marahfreedom

5 Articles on Malaysian Politics : MSM Lies about Non-Discrimination of Malaysian Minorities, Apartheid Ignorant-Nepotists Defending the Indefensible, Shocking Counterspin by Inverse Opposition MSM, Strawmen NGOs that do not act, Strawmen GOs that do not act – reposted by @AgreeToDisagree – 23rd May 2012

In 1% tricks and traps, Apartheid, Bumiputera Apartheid, dishonest academia, Equality, equitable political power distribution, government, lack of focus, Law, LGBT Hate Groups, Malaysia, media collusion, media tricks, misrepresentation of facts, mob mentality, MPs have not declared assets, Pakatan Rakyat Coalition, political correctness, Political Fat Cats, preventing vested interest, proselytization, sneaky proselytization methods, social freedoms, spirit of the law, sub-culture advocacy, subculture persecution, technofascism, vested interest, voting strategy, waste of mandate, wrong priority on May 22, 2012 at 8:04 pm

ARTICLE 1

BN Govt Does Not Practise Racial Discrimination – Monday, 21 May 2012 00:04

BERA — Bera MP Ismail Sabri Yaakob officially opened the new building of a Tamil school here on Sunday and said the Barisan Nasional (BN) government does not break promises or practise racial discrimination.

The domestic trade, cooperatives and consumerism minister said the government had collected RM100 million to upgrade Tamil schools in the country this year. Two of the schools are in his Bera constituency.

“Now, the pupils of Sekolah Rendah Jenis Kebangsaan (Tamil) Ladang Kemayan and Sekolah Rendah Jenis Kebangsaan Ladang Menteri Triang Bera have new buildings, built at a cost of more than RM1.4 million.

“The pupils of the two schools can study in a conducive atmosphere with new classrooms, computer room and other facilities similar to those of other schools,” he said when opening the new building of Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan Tamil Ladang Menteri Triang Bera.

Ismail Sabri urged the people to continue to support the BN government, saying the opposition parties were only good at making empty promises.

(Bernama)

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

BN Govt **Does** Practise Racial Discrimination because under BN, Malaysia lacks :

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)

A single school or 100 schools cannot compared to EQUALITY. Indian voters do not be taken in please!

ARTICLE 2

Stop The Bersih 3.0 Demonisation Campaign – Lim Kit Siang – Monday, 21 May 2012 00:11

BN government should call off the Bersih 3.0 demonisation campaign as the first step to prove to Malaysians that it is capable of responding rationally and responsibly to legitimate demands for clean elections

The Home Minister, Hishammuddin Hussein said in (last) Saturday’s press that Malaysians should view the Bersih 3.0 demonstration in a more rational manner and look at the Government’s concern over what could go wrong if people took to the streets.

Unfortunately, in the past three weeks after the Bersih 3.0 rally on April 28, the government as represented by the Home Minister and the Prime Minister Najib Razak have themselves failed this simple test of acting in “a more rational manner” to address the controversies of what went wrong on April 28 resulting in the incidents of violence and brutality, regardless of whether the victims were police personnel, media representatives or peaceful protestors.

Najib and Hishammuddin should call off the Bersih 3.0 demonisation campaign to paint Bersih 3.0, the organizers and participants, in the worst and most sinister light, as the first step for the BN government to prove to Malaysians that it is capable of responding rationally and responsibly to the people’s legitimate demands for clean elections.

The Bersih 3.0 demonisation campaign started with the wild and irresponsible allegation by the Prime Minister that it was an anti-national conspiracy which included a coup attempt by the Opposition to topple the government, which conspiracy theory was immediately given blind and unthinking support by the former Inspector-General of Police Hanif Omar when there was no iota of evidence; culminating in the great lie and spin on TV1 on Sunday when the government station telecast a 30-minute “documentary” entitled “Bersih 3.0 itu Kotor” to poison the minds of viewers about Bersih 3.0.

What the BN spin-masters did not realise is that the hundreds of thousands of Malaysians who gathered peacefully in Kuala Lumpur in response to the call of Bersih 3.0, and the millions who have direct information of what actually happened on April 28, could not identify with TV1 programme or agree that Bersih 3.0 was some grand or evil conspiracy to cause violence, unrest and even toppling of the government!

In fact, they could only be turned off and completely alienated by the TV1 screen which is available on YouTube – not only because it was so untrue but so unfair!

To them, Bersih 3.0 will forever remain a historic, momentous and even liberating experience where Malaysians regardless race, religion, region, class, age or gender came out together in peace and common humanity, out of a deep and abiding sense of patriotism and love for country, in support of the national cause for clean elections for a clean Malaysia.

All that they were armed were salt and water bottles, not to combat the police or topple the government, but to protect themselves in case of police tear gas and chemically-laced water cannon in order to send out the clear and unmistakable message that 54 years after Merdeka in 1957, Malaysians want clean elections and a clean Malaysia!

True, there were deplorable incidents of violence and brutality which marred the Bersih 3.0 rally – but these deplorable incidents took place after 3 pm on April 28.

