destroyed and the cat dead in the microwave after suffering the most appalling death.

Prosecutions for animal cruelty have been enforced since 2007, when the Animal Welfare Act became law in England.

The Act places a legal obligation on owners and keepers of animals to care for them properly.

Sick: The writing on the wall found at Mr Parsons’ flat, reading ‘Menu Fried Cat £1.20’. Mr Parsons found Suzie’s body in the microwave

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Who’s going to pay for the jail term? Neither the student nor Henry intends to attack people so not need to imprison, at most get an injunction order against touching or handling cats at least. Sentence Henry to work at an Animal Welfare home at most. As this animal was not bred and intended as a food animal, there should be some outcry, but imprisoning does not make sense. At most microwave Henry (abit) to teach Henry about humane culling and send Henry to study a humane culling course for cats (I suggest Korea where a fine fine made from Cat has been the tradition for years). Henry though should learn the difference between food animals and pets. The mental makeup and socialisation of the 2 types of animals is entirely different, food animals probably being heavily drugged and not given oppoerunity to socialise with their own species. As for the hamster case, if humane culling occured, then no issue, but it is doubtful that humane culling is a skill among racuous teens.




Fines for spitting? Council pushes for right to fine those caught in the act By Daily Mail Reporter Last updated at 1:17 AM on 11th February 2012

Action: Enfield Council are hoping to persuade Communities Secretary Eric Pickles to argue with their proposals to fine people for spitting

A council is hoping to become the first area in Britain to ban spitting in public.

Enfield Council in North London has asked Communities Secretary Eric Pickles to approve a bye-law, after huge local support

More than 3,000 residents signed a petition in favour of a ban.

However, just four  people raised objections during a consultation period.

If Mr Pickles gives the thumbs-up, the council aims to have the ban in place within a month.

Council enforcement officers would be empowered to hand out fixed penalty notices – expected to be around £80 – to anyone caught spitting.

Those refusing to pay could face prosecution and a potential fine of up to £5,000.

Although the borough’s CCTV cameras would not be used to detect incidents of spitting, it is thought that film could be brought in evidence in any court cases.

Christianity under attack: Anger as major court rulings go against British worshippers

Enfield councillor Chris Bond, environment member of the council’s cabinet, said: ‘Spitting is a truly disgusting habit and the vast majority of people are in favour of us banning it.

‘It is now up to the Government to decide whether or not we can ban spitting in this borough and I’d urge them to listen to the views of people living here and give us the ability to tackle this foul practice once and for all.’

Watch out: Anyone caught spitting in Enfield could be fined £80 should the proposals be accepted (Posed by models)

Here’s what other readers have said. Why not add your thoughts, or debate this issue live on our message boards.

The comments below have been moderated in advance.

So, no-one posting comments has ever had a bad cough? You’re walking along, cough, bring up a mouthful of green splodge, you don’t have a hankerchief and you can’t see a bin or a drain…what do you do…chew on it for a while? Impossible to enforce…another fat councillor inventing non-jobs to keep your council tax rolling in to his bank account.

– amanda, gloucester, 11/2/2012 10:45
Rating   538

I though spitting was an offence I can remember signs saying £5 fine

– george, Hitchin, 11/2/2012 10:45
Rating   340

Can we start with the Great game of football. Some of the players need an IQ test. They may have the cars money and WAGS but they need to be taught some manners.

– Toto Kubwa, Cyprus, 11/2/2012 10:43
Rating   493

What next fined for breathing.They should fine bankers and politicians for ruining our lives and it should not be £80.

– cyril, bedford, 11/2/2012 10:38
Rating   381

Not hard to see why it’s become popular watch any football match, some of our players could spit for England !

– Birdseye, Chepstow, 11/2/2012 10:37
Rating   299

Being old I can remember when this was an offence – a finable offence – just about everywhere. Question is, who decided that this should be dropped? Some trendy maybe. I believe that the offence was a local by-law offence, not an offence against a Parliamentary Act. I suppose we’ll now see arguments over just who is responsible for enforcing this with the police telling us yet again it isn’t their job and that they are too busy doing other things more important. Interesting that there are never published figures showing the number of police actually on duty but in police stations (i.e. an hourly graph) as a comparison of those in the streets dealing or preventing offences.

– Norman Speight, London UK, 11/2/2012 10:34
Click to rate     Rating   173

Report abuse

To right, on the spot fine or turn up at the police station to pay your fine. I’m thed up with seeing people spitting out there flem onto the pavement of which I walk upon. Some parts of Coventry are bad enough dodging all the dog mess but I have to keep my eyes on the pavement looking out for flem. It’s dirty and can spread all sorts of illness around.

– Paul, Coventry, 11/2/2012 10:34
Click to rate     Rating   244

Report abuse

“A council is hoping to become the first area in Britain to ban spitting in public.” Spitting in public was illegal before WW II. I remember the notices on lamp posts forbidding it on pain of a £5 fine. More than a weeks wages at that time and there were more police around to enforce it.

– John, Surrey, 11/2/2012 10:34
Click to rate     Rating   213

Report abuse

How will you get the youth of today to stop spitting when “sports men” set the example by doing it all the time. One of the prominent signs on buses used to be “No spitting” one reason for this was that it was considered to be a source of spreading TB which was rampant in the 40’s and 50’s. We are now faced with even deadlier TB so it now would be a good time to stamp out this filthy habit on the streets and on the play fields, start by fining the big earning football players.

– Bev, Gillingham Dorset, 11/2/2012 10:34
Click to rate     Rating   237

Report abuse

What next? Farting in public. I don’t like spitting as much as the next person but feel this is going too far. I run long distance and when I do I produce overwhelming amounts of congested rubbish off my chest which is often black (I don’t smoke I live in a city). Do you really expect me to swallow that, or should I carry a spitoon?

– Nan, NY state, 11/2/2012 10:32

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Depends on where the spit actually goes (notwithstanding where it was intended to go – grassy knolls where people are not going to be sitting, drains, or down drain covers should be ignored) and the intention of the spitter or reason for spitting. No need to fine, an option to clean up the mess can be given in lieu of fining. Also a 80 sterling fine is too high. It’s a spit wad, and will not cost 80 sterling to clean up. Equitable remember? How about an 8 sterling fine instead? That is along the lines of 1-2 mins of cleaning work by any workers. In a high volume area in fact, the pedestrian traffic would render the fine meaningless, please use common sense. If someone was fined for farting it’d be similar. In less than a minute nothing would remain, so how could anyone expect to pay for that. You’d have all kinds of people accusing the police of being malicious and making up stories instead.

Word against word, that sort of thing – IF 80 sterling (because 80 sterling is too much) the sheer unfairness factor would doubtless result in challenges to the case and refusal to cooperate. As for 8 sterling, being fairly reasonable, would not meet such resistence because the fairness factor is there. But if they try to cut the civilian throats with cuthroat fines, doubtless the citizen will see fit to retaliate in whatever form, namely simple denials against the offensively high fine for an inconsequential offence. If the police lays a hand on the indignant person about to walk away, assault reports etc.. will result. Society will become less harmonious because a spit wad becomes a reason to fine heavily. Orwellian England strikes again!




Dwarf left disabled after he was picked up and thrown to the ground blames England rugby team’s World Cup antics for copycat attack – by Emma Reynolds – Last updated at 3:29 PM on 16th January 2012

Career-ending: Martin Henderson was celebrating his birthday at a pub when he was picked up and dropped

A dwarf who is facing life in a wheelchair after being picked up and thrown to the ground has blamed England’s rugby team for giving his attacker the idea.

Martin Henderson suffered injuries to his back and legs after being dropped on to the hard ground as he had a cigarette outside a pub in Wincanton, Somerset.

The life-changing attack on the 37-year-old came shortly after the England players visited a ‘dwarf-tossing’ competition at the World Cup in New Zealand.

The stars, including Zara Phillips’s husband Mike Tindall, were disciplined for attending the event, as well as for other acts of bad behaviour on the tour.

Mr Henderson believes that the violence that has put an end to his promising acting career could have been inspired by the news story about the players’ night out in September.

‘The England players had been in trouble for going to a dwarf tossing event and this might have given this guy the idea,’ he said.

The rugby stars were seen downing shots as they partied in a Queenstown bar called Altitude, which was hosting a ‘Mad Midget Weekend’.

This was also the night that Tindall, newly married into the Royal Family, was captured on CCTV kissing ex-girlfriend Jessica Palmer.

The night out followed a disastrous opening match for the England team, setting the tone for their appalling performance on and off the field during the tournament.

Mr Henderson, who suffers from achondroplasia dwarfism and spinal stenosis, said his legs went numb after the callous attack.

He said: ‘I had surgery on my back in 2010 and was making really good progress and my surgeon was really happy with me.
Party time: Dan Cole and Steve Thompson were among the England players who were on a night out in the Altitude Bar in Queenstown

Party time: Dan Cole and Steve Thompson were among the England players who were on a night out in the Altitude Bar in Queenstown

‘But then this happened and it’s kicked it all off again. I keep falling over and I found out today that I have fractured my arm.

‘Every time I stand up I don’t know if I’m going to fall over. I will have to use a wheelchair and I won’t get any acting jobs.

Paralysed rugby player who thought he would never have a family defies doctors to walk, wed, and have a baby daughter

‘I just hope they catch him. I don’t usually have any trouble and I know that I have never upset anyone in Wincanton.’
Numb: Mr Henderson, 37, said he struggles to stay upright and often falls over following the attack

Numb: Mr Henderson, 37, said he struggles to stay upright and often falls over following the attack

Mr Henderson has made an allegation of assault and police have launched an investigation and issued a description of the offender.

The attack on the 4ft 2ins man from Milborne Port, near Yeovil, happened outside Wincanton’s White Horse pub.

Mr Henderson has appeared on TV’s Bigger Breakfast and as one of the seven dwarfs in the pantomime Snow White.

He also appeared alongside famous dwarf actor Warwick Davis in the TV mini-series 10th Kingdom – an adventure programme featuring Snow White, Cinderella, and Little Red Riding Hood.

Now he fears he will not be hired for any more acting jobs. ‘We were having a good night out to celebrate my birthday and there were a few of us drinking together in a corner of the pub,’ he said.

‘I went outside for a cigarette and the next thing I know I’m suddenly in the air and someone has got hold of me. I was then dropped on to my back on to the hard floor.

‘From what I remember, there was only one person involved but it was very  scary as I didn’t know what was going on.

‘I guess I was an easy target and the only reason I was picked on was because I am small.

‘People’s attitudes to me when I go out can be pretty cruel. Most are OK but you get the odd idiot who will make fun and start laughing at me.

‘You just have to ignore it but this is the first time I have been picked up and thrown about.’

Mr Henderson described the attacker as being white, about 5ft 8ins tall and of a slim build with dark hair and a hooded top.

A police spokesperson said: ‘Officers investigating would like to speak to anyone who may have been in the pub on the night of October 7.

‘It follows an incident in which a small person was picked up by an unknown person in the bar and dropped.’

Here’s what other readers have said. Why not debate this issue live on our message boards.

The comments below have been moderated in advance.

why use the term “a dwarf” ? Would “man” not suffice? At the end of the day a man of normal height would probably sustain injury in similar circumstances.

– facts, poundland, 13/1/2012 12:26
Rating   33

What an incredibly cruel thing to do…but l think going to a commercial venue where they do so-called “dwarf tossing” is also horrible and if it was up to me l would punish the whole team for bringing the sport into disrepute. Just because the people being tossed are getting paid does not excuse such foul behaviour.

– Alien McWeirdo, Some Wild Abandoned Star, 13/1/2012 11:13
Rating   27

I hope he has stopped smoking!!!

– facts, poundland, 13/1/2012 11:08
Rating   41

Dreadful but….”Mr Henderson believes that the violence that has put an end to his promising acting career ” (sic)…………….Oh please.

– J H , Bournemouth, 13/1/2012 10:53
Rating   38

Surely he should blame the ‘dwarf tossing’ competition organisers…dont hate the player, hate the game…

– jb, Glasgow, 13/1/2012 10:44
Rating   4

He should take them to a small claims court

– Kerry, Berkshire, 13/1/2012 10:15
Rating   8

Disgraceful. How could anyone stoop so low?

– Charles, Auckland, New Zealand, 13/1/2012 09:38
Rating   30

I sincerely hope they catch the brainless moron who did this and that he ends up in prison for a long time. However, I’m not holding my breath on either count.

– Scotty, Cambs., UK., 13/1/2012 08:44
Rating   37

Horrible and not right what happened to him. I’d quit smoking just to be safe if I was him.

– Cartman, Denver, USA, 13/1/2012 05:21
Rating   28

Laura, England What’s wrong with you?

– mew, england, 13/1/2012 01:47

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Another form of dehumanising objectification from mere difference leading to treatment as an object. Under the correct circumstances, the sheer difference and objectifiability gives the objectified person great power, the space between differences a source of energy no end, hence the popularity of/or the remarkable presence of LGBTs. However in a rowdy crowd filled with rough and uneducated (ineducable) people intolerant of differences in general suffering back home or at work or at school, we can see how enthusiasm for sport can become violence from sheer intolerance.

Too fat, too thin, too foreign, too short, too tall, too strange, and formerly in most of the first world too gay (effeminate or campily flouncing around doesn’t help though there  should be a place for that too) or too LGBT, (this is a severe problem in the 3rd world if you look at the laws and refusal of MPs to demand it’s change . . . ) all result in the closed minded, poorly traveled, or simply fundamentalistic mind/society intent on defending ‘comfort zones’ converting or beating into conformity, being too lazy to grow new neurons to form new views – ‘clinging to guns and religion’ as it were. They instead respond in the basest manner possible. Similarly the psyche establishment poisons and electrifies, implants, controls any who do not fit into a society to preserve ‘peace’ which actually is a form of stagnation.

Who needs to be so uniform? Only the conventional would be so uniform. In general the well read and upper crust types have more excess/neuronal energy at their command and are thus able to absorb and buffer against differences, in part media needs to present and normalise the strange and uncommon, the thought provoking, even jarring, though not too jarring and not too often while retaining ‘safe zone’ channels for the weak minded cowering in their own insularism. Meanwhile yob preferred sports venues, or some political parties with narrow views are not the best place to be different in. The comfort zone issue is insanely protected as all which are not human are objects. So they threw Henderson because of stupidity and lack of exposure to dwarfs. Suggest that tv programmes include HOURLY all sorts and varieties of people for a start, then later the more unique and strange and different the better. Insularism of a different sort, mental laziness, racism sliding into outright Nazi-ness, then Fundamentalism, finally APARTHEID and you know the rest ‘Aryans’ on crusade in ‘sand n1gg3r’ country . . . appreciate diversity don’t abuse diversity. Dwarves should form their own colonies and refine those genes by marrying the next healthiest dwarf. In the event that some virus wipes out entire populations but leaves dwarves alive, the next generation of humans could well be midgets only.