By Melati Mohd Ariff
(This feature article is the first of a five part series on the development, achievement and the life of Orang Asli).
KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 28, 2009 (Bernama) -- According to the statistics provided by the Department of Orang Asli Affairs (JHEOA), at present there are 141,230 Orang Asli in Peninsula Malaysia.
Pahang has the most number of Orang Asli totaling 50,792, followed by Perak with 40,856 and Selangor with 15,210.
The Orang Asli community is divided into three major groups - Senoi, Negrito and Proto Malays.
Under Senoi, there are six sub groups namely the Temiar, Semai, Jahut, Che Wong (Pahang), Semoq Beri and Mahmeri. Many of these sub groups can be found in Central Perak, South Perak, Pahang and Selangor.
As for the Negrito, there are six sub groups - Kensiu, Kintaq, Jahai, Mendriq, Bateq and Lanoh. These sub groups can be found at the northern part of the Peninsula namely in Kedah, North Perak, Kelantan (Gua Musang) and Ulu Terengganu.
The Proto Group consists of six sub groups - Temuan, Jakun, Semelai, Orang Kuala, Orang Seletar and Orang Kanaq. Many of them can be found in Johor, Melaka, Negeri Sembilan, South Pahang and part of Selangor.
However, JHEOA's Director General Mohd Sani Mistam pointed out that the Orang Asli demography is increasingly changing with time.
"The Orang Asli today have spread out due to their success in the employment, skills and entrepreneurship," he told Bernama during an interview at his office at Wisma Selangor Dredging here recently.
Available data shows that 36.9 percent of the Orang Asli live in the interiors, 62.4 percent in semi urban areas and 0.7 percent in towns.
THE DEPARTMENT'S ROLE
JHEOA's role to empower the socio-economic development of the Orang Asli became more significant under the Seventh Malaysia Plan (1996-2000), Eight Malaysia Plan (2001-2005) and the Ninth Malaysia Plan (2006-2010).
JHEOA has come a long way since its inception in 1954. It was initially known as the Orang Asli Department (JOA) and it adopted the current name on 16 Sept, 1963.
The department was under the Ministry of Home Affairs since its inception but since 2001 JHEOA has been under what is now known as the Rural and Regional Development Ministry.
The initial goal of the department is to ensure that the Orang Asli remain free from the communist propaganda as the jungles which they live in is also the communist hideouts.
"The government has never ignored the welfare of the Orang Asli community. Changing their ways can only be done at the right time and the right place. When the communist threat was real, we had difficulties in providing physical development for the Orang Asli villages," noted Mohd Sani.
When the communist threat ended, JHEOA, he said, was entrusted with the role of integrating the Orang Asli with the rest of the Malaysian society.
The effort is seen pertinent in preventing the Orang Asli from being stereotyped as those who are left out, indolent, filthy and dowdy.
Mohd Sani pointed out that though many Orang Asli suffer from low esteem, the younger generation have been able to overcome this.
"There is also greater integration through mixed marriages with other communities and they are no longer shy in communicating with others.
"This is the testament that our efforts for a more systematic development has been accepted by the community. This is the positive change that we have been hoping for," he elaborated.
CHANGE IN MINDSET
The Orang Asli who were once known as the jungle nomads, are slowly making a transition from their traditional way of life to a more contemporary one.
Their dependence on the forest resources is also increasingly waning. Many have opted for employment or work in their own farms.
Mohd Sani noted that on the whole the development that the Orang Asli are undergoing today is in line with the phases of development planned by the government.
One of the biggest success recorded by the department is in reducing hardcore poverty among the Orang Asli.
"At the beginning of the Ninth Malaysia Plan, we had 13,945 poor households (earning RM720 and less). From this figure 9,003 of the households are hardcore poor (earning RM420 and less).
"As at April 30, 2009, the number of poor households went down to 4,939 while the hardcore poor went down to 1,810," he said adding that the figure is a great achievement when compared with the 19,433 poor Orang Asli households recorded under the Seventh Malaysia Plan.
JHEOA has taken several steps to eradicate hardcore poverty among the Orang Asli including providing them with housing where 14,082 units constructed so far.
Apart from this, JHEOA also provides basic amenities like village roads, water and power supply. So far 513 Orang Asli villages from the total of 876 villages have decent access roads.
Aid is also given to develop new land for rubber and palm oil cultivation, apart from entrepreneurial guidance and assistance for cash crops like water melon, banana and sweet potato.
HEALTH AND EDUCATION
As explained by Mohd Sani, every Orang Asli development programme emphasises on quality of life including health and education.
Regarding health, through the cooperation between JHEOA and the Ministry of Health, many health programmes are being implemented at the Orang Asli settlements, regardless in the suburbs or deep in the interior.
Speaking on health, he said, apart from a JHEOA run hospital in Gombak, there are five transit centres, 753 treatment centres and two rural clinics set up specifically to cater for the Orang Asli's needs nationwide.
Apart from this, he said, JHEOA is also providing the "flying doctor service " in several rural locations like the Pos Gob in Gua Musang.
"Diseases like malaria, leprosy and tuberculosis were once synonymous with the Orang Asli but now diseases related to modern living like diabetes, hypertension, kidney problems and HIV is on the increase," noted Mohd Sani.
In the education aspect JHEOA works with the Education Ministry to boost the academic performance of the Orang Asli students at the primary and secondary level.
Considering the high dropout rates among the Orang Asli children especially in the secondary schools that accounts up to 35 per cent of the Orang Asli student population, JHEOA plans to establish more K-9 (comprehensive schools) at the Orang Asli villages.
The K-9 schools offer education from standard one to form three.
Explaining on the dropout rates, Mohd Sani noted that it happens due to several factors, among others the students no longer interested in studies, leave studies to get married, start working or follow their parents to look for jungle resources.
"Some even drop out because they do not want to leave their village. Most of the schools at the Orang Asli villages are primary schools and to continue at a secondary school they need to travel or live in hostel.
"This is why they choose to dropout. Due to this more K-9 schools will be opened. Among the locations identified are Gua Musang and Cameron Highlands," noted Mohd Sani adding that currently there is one K-9 school in Paloh Inai, Pekan, Pahang.
SKILL TRAINING
As for the Orang Asli youths who do not excel in education, they have the opportunity to undergo vocational courses at the Damansara Damai Training Centre.
Up to 2008, about 1,600 Orang Asli youths underwent training to repair cars and motorbikes. About 80 per cent of the trainees managed to gain employment or open their own workshop.
Meanwhile, the fairer sex of the Orang Asli can opt for the sewing or hairstyling course and up to 2008 a total of 331 Orang Asli girls underwent training in this two courses.
Looking at the academic performance, the Orang Asli can be proud of their children's achievement as 600 Orang Asli students have made their way to higher education institutions.
Many of the Orang Asli Undergraduates are under JHEOA's scholarship.
LIMITATIONS AND SOCIAL WOES
Though JHEOA has recorded many achievements, there are still many more issues relating to Orang Asli that need to be addressed.
Among others the land development programmes that involve ungazzeted Orang Asli settlements that require the respective state government's approval.
Also the remotely located Orang Asli settlements hinder development programmes.
Like the other societies in this country, the Orang Asli are increasingly exposed to mainstream development and modern lifestyle and thus they are not exempted from social woes like drug addiction and free sex.
The Orang Asli living in the suburbs and towns are more affected by the social woes.
"Though this situation is worrying but it is still under control. The department through JHEOA at the state and district level will monitor and advise the community through the JHEOA's Mind Friendly Programme," added Mohd Sani.
He also touched on the liquor consumption among the Orang Asli, especially the older generation, which is hard to eradicate.
"Liquor is part and parcel of the Orang Asli's way of life.
"However, we still hold the awareness campaign on the dangers of consuming liquor and taking drugs with the cooperation of the National Anti Dadah Agency (AADK)," said Mohd Sani.
NO ONE IS LEFT OUT
The welfare of the Orang Asli remains the core of the Orang Asli Development programmes and a significant amount has been allocated for JHEOA for this purpose under the First Economic Stimulus Package.
Under the package, a total of RM65 million has been allocated for the household assistance programme that is expected to benefit 2,151 households.
Another RM24.9 million has been allocated for roads in 107 kampongs (RM14.5 million) and agricultural routes (RM10.4 million).
Apart from this, a total of RM200 million has been allocated to ensure all Orang Asli villages have clean water supply.
This year, the government continued with the RM20 million special allocation for the Orang Asli community that will be channeled through the Orang Asli Quality of Life Enhancement Programme.
In fact the Rural and Regional Development Minister Datuk Seri Mohd Shafie Apdal had ordered the formation of the Focus Group on last July to see to the woes faced by the Orang Asli. It covers five areas - education, amenities, health, economy and traditional knowledge.
Like what has been explained by Mohd Sani, under the 1Malaysia concept, there will not be any groups sidelined or left out. And for the Orang Asli community, the government has done a lot to enhance their socio-economic standing.
"If there is anyone left out, it is probably due to their reluctance to change their traditional way of life. Only five per cent of the Orang Asli community still carry on with their traditional way of life especially those living in Ulu Perak and Taman Negara, in Pahang," added Mohd Sani.
-- BERNAMA
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Thursday, September 03, 2009
MALAYSIAN HUMAN RIGHTS DAY 2009
by SUHAKAM
THEME: “HUMAN RIGHTS IN MALAYSIA: THE LAST 10 YEARS”
DATE: 9 SEPTEMBER 2009
VENUE: RENAISSANCE HOTEL, JALAN AMPANG, KUALA LUMPUR
PROGRAMME
0830 - 0930 Registration
0930 - 1030 Welcoming by Datuk Dr. Chiam Heng Keng,Chairperson, Organizing Committee
Keynote Address by Tan Sri Abu Talib Bin Othman, Chairman, SUHAKAM
1030- 1050 Break / Refreshments
1050 - 1315 Panel Session
Panellist 1: Mr. Andrew Khoo, Co-Chairperson Human Rights Committee, Bar Council
Panellist 2: Mr. Ramdas Tikamdas, Former President of HAKAM
Panellist 3: Dr. Hajah Mehrun Siraj, Adjunct Professor, IIUM
Panellist 4: Mr. Steven Gan, Chief Editor, Malaysiakini.com
1315 – 1330 Closing Remarks, by Tan Sri Datuk Panglima Simon Sipaun
1330 End of Conference
THEME: “HUMAN RIGHTS IN MALAYSIA: THE LAST 10 YEARS”
DATE: 9 SEPTEMBER 2009
VENUE: RENAISSANCE HOTEL, JALAN AMPANG, KUALA LUMPUR
PROGRAMME
0830 - 0930 Registration
0930 - 1030 Welcoming by Datuk Dr. Chiam Heng Keng,Chairperson, Organizing Committee
Keynote Address by Tan Sri Abu Talib Bin Othman, Chairman, SUHAKAM
1030- 1050 Break / Refreshments
1050 - 1315 Panel Session
Panellist 1: Mr. Andrew Khoo, Co-Chairperson Human Rights Committee, Bar Council
Panellist 2: Mr. Ramdas Tikamdas, Former President of HAKAM
Panellist 3: Dr. Hajah Mehrun Siraj, Adjunct Professor, IIUM
Panellist 4: Mr. Steven Gan, Chief Editor, Malaysiakini.com
1315 – 1330 Closing Remarks, by Tan Sri Datuk Panglima Simon Sipaun
1330 End of Conference
Saturday, August 29, 2009
The issue of Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarnor’s case
SUHAKAM PRESS STATEMENT
The issue of Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarnor’s case was brought up at the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) meeting yesterday. The Commission view whipping as cruel, inhuman and degrading contrary to human rights principle.
In this regard it is unfortunate that the Government had not ratify the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment though SUHAKAM had repeatedly urged the Government to ratify. SUHAKAM urges the relevant authority to review this matter.
“HUMAN RIGHTS FOR ALL”
By the authority of SUHAKAM
HASHIMAH NIK JAAFAR
Secretary
Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
29 August 2009
The issue of Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarnor’s case was brought up at the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) meeting yesterday. The Commission view whipping as cruel, inhuman and degrading contrary to human rights principle.
In this regard it is unfortunate that the Government had not ratify the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment though SUHAKAM had repeatedly urged the Government to ratify. SUHAKAM urges the relevant authority to review this matter.
“HUMAN RIGHTS FOR ALL”
By the authority of SUHAKAM
HASHIMAH NIK JAAFAR
Secretary
Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
29 August 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
Blind but he saw
by Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria
The passing a way of an outstanding Malaysian who excelled as an academic, strategic thinker, educationist and activist is a tremendous loss not only to his family but to our nation.
YB Senator Datuk Professor Dr Ismail Md Salleh is another person our nation must honor. Fighting visual impairment he triumphed to intellectual heights at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia as an economics professor and subsequently as a strategic thinking at the ISIS. His pain taking service through the Malaysian Association for the Blind as the Council President and Chair of the Tun Hussein Onn Eye hospital earned his the honor of becoming the first disabled person to be appointed as a Senator.
My admiration for him grew especially during the period when Dr Ismail served in the National Economic Consultative Council (MAPEN II) between 1999 and 2000 as the person responsible in drafting the full report. The Council report was to be a document that was to be independent of government. I too was a member of the steering committee.
He devoted a lot of his time in reading the submissions made by community groups, professional bodies and business interest. He also had to hear many differing views and sometime views in conflict with one another. However with great tack and skill as a master scholar he drafted a document which reflected the aspirations, concerns and dreams of all the various communities.
This to me is a God given gift : As a scholar, academic and strategic thinker to craft a document which captures the essence of every Malaysian. Malaysia needs more such citizens who not only feel passionately for their community but also will stand alongside other communities because it is the right thing to do. Unfortunately this report which is an excellent piece of community socio- economic bargaining and which conceptualized the National Vision Policy (2001-2010) is not widely distributed nor read.
I stood alongside many others yesterday evening at his home in Kajang waiting for his remains to return from overseas to pay our last respects. In such occasions we can only give thanks to God for a life well lived and for a man who was loved and respected not only by his family and friends but by so many people across the broad spectrum of our nation.
The passing a way of an outstanding Malaysian who excelled as an academic, strategic thinker, educationist and activist is a tremendous loss not only to his family but to our nation.
YB Senator Datuk Professor Dr Ismail Md Salleh is another person our nation must honor. Fighting visual impairment he triumphed to intellectual heights at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia as an economics professor and subsequently as a strategic thinking at the ISIS. His pain taking service through the Malaysian Association for the Blind as the Council President and Chair of the Tun Hussein Onn Eye hospital earned his the honor of becoming the first disabled person to be appointed as a Senator.
My admiration for him grew especially during the period when Dr Ismail served in the National Economic Consultative Council (MAPEN II) between 1999 and 2000 as the person responsible in drafting the full report. The Council report was to be a document that was to be independent of government. I too was a member of the steering committee.
He devoted a lot of his time in reading the submissions made by community groups, professional bodies and business interest. He also had to hear many differing views and sometime views in conflict with one another. However with great tack and skill as a master scholar he drafted a document which reflected the aspirations, concerns and dreams of all the various communities.
This to me is a God given gift : As a scholar, academic and strategic thinker to craft a document which captures the essence of every Malaysian. Malaysia needs more such citizens who not only feel passionately for their community but also will stand alongside other communities because it is the right thing to do. Unfortunately this report which is an excellent piece of community socio- economic bargaining and which conceptualized the National Vision Policy (2001-2010) is not widely distributed nor read.
I stood alongside many others yesterday evening at his home in Kajang waiting for his remains to return from overseas to pay our last respects. In such occasions we can only give thanks to God for a life well lived and for a man who was loved and respected not only by his family and friends but by so many people across the broad spectrum of our nation.
Monday, August 17, 2009
'Lawyers shouldn't be arrested while on duty'
Bar Council chairperson Ragunath Kesavan told a Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Suhakam) public inquiry today that lawyers were not above the law as there had been cases of lawyers being arrested by the police.
He said as such, the arrest of five lawyers from the Kuala Lumpur Legal Aid Centre by police on May 7, 2009, was not the first case as prior to that veteran lawyer Karpal Singh had been arrested and charged for allegedly uttering seditious words, and several other lawyers had also been charged in court.
However, Ragunath said what the Bar was concerned was how and why they (the KL Legal Aid Centre lawyers) were arrested by the police as they had gone to the police station to meet their clients who had called to say they were in police custody.
"The police arrested them when they were on duty. They were not taking part in the assembly in front of the Brickfields police station. They were there to see their clients," he said.
Ragunath said if the five lawyers who were arrested were part of the assembly, the Bar would not have called for an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) after their arrest.
He was speaking at the inquiry which started on Friday and is chaired by Suhakam commissioner Muhammad Shafee Abdullah and assisted by commissioners Micheal Yeoh Onn Kheng and Denison Jayasooria.
Among those arrested were Fadiah Nadwa Fikri, Murnie Hidayah Anuar, RavinderSingh Dhalliwal and Syuhaini Safwan. They were arrested at 9.30pm on May 7, and were released the next day.
Ordered to leave balai
Ragunath, who is former Legal Aid chairperson, also told the inquiry that the five lawyers were senior members of the Legal Aid Centre and they knew what an illegal assembly was as every member of the Legal Aid team were taught protocol on how to act and behave in incidents such as an illegal assembly.
He also said after he knew about the five lawyers (left) being arrested, he went to the Jalan Travers police station where they were detained on May 8, but was not allowed to see them.
"I insisted that I be allowed to see them but the police without any reasons denied permission. A police officer also said to me "Get out from my balai or I will arrest you," he claimed.
Ragunath said he informed the officer in charge that he was the Bar Council chairperson, but they still refused to give him access to the lawyers.
"I followed the police order and left the police station," he said, adding that the Bar planned to engage counsel for them if they were charged in court.
Earlier, Fadiah Nadwa, 26, had told the inquiry that she and her colleagues had repeatedly asked the police for proof that their clients (detained participants of the illegal assembly) had waived their right to a lawyer but DSP Jude Pereira just ignored them.
The inquiry, which is being held at Suhakam's inquiry room on the 29th floor of Menara Tun Razak in KL, will resume on Aug 29.
(Bernama cited as source but taken from malaysiakini, Aug 16, 09 6:19pm)
He said as such, the arrest of five lawyers from the Kuala Lumpur Legal Aid Centre by police on May 7, 2009, was not the first case as prior to that veteran lawyer Karpal Singh had been arrested and charged for allegedly uttering seditious words, and several other lawyers had also been charged in court.
However, Ragunath said what the Bar was concerned was how and why they (the KL Legal Aid Centre lawyers) were arrested by the police as they had gone to the police station to meet their clients who had called to say they were in police custody.
"The police arrested them when they were on duty. They were not taking part in the assembly in front of the Brickfields police station. They were there to see their clients," he said.
Ragunath said if the five lawyers who were arrested were part of the assembly, the Bar would not have called for an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) after their arrest.
He was speaking at the inquiry which started on Friday and is chaired by Suhakam commissioner Muhammad Shafee Abdullah and assisted by commissioners Micheal Yeoh Onn Kheng and Denison Jayasooria.
Among those arrested were Fadiah Nadwa Fikri, Murnie Hidayah Anuar, RavinderSingh Dhalliwal and Syuhaini Safwan. They were arrested at 9.30pm on May 7, and were released the next day.
Ordered to leave balai
Ragunath, who is former Legal Aid chairperson, also told the inquiry that the five lawyers were senior members of the Legal Aid Centre and they knew what an illegal assembly was as every member of the Legal Aid team were taught protocol on how to act and behave in incidents such as an illegal assembly.
He also said after he knew about the five lawyers (left) being arrested, he went to the Jalan Travers police station where they were detained on May 8, but was not allowed to see them.
"I insisted that I be allowed to see them but the police without any reasons denied permission. A police officer also said to me "Get out from my balai or I will arrest you," he claimed.
Ragunath said he informed the officer in charge that he was the Bar Council chairperson, but they still refused to give him access to the lawyers.
"I followed the police order and left the police station," he said, adding that the Bar planned to engage counsel for them if they were charged in court.
Earlier, Fadiah Nadwa, 26, had told the inquiry that she and her colleagues had repeatedly asked the police for proof that their clients (detained participants of the illegal assembly) had waived their right to a lawyer but DSP Jude Pereira just ignored them.
The inquiry, which is being held at Suhakam's inquiry room on the 29th floor of Menara Tun Razak in KL, will resume on Aug 29.
(Bernama cited as source but taken from malaysiakini, Aug 16, 09 6:19pm)
'Police knew we were lawyers'
By Rahmah Ghazali, Malaysiakini(Aug 15, 09 8:52pm)
Police were well aware that some of those they were arresting were lawyers who were at the Brickfields police station to provide legal assistance to detainees, a Suhakam inquiry was told today.
Puspawati Rosman, 28, one of the five lawyers who were detained by the police, testified that she was not part of the May 7 candlelight vigil which resulted in her arrest, and that she and four of her colleagues had clearly identified themselves as lawyers.
According to her, she had announced herself as a lawyer “a number of times” and the police had acknowledged it.
“In fact, I had even introduced myself to DSP Jude Pereira the night before and he knew I was a lawyer,” she said, referring to the arrests that took place a day earlier outside the same police station.
Puspawati claimed that Pereira ignored the lawyers' request to see their clients on the grounds that those arrested had “waived their rights to receive legal assistance” by signing a form under Section 28A (8) of Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).
“But when we asked on what grounds the police had acted that way, he (Pereira) refused to answer and told me to 'go read your law (book)',” she said.
Later that night, Puspawati and the other lawyers tried to seek confirmation on whether their clients had indeed waived their rights.
“We asked them (the police) about the forms which they claimed our clients had signed to prove that they didn't want to see us, but we were not entertained. If they showed us the forms, we would have left the scene,” she said.
According to Puspawati, all the detainees had informed her by mobile phone that they did not sign any forms and that they insisted on legal assistance.
The three-day Suhakam inquiry which started yesterday is chaired by Muhammad Shafee Abdullah and two other commissioners, Michael Yeoh and Denison Jayasooria.
The five lawyers are Puspawati, Fadiah Nadwa Fikri, Murnie Hidayah Anuar, Ravinder Singh Dhalliwal and Syuhaini Safwan. They are represented at the inquiry by lawyer M Puravalen.
The five were arrested while attempting to provide legal aid to a group of individuals nabbed during a candlelight vigil in support of Bersih activist Wong Chin Huat, who was detained under the Sedition Act.
Not allowed to wear undergarments
Puspawati also said that she did not expect Brickfields police chief Wan Abdul Bari Wan Abdul Khalid - who was wearing a 'Head Hunter' T-shirt that night - would instruct his officers to arrest the lawyers.
“When he gave the warning to disperse, I had no idea that he was actually talking to us because he did not make any eye contact with us. I thought he was talking to the public,” she said.
Upon their arrests, they were all asked to sign a form admitting that they were involved in an illegal gathering, which they refused.
Subsequently, the female lawyers were sent to nearby Travers police station to spend the night.
“Before that, we were ordered to change our clothes to a lock-up uniform, where we were not even allowed to wear our undergarments,” lamented Puspawati, who further claimed that all the lawyers were also handcuffed before their statements were taken by the police.
Puspawati said the next day the five lawyers were brought back to Brickfield police station where they were released on police bail.
However, temperature at the inquiry rose a notch when police representative R Munusamy argued that the police need not give any reason to the lawyers if their clients were arrested under Section 28A (8) of CPC, which Puspawati agreed.
“But the lawyers and the clients still have the right to know what grounds the police needed to use such a provision,” she argued.
The purpose of the inquiry
The inquiry's term of reference is to determine whether the arrest and detention of five at the Brickfields police station contravened provisions of the federal constitution and other substantive and procedural criminal laws which guaranteed certain rights to an arrested person.
The panel will also look into whether there was justification or necessity to arrest the lawyers under Section 27 of the Police Act.
It will also determined if there was violations of human rights, and if so:
Which person or agency was responsible,
How did the violations occur,
What administrative directives and procedures or arrangements contributed to them; and
What measures should be recommended and taken to ensure that such violations do not recur.
The public inquiry, which is being held at the Suhakam inquiry room at Level 29, Menara Tun Razak in Kuala Lumpur, will resume tomorrow with four other lawyers to testify in the morning, to be followed by the police.
Police were well aware that some of those they were arresting were lawyers who were at the Brickfields police station to provide legal assistance to detainees, a Suhakam inquiry was told today.
Puspawati Rosman, 28, one of the five lawyers who were detained by the police, testified that she was not part of the May 7 candlelight vigil which resulted in her arrest, and that she and four of her colleagues had clearly identified themselves as lawyers.
According to her, she had announced herself as a lawyer “a number of times” and the police had acknowledged it.
“In fact, I had even introduced myself to DSP Jude Pereira the night before and he knew I was a lawyer,” she said, referring to the arrests that took place a day earlier outside the same police station.
Puspawati claimed that Pereira ignored the lawyers' request to see their clients on the grounds that those arrested had “waived their rights to receive legal assistance” by signing a form under Section 28A (8) of Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).
“But when we asked on what grounds the police had acted that way, he (Pereira) refused to answer and told me to 'go read your law (book)',” she said.
Later that night, Puspawati and the other lawyers tried to seek confirmation on whether their clients had indeed waived their rights.
“We asked them (the police) about the forms which they claimed our clients had signed to prove that they didn't want to see us, but we were not entertained. If they showed us the forms, we would have left the scene,” she said.
According to Puspawati, all the detainees had informed her by mobile phone that they did not sign any forms and that they insisted on legal assistance.
The three-day Suhakam inquiry which started yesterday is chaired by Muhammad Shafee Abdullah and two other commissioners, Michael Yeoh and Denison Jayasooria.
The five lawyers are Puspawati, Fadiah Nadwa Fikri, Murnie Hidayah Anuar, Ravinder Singh Dhalliwal and Syuhaini Safwan. They are represented at the inquiry by lawyer M Puravalen.
The five were arrested while attempting to provide legal aid to a group of individuals nabbed during a candlelight vigil in support of Bersih activist Wong Chin Huat, who was detained under the Sedition Act.
Not allowed to wear undergarments
Puspawati also said that she did not expect Brickfields police chief Wan Abdul Bari Wan Abdul Khalid - who was wearing a 'Head Hunter' T-shirt that night - would instruct his officers to arrest the lawyers.
“When he gave the warning to disperse, I had no idea that he was actually talking to us because he did not make any eye contact with us. I thought he was talking to the public,” she said.
Upon their arrests, they were all asked to sign a form admitting that they were involved in an illegal gathering, which they refused.
Subsequently, the female lawyers were sent to nearby Travers police station to spend the night.
“Before that, we were ordered to change our clothes to a lock-up uniform, where we were not even allowed to wear our undergarments,” lamented Puspawati, who further claimed that all the lawyers were also handcuffed before their statements were taken by the police.
Puspawati said the next day the five lawyers were brought back to Brickfield police station where they were released on police bail.
However, temperature at the inquiry rose a notch when police representative R Munusamy argued that the police need not give any reason to the lawyers if their clients were arrested under Section 28A (8) of CPC, which Puspawati agreed.
“But the lawyers and the clients still have the right to know what grounds the police needed to use such a provision,” she argued.
The purpose of the inquiry
The inquiry's term of reference is to determine whether the arrest and detention of five at the Brickfields police station contravened provisions of the federal constitution and other substantive and procedural criminal laws which guaranteed certain rights to an arrested person.
The panel will also look into whether there was justification or necessity to arrest the lawyers under Section 27 of the Police Act.
It will also determined if there was violations of human rights, and if so:
Which person or agency was responsible,
How did the violations occur,
What administrative directives and procedures or arrangements contributed to them; and
What measures should be recommended and taken to ensure that such violations do not recur.
The public inquiry, which is being held at the Suhakam inquiry room at Level 29, Menara Tun Razak in Kuala Lumpur, will resume tomorrow with four other lawyers to testify in the morning, to be followed by the police.
Suhakam inquiry into lawyers' arrest begins
By Malaysiakini (Aug 14, 09 10:02am )
The three-day public inquiry by Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) into the arrest and detention of five lawyers for illegal assembly on May 7, began today
The session is chaired by Muhammad Shafee Abdullah (below) and two other commissioners Michael Yeoh Onn Kheng and Denison Jayasooria.
The five lawyers are Puspawati Rosman, Fadiah Nadwa Fikri, Murnie Hidayah Anuar, Ravinder Singh Dhalliwal and Syuhaini Safwan.
They are being represented by lawyer M Puravalen.
The lawyers were attempting to provide legal aid to a group of individuals nabbed during a candlelight vigil in support of Bersih activist Wong Chin Huat, who was detained under the Sedition Act, when they were arrested.
Arrested for taking photo
The first witness called in by the inquiry was Ginie Lim, who is the chief press relations officer at the Selangor government.
Lim said that on that night, there were about 30 people who had gathered to hold a candlelight vigil to show support for Wong.
"A plainclothes police officer had then approached us and asked everyone to disperse. He counted to the count of three for the crowd to disperse," she said.
She said this was soon followed by the arrest.
"I told the officer that it was not necessary to take photos of the (arrested) demonstrators but I was handcuffed instead," she said.
Shocked to see lawyers arrested
Lim said about 14 people were detained by the police at 9.30pm, when they failed to adhere to a very short notice from the authorities to disperse.
"Immediately, I texted one of my lawyer friends to tell her what happened and asked her to help us," she said.
About 30 minutes later, Lim who was separated from the bigger group and placed in a store at the police headquarters, said she was informed by her friend that the lawyers were outside the police station but were denied access to her.
Her requests to see them were pointedly ignored and about 11pm, she shouted to get the police's attention.
"One of them (policemen) told me that it was of no use to shout as the lawyers were detained. I was so shocked because I did not expect that," she said.
Later, Lim said she was asked to sign a waiver form but she refused as she knew from past experiences that signing such forms would surrender her right to a counsel.
She met four female lawyers when she was instructed to get into a truck to be taken to the Travers police station and they spent the night in opposite cells at the station's lock-up.
Police were unprofessional
Wong, 39, meanwhile said she went to the Brickfields police headquarters after being informed that two of her staff were detained for attending the candlelight vigil.
She saw the lawyers arguing with a high-ranking police officer and tried to help them gain access to their clients, but failed.
However, she decided to leave the police headquarters after the police chief warned that those who failed to disperse would be arrested.
"...but I never thought that they would arrest the lawyers as they had a duty to perform. The police were not particularly, professional in their dealings with the lawyers," she said.
Other witnesses interviewed were journalist Teh Yee Keong, 24, and students Neow Ti Hooi, 23, and Gan Zhi Jie, 22.
Terms of reference
The inquiry's term of reference is to determine whether the arrest and detention of five at the Brickfields Police station contravened provisions of the Federal Constitution and other substantive and procedural criminal laws which guaranteed the right to an arrested person.
The panel will also look into whether there was justification or necessity to arrest the lawyers under Section 27 of the Police Act.
It will also determined if there was violations of human rights and if so:
Which person or agency was responsible,
How did the violations occur,
What administrative directives and procedures or arrangements contributed to them; and
What measures should be recommended and taken to ensure that such violations do not recur.
The inquiry held at the Suhakam Inquiry Room at Level 29, Menara Tun Razak in Kuala Lumpur continues.
The three-day public inquiry by Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) into the arrest and detention of five lawyers for illegal assembly on May 7, began today
The session is chaired by Muhammad Shafee Abdullah (below) and two other commissioners Michael Yeoh Onn Kheng and Denison Jayasooria.
The five lawyers are Puspawati Rosman, Fadiah Nadwa Fikri, Murnie Hidayah Anuar, Ravinder Singh Dhalliwal and Syuhaini Safwan.
They are being represented by lawyer M Puravalen.
The lawyers were attempting to provide legal aid to a group of individuals nabbed during a candlelight vigil in support of Bersih activist Wong Chin Huat, who was detained under the Sedition Act, when they were arrested.
Arrested for taking photo
The first witness called in by the inquiry was Ginie Lim, who is the chief press relations officer at the Selangor government.
Lim said that on that night, there were about 30 people who had gathered to hold a candlelight vigil to show support for Wong.
"A plainclothes police officer had then approached us and asked everyone to disperse. He counted to the count of three for the crowd to disperse," she said.
She said this was soon followed by the arrest.
"I told the officer that it was not necessary to take photos of the (arrested) demonstrators but I was handcuffed instead," she said.
Shocked to see lawyers arrested
Lim said about 14 people were detained by the police at 9.30pm, when they failed to adhere to a very short notice from the authorities to disperse.
"Immediately, I texted one of my lawyer friends to tell her what happened and asked her to help us," she said.
About 30 minutes later, Lim who was separated from the bigger group and placed in a store at the police headquarters, said she was informed by her friend that the lawyers were outside the police station but were denied access to her.
Her requests to see them were pointedly ignored and about 11pm, she shouted to get the police's attention.
"One of them (policemen) told me that it was of no use to shout as the lawyers were detained. I was so shocked because I did not expect that," she said.
Later, Lim said she was asked to sign a waiver form but she refused as she knew from past experiences that signing such forms would surrender her right to a counsel.
She met four female lawyers when she was instructed to get into a truck to be taken to the Travers police station and they spent the night in opposite cells at the station's lock-up.
Police were unprofessional
Wong, 39, meanwhile said she went to the Brickfields police headquarters after being informed that two of her staff were detained for attending the candlelight vigil.
She saw the lawyers arguing with a high-ranking police officer and tried to help them gain access to their clients, but failed.
However, she decided to leave the police headquarters after the police chief warned that those who failed to disperse would be arrested.
"...but I never thought that they would arrest the lawyers as they had a duty to perform. The police were not particularly, professional in their dealings with the lawyers," she said.
Other witnesses interviewed were journalist Teh Yee Keong, 24, and students Neow Ti Hooi, 23, and Gan Zhi Jie, 22.
Terms of reference
The inquiry's term of reference is to determine whether the arrest and detention of five at the Brickfields Police station contravened provisions of the Federal Constitution and other substantive and procedural criminal laws which guaranteed the right to an arrested person.
The panel will also look into whether there was justification or necessity to arrest the lawyers under Section 27 of the Police Act.
It will also determined if there was violations of human rights and if so:
Which person or agency was responsible,
How did the violations occur,
What administrative directives and procedures or arrangements contributed to them; and
What measures should be recommended and taken to ensure that such violations do not recur.
The inquiry held at the Suhakam Inquiry Room at Level 29, Menara Tun Razak in Kuala Lumpur continues.
Saturday, August 08, 2009
Zaid vs Khairy on Al Jazeera
YOUR WORD AGAINST THE REST ISA (malaysia Today Aug 6, 09 9:15pm)
Releasing ISA detainees after becoming prime minister does not mean a thing when the law can be used to detain more people after that, said former law minister Zaid Ibrahim.
"Yes, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak released 13. Dr Mahathir Mohammad released 12 after becoming Prime Minister in 1981.
"But he went on to arrest another 100 in 1987," said Zaid on Al Jazeera's 101 East current affairs programme which was aired at 8.30pm tonight.
"So long as you have a minister who can detain anyone without having the right to question him, it is not acceptable."
Zaid was responding to fellow panellist, Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin who said Najib signalled his intention to review the act when he released ISA detainees after being sworn in as Prime Minister.
The remaining panellist was Suhakam commissioner Dr Denison Jayasooria.
Zaid said that there were other preventive laws in the country and so long as the government is not prepared to repeal the ISA, there will be no real democracy in the country.
"The future of politics in the country is this; do we want to enjoy basic rights that people all over the world are enjoying without sacrificing the security of the country?
"We accept preventive laws but they must be specific, limited in time and subject to judicial review," he added.
Zaid said the concern of the people is whether they can trust the government to keep to its promise of a review of the ISA.
"Suhakam had called for a review since 2003. And all the government has been saying is we will review, we will review but nothing has been done.
Najib's bizarre statement
"Unlike Khairy, I have heard bizarre statements from ministers and even the PM who said, ‘Why don't we build a stadium for you guys and you can go and scream there.'
"His statement reflects one thing very clearly. He does not understand what freedom is. He does not understand what personal liberty is.
"Because if you cannot understand what the constitution provides, you can never address this issue," he said.
"Can't you just give the permit and say just march for two hours from point A to point B, just like other civilised countries do?
"We did not go there with tear gas, we did not go there with attack dogs, we went there with ordinary people with children.
"We were exercising our right to assemble under the constitution. The inconvenience was caused by the authorities. It was not by us. Why can't you allow that two hours of space?" asked Zaid.
Khairy said the anti-ISA demonstration on Aug 1, has hastened the debate on bringing changes to the law.
While he agreed with the government's stand to review the law, he said Malaysia needed preventive detention laws to take proactive measures to maintain peace.
He said with threats from terrorists and extremists, coupled with a uniquely multi-racial society, the government could ill-afford a tragedy.
"In this context, I believe the people will understand the importance of giving the government this power," he said.
However, Khairy added that the national security agenda ought to be balanced with the demands of democracy, in this case human rights, civil liberties and justice.
"Therefore, the ISA or any other preventive law should not be used to stop legitimate dissent or used as an easy way out of a political impasse.
"The term national security shouldn't be abused for anyone's political interest. The scope and definition of a national security threat must be tightened to avoid abuse."
In an effort to strengthen the system of democracy in the country, the BN, said Khairy, was not deaf to the views of youths who are not comfortable with the ISA.
"Here, I do not agree that we label this group as being blind to history or appearing to show that the Malays are opposing the ISA.
"In fact, we need to listen and understand their views in line with the reforms being carried out by the party and the Prime Minister."
Near absolute power of ISA unsettling
He said he concurred with the prime minister who had given clear indications that the ISA need not be retained as it is.
"Whether the ISA will be amended or replaced will have to be a political decision. It's possible that it is a political burden and needs to shift from its extremist legacy.
"Therefore, it is not surprising that people are uncomfortable with the near absolute powers given to the home minister to detain a suspect without trial indefinitely.
"Any individual arrested under preventive laws must be given the liberty to appeal to a court of law against his detention. As most cases involve evidences that are deemed sensitive, it may be better a special court is set up to hear these cases in camera."
"I also feel there is a need to give ISA detainees access to their lawyers and family members, which they are deprived of currently. These issues must be discussed for the benefit of all."
He said the anti-ISA demonstration on Aug 1 did not bring any direct benefit to anyone as the protesters only asked for the abolishment of the ISA without offering any realistic suggestions as Malaysia still needed a preventive law.
Denison said there is a general public opinion that there were excesses on the use of the ISA and there was a need to limit the powers in areas of threat to national security.
On Najib's proposal to use stadiums to stage protests, he said that even a simple thing like the candlelight vigils and dinners have been restricted and speeches were prohibited.
"The police have not followed some of the guidelines' and suggestion given by the Human Rights Commission to allow space for legitimate dissent as enshrined under the federal constitution," he said.
Releasing ISA detainees after becoming prime minister does not mean a thing when the law can be used to detain more people after that, said former law minister Zaid Ibrahim.
"Yes, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak released 13. Dr Mahathir Mohammad released 12 after becoming Prime Minister in 1981.
"But he went on to arrest another 100 in 1987," said Zaid on Al Jazeera's 101 East current affairs programme which was aired at 8.30pm tonight.
"So long as you have a minister who can detain anyone without having the right to question him, it is not acceptable."
Zaid was responding to fellow panellist, Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin who said Najib signalled his intention to review the act when he released ISA detainees after being sworn in as Prime Minister.
The remaining panellist was Suhakam commissioner Dr Denison Jayasooria.
Zaid said that there were other preventive laws in the country and so long as the government is not prepared to repeal the ISA, there will be no real democracy in the country.
"The future of politics in the country is this; do we want to enjoy basic rights that people all over the world are enjoying without sacrificing the security of the country?
"We accept preventive laws but they must be specific, limited in time and subject to judicial review," he added.
Zaid said the concern of the people is whether they can trust the government to keep to its promise of a review of the ISA.
"Suhakam had called for a review since 2003. And all the government has been saying is we will review, we will review but nothing has been done.
Najib's bizarre statement
"Unlike Khairy, I have heard bizarre statements from ministers and even the PM who said, ‘Why don't we build a stadium for you guys and you can go and scream there.'
"His statement reflects one thing very clearly. He does not understand what freedom is. He does not understand what personal liberty is.
"Because if you cannot understand what the constitution provides, you can never address this issue," he said.
"Can't you just give the permit and say just march for two hours from point A to point B, just like other civilised countries do?
"We did not go there with tear gas, we did not go there with attack dogs, we went there with ordinary people with children.
"We were exercising our right to assemble under the constitution. The inconvenience was caused by the authorities. It was not by us. Why can't you allow that two hours of space?" asked Zaid.
Khairy said the anti-ISA demonstration on Aug 1, has hastened the debate on bringing changes to the law.
While he agreed with the government's stand to review the law, he said Malaysia needed preventive detention laws to take proactive measures to maintain peace.
He said with threats from terrorists and extremists, coupled with a uniquely multi-racial society, the government could ill-afford a tragedy.
"In this context, I believe the people will understand the importance of giving the government this power," he said.
However, Khairy added that the national security agenda ought to be balanced with the demands of democracy, in this case human rights, civil liberties and justice.
"Therefore, the ISA or any other preventive law should not be used to stop legitimate dissent or used as an easy way out of a political impasse.
"The term national security shouldn't be abused for anyone's political interest. The scope and definition of a national security threat must be tightened to avoid abuse."
In an effort to strengthen the system of democracy in the country, the BN, said Khairy, was not deaf to the views of youths who are not comfortable with the ISA.
"Here, I do not agree that we label this group as being blind to history or appearing to show that the Malays are opposing the ISA.
"In fact, we need to listen and understand their views in line with the reforms being carried out by the party and the Prime Minister."
Near absolute power of ISA unsettling
He said he concurred with the prime minister who had given clear indications that the ISA need not be retained as it is.
"Whether the ISA will be amended or replaced will have to be a political decision. It's possible that it is a political burden and needs to shift from its extremist legacy.
"Therefore, it is not surprising that people are uncomfortable with the near absolute powers given to the home minister to detain a suspect without trial indefinitely.
"Any individual arrested under preventive laws must be given the liberty to appeal to a court of law against his detention. As most cases involve evidences that are deemed sensitive, it may be better a special court is set up to hear these cases in camera."
"I also feel there is a need to give ISA detainees access to their lawyers and family members, which they are deprived of currently. These issues must be discussed for the benefit of all."
He said the anti-ISA demonstration on Aug 1 did not bring any direct benefit to anyone as the protesters only asked for the abolishment of the ISA without offering any realistic suggestions as Malaysia still needed a preventive law.
Denison said there is a general public opinion that there were excesses on the use of the ISA and there was a need to limit the powers in areas of threat to national security.
On Najib's proposal to use stadiums to stage protests, he said that even a simple thing like the candlelight vigils and dinners have been restricted and speeches were prohibited.
"The police have not followed some of the guidelines' and suggestion given by the Human Rights Commission to allow space for legitimate dissent as enshrined under the federal constitution," he said.
Storm in a beer cup
by William Leong (Malaysiakini) | Aug 8, 09 10:23am
Racism and religious intolerance have been fed into the blood stream of Malaysians for so long that all of us are so poisoned in our thinking that even those acting with the best of intentions find it difficult to see the woods from the trees; between law enforcement and law making, between legislative policies and social or religious concerns.
The recent comments by the Selangor State Executive Council member Hassan Ali of his fellow Pakatan Rakyat Executive Council member, Ronnie Liu on Shah Alam Municipal Council enforcement personnel seizing and confiscating beer sold by a convenience store is a case in point.
Hassan Ali (centre) said that PAS Selangor supported banning the sale of alcoholic drinks in convenience stores in Muslim areas especially Shah Alam. He also said PAS would come out with its draft by-laws governing alcohol sales in the State.
The statements show the urgent need for us Malaysians to be aware of this sub-conscious racial discrimination and religious intolerance poison in Malaysians and the dire need for Malaysians to cleanse and detoxify ourselves so as to stop looking at every issue from the perspective of race and religion, imagined or otherwise.
There is a need for a Malaysian renaissance of our views, our values and our mindset.
There are clear laws relating to the manufacture, distribution and selling of beer and liquor. Alcohol abuse like smoking cigarettes are valid social concerns. Undoubtedly they are religious concerns because all religions teach us to respect our own bodies and take care of our health. However, not all laws and not all concerns are due to race or religion.
Law Making and Law Enforcement
The laws governing the powers of the Local Government Agencies are clear. There is no law prohibiting the sale of beer by convenience stores. There are laws governing the sale of alcohol and liquor but the sale of beer is not included as the alcoholic content of beer is lower than the prescribed limit of alcohol.
The enforcement unit of the Shah Alam Municipal Council is not empowered to make laws and regulations. They only have the power to enforce the existing laws and regulations. There is no law prohibiting the convenience stores from selling beer.
There are however, Syariah law governing Muslims from consuming alcohol. However, the enforcement officers of Local Councils do not have jurisdiction to enforce Syariah law and certainly not against non-Muslims.
Therefore, the Shah Alam Municipal Council was wrong to confiscate the beer from the convenience stores.
Hassan Ali in saying that PAS supported the banning of alcoholic drinks in convenience stores in Muslim majority areas ought to have also mentioned that he has been elected not only to represent Muslims but also all Malaysians irrespective of race or religion.
There are many other quarters, Christians, Buddhist, Hindus and social organizations that are concerned about the ill effects of beer drinking and he should have sought their views and give voice to their concerns. Hassan Ali ought to have articulated their concerns also.
There is a difference between concerns and laws. For concerns to be turned into law, the laws should be amended before enforcement agencies act to prohibit convenience stores from selling beer. Whether alcohol should be banned should be debated by all Malaysians, by those who drink and those who do not.
In doing so, we should not reinvent the wheel because Selangor is not the first and certainly not going to be the last society having to deal with alcohol. We can look and learn from history of other societies and countries.
The first half of the 20th century saw periods of prohibition of alcoholic beverages in several countries:
1900-48 in Prince Edward Island and for shorter periods in Canada
1914-25 in Russia and Soviet Union
1915-22 in Iceland (though beer was still prohibited until 1989)
1916-27 in Norway (fortified wine, beer prohibited from 1917-23)
1919 in Hungary
1919-32 in Finland
1920-33 in United States of America
In the United States the manufacture, sale and transportation of liquor was made illegal on 16 January 1920 pursuant to the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution and clarified by the Volstead Act that stated beer, wine or other intoxicating malt or vinous liquor meant any beverage that was more than 0.5% alcohol.
Prohibition a dismal failure
The act stated that owning any item designed to manufacture alcohol was illegal and it set specific fines and jail sentences for violating Prohibition. Prohibition was meant to reduce the consumption of alcohol to curb crime and corruption, solve social problems, poverty and improve the economy.
The Prohibition was ineffective. It caused an explosive growth in crime and increased the amount of alcohol consumption. Drinking went underground and illegal "speak-easies" mushroomed all over the country.
Bootleggers smuggled liquor from overseas, stole it from government warehouses and produced their own. The illegal liquor business fell into the control of organised crime. Al Capone was perhaps the most infamous Bootlegger during the period known as the Roaring 1920s.
Instead of reducing crime, Prohibition saw the crime rate skyrocketing with a nearly 78% increase. It saw serious crimes such as homicides, assault and battery increased by 13 %. There were gruesome shoot-outs as gangs fought for control over the profitable illegal business.
The number of Federal convicts increased 561%. Consumption of liquor instead of reducing increased. Seldom had a law been more flagrantly violated. Not only did Americans continue to manufacture, barter and possess alcohol, they drank more of it.
Prohibition was a dismal failure and it was repealed on Dec 5, 1933 by the 21st Amendment to the US Constitution repealing the 18th Amendment. It was the first and only time in US history that an amendment has been repealed.
These countries that have experimented with Prohibition have now come to realise that not all social concerns and society's ills can be solved by making them illegal.
With alcohol abuse, it is through education and voluntary temperance that these societies learnt to be more effective measures to counter alcohol abuse than by making the consumption of alcohol illegal.
The religious looking glass
It is unfortunate that Hassan Ali looked at the problem solely through a pair of Muslim's spectacles. The problem is wider than that and the evils of alcohol abuse affect all races, followers of all the various faiths, and even the atheists and agnostics.
His statement has caused a perception that has turned the problem from a social concern to a struggle between Muslims and non-Muslims.
It has raised the mistaken belief by non-Muslims that Islam does not tolerate the existence of other religions. Based on what I know of Islam, this is not true. Allah decreed in the Quran, Surah 2 verse 256:
"Let there be no compulsion in religion;
Truth stands out clear from Error;
Whoever rejects Evil and believes in Allah;
Hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks.
And Allah heareth and knoweth all things."
According to the notes to this verse, compulsion is incompatible with religion because (1) religion depends upon faith and will, and this would be meaningless if induced by force, (2) Truth and Error have been so clearly shown by the mercy of Allah that there should be no doubts in the minds of any person of goodwill as to the fundamentals of faith, (3) Allah's protection is continuous and His Plan is always to lead us from the depths of darkness into the clearest light.
There are many examples during the lifetime of the Prophet that shows the tolerance of Islam for other religions. Islam recognises that there is a plurality of religions on this earth and give the right to individuals to choose the path which they believe to be true.
Religion is not to be and was never forced upon any individual against his own will and there are many examples of this in the life of the Prophet and in the verses of the Quran.
Under the present oppressive and repressive rule of Umno, it is important for Malaysians to resist oppression and repression. It has always been the central approach of Islam to resist all forms of oppression. It is this approach that is the foundation of Islamic religious tolerance.
To succeed in this struggle against oppression, mere tolerance by Muslims of other religions is not enough. Muslims must unite with Malaysians of all religions and work towards the common goal of
justice, mutual respect, equal treatment and robust pluralism.
Malaysian Renaissance
After 52 years of the myth of racial inferiority of the Malays, used as a leverage for special privileges which in actual fact are enjoyed by a select few, the Malays, instead of enjoying God's gift of a life to be lived with dignity, are trapped in the bondage of a dependency on Umno chained by subsidies, loans, scholarships and handouts.
Those brave enough to dissent and dare to be independent are punished by having these forcibly taken away. We, Malaysians of all races must standup to liberate our fellow brothers from this bondage.
To do so we need to combine into one the common strands of our different racial descent and to use the unique strengths of our diversity to forge a stronger bond.
In doing so, it is imperative that we Malaysians accept that the Islamic concept of Man and the concept of Man founded on the religions and traditions of Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity and the major religions practiced in this country share the basic fundamental ideas of the virtues and morality of mankind.
It is time to have a Malaysian renaissance where the growth, development and flowering of our Malaysian society is to be based on the common vision of the perfection for Mankind, imbued with truth and the love of learning, justice and compensation, mutual respect and forbearance and freedom with responsibility.
There is a need for the renewal of our faith and the assertion of our multiculturality as a Malaysian phenomenon not to be hidden away in shame but to be shown off to the rest of the world in pride.
It is prayed that all Malaysians and in particular our Pakatan Rakyat state executive members will heed the call for a renewal of our values and to steel ourselves with the conviction that only a Malaysian renaissance will set us free.
----------------------
WILLIAM LEONG is PKR parliamentarian for Selayang.
Racism and religious intolerance have been fed into the blood stream of Malaysians for so long that all of us are so poisoned in our thinking that even those acting with the best of intentions find it difficult to see the woods from the trees; between law enforcement and law making, between legislative policies and social or religious concerns.
The recent comments by the Selangor State Executive Council member Hassan Ali of his fellow Pakatan Rakyat Executive Council member, Ronnie Liu on Shah Alam Municipal Council enforcement personnel seizing and confiscating beer sold by a convenience store is a case in point.
Hassan Ali (centre) said that PAS Selangor supported banning the sale of alcoholic drinks in convenience stores in Muslim areas especially Shah Alam. He also said PAS would come out with its draft by-laws governing alcohol sales in the State.
The statements show the urgent need for us Malaysians to be aware of this sub-conscious racial discrimination and religious intolerance poison in Malaysians and the dire need for Malaysians to cleanse and detoxify ourselves so as to stop looking at every issue from the perspective of race and religion, imagined or otherwise.
There is a need for a Malaysian renaissance of our views, our values and our mindset.
There are clear laws relating to the manufacture, distribution and selling of beer and liquor. Alcohol abuse like smoking cigarettes are valid social concerns. Undoubtedly they are religious concerns because all religions teach us to respect our own bodies and take care of our health. However, not all laws and not all concerns are due to race or religion.
Law Making and Law Enforcement
The laws governing the powers of the Local Government Agencies are clear. There is no law prohibiting the sale of beer by convenience stores. There are laws governing the sale of alcohol and liquor but the sale of beer is not included as the alcoholic content of beer is lower than the prescribed limit of alcohol.
The enforcement unit of the Shah Alam Municipal Council is not empowered to make laws and regulations. They only have the power to enforce the existing laws and regulations. There is no law prohibiting the convenience stores from selling beer.
There are however, Syariah law governing Muslims from consuming alcohol. However, the enforcement officers of Local Councils do not have jurisdiction to enforce Syariah law and certainly not against non-Muslims.
Therefore, the Shah Alam Municipal Council was wrong to confiscate the beer from the convenience stores.
Hassan Ali in saying that PAS supported the banning of alcoholic drinks in convenience stores in Muslim majority areas ought to have also mentioned that he has been elected not only to represent Muslims but also all Malaysians irrespective of race or religion.
There are many other quarters, Christians, Buddhist, Hindus and social organizations that are concerned about the ill effects of beer drinking and he should have sought their views and give voice to their concerns. Hassan Ali ought to have articulated their concerns also.
There is a difference between concerns and laws. For concerns to be turned into law, the laws should be amended before enforcement agencies act to prohibit convenience stores from selling beer. Whether alcohol should be banned should be debated by all Malaysians, by those who drink and those who do not.
In doing so, we should not reinvent the wheel because Selangor is not the first and certainly not going to be the last society having to deal with alcohol. We can look and learn from history of other societies and countries.
The first half of the 20th century saw periods of prohibition of alcoholic beverages in several countries:
1900-48 in Prince Edward Island and for shorter periods in Canada
1914-25 in Russia and Soviet Union
1915-22 in Iceland (though beer was still prohibited until 1989)
1916-27 in Norway (fortified wine, beer prohibited from 1917-23)
1919 in Hungary
1919-32 in Finland
1920-33 in United States of America
In the United States the manufacture, sale and transportation of liquor was made illegal on 16 January 1920 pursuant to the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution and clarified by the Volstead Act that stated beer, wine or other intoxicating malt or vinous liquor meant any beverage that was more than 0.5% alcohol.
Prohibition a dismal failure
The act stated that owning any item designed to manufacture alcohol was illegal and it set specific fines and jail sentences for violating Prohibition. Prohibition was meant to reduce the consumption of alcohol to curb crime and corruption, solve social problems, poverty and improve the economy.
The Prohibition was ineffective. It caused an explosive growth in crime and increased the amount of alcohol consumption. Drinking went underground and illegal "speak-easies" mushroomed all over the country.
Bootleggers smuggled liquor from overseas, stole it from government warehouses and produced their own. The illegal liquor business fell into the control of organised crime. Al Capone was perhaps the most infamous Bootlegger during the period known as the Roaring 1920s.
Instead of reducing crime, Prohibition saw the crime rate skyrocketing with a nearly 78% increase. It saw serious crimes such as homicides, assault and battery increased by 13 %. There were gruesome shoot-outs as gangs fought for control over the profitable illegal business.
The number of Federal convicts increased 561%. Consumption of liquor instead of reducing increased. Seldom had a law been more flagrantly violated. Not only did Americans continue to manufacture, barter and possess alcohol, they drank more of it.
Prohibition was a dismal failure and it was repealed on Dec 5, 1933 by the 21st Amendment to the US Constitution repealing the 18th Amendment. It was the first and only time in US history that an amendment has been repealed.
These countries that have experimented with Prohibition have now come to realise that not all social concerns and society's ills can be solved by making them illegal.
With alcohol abuse, it is through education and voluntary temperance that these societies learnt to be more effective measures to counter alcohol abuse than by making the consumption of alcohol illegal.
The religious looking glass
It is unfortunate that Hassan Ali looked at the problem solely through a pair of Muslim's spectacles. The problem is wider than that and the evils of alcohol abuse affect all races, followers of all the various faiths, and even the atheists and agnostics.
His statement has caused a perception that has turned the problem from a social concern to a struggle between Muslims and non-Muslims.
It has raised the mistaken belief by non-Muslims that Islam does not tolerate the existence of other religions. Based on what I know of Islam, this is not true. Allah decreed in the Quran, Surah 2 verse 256:
"Let there be no compulsion in religion;
Truth stands out clear from Error;
Whoever rejects Evil and believes in Allah;
Hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks.
And Allah heareth and knoweth all things."
According to the notes to this verse, compulsion is incompatible with religion because (1) religion depends upon faith and will, and this would be meaningless if induced by force, (2) Truth and Error have been so clearly shown by the mercy of Allah that there should be no doubts in the minds of any person of goodwill as to the fundamentals of faith, (3) Allah's protection is continuous and His Plan is always to lead us from the depths of darkness into the clearest light.
There are many examples during the lifetime of the Prophet that shows the tolerance of Islam for other religions. Islam recognises that there is a plurality of religions on this earth and give the right to individuals to choose the path which they believe to be true.
Religion is not to be and was never forced upon any individual against his own will and there are many examples of this in the life of the Prophet and in the verses of the Quran.
Under the present oppressive and repressive rule of Umno, it is important for Malaysians to resist oppression and repression. It has always been the central approach of Islam to resist all forms of oppression. It is this approach that is the foundation of Islamic religious tolerance.
To succeed in this struggle against oppression, mere tolerance by Muslims of other religions is not enough. Muslims must unite with Malaysians of all religions and work towards the common goal of
justice, mutual respect, equal treatment and robust pluralism.
Malaysian Renaissance
After 52 years of the myth of racial inferiority of the Malays, used as a leverage for special privileges which in actual fact are enjoyed by a select few, the Malays, instead of enjoying God's gift of a life to be lived with dignity, are trapped in the bondage of a dependency on Umno chained by subsidies, loans, scholarships and handouts.
Those brave enough to dissent and dare to be independent are punished by having these forcibly taken away. We, Malaysians of all races must standup to liberate our fellow brothers from this bondage.
To do so we need to combine into one the common strands of our different racial descent and to use the unique strengths of our diversity to forge a stronger bond.
In doing so, it is imperative that we Malaysians accept that the Islamic concept of Man and the concept of Man founded on the religions and traditions of Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity and the major religions practiced in this country share the basic fundamental ideas of the virtues and morality of mankind.
It is time to have a Malaysian renaissance where the growth, development and flowering of our Malaysian society is to be based on the common vision of the perfection for Mankind, imbued with truth and the love of learning, justice and compensation, mutual respect and forbearance and freedom with responsibility.
There is a need for the renewal of our faith and the assertion of our multiculturality as a Malaysian phenomenon not to be hidden away in shame but to be shown off to the rest of the world in pride.
It is prayed that all Malaysians and in particular our Pakatan Rakyat state executive members will heed the call for a renewal of our values and to steel ourselves with the conviction that only a Malaysian renaissance will set us free.
----------------------
WILLIAM LEONG is PKR parliamentarian for Selayang.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
PAS & ALCOHOL BAN
By Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria
The move by PAS to implement a blanket ban on the sale of alcohol in all Muslim-majority areas has now given us an opportunity to draw up guidelines on the sale of alcohol. While their call on ban might seem drastic but this view must not be seen from a high moral ground and only from an Islamic perspective but an opportunity to recognize the problems associated with alcohol abuse which is recognized by all major religions of the world.
Currently there are already other forms of restrictions on alcohol such as one cannot drink and drive, alcohol can only be sold in licensed shops, alcohol cannot be sold to under-aged individuals, there are restricted hours for places which sell and serve alcohol. There are laws to curtail the production and sale of illegal and unlicensed products.
The problem has often been associated with weak enforcement by local authority enforcement. There must be some public outcry on this matter as there are negative aspects of alcohol abuse which society has not adequately recognized.
There are major social and health relative problems to alcohol substance abuse among by natives of Sabah and Sarawak, among the Orang Asli and among sections of the Indian community in Peninsular Malaysia.
The Consumer Association of Penang has undertaken many studies on this matter and therefore the social impact dimensions should also be reviewed in this debate. While PAS was speaking for the Muslim community many of the social issues and abuses are among non Muslim communities.
Society has already accepted that certain types of human behavior can affect oneself and others. In the case of smoking, the Ministry of Health and other authorities have undertaken many measures to restrict where one can smoke in public places, on the sponsorship and advertisement by cigarette companies.
These initiatives undertaken are done in the interest of the common good of society. While a total ban has not been effective in the past, where total abstinence was advocated, nonetheless there is an urgent need for Malaysian society to discuss this issue further from the negative and abusive aspects of unrestricted sale and availability of alcohol in our society.
Some restrictions on the places and locations where alcohol is sold are necessary. For example not permitting sale of alcohol in or near residential areas and schools might be necessary. This will therefore include all kinds of residential areas. Designated places where sales and consuming can take place should be regulated by local authority. For example it might be healthy not consuming alcohol in a public park or even during a football game.
While this theme is being advocated by PAS, my interest is as a sociologist from social work background. I am a Christian by conviction and belief. Therefore let us not discuss social issues and concerns from a perspective that divides us but lets us find alliances and collaboration across religion
There are so many silent sufferers especially women and children who are victims of alcoholics and husbands who have a behavior problem as a result of consuming alcohol.
Alcohol producers, promoters and retail people have not taken action in educating the general public on the potential substance addiction. Government has not done enough to address the abusive behavior and health related problems. Currently there are no counseling programmes and if any inadequate. There are no rehabilitation services like rehabilitation of drug addiction.
I strongly advocate that alcohol producers and this industry pay a levy from their annual sales for public education on alcohol abuse and addiction, at the same time take greater responsibility for rehabilitation of alcoholics. Some systematic intervention programmes are necessary to assist women and children who face abuse and violence. Federal and State agencies must address these concerns
May be the Selangor Government could take the lead in providing the guidelines necessary for healthy living and ensure that all responsible will put human lives before profits.
The move by PAS to implement a blanket ban on the sale of alcohol in all Muslim-majority areas has now given us an opportunity to draw up guidelines on the sale of alcohol. While their call on ban might seem drastic but this view must not be seen from a high moral ground and only from an Islamic perspective but an opportunity to recognize the problems associated with alcohol abuse which is recognized by all major religions of the world.
Currently there are already other forms of restrictions on alcohol such as one cannot drink and drive, alcohol can only be sold in licensed shops, alcohol cannot be sold to under-aged individuals, there are restricted hours for places which sell and serve alcohol. There are laws to curtail the production and sale of illegal and unlicensed products.
The problem has often been associated with weak enforcement by local authority enforcement. There must be some public outcry on this matter as there are negative aspects of alcohol abuse which society has not adequately recognized.
There are major social and health relative problems to alcohol substance abuse among by natives of Sabah and Sarawak, among the Orang Asli and among sections of the Indian community in Peninsular Malaysia.
The Consumer Association of Penang has undertaken many studies on this matter and therefore the social impact dimensions should also be reviewed in this debate. While PAS was speaking for the Muslim community many of the social issues and abuses are among non Muslim communities.
Society has already accepted that certain types of human behavior can affect oneself and others. In the case of smoking, the Ministry of Health and other authorities have undertaken many measures to restrict where one can smoke in public places, on the sponsorship and advertisement by cigarette companies.
These initiatives undertaken are done in the interest of the common good of society. While a total ban has not been effective in the past, where total abstinence was advocated, nonetheless there is an urgent need for Malaysian society to discuss this issue further from the negative and abusive aspects of unrestricted sale and availability of alcohol in our society.
Some restrictions on the places and locations where alcohol is sold are necessary. For example not permitting sale of alcohol in or near residential areas and schools might be necessary. This will therefore include all kinds of residential areas. Designated places where sales and consuming can take place should be regulated by local authority. For example it might be healthy not consuming alcohol in a public park or even during a football game.
While this theme is being advocated by PAS, my interest is as a sociologist from social work background. I am a Christian by conviction and belief. Therefore let us not discuss social issues and concerns from a perspective that divides us but lets us find alliances and collaboration across religion
There are so many silent sufferers especially women and children who are victims of alcoholics and husbands who have a behavior problem as a result of consuming alcohol.
Alcohol producers, promoters and retail people have not taken action in educating the general public on the potential substance addiction. Government has not done enough to address the abusive behavior and health related problems. Currently there are no counseling programmes and if any inadequate. There are no rehabilitation services like rehabilitation of drug addiction.
I strongly advocate that alcohol producers and this industry pay a levy from their annual sales for public education on alcohol abuse and addiction, at the same time take greater responsibility for rehabilitation of alcoholics. Some systematic intervention programmes are necessary to assist women and children who face abuse and violence. Federal and State agencies must address these concerns
May be the Selangor Government could take the lead in providing the guidelines necessary for healthy living and ensure that all responsible will put human lives before profits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