Before 3 pm, there was absolutely no tension in the air, as the hundreds of thousands who gathered in Kuala Lumpur were peaceful, in great harmony and carnival spirit, to celebrate the unprecedented democratic awakening, empowerment and unity of Malaysians.

This why Malaysians want an impartial, thorough and high-powered inquiry to find out what went wrong on April 28 and who marred the Bersih 3.0 rally – whether it was caused by a handful of protestors or a small group of police personnel, who took the law into their own hands and started a riot against the peaceful public.

This is also why the independent advisory panel headed by former IGP Hanif Omar to inquire into the Bersih 3.0 violence and brutality is completely unacceptable to the majority of thinking and decent Malaysians, not because Hanif was former IGP but for the simple reason that he had prejudged Bersih 3.0 with baseless and biased views after April 28.

If Najib and Hishammuddin want credibility and legitimacy for any findings of a Bersih 3.0 inquiry, they should heed the call which finds resonance in the country as well as in international circles for a completely new inquiry panel and not proceed with the panel headed by Hanif.

Form either a Royal Commission of Inquiry, a Suhakam inquiry or best of all, invite the United Nations rapporteurs, namely Frank La Rue on the promotion and the protection of the right to freedom and expression and Maina Kiai on the right to freedom ofassembly and of association, to carry out independent investigations and present their report to the Malaysian people and government as well as the international community.

LIM KIT SIANG

(The views expressed above belongs to the author in its entirety and does not represent the opinion of Malaysian Mirror in any way)
View the discussion thread.blog comments powered by Disqus

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

Lim Kit Siang is a term limitless, Gaddafi-Mubarak-type, undemocratic nepostist that possibly harbours a (possibly?) dangerous fundo inspired dislike towards the LGBT community in solidarity of LGBT-hate with some factions in PAS. Lim Kit Siang runs the DAP political party like a family business and has not kept 90% of the campaign promises that brought DAP to power (MPs have not declared assets, no Local Council Elections etc..) but which has heaped new abuses upon the people like threatening to destroy people’s private property (see Gambier Threat, below pic, where private built awnings in fairly affluent neighbourhoods were threatened with destruction instead of amending abusive bylaws implemented dutring BN’s time – meaning PR has BN mentality . . . ) rather than amend laws, prevent petty traders from ekeing out a living or asking for near 2 times a 401K in funeral funds out of the tax payers’ pockets while IGNORING APARTHEID and extreme religion.

Power mad DAP in action, refusing to amend laws and willingly threatening citizens with antiquated laws which BN also failed to amend . . .

DAP also increasingly looks like a part of the strawman hegelian dialectic intent on misdirecting  the public’s anger at DAP’s failed promises and DAP’s inability or lack of desire to END APARTHEID, or even DAP’s fundo intent as described in the below rather profound (or conspiracy theorist) excerpt found at :

Tragedy at Sekolah Agama Rakyat – Al-Furqan, PAS and Extremism – Monday, 4 April 2011
http://peopleagainstopposition.blogspot.com/2011/04/tragedy-at-sekolah-agama-rakyat-al.html

‘PAS and its extremist cohorts all over the Islamic world are part of the prophecy of Gog and Magog (Yajuj and Majuj) who spread corruptions all over the world with their hate campaigns which produces a religious teacher in Perlis who is sick enough to torture a 7 year old boy. Little wonder PAS supports a porn star like Anwar Ibrahim and PAS  should changed its name to PPP & P. Parti Penyokong Penzina dan Peliwat.

I am not ashamed to say that cause someone must be brave enough to reject extremist like PAS (Islam), DAP (Christianity) and PKR (Zionism, think PAP’s Israel link and the presence of the Jewess Theresa Kok). We must reject these extremist parties who will only bring anarchy in our peace loving society. Let the tragedy at Sekolah Agama Rakyat – Al-Furqan be a start for us to be mindful of the effect of extremism. ‘

Some of us (from experience?), can guess that PR will be quite LGBT unfriendly and will exclude the Polytheistic communities of most Chinese non-Xians, and also Hindu Indians. Note also that the 7th Day Adventist Mormons ARE NOT EXACTLY Xians who  are strongly suspected to have links withe the ‘rogue’ (poisoner) psychiatric establishment, that hold Sabbath on SATURDAYS (day of Saturn – SATAN) instead of Sundays (Day of Sun, 7th day, day of rest) as most other denominations of the Church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Seventh-day_Adventist_Church

DAP (run by an extremely nepotistic Waco Khoresh type personae), or as some say 1950’s ‘worship me’ cult, and PAS (while exceptionally non-nepotistic – an almost non-existent and much needed quality worldwide except in the very strictest regimes – but unfortunately Hudud loving in a very unfair and unreasonable way to the majority Muslim populace – perhaps won’t affect non-Muslims so ‘kelang kabut’ DAP like any 3rd rate political family business outfit does not care) look potentially DANGEROUS from certain viewpoints, while PKR is merely corrupt and desperate, though less fundo. I’d recommend that Tunku Aziz head 3rd force and also co-opt PKR into their fold while dropping DAP on the below 3 items as a rallying factor :

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)

Voters, BN is apartheid, corrupt and refuses to use that mandate to better Malaysia, PR is self serving non-pro-active, self glorifying, unable to keep their campaign promises, also very nepotistic, so vote instead for 3rd Force Parties such as : KITA, JATI, MCLM (whats left of MCLM), PCM, Borneo Front, MoCS Sarawak, Konsensus Bebas, HRP/Hindraf and PSM, ABU, PRS, STAR etc..

There are no human rights aware statesmen or men of ethics in DAP, just self serving relics and nepotistic from the riot-era. DAP should be blamed for the neglect of 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)

;that led to Bersih. In fact had Pakatan done the job of filing lawsuits and speaking against apartheid and so many human rights abuses, insted of being all limelight ceremah for the last 4 years, Bersih would never have happened. Pakatan while present in the media talking rubbish and irritating the voters all the time, NEVER EVER challenges the apartheid and extreme religion that leads to ‘Bersihs’. Rather than an attempt to end apartheid or file lawsuits or amend laws, Pakatan is a failure thus far, lots of media limelight but zero results or amendments to laws. Dont get too excited readers, as a single independent candidate intent on ending apartheid will be stronger than another 4 years of Pakatan’s so-called ‘governance’ or another 10 more Bersihs which again I stress have no legal basis, just as BN’s apartheid has no legal and even Syariah basis.

CONTACT UN, CONTACT NAM – END APARTHEID. Prepare that Prepare that MLK style delegation (maybe with that nepotism beneficiary, funeral fund loving CM character) to END APARTHEID.

Voters, BN is apartheid, corrupt, has allowed aspects of extreme religion, and refuses to use that mandate BN NOW ALREADY HAS to better Malaysia by granting above 3 items, PR if unable to address the lack of above 3 items, is self serving non-pro-active, self glorifying, unable to keep their campaign promises, also very nepotistic, so vote instead for 3rd Force Parties like : KITA, JATI, MCLM (whats left of MCLM), PCM, Borneo Front, MoCS Sarawak, Konsensus Bebas, HRP/Hindraf and PSM, ABU, PRS, STAR etc..

BN racism and PR nepotism (and technofascism?), clique politics that exclude grassroots, human rights and ethics aware law or political party reformers, real activists and intelligensia, have no place in Malaysia. 3rd Force is the way forward for Malaysia!

Fundamentalism and Nepotism has no place in Malaysia, GTFO of the Dewan you apartheid and extreme religion ignoring nepotists in Pakatan! 50% of Pakatan politicians who are not nepotistic or term limitless are votable, the other 50% who refuse to amend laws or abuse their powers, and refuse to declare assets or keep their word about re-establishing local council elections on technicalities they could override but pretend not to, belong in the rubbish heap of YESTERDAY’S 3rd WORLD POLITICS.

This is not the 1950s, not even the 1980s fundo-creeps, this is the 2010s . . . time to report some psychos posing as politicians to the U.N. . . .

I mean, you seem to want to build a religion around yourself and some 1950’s vision of America. It’s the 1980’s, man! And one man worship-me cults are not allowed, my friend! (Quote by : Maurice Chavez, VCPR, GTA: Vice City.)

ARTICLE 3

Ambiga wins hands down Sunday, 20 May 2012 Super Admin

Her guts have scared politicians, espcially those with much at stake, hence the dirty move to deter her from pursuing her agenda of pushing for free and fair elections.

Jeswan Kaur, Free Malaysia Today

Bersih 2.0 co-chairperson A Samad Said is asking a very pertinent question – why are the detractors not giving him a hard time and are hell bent on harassing his colleague S Ambiga?

“Why are they only targeting Ambiga, they should choose me too,” asked the 77 year-old national laurette.

Samad or better known as Pak Samad has deduced  that the targetted protest against Ambiga could have a “racial or religious” connotation.

“If they continue to only target her, there may be a racial or religious slant which I think is not good,” he had said.

Indeed, Samad has spoken the truth. Had it been an Malay or Chinese woman battling for electoral reforms, would politicians like Ibrahim Ali dare clamour that her citizenship be revoked?

Or for that matter would the MCA or Umno remain silent had it been a Chinese or Malay woman whose life was being made a living hell?

Strangely or regrettably, the MIC has chosen to pander to the fancy of Umno, the dominant force of ruling coalition Barisan Nasional. Not a murmur was made by MIC big-wigs to reprimand those who continue to breach the law and harass the former Malaysian Bar president.

Ambiga spearheaded both the Bersih 2.0 and Bersih 3.0 protests demanding for reforms to the nation’s electoral system. It was the Bersih 3.0 protest with its hundreds of thousands of turnout  that saw detractors attacking Ambiga.

Post-Bersih 3.0, a series of protests that have taken place in front of Ambiga’s residence. On May 10,  a group of burger sellers staged a protest in front of Ambiga’s house by distributing 200 burgers.

Malaysia Small and Medium Entrepreneurs Alliance (Ikhlas), the NGO behind the protest said burger stall owners had suffered losses amounting to RM200,000 due to the April 28 rally.

On May 15,  a group of 15 army veterans carried out butt flexing exercises facing her house. In reaction to the protest she said that it was a “targeted and planned harassment”.

Ambiga had said that since people know where she lives, they have constantly been coming to her house asking for free burgers and merely standing at her gate calling out her name.

On May 18,  there was an attempted break-in at Ambiga’s office in Damansara. She did not rule out intimidation tactics to scare her from pursuing the Bersih cause for clean and fair elections.

Protect the rakyat, stop the tasteless humour

While Ambiga’s privacy continues to be infringed upon, the police does not find it troubling enough to warrant action.

Instead, Deputy Inspector-General of Police Khalid Abu Bakar had declared there was nothing wrong with protesting in front of her house as these protesters did not trespass on private property.

Likewise, the police continues to downplay the attempted break-in at her office. Ambiga in her police report had mentioned that two men on a motorcycle have been following her for several days.

Would the police’s reaction be the same had Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak’s house been the target of those unhappy with his leadership which is riddles with corruption, nepotism and cronyism?

Or is it a case of ‘pilih bulu’ or choosing whom to protect based on their skin colour?

Khalid’s comment that it was not wrong for protesters to demonstrate in front of Ambiga’s house is full of ambiguity. Is creating nuisance outside the residence of a person not unlawful? Also, is it unlawful to sexually harass an individual, albeit the distance involved?

If it is not, then the time has come for such acts to be criminalised. Khalid has to stop making a fool of both himself and the police force.

When non-governmental organisation WargaAMAN said it would set up stall outside Khalid’s house in Ampang on May 20 to distribute thosai for free to the public in an attempt to promote the dish, Khalid found it humorous enough to order a ‘thosai telur’ and suggested that the stall be set up at a nearby field since his house was not a suitable location.

Khalid clearly lacks wisdom in discerning the gravity of an issue. Trying to display his sense of humour which was tasteless at best, he has only reinforced the people’s belief that the police force is on a tight leash of the ‘powers that be’.

As for premier Najib, how can he expect the rakyat’s mandate to rule the country when as a leader who claims that he puts “people first” above all else, he is not the least concerned about the threats and harassment being made against a member of the public?

Najib has also failed the rakyat when he opted to ‘play’ spectator each time Umno and Malay right wing Perkasa demanded that Ambiga’s citizenship be recalled.

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

Ambiga is not winning anything. Ambiga has put those hands up in surrender because Ambiga has not addressed 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)

And the pity factor does not count though shouldn’t some nice healthy soldiers warm Ambiga’s ‘Rightful MB of Perak Nizar destroying‘ cockles? Memories of voters apparently are very short and proper understanding of Ambiga’s ambivalence and role in Perak’s loss, or her Bersih ‘riot’ methods without lawsuits seem very shallow. Ambiga LOST. Much like PM Najib (that much worse because BN actually has the mandatre to change things but does not), Ambiga failed to address the above 3 items, so don’t encourage ‘Ambivalent’ Ambiga by saying ‘Ambiga is winning’.

Winning is when the above 3 items are implemented. Every other riot, retaliatory butt flex or non-vegetarian burger means nothing to the Rakyat, makes no real difference in law, in black and white on day to day society. Every day lost by Ambiga’s inaction to address the above 3 items is the Rakyat LOSING, a nation divided along lines of race and faith with parasite coalitions on all sides except 3rd force.

ARTICLE 4

Suhakam to probe Bersih 3.0 for police violence – UPDATED @ 11:52:37 PM 21-05-2012 – By Clara Chooi – May 21, 2012

A Bersih demonstrator is surrounded by police officers near Dataran Merdeka, in Kuala Lumpur April 28, 2012. — Picture by Jack Ooi
KUALA LUMPUR, May 21 — The Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) has agreed to conduct a public inquiry into the Bersih 3.0 rally, saying today it could “no longer wait” for Putrajaya’s independent panel to release its terms of reference.

The commission, in a brief statement here, added that its decision to conduct the inquiry was made “upon serious consideration”, following its receipt of numerous accusations that excessive police force had been used against civilians during the April 28 event.

“The commission had wanted to, but can no longer wait [for] the release of the terms of reference of the independent panel established by the government as they have yet to be finalised.

“Notwithstanding the investigations to be carried out by the said panel, the commission is obliged to carry out its own public inquiry,” it said.

The commission added that it holds the jurisdiction to conduct such an inquiry under the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999.

Suhakam pointed out that its own monitors had observed the electoral reform movement’s third rally for free and fair elections in the streets of the capital. Following the event, it received numerous complaints, reports and memoranda from the public, human rights and professional groups.

Each complaint, it added, came with a call for an independent inquiry into the event.

Apart from opposition party members and Bersih 2.0, the Bar Council had also urged Suhakam to probe the incidence of violence during the rally, insisting that the panel formed by Putrajaya would return biased results.

Their contention is that Putrajaya’s panel is headed by former Inspector-General of Police Tun Hanif Omar, who had, in the days following the rally, called its participants communist sympathisers and alleged that the event was meant to overthrow the government instead of push for free and fair elections.

Suhakam had conducted an inquiry into Bersih 2.0’s July 9 rally last year and found that the police had used excessive force on protesters.

This year’s probe, it said in today’s statement, would be chaired by the commission’s vice-chairman, Datuk Dr Khaw Lake Tee, and assisted by Commissioners Professor Datuk Dr Mahmood Zuhdi Abdul Majid and Detta Samen.

Its terms of reference include determining if there were violations of human rights during and after the April 28 event, and if such violations had occurred, to determine how they transpired, what directives or procedures had contributed to them and which agencies were responsible.

The commission will also recommend measures to be taken to ensure such violations, if any, do not recur.

Suhakam is also calling for public submission of evidence and information regarding claims of excessive use of force during the assembly.

“Members of the public and the media who had witnessed any acts or incidents relating to the allegations of human rights violations, or who believe that they may be able to give relevant information and/or documents and other evidence including video/photo recordings pertaining to these or other such allegations are invited to contact the commission as soon as possible,” it said.

The deadline for public submissions is by 12pm on Monday, June 4.

The commission can also be contacted by telephone (03-26125600), facsimile (06-26125694/5620), email (complaints@suhakam.org.my/humanrights@suhakam.org.my) or in person at its premises on the 11th floor of Menara TH Perdana, on Jalan Sultan Ismail here.

The April 28 rally, which saw tens of thousands gather at six different locations before heading to Dataran Merdeka, was peaceful until about 2.30pm when Bersih chief Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan asked the crown to disperse.

But the former Bar Council president’s call was not heard by most of the crowd who persisted around the historic square which the court had already barred to the public over the weekend.

Just before 3pm, some protestors breached the barricade surrounding the landmark, leading police to disperse the crowd with tear gas and water cannons.

Police then continued to pursue the rally-goers down several streets amid chaotic scenes which saw violence from both sides over the next four hours.

Several dozen demonstrators have claimed that they were assaulted by groups of over 10 policemen at a time and visual evidence appears to back their claim, but police also point to violence from rally-goers who also attacked a police car.

The police car then crashed into a building before some protestors flipped it on its side.

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

No academics or activists in Suhakam, just low level disinfo power brokers, strawmen and puppets. Suhakam should be blamed for the neglect of 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)

; that led to Bersih. In fact had Suhakam done the job of filing lawsuits and speaking against apartheid and so many human rights abuses, instead of being all armchair blogger for the past 5 decades (at least filing lawsuits in 1975 for the failure to review removal of Special Privileges as per the Reid Commission’s recommended 15 years – almost 60 years now . . . ), Bersih would never have happened. Suhakam only turns up at the last moment and sad to say NEVER EVER challenges the apartheid and extreme religion that leads to ‘Bersihs’. This will be another ra-ra farce and ‘NGO’ fetting exercise rather than an attempt to end apartheid or file lawsuits or amend laws. Suhakam is a failure thus far, dont get too excited readers, as a single independant candidate intent on ending apartheid will be stronger than another 100 years of Suhakam’s so-called ‘probes’ or another 10 more Bersihs which again I stress have no legal basis just as BN’s apartheid has no legal and even Syariah basis.

Just another group of well educated strawmen out to get the limelight but never out to END APARTHEID. Like so many disappointing and self serving outfits, political parties or NGOs, Suhakam sat by and ignored apartheid like so many ‘activists’ while aware of the REAL activists who suffered without any recourse to justice. This probe is a sick SANDIWARA that will result in nothing, much less a lawsuit or a MLK style UN delegation to highlight APARTHEID and EXTREME RELIGION in Malaysia.

Act now Suhakam  to END APARTHEID or confirm that Suhakam is just another member of the self serving hegelian dialectic ignoring UNHCR Article 1 and for Muslims the SIn of Asabiya and Quran’s Surah An Nisa.

CONTACT UN, CONTACT NAM – END APARTHEID. Prepare that Prepare that MLK style delegation (maybe with that nepotism beneficiary, funeral fund loving CM character) to END APARTHEID.

Voters, BN is apartheid, corrupt, has allowed aspects of extreme religion, and refuses to use that mandate BN NOW ALREADY HAS to better Malaysia by granting above 3 items, PR if unable to address the lack of above 3 items, is self serving non-pro-active, self glorifying, unable to keep their campaign promises, alsovery nepotistic, so vote instead for 3rd Force Parties like : KITA, JATI, MCLM (whats left of MCLM), PCM, Borneo Front, MoCS Sarawak, Konsensus Bebas, HRP/Hindraf and PSM, ABU, PRS, STAR etc..

ARTICLE 5

Fallacies spun by critics of the Bar — LoyarBurokkers (loyarburok.com) – May 22, 2012

MAY 22 — The Bar Council and the Malaysian Bar (“the Bar”) have been criticised recently as being pro-opposition. This is because of the Bar’s press statements and its extraordinary general meeting resolution regarding the police brutality shown at the Bersih 3.0 sit-down rally. The common theme adopted by critics of the Bar is that the Bar was not fair, or even-handed, as the Bar were more critical of the police than it was of the other parties involved.

Some of the more popular criticisms were summarised in Roger Tan’s article “Unswayed by fear or favour” which was also published in the Sunday Star on May 20, 2012. In summary, he says the following:

1. The Bar in condemning the police brutality must be equally aggressive in its condemnation against the protestors who “behaved like rioters and anarchists”.

2. The Bar had prejudged the issues by passing the resolution because by doing so “the Bar had already come to a conclusion that all those acts listed therein had been committed by the police”.

3. The Bar should have demanded an apology from Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim because “it was his men who were reportedly the ones who removed the barrier” which was “the trigger point”.

This statement is written immediately in response to Roger Tan’s article, but also addresses others who have been critical of the Bar on this issue. We intend to address the second criticism first, then the third and first criticisms. Our reason for this will become apparent as our reply develops.

The Bar did not prejudge the issues

In his second criticism, Roger says that the Bar should only pass the resolution condemning police brutality after a finding has been made by an independent body such as Suhakam. However, Suhakam relies on the evidence of witnesses, and often conducts a hearing several months after the event. The Bar based its stance and resolution on the observations of 80 lawyers who formed a team of observers of events during Bersih 3.0. The purpose of assembling and mobilising this monitoring team was precisely so that the Bar would be able to rely on their eyewitness accounts, and not those of friends, media, the police, or post-event photos or videos. The observations of the monitoring team were recorded and compiled within hours on the day itself, and thereafter fine-tuned and completed. We have no reason to doubt the credibility and observations of the team, and neither have we heard of substantiated allegations about them.

Aside from the Bar monitoring team and its report, since that day many other eyewitness accounts have emerged, including photos and videos that speak for themselves. Significantly, on this occasion, even media members were not spared. We even had the embarrassing incident where Al-Jazeera’s reporter Harry Fawcett had to report via Skype from his iPad as his team’s video camera was smashed by police while they were recording police brutality against protestors.

Most importantly, many previous Suhakam inquiries — the November 5, 2001 Kesas Highway Incident, the June 17, 2003 Kundasang Incident, the May 28, 2006 KLCC Incident, the May 27, 2008 Persiaran Bandar Mahkota Cheras 1 Incident, the July 9, 2011 Bersih 2.0 Incident — found that there was excessive use of force by the police, and evidence of police brutality. Numerous complaints by victims led to the said inquiries, the findings of which thereafter vindicated the complaints leading to damning conclusions about police conduct. These many reports do not just show isolated instances of police brutality: Bersih 3.0 was not a one-off. There is a pattern of regular use of excessive force and brutality in violation of human rights by the Royal Malaysian Police Force. Despite these many reports by Suhakam, and despite the findings of the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysia Police, the police have not made any serious attempts to school themselves in the prevention of human rights violations.

Regrettably, Roger is sceptical of the 80 monitors appointed by the Bar Council because they are not named, as he “would certainly like to know their political inclinations” to satisfy himself that they “were independent-minded in their conclusions”. Firstly, five widely-respected senior members of the Bar, who were a part of a “roving” team of monitors, were named and had their observations separately documented: Christopher Leong (vice-president of the Malaysian Bar), Steven Thiru (treasurer of the Bar Council), Datuk Ramachelvam Manimuthu, Ramdas Tikamdas, and Roger Chan Weng Keng. Apparently it is not enough that lawyers of this calibre verify and endorse the report.

More importantly, what does one’s political inclination have to do with stating a fact about whether Malaysian citizens were assaulted and battered by the police, and whether there was excessive use of force in accordance with international human rights standards?

Whilst Roger Tan has left the Bar Council, it is unfair to assume that the Bar Council would not have trained these monitors properly bearing in mind this is not the first assembly monitoring mission dispatched by the council. His flippant remarks greatly disparage those members of the Bar who volunteered to serve on the monitoring team, implying as it does that they would allow their personal prejudice to influence their professional duties. It is part of our job as lawyers to put aside our personal prejudice in order to advance the cause of justice.

Rather conveniently, whilst casting these aspersions on others, Roger himself does not reveal his strong affiliations to a particular political party. Employing Roger’s logic, one wonders, perhaps, whether commentators in The Star, for example, should also be required to divulge their political affiliations and leanings before their opinion pieces are published. But we will not venture into the realm of the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem to discredit the views of others, as Roger disappointingly has.

Roger’s comments suggest that we should not immediately make conclusions even if we see a group of uniformed policemen beating up an unarmed citizen who lies helpless on the ground because there were extenuating circumstances. And even if numerous members of the Bar, members of the public and journalists documented such incidents of brutality. The fact is, the police are supposed to treat each person they arrest as if they are innocent until proven guilty. The police should only use reasonable force in arresting someone. If they have to resort to force, they should only use force that is proportionate to the threat faced, and only enough to ensure the person’s arrest.

Roger cites the example of the Bar postponing its EGM with regards to the VK Lingam video clip scandal while it waited for the Royal Commission of Inquiry to complete its task. Roger however seems to overlook the fact that the video clip sparked the groundbreaking Walk for Justice in September 2007 which saw about 2,000 lawyers marching to the PM’s office. The other difference with that example is that with Bersih 3.0, the Bar monitoring team saw police brutality with their own eyes, and not through a video clip. It is obvious that this is not a comparable precedent.

What is this obsession with Anwar Ibrahim?

In his third criticism, Roger insists that the Bar should similarly demand an apology from Anwar because he was reported to have instigated the removal of the barrier. But Roger must understand that one must distinguish between credible first-hand reports by Bar monitors, and accusations by obviously partisan members of Barisan Nasional and its media.

This is where Roger shows an obvious inconsistency — whilst saying that the eyewitness accounts of the Bar’s monitoring team are insufficient to be relied upon, he says that the Bar should demand an apology from Anwar for an incident that no one on the Bar’s monitoring team witnessed. Despite the many eyewitness blog entries, photos and videos, there has been no compelling evidence either way to show who removed the barriers, or whether their removal was facilitated by the police, public or opposition members. On what basis is Roger suggesting that the Bar demand an apology from Anwar?

Let us for one moment set aside the question whether the court order prohibiting entry into Dataran Merdeka was unnecessary, wrong in law and unconstitutional. Let us also assume the barriers in question were covered by the court order. Even assuming that the order was validly executed by the police, did it necessitate the extreme use of non-lethal force to arrest and disperse the small group of people who breached the barrier? Bearing in mind that the Bar’s resolution was on police misconduct, and not about who removed the barrier, it is even more disconcerting that Roger implies that the police may excessively and disproportionally tear-gas and beat the innocent just to get at those who did breach the barrier.

The Bar need not have condemned the protestors

Finally, Roger develops the basis of the criticism that the Bar is not “independent” by stating the Bar failed to condemn with equal vigour lay members of the public who he says acted “like rioters and anarchists”. Many labour under the misapprehension that to be “independent” an organisation must always be even handed and restrained in one’s remarks. But that is a fallacy. And it is an even greater fallacy when it concerns injustice.

Police brutality is a violation of a human right. A violation of any human right is manifest injustice. Police brutality per se is an injustice. The presence of police brutality has tainted the Royal Malaysian Police as surely as a drop of blood stains a uniform. An injustice perpetrated by even one from an institution set up to serve the cause of justice deserves the harshest condemnation. There cannot be any restraint in condemning abuse of power. As a police force meant to be independent and professional, the Royal Malaysian Police are kept to higher standards than lay members of the public. So the Bar cannot be swayed by fear or favour; it cannot be hesitant or even handed in condemning an injustice that is police brutality. Here is an Executive institution that is well-funded and well-staffed with wide powers taking action against unarmed people. It is state against the individual person, and the Bar stands — must stand — for the latter.

What Roger and many who adopt this line of criticism fail to explain is how the condemnation of police brutality amounts to an endorsement of the opposition. This criticism reveals more of their own political prejudice than that of the Bar. Their criticism strongly suggests a belief that criticism of the police is the equivalent of criticism against the political party in government. Their criticism also reveals that they are the sort who think that perception is reality.

It is only those who are so immersed and drenched in politics that adopt such a worldview. The Bar’s criticism and the facts it relies on are an inconvenience to their perception. Ultimately these popular criticisms against the Bar are not borne of logic or facts, but a need to feel good.

There is one further reason why we would not have voted for a resolution that condemned those members of the public who turned violent. The fact is that most thinking Malaysians who have access to the alternative media — and therefore do not rely solely on the bare-faced propaganda of our mainstream print and broadcast media — are not convinced that these so-called “rioters” are as blameworthy as the police.

The police put razor wire across our city roads, turning Kuala Lumpur into a war zone before any violence had ensued. The police obtained a totally unnecessary court order prohibiting entry for four days into Dataran Merdeka, without any notice or opportunity to the organisers of Bersih 3.0 to present their case despite ample time for them to do this. Then, when the disturbance started, it was the police who shot tear gas behind and in front of retreating protestors so that they were boxed in rather than allowed to disperse. Who ordered the closure of the nearby LRT stations so as to prevent people from dispersing? Who ordered the destruction of cameras belonging to journalists, and the reported censorship of Al Jazeera and the BBC? What justified the four hours of continued attacks on people who were already dispersing or having dinner? All this done against fellow Malaysians, who until the very end had taken part in an almost perfect rally.

As pointed out by Roger, the Bar’s resolution did expressly state that the Bar is concerned with and does not countenance acts of violence by rally participants, and are concerned by reports that police barriers were breached. In our view, that says enough. We did not hear any suggestions made at the EGM to amend the resolution. All the dissenters at the EGM agreed in principle that they were against police brutality. What more needs to be said really, seeing as the police were already actively identifying and hunting down those whom they say committed offences during the rally? The police had even stated that they would conduct a house-to-house search for these individuals. Compare this with the lack of action in identifying, let alone condemning and punishing, the police officers who committed violations of duty and human rights.

The Bar’s resolution was proper

The Bar was entitled and correct to issue the statements it did, and to pass the resolution it did. The resolution is fair in all the circumstances and was carefully worded throughout. The facts that it had gathered itself through the Bar’s own members were set forth frankly and properly, and the urgent action that was needed due to the unprecedented police brutality seen on that day was set out in an appropriate and immediate manner.

We are proud to have supported the Bar’s resolution and have no qualms about the Bar’s continued independence. We believe the vast majority of the Bar are totally in support of the resolution, and the comments against the resolution are the isolated voices of a few in the wilderness given undue prominence by propaganda organisations posing as the mass media.

It is telling that Roger states that “removing the barrier was the trigger point” and adds that it is “common sense” that “whoever first raises his hand against the other is the most blameworthy”. Words do not suffice to describe the disingenuous nature of the suggestion that the removal of the barrier is even remotely comparable to the brutal actions of the police. In any case, there have been no reports of barriers being “breached” in front of the Bar Council, on Leboh Pasar Besar — yet even then, water cannons and tear gas were fired there. Roger fails to acknowledge the clear reality that police reaction was not localised to Dataran Merdeka or to the participants there, and that other than at the Jalan Raja/Tun Perak junction, it was the police who struck first.

The actions of some members of the police force on that day were incidences of injustice that were so blatant that it should be impossible for anyone who purports to stand up for justice to remain silent. We have already seen concerted efforts — by the ruling coalition, the police, and those who are too politically partisan to distinguish clear acts of injustice from their political posturing — to distract from the injustice highlighted by the Bar’s resolution by attacking the Bar and casting aspersions on those who are doing no more than reporting what they saw with their own eyes.

The Bar must continue to fight for those who cannot speak up for themselves, and whose rights are oppressed by the might of the state. That is our duty, and one that we hope members of the Bar will continue to discharge without fear or favour. – loyarburok.com

* This response is jointly endorsed by Edmund Bon, Fahri Azzat, Janet Chai, K Shanmuga, Mahaletchumy Balakrishnan, Marcus van Geyzel, Seira Sacha Abu Bakar, and Sharmila Sekaran.

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

No Human Rights aware legal degree holders or professionals in Bar Council, just Human Rights ignorant egoists and inactive overeducated overglorified persons not using the Bar Council’s mandate. Bar Council should be blamed (and have their degrees removed by any foreign prestige universities) for the neglect of 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)

;that led to Bersih. In fact had Bar Council  done the job of filing lawsuits and speaking against apartheid and so many human rights abuses, insted of being all armchair blogger for the past decade, Bersih would never have happened. Bar Council only turns up at the last moment and sad to say NEVER EVER challenges the apartheid and extreme religion that leads to ‘Bersihs’. This will be another ra-ra farce and ‘lawyer’ fetting exercise rather than an attempt to end apartheid or file lawsuits or amend laws. Bar Council  is a failure thus far, dont get too excieted readers, as a single independant candidate intent on ending apartheid will be strronger than another 100 years of Bar Council’s so-called ‘condemnations’ or another 10 more Bersihs which again I stress have no legal basis just as BN’s apartheid has no legal and even Syariah basis.

Just another group of well educated glorified strawmen out to get the limelight but never out to END APARTHEID. Like so many disappointing and self serving outfits, political party or NGO, Bar Council  sat by and ignored apartheid like so many ‘activists’ while aware of the REAL activists suffered without any recourse to justice. This probe is a sick SANDIWARA that will result in nothing, much less a lawsuit or a MLK style UN delegation to highlight APARTHEID and EXTREME RELIGION in Malaysia.

Act now Bar Council to END APARTHEID or confirm that Bar Council is just another member of the self serving hegelian dialectic.

The Bar’s resolution does not address the above lacks in democracy that have led to abuses and riots through the past few decades, and ALL CITIZENS have MANY qualms about the Bar’s continued independence as long as the Bar Council does not address Malaysia’s lack of the above 3 items. The Bar has not been fighting for those who cannot speak up for themselves, and whose rights are oppressed by the might of the state. That is their duty which could be discharged by addressing Malaysia’s lack of the above 3 items, and one that we THE CITIZENS not of the 1%ter run farcical 14,000+ Bar Council mambers who have never addressed APARTHEID and RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM, lack of social and entertainment freedoms, and the citizens hope members of the Bar will BEGIN to discharge – 1st world Human Rights by amending the Constitution and the Law – without fear or favour (preferably with lowering of election deposits as well so that political posts will not be limited to those of wealth but also be available to even the poorest). – @AgreeToDisagree in response to) loyarburok.com

Voters, BN is apartheid, corrupt, has allowed aspects of extreme religion, and refuses to use that mandate BN NOW ALREADY HAS to better Malaysia by granting above 3 items, PR if unable to address the lack of above 3 items, is self serving non-pro-active, self glorifying, unable to keep their campaign promises, alsovery nepotistic, so vote instead for 3rd Force Parties like : KITA, JATI, MCLM (whats left of MCLM), PCM, Borneo Front, MoCS Sarawak, Konsensus Bebas, HRP/Hindraf and PSM, ABU, PRS, STAR etc..

CONTACT UN, CONTACT NAM, Al-Azhar University in Cairo (Sunnite Islam’s Highest Authority), or even BRICS-PIIGS-ALBA – END APARTHEID. Prepare that MLK style delegation to END APARTHEID.

Advertisements

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: