marahfreedom

10 Articles on Malaysian Politics : Spying, Neurotech or Occultism?, A Potential 3rd Forcer MP Candidate, More NGO Flounder, A Potential Neurotech Cover Up, Best Practices while being Racist does not a Nation make, Nepotistic DAP needs more democracy and less posing – Attacking Strawmen does nothing to end APARTHEID, Strawman for the Strawmen to Misdirect from the REAL ISSUE – APARTHEID, EU Ambivalence or More Collusion? – reposted by @AgreeToDisagree – 11th May 2012

In 1% tricks and traps, 3rd Force, advice, Apartheid, Malaysia, Nepotism, neurolinguistics, Neurotech, unprofessional behaviour on May 11, 2012 at 9:20 am

ARTICLE 1

Singapore expats say assaulted by bodyguards of Malaysian royalty – by Shannon Teoh – May 09, 2012

An aerial view of Pulau Rawa. — malaysia-islands.com pic
KUALA LUMPUR, May 9 — Four Singapore-based expatriates have alleged that they were attacked by bodyguards of a Malaysian royal family while on holiday at a Johor island.

Singapore’s The Straits Times reported today that the men were “brutally assaulted” within hours of arriving at Alang’s Rawa resort on Pulau Rawa, the second attack in seven years on the island with alleged links to Malaysian royalty.

According to the daily, the attack at the resort island off Mersing left a 28-year-old British man covered with injuries and his German friend in intensive care with bleeding in his brain.

“They grabbed my arm, surrounded me, and kicked me in my genitalia to disable me first, then the onslaught just happened,” the man, who spoke on condition of anonymity, was quoted as saying by The Straits Times.

The holidaymaker said he and his three friends, all in their 20s, were having dinner on Friday night when the Malaysian VIP arrived with “a lot of security” and “they started playing hip-hop music.”

According to the newspaper, the two victims were invited over for drinks including shots of tequila with the VIP, also in his 20s, and his cousin.

“He was friendly all along and showed no hostility at all. My friend was in mid-conversation with the VIP and his cousin when this aggressive-looking guy just slapped him out of nowhere.

“I don’t know what the nature of the conversation was, I was at the other end of the table, but there was something that was said that wasn’t ‘correct’,” he said.

According to the Brit, the German was followed to the bathroom by the bodyguards.

“I went to see what was going on, but got pushed out of the bathroom. I don’t know what happened in there, but he ran out like a bullet… through the bar and out onto the beach then into the forested area, and they chased him down,” he said.

He added that the remaining men then turned on him before he dashed into the sea, swimming back to shore only after the attackers had left.

He said he then returned to his room and alerted his other friends, but the attackers had caught up with the German man on another part of the island.

According to the newspaper, the group were asked to leave the island the next morning but not before they had settled their bills for the drinks and lodging.

“We were warned by a European lady working there that it was no longer safe. A boat was arranged for us in 10 minutes and we just left,” the Brit said.

The Straits Times also reported that although Alang’s Rawa confirmed that the victim and his friends were guests there, operations manager Fairus Ahmad denied the account, as did the manager of Rawa Safaris, the only other resort on the island.

“We have checked with all staff and management and they have confirmed that they do not know of any incident either,” Fairus was quoted as saying.

The newspaper reported that back in Singapore, the German man was placed in intensive care with bleeding in his brain and was moved to a normal ward yesterday.

In 2005, a group of six men, allegedly including a Johor prince, gate-crashed a Brazilian couple’s wedding at Pulau Rawa and attacked wedding guests with golf clubs and sharp objects.

Police detained four men, including a member of the Johor royal family in his 20s, but freed all of them on bail a few days later.

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

‘ . . . but he ran out like a bullet… through the bar and out onto the beach then into the forested area, and they chased him down,” he said.’

Neurotech recording or neurotech manipulation which was detected possibly caused the offense. The Royals are abit of MI6 as well, and would seem to be versed in Neurotech or even Spiritual techniques most Western upper echelon spies appear to be training in. The German and Brits were spies probably innocuously posing as tourists. The ‘brain injuries’ were not incidental and would indicate this ‘Mind Combat’ situation where the presence of ‘weapons’ (of the mind) in presence of the rulers was retaliated against. Know why the running out to the forest occurred? Perhaps to dispose of neurotech or allow (if spiritual) the ‘attacking spirit’ to escape. Conversely the entire incident was a sandiwara to snare interested conspiracy theorists or occultists into sending their thoughts in the direction of the conspirators who cooked up a story. 3 versions! Whichever is true will be applicable.

ARTICLE 2

Has Malaysia become a Police State? – by Tommy Thomas – July 7, 2011 – http://www.malaysianbar.org.my

Death threats. Bomb threats. Warning on revocation of citizenship. Preventive detention. Arrest of hundreds for wearing Yellow T-shirts. Banning of organisations. Prohibition of peaceful marches.

Is one describing Burma? Or Zimbabwe? No, this is Malaysia in July 2011, in its 54th year of independence. Has paranoia gripped the decision-making elite in Kuala Lumpur?

But for its grave repercussions, one would have to laugh at the disproportionate overreaction and incompetence of government agencies in recent weeks.  Has Malaysia become a police state, with no place for the rule of law? So what is the problem that has attracted the ugly, heavy hand of the executive.

It is only a call by ordinary voices for electoral reform so that future elections are conducted freely and fairly, that is, on a level playing field, with no political party or candidate having an in-built advantage over its rival parties and candidates, very much, like all runners in a 100 metre race starting at the same point with the same distance to run.

Is that not a laudable objective that should receive the support of everyone who truly believes in the democratic process?

When Malaya achieved Merdeka in 1957, it chose the parliamentary democracy style of government under a constitutional monarchy, with the Federal Constitution as the supreme law.

In order to elect a government, general elections are to be held at least one in every five years under the supervision of what was intended to be an independent, impartial Elections Commission to act as a neutral referee or umpire in electoral contests.

In the actual conduct of general and by-elections since 1957, the Election Commission has failed. The actions of governmental agencies such as widespread gerrymandering of constituencies, the domination by one political party of television, radio and print media, a brief campaign period of between 7 to 10 days, the granting of gifts, money and other benefits to voters, have resulted in the ruling coalition having a tremendously unfair advantage whenever elections are held.

It is against this background that BERSIH, a coalition of organisations interested in electoral reform, announced its decision to organise a peaceful march in the streets of Kuala Lumpur on Saturday, July 9, 2011 to call public attention to the ills of the electoral system, and to present a memorandum to the Agong.

Is the Government seriously contending that as a sovereign nation which has enjoyed over five decades of independence, Malaysia cannot tolerate or survive the exercise by thousands of its citizens of their entrenched fundamental liberties of free speech, assembly and association on a Saturday afternoon!

It must be recalled that in the 12-year sunset period of British imperialism over Malaya from 1945 to 1957, the British colonial rulers permitted the holding of public rallies which were brilliantly exploited, first by UMNO in 1946 in leading the opposition to the Malayan Union proposal, and subsequently by the Alliance coalition from 1954 to 1957 in its campaign for Merdeka.

Bearing in mind that those rallies, marches, demonstrations and assemblies were held during the Emergency declared to fight the Communist insurrection, and would result in the ending of colonial rule, the British Government did not ban such rallies, even if it was in its self-interest to do so.

For Merdeka to be meaningful, surely every Malaysian must enjoy greater and better rights in independent Malaysia in 2011 than his or her forefather enjoyed under colonial rule in 1946!

Demonising BERSIH and its outstanding leader of courage and conviction, Ambiga Sreenevasan brings great discredit to the government. It smacks of a witch hunt, McCarthy style.

For the Prime Minister to describe Ambiga Sreenevasan as being anti-Islam shows his true commitment to his own 1Malaysia philosophy – it is just window-dressing!!

I know of no law in Malaysia which prohibits a person from wearing yellow clothes. Thus, there is no Colours Act or Clothes Act under our law which empowers the police from arresting persons because of the choice of garment colour.  Even totalitarian North Korea does not act in such a high-handed, mean and petty way.

When the streets of Kuala Lumpur are no longer safe with the massive increase of crime, and an apparent breakdown of law and order, the Police are allocating their resources to preventing ordinary law-abiding Malaysians from exercising their constitutional rights of free speech, assembly and association.

Compounding its mishandling of the entire situation was the abdication by the elected Government of resolving the problem, apart from a crude outright ban against BERSIH.

For His Majesty, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, as constitutional monarch, to enter the political fray – probably unprecedented in 54 years – is an indictment of poor governance by the Najib administration. The Prime Minister is elected to lead – what has been displayed hitherto has been dithering leadership reminiscent of the Badawi administration.

The fascist elements of the state, whose main aim in life seems to be to protect and serve the interests of the ruling party, must be reminded that Malaysia does not belong to the Prime Minister.

Neither does the nation belong to the political party that happened to win the most seats in the last Parliamentary election in March 2008 thereby forming the government of the day.

Just as the electorate gave it a mandate to rule temporarily, it can withdraw that mandate at the next general elections which must, by law, be called by mid-2013.  No political party has a divine right to rule continuously. Malaysia, on the contrary, belongs to the people, whose interests may often not coincide with that of the ruling party.

Not allowing the people of Malaysia to express their opinion on a matter of vital public interest, viz, the electoral system, by assembling peacefully in Kuala Lumpur is wholly unacceptable. It is neither right nor proper.

The behavior of our leaders indicate that they are desperate to hold on to power by all means, and every measure must be taken by the state to prevent what they perceive as a threat to their own position.

It is an iron law of history that besieged, desperate leaders who believe they are indispensible or identify themselves with their countries ultimately lose power : it is always only a matter of time.

I urge my fellow Malaysians to attend the rally on Saturday in droves, and to behave in a peaceful, civilised manner with a single-minded focus on calling for a reform of the badly marred electoral system so structured in favour of one party.

Malaysians must, with pride and dignity, exercise their fundamental rights of free speech, association and assembly on 9th July 2011 so that the executive branch of government can be shown to have totally underestimated the good sense of the people.

The shameful conduct of Malaysian politicians and bureaucrats in the past weeks must be wiped clean by the actions of the citizenry on Saturday. See you there.

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

If Tommy Thomas is ready to head a Malaysian Delegation to UN and NAM or BRICs as well for the below 3 items :

1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism (Article 1 Human Rights Charter)
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy. (Article 18 Human Rights Charter)
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution. (Surah An Nisa 4:75)

We should vote for Tommy Thomas under a 66.6% quorum for CM as an independent candidate in Penang’s most important constituency at once (with an intent to modify the Malaysian constitution to allow a True Democracy form one-man-one-vote system as to the PM, DPM’s, EXCO, MP and Assemblymen posts similar to the USA’s Presidential vote.

CM Lim Guan Eng is too much of a CEO wannabe that joined politics for profit (evidenced by the 750K funeral request from  BN – of all people) on the back of an undemocratic, term limitless and nepotistic, also abusive DAP political culture, doubtless afflicted by PAP affiliation, and only is CM by virtue of cult of personality father Lim Kit Siang. A detestably undemocratic and 3rd world-like situation not much better than BN’s similar situations.

Tommy Thomas, ready to be CM of Penang? We need EDUCATED people in politics not ‘Daddy-Anak’ b.s. in too much of the Dewan.

ARTICLE 3

The truth about migrants in Malaysia: AND IT’S NOT PRETTY! – by Director Irene Fernandez – Wednesday, 09 May 2012 21:47

“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world..”: that is the first sentence in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

As a member of the United Nations, Malaysia has proclaimed to hold this Declaration to the highest standards, to protect & promote respect for these rights and freedoms, and to actively secure effective recognition of these rights for all persons. “Inherent, universal, inalienable rights” applies, of course, to migrant workers too. It applies to all 2.6 million migrant workers in Malaysia. This is a basic premise that we call on the Malaysian government to accept. Should they not, we ask them, as members of the international community, to explain why.

These discussions of fundamental rights and dignity of all persons, all workers, including all migrant workers must be had openly, frankly and publicly in Malaysia. Tenaganita, has consistently and loudly voiced deep concerns over the inherent and critical problems in the system of recruitment and employment of migrant workers in Malaysia, and of many aspects of Malaysia’s immigration policies that are in harsh violation of fundamental rights and that restricts access to justice. The tragedy is that we have raised these issues (backed by civil society and unions, nationally and internationally) for the past 2 decades, without seeing much in the way of the Malaysian government actively making significant changes to the system in order to protect the rights of migrant workers. The State has unfortunately found it more useful to attack the news-bearer. Does shooting the messenger change the facts on the ground?

Fact: Approximately one out of three workers in Malaysia is a migrant worker. Labour policies therefore have wide reaching consequences on the rights of workers in Malaysia where a significant number of workers are open to exploitation, abuse and violence reflecting modern day forms of slavery.

Fact: Two countries within ASEAN, Indonesia and Cambodia, have frozen the recruitment and placement of domestic workers from their country to Malaysia.

It is understood that that is in response to numerous reports of serious rights abuses against domestic workers here in Malaysia. The Malaysian government, however, remains numb to action, and has not brought about any form of comprehensive legal mechanism to actively protect and promote the rights of domestic workers (who also have inalienable rights). When the majority of countries at the International Labour Organisation (of which Malaysia is a member to) voted in resounding support for the Domestic Workers Convention (known as ILO Convention 189) Malaysia abstained (despite having over 200, 000 domestic workers currently in the country and active plans to recruit more). Is this a reflection of the State’s position that it does not want to recognize nor actively protect the fundamental rights of domestic workers?

Fact: In the latest Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Malaysia and Indonesia on domestic workers, there are escape clauses built in that once more place the domestic worker in a vulnerable state.

The Malaysian government did agree to a separate bank account for domestic workers, one-day off a week, and for passports to be kept with the worker herself. There are, however, follow up clauses which state that the one-day off can be converted into “overtime” and passports can be kept for ”safe keeping” by the employer. It is like the right hand gives and the left hand takes it away. The rights to rest and to hold one’s passport disappears. Article 24 of the UDHR states “everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay”. Why is there resistance on the part of the Malaysian government to not do everything in its power to ensure that the full enjoyment of those rights for domestic workers as spelled out in Article 24 are protected and promoted?

Fact: Four years ago, Tenaganita and the Malaysian Bar, along with several other members of civil society, submitted a memorandum to the Malaysian government which consisted of a comprehensive policy on the recruitment, placement and employment of and model contract for migrant workers in Malaysia.

The comprehensive policy would be the basic framework for the development of laws and mechanisms to actively protect and promote the rights of migrant workers in the country. This open and direct call for this policy was made to the State in recognition of the widespread and serious human rights violations against migrants in Malaysia. Four years later, the Malaysian government has still yet to respond to this call from civil society and the Malaysian Bar.

We have instead seen increased measures to institutionalize practices that have crippled the rights and dignity of migrants. One such example is the amendments made to the Employment Act in December 2011 to also define “outsourcing companies” and “labour contractors” as “employers”. Outsourcing companies and labour contractors have been key factors in the trafficking of persons for labour in Malaysia, a fact that the State is aware of. The State also pushed through this amendment in spite of strong protests from Unions and civil society. This is a classic case of failed governance to address human trafficking and to protect the human rights of workers.

Fact: In 2011, Tenaganita handled the cases of 453 migrants in Malaysia, who were predominantly victims of labour trafficking, including migrant workers, refugees and domestic workers. The top key violations were: unpaid wages; arrest, detention & deportation; denial of days of rest; overtime wages not paid; absence of a contract signed between the employer and the employee.

These forms of violations reflect both the abuse of labour rights and the state of ‘forced labour’ that these migrants were in while in Malaysia. These forms of violations are also not random acts by abusive employers. The non-recognition of domestic workers in the Employment Act, the widespread abuses by outsourcing companies, the non-recognition of the rights of refugees to work, the denial of undocumented workers to access redress (regardless of how they became undocumented), the sluggish actions by the State to actively prevent human trafficking, abuse, violence – all these realities converge in a hot, bubbling cauldron of human rights abuses that migrants are thrown into.

Dismissing these cases as ‘isolated incidences’ does not change the reality. A State that proclaims to respect human rights would understand that these cases warrant urgent and immediate actions to address the laws, policies and practices by the State that create an environment for these cases.

Fact: Migrants access to redress and justice is debilitated under existing legislation and practices by the State where the right to stay and the right to work have been denied.

Firstly, in order to remain legally in Malaysia, migrant workers are required to have valid passports and work permits. The Immigration Act, however, gives full power to the “employer” to obtain, renew and cancel the work permit, while punishing the migrant for any violations of the work permit. This is clearly problematic when migrants seek to take cases against their employers, as their employers can (and commonly do) react by cancelling the work permit thereby rendering the migrant ‘undocumented’ and subject to arrest, detention, whipping (if they are male) and deportation.

The Immigration Act does have an allowance for workers to apply for a ‘special pass’, at the cost of RM100 per month, and it can only be renewed three times. If the case is not resolved within these 3 months, the migrant worker must return home.

Tenaganita’s experience during the past 15 years shows that due process takes more than 6 months, sometimes up to 6 years before a case is resolved. While the case is being investigated and brought to court for hearings, the worker is not allowed to work. The policy framework thus denies the worker’s right to stay to get redress and denies the worker’s right to work to support him/herself (and pay for the special pass) while the case is in court. On the other hand, Malaysian workers can continue to work while waiting for a resolution to their complaint (as rightly so). Such a policy thus not only denies the migrant worker due process but it is also discriminatory against migrants.

Furthermore, responses by enforcement departments to migrant cases filed with them are more often than not poor. Tenaganita files a police report in all cases that involves the withholding of passports of the workers by employers. This is done because the withholding of the passport belonging to someone else is a serious offence under the Passport Act and without their passport, the migrant worker faces threats to their security in the form of arrest, detention, whipping and deportation. Without their passports, and facing these very real threats, migrants find it extremely difficult to leave their employers and seek justice. In many instances, this puts the migrant in a state of forced labour. Despite the seriousness of this, the police, however, do not act on these police reports. In some instances, they have told the migrants to “file complains in the Small Claims Tribunal”. This lackadaisical attitude by enforcement officers towards the human security of migrants and the acceptance of this criminal act by employers should not be taken lightly by any quarters of the State.

Fact: Domestic workers defined as domestic servants meanwhile cannot seek redress for violation of rights except to claim for unpaid wages under the Employment Act simply because their rights are not recognized in the Act. The First Schedule of the Employment Act, under Employee (5) states “ he is engaged as a ‘domestic servant’ – provisions section 12, 14, 16, 22, 61 and 64 and Parts IX, XII and XIIA are not applicable”. The Minister has the powers to withdraw these exclusions and bring about equal treatment to domestic workers without making reforms to the Employment Act.

Why has the Minister of Human Resources not made the decisions to repeal the clause in the First Schedule, even when doing so would keep with the State’s commitments to respect, promote and defend the rights spelled out in the UDHR, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination (CEDAW) and especially in General Recommendation 26 of CEDAW?

The above policies and practices by the State therefore increases the risk of human rights abuses against migrants, inhibits the migrants access to justice and allows employers of migrant workers to act with impunity.

Fact: When the registration into the biometric system through the 6P programme ended on August 31, 2011, the Minister of Home Affairs announced that 2.6 million migrant workers had come forward and registered. Out of this figure, half of this population (1.3 million workers) were undocumented.

In spite of the overwhelming response by undocumented workers to legalise their status, when the 6P ended on April 10, 2012, the Home Ministry revealed that by February of 2012, 94, 856 workers had opted to return home while about 300,000 had applied for work permits. Our question is: what has happened to the almost 1 million undocumented migrants who had registered and wanted to be legalized? Have the 340 government-approved agents submitted the applications or have the workers been cheated? We want answers from the Home Minister.

Malaysia as a member of ASEAN, has put the spanner in the works and derailed the development of the action plan on migrant workers because it has not accepted the term “migrant workers”. The term ‘migrant workers’ should not be controversial or disputed; it is globally recognized and defined in the UN and ILO Conventions.

This petty objection is symptomatic of a larger, more critical problem in Malaysia: the refusal of the State to recognize neither the basic rights of undocumented workers nor the rights of families of migrant workers. While these rights are defined in the UDHR, the Convention to End All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), all of which Malaysia is a party to, it is critical that these rights are explicitly spelled out in regards to migrant workers so as to ensure more effective protection. Malaysia however continues to be the stumbling block to the development of an effective action plan for the promotion and protection of rights of mobile populations within ASEAN.

The challenge to this government and the political leadership is to not be arrogant but redeem itself with humility to the feedback from us, from civil society, from unions, from governments of source countries and from international institutions to ensure that we, as a nation, reach global standards in the protection of rights. We call on the Malaysian government to respond openly to this challenge.

We call on the Malaysian government, as members of the ILO, to begin this positive response by signing onto (and implementing) the various conventions that ensure decent work and decent wages for all workers, both migrant and Malaysian.

Today, in the 21st century, Malaysia has created an underclass of workers called migrant workers who are open to extreme forms of exploitation that reflects modern day slavery. Will the Malaysian government work with us to stop us from hurtling further in this direction, and collaboratively create an environment that respects, protects, promotes and defends the rights and dignity of all workers, including migrant workers?

Dr Irene Fernandez is the Executive Director of Tenaganita

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

BERSIH is bad enough, and here we have Tenaganita which is a watered down BERSIH IMHO equally useless where at least  BERSIH had capacity for violence (though violence should be a last resort thing – i.e. if Ambiga was dying in prison and the protestors wanted to save Ambiga then would some kind of riot be appropriate . . . ). What useless platitudes Irene spouts! Talking about migrants when normal citizens are suffering apartheid and disenfranchisement?

Is Irene from APARTHEID IGNORING Pakatan, or fronting for RACIST BN when NORMAL citizens do not even have :

1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism (Article 1 Human Rights Charter)
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy. (Article 18 Human Rights Charter)
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution. (Surah An Nisa 4:75)

File lawsuits against all racists or political parties  non-compliant with the Human Rights Charter or use the below response to ‘Article 9’ to remove the racist MPs from government.

Otherwise disband Tenaganita or give up that Executive Director’s post. Neither Executing nor Directing. Don’t you dare ignore APARTHEID against the minorities while going all nice and fuzzy on MIGRANTS.

We are a nation divided as all laws and constitution stands, and Irene talks about migrants! File that lawsuit already!

I’ll tell you and everyone what TRULY is not pretty – CMs of Penang, Executive Directors of Tenaganitas, and Leaders of BERSIHs IGNORING APARTHEID and talking about migrants or rioting or sending ‘pork to Muslims instead . . . File that lawsuit at UN, NAM, BRICS or the International Criminal Court at Hague to end APARTHEID in Malaysia already!

ARTICLE 4

NGOs, parties say Irene Fernandez has tarnished nation’s image – May 09, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, May 9 — A number of non-governmental organisations and political parties today slammed Tenaganita executive director Irene Fernandez for tarnishing Malaysia’s image through the Indonesian media.

They also called on the government and police to take stern action against Fernandez including closing Tenaganita, as it could continue to be a virus that hurts Malaysia’s reputation.

The NGOs and political parties concerned also demanded that Fernandez retract her statement about labour conditions in the country and apologise to Malaysians. — Reuters file pic
Ikatan Rakyat Insan Muslim Malaysia (IRIMM), Amir Amsaa Alla Pitchay said Fernandez’s action was that of a traitor to the country as it could adversely affect Malaysia-Indonesia relations.

“If you want to criticise your own country that way, better not stay in Malaysia and not even eat here,” he said at a press conference, which was also attended by representatives of Dewan Ekonomi dan Sosial Muslim Malaysia (DESMMA), Pertubuhan Kebajikan dan Dakwah Islamiah Malaysia (Pekida), Ampang branch of the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) and MIC Wangsa Maju division.

The Jakarta Post had on Monday reported that Fernandez claimed, among others, Malaysia was not safe for Indonesian workers because it did not have a legal framework or specific law to protect migrant workers.

She was also reported to have said that it was not in the Royal Malaysian Police’s power to shoot three Indonesian nationals who were house-breaking and robbery suspects in an incident in Port Dickson recently.

DESMMA president, Mohd Fazil Abdullah said Fernandez was more willing to run down her own country than feeling proud of having a peaceful country like Malaysia.

“More than two million Indonesians work in Malaysia and if the problems mentioned by her are so serious, they would not continue to come here to earn a living.

“Malaysia is still a peaceful place to earn a living compared to some other countries. If there are problems, they should not be blown out of proportion because she (Fernandez) should investigate first.

“Don’t simply make accusations because the number of problematic Indonesian workers is small,” he said.

Mohd Fazil regards Fernandez as being ungrateful for making such allegations against the Malaysian police as they have kept the country peaceful for more than 200 years, and she herself had benefited from a safe environment due to a police presence in the past.

The NGOs and political parties present at the press conference also demanded that Fernandez retract her statement and to apologise to Malaysians. — Bernama

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

Irene should just include ALL of the above groups and persons in that lawsuit as well. Stop addressing non-issues Irene. Or would Irene like to hand over that Executve Director’s post to someone more capable.

ARTICLE 5

Owner of killer dog could face charges, says MPSJ – May 09, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, May 9 — The owner of a pit bull, which attacked and killed a septuagenarian in Subang Jaya yesterday, can be prosecuted despite the canine having a licence.

Subang Jaya Municipal Council (MPSJ) deputy corporate director Azfarizal Abdul Rashid said, although the dog had a licence, the onus was on its owner to abide by the conditions imposed by MPSJ.

The conditions come under the MPSJ Law on Licensing of Dogs and Dog Breeding House 2012.

“Among others, owners cannot allow dogs to go free but must put them on a leash and under control when outside their premises,” Azfarizal said in a statement today.

He said, if the owners were found to be negligent, they could be compounded for RM1,000 and the dogs seized.

Azfarizal said the dog involved in the fatal attack has been seized by the Selangor Veterinary Services Department to facilitate investigations.

Yesterday, Yip Sun Wah, 74, was jogging when he was attacked by a male pit bull belonging to a neighbour on Jalan 19/5E, SS19 Subang Jaya. Yip died on the spot. — Bernama

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

Here’s a draft for a law that any legislators of any country could use in this sort of case. The punishment (unless neurotech is involved) should be neither fine nor jail term BUT for the owner of the offending animal to :

a) provide for an equal number of persons or years of life lost (to the victim replace with ‘Care Provision’ from such attacks or persons in equally debilitating conditions)
i) for this case the septuagenerian probably had 10-20 years of life to live so punishment of care provision should be 10-20 years as well
ii) younger persons dying would make the owner liable to several decades worth of care provision
iii) with next of kin liable if the offending owner dies before the ‘care provision period’ is completed :

b) the animal is not to be put down
i) because the natural instinct is not the animal’s fault – in wild animals do hunt for food (geezer here is just food, there is no way to pre-educate as of this day)
ii) if the animal has been witnessed to have been verbally goaded or attacked by the victim (alive or not)

This sort of law should make owners of naturally vicious dogs that might kill be very careful as next of kin, nearest relative, even distant relative would become liable to provision of care for surviving persons. Again this is not about money or imprisonment and enriching prison contractors.

ARTICLE 6

Indonesia’s complex political landscape, and why we should be aware of it — Farish A. Noor – May 09, 2012

MAY 9 — I write this with a heavy heart, for yet again I am convinced that I suffer from the Cassandra complex. That is, being in a position to see what might happen in the near future but not having anyone listen to me and to end up being summarily dismissed as a worrisome bore instead.

I am sad because yet another row has emerged between Malaysia and Indonesia, and once again ties are strained over the issue of foreign workers in Malaysia. I am sad because, yet again, I see Southeast Asian citizens falling back into the neatly demarcated enclaves of national identities and forgetting the simple fact that the region was once a criss-crossing overlapping patchwork of communities that were perhaps less divided than they are today.

I am sad because, yet again, I see narrow nationalism overcoming regionalism, and countries trying to score points at each others’ expense.

The backdrop to this is the recent controversy about statements made by Malaysian activists about working conditions of workers in the country. Complicating matters is the fact that the statement/s were taken up by the Indonesian media, given some coverage, exploited perhaps by some parties, and eventually leading to investigations — rather than dealing with the real issue of workers lives and rights.

I will not comment on the personalities involved here, but I wish to make some observations about the state of Indonesian politics at the present that may be useful for some people.

Firstly, many of us simply do not understand and realise how complex and plural Indonesian politics has become in the post-Suharto era, where the country can be said to be going through a period of ‘hyper-democracy’, with the proliferation of so many new parties.

Gone are the days of Suharto where Indonesian politics was made up of three major parties — Golkar, PDI, PPP — and where government-to-government relations were handled on the elite level.

Suharto’s demise has also led to the weakening of the formerly dominant Golkar party, opening up new opportunity structures for new aspiring political entrepreneurs and wannabe elites who see party membership as a means for upward social-economic mobility.

Secondly, Indonesia has also experienced radical changes in terms of the relationship between the formerly powerful centre and the periphery. If during Suharto’s era the country was predominantly centrist in its organisation, Indonesia today has experienced a steady process of decentralisation since the era of Megawati.

Local elections, proportional representation (at party candidature level), local ordinances, etc have shifted power from Jakarta to the outer island provinces as never before, lending the impression that there is no longer a singular Indonesia focused on Jakarta, but rather many competing centres of power.

Thirdly, with the opening up of civil society and democratic space, and with the rise of local politics and political entrepreneurialism, politics has saturated all levels of Indonesian society in a myriad of ways, most noticeably in the domain of NGOs and CSOs. Compounding matters is the blurring of the distinction between NGOs, CSOs and political parties — many of which support each other and are mutually dependent.

Fourthly, in the present climate of an Indonesia undergoing rapid and visible transformation, one salient feature seems to be the relative absence of ideological contention between the parties, NGOs and CSOs. Many of the new social movements and parties in the country foreground a broad nationalist agenda, and quite a few of them articulate a vision of a dominant, powerful and even aggressive Indonesia vis-a-vis the rest of Asean.

It is against this context that groups like the hyper-nationalist Laskar Merah Putih and other groups have emerged, calling upon Indonesia to be more aggressive towards other countries. Over the years as I watched Indonesia’s political centre move slowly to the right, such developments alarm me due to their populist nature and their capacity to mobilise crowds against the perceived threat of outsiders and “enemies”. Malaysia has become the punching bag of some of these groups, and attacks on the Malaysian embassy have grown more frequent, and dramatic in their symbolism.

Here it has to be emphasised that many ordinary Indonesians are unaware of the fact that the Malaysian media and civil society has not followed the same path as theirs. My Indonesian friends and students are often surprised when I tell them that Malaysians generally do not attack the Indonesian embassy in KL.

It also has to be stated categorically that despite the tone and tenor of the more radical anti-Malaysian groups in Indonesia, thus far not a single Malaysian has been assaulted or injured in any way, and that the level of hostility thus far is largely symbolic, and confined to the extreme right-wing fringe of the political spectrum only.

Now it is with these factors in mind that my own stand on the question of foreign workers in Malaysia has been a nuanced and calculated one. Often, I have been asked by students and activists in Indonesia about the state of foreign workers in the country.

My response can be summarised as follows:

1. While host countries are obliged to protect the rights of foreign workers in their country, they are, I feel, obliged to protect the rights of their local workers too. It is unfair to simply criticise the host country if the Indonesian government does little to secure the rights of their own workers abroad.

2. While some of these Indonesian NGOs are so vocal about the abuse of workers in foreign countries including Dubai, the UAE, etc., why is it that they remain relatively silent about the poor working conditions of Indonesian workers at home? And if so, whose agendas are they really serving?

3. And if these Indonesian NGOs are so concerned about how workers are being cheated by employment agencies in foreign countries, why are they relatively silent about the cheating that takes place in Indonesia, by the recruitment agencies there?

It is for this reason that I am weary and wary of compounding matters further, and of unwittingly aiding the extreme right-wing hyper-nationalists in Indonesia by taking sides in any argument. My deepest worry is that with the rise of hyper-nationalism all across Southeast Asia today, in so many Asean countries, my longing to see the emergence of a peoples’ Asean that is bound by people-to-people contact fades further into the distance.

Asean will undoubtedly face its most challenging decade yet, and the economic, political and structural pressures on all the countries of the region will grow.

The only way that Asean can get through this in one piece is if and when the leaders and communities of Asean realise that we are one region that has a common destiny, and that we need to foster the centripetal (rather than centrifugal) forces in the region.

This latest development has dashed my hopes yet again, and I feel that the dream of an Asean decade and an Asean future more distant than ever. Worst of all, it reinforces my suspicion that despite our common historical past and geographical proximity, we remain alien to each other.

Now will someone — anyone — please heed my advice, and create a Malaysia-Indonesia Friendship Society?

* Dr Farish A. Noor is a Senior Fellow at the Nanyang Technological University in Singapore.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider

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

1) I write this with a heavy heart, for yet again I am convinced that I suffer from the Cassandra complex.

Credentials, wealth, position and network all make Farish suitable to run for private candidacy. Instead of running for election Farish sits on the sidelines talking about ‘Cassandra’. GREEEEAAAAAAAT . . . or shall we excuse Farish because Farish is living in a microstate run by the non-merit based, nepotistic PAP?

2) That is, being in a position to see what might happen in the near future but not having anyone listen to me and to end up being summarily dismissed as a worrisome bore instead.

Run for election and stop wallowing in self pity. Or is that not possible because you are a crypto-racist who refuses to challenge the lack of :

1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism (Article 1 Human Rights Charter)
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy. (Article 18 Human Rights Charter)
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution. (Surah An Nisa 4:75)

Why suffer the faded limelight of online media? What is lacking Farish, except perhaps SINCERITY in intent? Run for candidacy and stop being a faux-reformist propagandist to make BN look abit better from Singapre and feel all mellow and ‘academic’ while wasting the readers’ time. Heavy heart? Caused by the weight of living a life on the backs of the Rakyat without doing the necessary of a REAL academic or intelligensia IMHO. A degree obtained with money and mugging, academic post by pandering does not make anyone an academic, the soul behind the degree holder and the principle behind the work decides that without a single institution or personality backing them.

ARTICLE 7

Yield all business interests to Bumis, Malay chamber tells Putrajaya – b y Shannon Teoh – May 09, 2012

Syed Ali said growing Bumiputera equity was meaningless if it is not accompanied by profits. — File pic
KUALA LUMPUR, May 9 — The country’s biggest Malay business association wants the government to divest all of its lucrative commercial holdings, instead of the current plan to only yield 10 non-core assets to Bumiputera interests.

The Malay Chamber of Commerce Malaysia (MCCM) said today the government’s target for Bumiputeras to hold 30 per cent equity in the economy was meaningless without profits.

Putrajaya insisted yesterday it was confident that the target will be reached by 2020, after it announced last month Bumiputera equity had breached 23 per cent in 2010.

But the MCCM told a press conference today that “equity is one thing, business is another.”

If possible, we want it all. Why should the government hold it?

“Equity is good. But if there is no profit, it is meaningless. If possible, we want it all. Why should the government hold it? Might as well sell it so we can do business,” MCCM president Syed Ali Alattas said, referring to the government’s plan to divest non-core government assets to Bumiputera firms.

Syed Ali cited the example of Thistle Hotel in his hometown of Johor Baru, which “from day one was Malay-owned but (makes) no profit. What’s the point?”

“Better to have 100 RM3 million three-star hotels than a RM300 million hotel that makes no profit,” he said.

Datuk Seri Najib Razak had reaffirmed last month his commitment to a plan for Permodalan Nasional Berhad (PNB) and Khazanah Nasional to each yield five non-core businesses to Bumiputera firms as part of efforts to grow the community’s participation in the economy.

In February, the prime minister announced the that 10 government-linked entities will be divested to “worthy” Bumiputera owners, raising concerns from across the political divide that the move mirrors the failed Mahathir-era plan to groom Bumiputera entrepreneurs in the 1990s.

Last year, Khazanah made a total of eight divestments, which brought in proceeds of RM7.7 billion and helped to push the company’s profit before tax for the full year to RM5.3 billion from RM3 billion in 2010.

Key divestments included the sale of its 32 per cent stake in Pos Malaysia to Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar al-Bukhary’s DRB-Hicom Bhd for RM622.8 million and the complete privatisation of PLUS Bhd through a joint acquisition by UEM Group Bhd and the Employees Provident Fund (EPF).

In January, Khazanah also announced the sale of its 42.7 per cent stake in national carmaker Proton Holdings Bhd to DRB-Hicom, which is controlled by Malaysia’s richest Malay, for RM1.3 billion.

Syed Ali added today that the shifting of non-core businesses to Bumiputeras must “not be based just on whether they have the money but whether they can manage it or not.”

He added that MCCM members were well-placed to take over these activities as its 42 organisations were made up of 10,000 professionals including architects, lawyers, engineers, surveyors and scientists.

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

Separation of powers at work here. For all the racism (if any) within the MCCM’s ranks, this is a good step towards democraticisation of Malaysian Federal governmemt. How about asking the PM to formally make someone the Finance Minister as well. The situation of a single man holding BOTH PM and Finance Minister’s posts causes conflict of interest no end eevn as apartheid ensures that a nation cannot function as a unit but competing factions.

ARTICLE 8

Guan Eng: How can Hanif be considered ‘neutral’ – Najib is clearly desperate! – Written by  Lim Guan Eng – Thursday, 10 May 2012 11:33

The appointment of former inspector-general of police Tun Mohamad Hanif Omar to head of the independent panel to probe incidents of violence during the Bersih 3.0 rally has raised deep public concerns that the investigation will either be a whitewash of police brutality on peaceful demonstrators, a massive cover-up of the sufferings of the victims or a pretext to justify BN’s wild lies that Bersih 3.0 was a coup d’état attempt.

Hanif, who is now Genting Malaysia Bhd Deputy Chair, had claimed that communist sympathizers were involved in the Bersih 3.0 rally, and supported Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s claim that the Bersih 3.0 rally was an attempt to overthrow the government. Hanif further stated that the tactics of using provocateurs to cause the demonstrators to clash with police and to bring children along in the hope they would get injured were tactics learnt from past pro-communist demonstrations.

Najib is clearly desperate

How can Datuk Seri Najib Razak consider Hanif as a “credible, experienced and respectable” individual that ensures its investigation panel is independent and unbiased, when Hanif has adopted such a prejudiced and partisan stand against the Bersih 3.0 rally as an attempt to overthrow the government?

What makes those claims of a coup d’tat by Najib and Hanif most ridiculous is that both of them ignored the fact that six local pressmen and about 12 photographers and journalists from the foreign media were reportedly assaulted during the fracas on April 28 Bersih 3.0 rally by police.

To add insult to injury, Hanif is now heading the investigation panel raising doubts about the integrity, reliability and credibility of its findings. As a former Inspector-General of Police, Hanif is first and foremost disqualified from serving on the investigation panel due to this conflict of interest as the police is being accused. Secondly, by publicly condemning Bersih, Hanif’s prejudiced bias would also disqualify him to serve on the investigation panel. Finally, by linking Bersih to communism, Hanif is still fighting yesterday’s long-concluded wars, making the outcome of these investigations a foregone conclusion.

For these reasons, the Prime Minister should try to salvage or restore some credibility and public confidence as well as renew faith that “justice will not only be done but be seen to be done” by replacing Hanif with an independent, apolitical, unbiased and an upright person of integrity.

Lim Guan Eng is the DAP secretary general and Penang Chief Minister

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

What does attacking Hanif Omar do? NOTHING. Attacking a mere Hanif Omar is a sign of pettiness (also a Freudianslip of sorts, cult of prsonality vs. cult of personality indicating prioritsation of ego rather than actual democratic issues) when LGE could attack the lack of :

1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism (Article 1 Human Rights Charter)
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy. (Article 18 Human Rights Charter)
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution. (Surah An Nisa 4:75)

;via a formal delegation to UN, NAM, BRICS or even Sunnite Islam’s highest authority, the Al-Azhar Uni at Cairo. The above piece is a sure sign that LGE is NOT CM material at all, lack of logos but probably quite mercenary minded (asks for 750K funerals and very interested in ‘CEO Stuff’). Any blogger full of pathos could attack Hanif Omar or any VIP. Use that undeserved CM’s ethos or GTFO of the Dewan Mr.Parachute beneficiary of nepotism quorumless, unelected CM! DAP fails with sheer inability to even comprehend rhetoric, much less DEMOCRACY to at least know the APARTHEID CM Lim being a minority now lives in! Pitiful and a waste of mandate!

ARTICLE 9

Hanif pledges to be impartial as Bersih 3.0 panel chief – By Shazwan Mustafa Kamal – May 11, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, May 11 — Tun Mohammad Hanif Omar has maintained he will be fair and impartial when heading Putrajaya’s independent panel on allegations of violence during Bersih 3.0.

The former Inspector-General of Police dismissed allegations that the panel would return biased findings with him on board, saying that he has always acted fairly in previous enquiries and police investigations.

“If they are concerned about unfairness, they can ask themselves whether I was unfair back then,” Hanif told Sinar Harian.

The former Inspector-General of Police’s impartiality has been questioned by PR leaders. — file pic
The former top cop was part of a special committee tasked with investigating the fatal police shooting of 14-year-old Aminulrasyid Amzah two years ago.

“In May 2010, I was part of the special police monitoring panel investigating the sudden death of Aminulrasyid Amzah in Shah Alam… where the panel’s scope involved complaints against the police,” he said.

Hanif said he hoped to be able to carry out his duties professionally and responsibly.

Pakatan Rakyat (PR) leaders have demanded Hanif step down as head of the special panel on Bersih 3.0.

PKR de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said this was necessary to ensure the panel is completely fair and neutral in its investigations into incidents surrounding the April 28 rally.

DAP parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang said Hanif’s appointment was the “worst” decision the Najib administration had made in three years.

DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng said that Hanif had already made clear his opposition to Bersih and his former position as IGP would be a conflict of interest when the panel examines allegations of police brutality.

As such, he said, it was a “forgone conclusion” that the panel would absolve all police personnel from blame over the violent incidents during Bersih 3.0 last month.

Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein announced the names of the six-man panel tasked with investigating allegations of police violence against Bersih 3.0 protesters on April 28.

Apart from Hanif, the other panel members include former Chief Judge of Borneo Tan Sri Steve Shim, Sinar Harian managing director Datuk Hussamuddin Yaacub, Media Chinese International legal adviser Liew Peng Chuan, Petronas corporate affairs senior general manager Datuk Medan Abdullah and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia psychology Professor Dr Ruszmi Ismail.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak pledged last week that “credible, experienced and respectable” individuals would form the independent panel to investigate alleged acts of violence during Bersih 3.0.

Najib said that he, along with the entire government and members of the public, are keeping a close eye on investigations into the allegations that journalists, both local and foreign, had been roughed up during the rally for free and fair elections.

But Najib has come under fire for his administration’s selection of Hanif to head the panel, even after the latter had agreed with the prime minister’s claim that Bersih 3.0 was an attempt to overthrow the government and even claimed that communist sympathisers were involved in the event.

Chaos reigned on the streets of Kuala Lumpur for over four hours after 3pm on April 28 when police fired tear gas and water cannons and chased protesters down the streets to disperse what had initially begun as a peaceful protest calling for free and fair elections.

The Bar Council has said that its observers found that police brutality at the rally was “magnified” compared to already chaotic scenes during a similar gathering for free and fair elections last July 9.

Six local pressmen and 12 photographers and journalists from the foreign media were reportedly assaulted during the fracas on April 28.

Both local and foreign media groups have condemned the hard-handed tactics used on the media, whom they pointed out were merely doing their job.

Police had begun firing the tear gas and water cannons after some demonstrators breached the barricade in front of Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) and rushed into Dataran Merdeka, which the court had barred the public from entering that particular weekend.

They fired as far as the DBKL premises, which are across Jalan Parlimen, and the move broke up the crowd who fled helter-skelter but police chased them down at Jalan Tun Perak and Jalan Raja Laut.

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

DAP parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang said : ‘Hanif’s appointment was the “worst” decision the Najib administration had made in three years. ‘

No. Most of the UMNO lot are lacking in charisma which most racists here (no guesses who) at least have. But even that charisma or neurotech spying will not be enough considered against the below bottomline 3 items where –

The only good Malay is a . . . fair minded Malay who will address Malaysia’s lack of :

1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism (Article 1 Human Rights Charter)
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy. (Article 18 Human Rights Charter)
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution. (Surah An Nisa 4:75)

Put aside any cryto-racism and raise the status of Malays to the First World Tun Hanif Omar.

Unkept promises for Local Council Elections, same excuses, near 4 years later . . . try below link’s responses at – http://apanama2020.blogspot.com/2010/11/daps-democracy-in-penang.html

ARTICLE 10

The EU would handle Public Assemblies differently – May 9, 2012 – The EU would handle Public Assemblies differently, says its Ambassador to Malaysia – by Shannon Teoh@www.themalaysianinsider.com

The European Union (EU) is “keenly interested” in Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s reform package but believes the raft of legislative changes must “translate to positive effects on the ground”, says its envoy Vincent Piket.

The EU Ambassador to Malaysia told The Malaysian Insider “EU countries would handle public assemblies differently”, just days after the April 28 BERSIH rally, which has seen loud and growing allegations of Police brutality in the aftermath. Putrajaya has said it will assemble panel to investigate violence against journalists.

“This whole series of laws passed by Parliament — a bit in a rush, maybe — but on the whole, present incremental progress. How these laws implemented on the ground, that is the test of the matter. Do the legal reforms translate to real positive effects on the ground?” Piket said in an interview ahead of Europe Day, which falls today.

He added that “EU countries would probably do things differently, handle public assemblies differently from current law,” referring to the newly-enforced Peaceful Assembly Act 2012.

Najib had announced a slew of reforms in the last year, including the repeal of the controversial Internal Security Act (ISA), forming a parliamentary panel on electoral reforms and a new law he said would allow for freedom of assembly in accordance with “international norms”, the largest set of changes in the country within three years.
The EU Ambassador does not believe Malaysians would accept radical changes.But the changes have been described as cosmetic by civil society and the Opposition, and the April 28 sit-in at Dataran Merdeka was called by BERSIH after the electoral reforms movement said it was disappointed with the findings of the polls committee.

At the rally, Police fired tear gas and water cannon to disperse tens of thousands, chasing them down several streets after some had breached the barricade around the historic square, which the courts had barred the public from entering across the weekend.

Dozens of demonstrators have since recounted how they or other rally-goers were allegedly assaulted by groups of Policemen.

The Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) has also said Police conduct was unacceptable while the Bar Council alleged that police brutality was “magnified” from the previous rally for free and fair elections held last July.

But Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Ismail Omar has said that if Police had not acted to disperse the crowd, an “open battle could have happened and created a more dangerous situation.”

Police have insisted they will investigate all claims “openly and fairly”, but so far have identified over 90 civilian suspects and no policeman yet in the ongoing probe over violence perpetrated by both protestors and enforcers.

However, Piket refused to “pass judgment” but said “what is key is the overall trend.”“If you look at it, where we are now, compared to when I first came, I think there is positive progress that is undeniable in terms of greater space for debate, particularly in digital media,” said the ambassador who took up his post just after the landmark March 2008 election.

He added that the key is “where do we go from here” and noted that the government aims to turn Malaysia into a developed economy by 2020 “but also parallel with political transformation and turn Malaysia into this best democracy in the world.”

“I think it’s doable. I don’t think the Malaysian mentality is for radical change. It is more a country of gradual change, moving forward in consensual manner,” the Dutchman added.

Piket also pointed to Najib’s Global Movement of Moderates, to which British Prime Minister David Cameron had given his full support when he visited Malaysia last month.

“EU leaders feel (the movement) is a good initiative but are now trying to see how we can give it practical shape,” he said.

The 53-year-old, who has been with the EU for 20 years, said that one source of friction is “immigration from non-traditional source countries that puts a test on a society’s ability to integrate non-traditional cultures and religions.”

“It is a transition process, goes hand-in-hand with some friction but we can’t let that friction determine the agenda,” he said.

Malaysia has had to deal with the tension between Malay, Chinese and Indian ethnic groups in the peninsula since independence while the flood of migrants from Indonesia and the Philippines has overwhelmed Sabahans.

The Home Ministry embarked on the “6P” amnesty programme last year to either absorb or pardon and repatriate illegal migrant workers as conflicting concerns of labour shortage and the rise of social ills and crime came to a head.

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

File that lawsuit against any identified MPs who are racists already! Try the response to ‘Article 9′ on below link to otherwise nail RACISTS and RELIGIOUS SUPREMACISTS in government :

https://malaysiandemocracy.wordpress.com/2012/04/22/5-articles-on-malaysian-politics-malays-waking-up-dpms-platitudes-ignoring-apartheid-daps-platitides-ignoring-apartheid-cm-of-penangs-platitudes-ignoring-apartheid-edging-towards-democracy/

Piket also pointed to Najib’s Global Movement of Moderates, to which British Prime Minister David Cameron had given his full support when he visited Malaysia last month.

Piket is either the most closeted and coddled public personality in the world or just cynically ignoring the fact that Malaysia does not have :

1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism (Article 1 Human Rights Charter)
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy. (Article 18 Human Rights Charter)
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution. (Surah An Nisa 4:75)

Would Piket kindly speak to PM Najib on Malaysia’s lack of the above 3 items instead of fetting this so-called ‘Global Movement of Moderates’ which the same organizer and Prime Minister of Malaysia has obviously not acted on the 3 items above first? The EU should not stand by and allow people like Picket to speak as if everything is fine, while the 3rd world which merely seeks equality and the above 3 item is denied what even the basics which have already been established by the UNHCR in the 1940s.

‘However, Piket refused to “pass judgment” but said “what is key is the overall trend.”“If you look at it, where we are now, compared to when I first came, I think there is positive progress that is undeniable in terms of greater space for debate, particularly in digital media,” said the ambassador who took up his post just after the landmark March 2008 election.’

Picket’s ambivalence on apartheid when considered against the above FACTS is particularly reprehensible. Will the EU speak honestly and take to task all those who deny anyone the above 3 items?

Advertisements
  1. I have learn a few good stuff here. Certainly worth bookmarking for revisiting. I wonder how so much effort you set to make this type of wonderful informative web site.

    • Semi-retired yet have been affected by the above, so began to fight back, there really isn’t much more in life, collect awards, get qualifications, the have enough to retire UNTIL POLITICIANS PISS US OFF ! ! !

      And other than throwing fiat money (as opposed to labour and real goods or real services) to buffer the problems of the world from yourself (plutocrat inflation ensures this is impossible), the best way to change anything is understanding the problems then trying to change the government and change laws by removing unethical, nepotistic or term limitless people from positions of power where they can hurt you and the country, refuse to amend laws and make life difficult. Run for election, especially if your incumbent has outlived that second term! Citizen’s power is renewal of politicians! . . .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: