Rather than spend time predicting the future and excuses (not to create IPCMC) of a body not yet created, why not do the right thing first? Trying to predict something that has not happened. I think this is like talking nonsense. What about handling those cases that have already happened? Spend your time wisely or wasting away our money on unknown organization and unknown future. But then BN can make things happen just to prove they are right even though it is not the actual event, but a staged event. Torture victims in police lockup is what then? Not worse than criminal? What happened to Teoh Beng Hock and the rest? What treatment did he get? Worse than a criminal?

My one encounter, if that is the appropriate word, with a policeman who had washed his hands in cold blood, was in an empty Amritsar hotel at the height of the Punjab insurrection in the late 1980s. It is difficult to imagine now what Punjab was like then. The Golden Temple, wrecked by Operation Bluestar, had become a symbol of the broken Sikh heart. Terrorism, inspired by the dream of secession, acquired a raging justification . Amritsar was sullen by day and silent by night; fear haunted Punjab like a living ghost.

Deputy Home Minister Wan Junaidi today tried to put an end to calls for an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC), saying that it body would treat police worse than criminals. Wan Junaidi, you are obviously ignorant of the fact that at least one former judge had sat on the RCI panel that came up with the recommendation to establish the IPCMC. He must have known whether the proposed Commission would, as you have stated, “breach everything – the constitution and natural justice”. Your contention, therefore, has no merit. By the way, is your doctorate of any value or is it yet another one of those dubious ones? Since the (operation of the) proposed IPCMC was drafted by the former Chief Justice Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah, it CANNOT be Not in line with the federal Constitution and it should NOT be against the concept of justice as argued by the HM. To the fair minded rakyat, the HM and IGP are not acting fairly towards those good and well disciplined cops and their families because IPCMC works two-way, it also serve to preserve the reputation of those good, duty bound and well disciplined cops in PDRM ( Say in cases where those in custody could have genuinely died not because of being tortured), so that none of them could be wrongly accused by the public, is it not so? The fact that HM and IGP are so strongly opposed to the setting up of IPCMC, one that is commonly found in advanced countries, is a deadly giveaway of the credibility and reputation of the PDRM, as if they are trying hard to prove something that nobody doubts!!!Suara Keadilan Malaysia blogged Systematic ethnic cleansing on the way! Skewed vision of Khalid Abu Bakar & Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi ‘s apathy

The IPS officer had come for a chat in the evening; only police vehicles moved after sunset. There was a look of almost unnatural calm on his face, and it was only in the middle of a largely onesided conversation that it occurred to me that this was the visage of narcotic serenity. Perhaps his nerves needed solace, or possibly his conscience. But when he spoke he did not quiver. He was on the front lines of a vicious war launched by elements who wanted to partition India again. It was his duty to destroy them first, he said with a thin smile that started on his lips but petered out midway. It would be gratuitous to mention his faith, but those locked in conventional wisdom would be surprised.

. A nation that cannot uphold its law cannot preserve its order. civil society indicating that both had certain common features and suggested that the role and nature of civil society is reflective of the role and condition of the State and that the development of one could not be understood in isolation from the other. In both, there is a prevalence of corruption, weak leadership rooted in a neo-patrimonial political culture, ethnic and class divisions as well as tendencies towards may be linked to the lack of a strong, effective system which could have fostered the creation of a shared national identity. There is evidence to suggest that such a formation did not occur in countries that have been colonized in the past after independence. This may have hampered the genesis of national cohesion and the ability of the State to evolve to nationhood. The objective of my PhD research is to investigate the role of instition reposible in State formation through a comparative analysis of Malaysia and india.he exception as the rule Good Intentions cannot justify bad deliver Bill passd in parliamnt are not in the laudable intention but in the clogged delivery. The desire to be politically correct has overtaken the imperative to be politically sensible. Method and order structural flaw could further erode the already ebbing credibility of our parliamentary systemThe irony is that such flaws can be easily corrected, with some time and thought. Both have been absent from the process, the favourite weapons of Hercule Poirot, might be usefully employed in analysis.It is odd that the government should have chosen law and order as its final alibi after some exhausting self-laceration in its search for a credible explanation for the escape ofJusticWhen Instuation smuggled The Predators to safety, the authority of state abandoned the responsibility of state. Excuses, evasions and lies have shifted over years; this central truth has not.the umbilical chord of the colonial, or neo-colonial. Who had dared to arrest a pillar of the American corporate establishment. ‘Bail or no bail’: what was a rotten piece of paper signed in an Indian court worth to a lord of Wall Street? Not even the decency of silence. Anderson was publicly, even proudly, contemptuous of those who did not have the courage to interrupt his freedom for a mere industrial disaster in which a few thousand semi-slave Indians had been gassed to death within hours and thousands more would die over years.Accusation is the easy exit route from Bhopal. Introspection will take us back to the beginning. Betrayal is impossible without trust. We did not trust Carbide to be honest. We trusted our political class, and it continues to search for new and inventive ways to betray us again.

Why do we say “law and order” rather than “order and law”? Simple. Law comes before order. Law defines the nature of order. Law is the difference between civilization and chaos. Law is evolutionary: the edicts of tribes, chiefs and dynasties lifted human societies from scattered peril to structured coexistence. The laws of democracy have vaulted us to the acme of social cohesion, for they eliminated arbitrary diktat and introduced collective will. The divine right of kings is dead; it has been reborn as the secular right of an elected Parliament.

The burden of independence OF Justice
The unfortunate truth is that there is reason for this cynicism. A lot of the opinions that abound in media, both mainstream and social, are rooted in pre-fabricated positions that fly under the flag of one label or another. In addition, over the last few years it has become clear that very few of our certitudes about the independence ofjustice the allegedly independent institutions stand up to scrutiny.

A nation that cannot uphold its law cannot preserve its order.

It is odd that the government should have chosen law and order as its final alibi after some exhausting self-laceration in its search for a credible explanation for the escape of JUSTICE

A nation that cannot uphold its law cannot preserve its order. When Instuation smuggled The Predators to safety, the authority of state abandoned the responsibility of state. Excuses, evasions and lies have shifted over 26 years; this central truth has not.

Promoting equality of unequally?

legal system,local or in international sphere the subjects of law are the persons, nationals and judicial, upon whom the law confers rights and impose duties .In international law these persons are normally states, but they are not so exclusively. States have been described by Weber as the human community that claim itself the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical violence within the territory with determined boundaries .However, the advisory opinion in the case concerning Reparation for the injuries suffered of the united nation ,the international court of justice rejected the view that the only states can be subjects of international law and affirmed that ―throughout its history ,the development of international law has been influenced by the requirements of international life and the progressive increase in the collective activities of states has already given a rise to instances of actions upon the international plane by certain entities which are not states.

Ever since India’s war on terror began in earnest after September 11, 2001, the Intelligence Bureau’s motto has been ‘it is better to be safe than be sorry’ and the operating principle has been ‘do what you want but do not get caught’.

But it is only now, once the Ishrat Jahan alleged fake encounter case burst out in the open, that we hear of rancourous recriminations and smear involving a senior IB officer suspected to have conspired with some Gujarat police officers and a section of the state’s political leadership to engineer the targeted killing of four persons, two of them Pakistani nationals, alleged to be members of the Lashkar-e-Taiba tasked to assassinate Narendra Modi.

Counterterrorism is a dirty business in which Indian intelligence agencies and police forces have, in some cases, employed questionable means and brutal methods of organised killings of suspected terrorists and terror sympathisers. Extrajudicial killings have been employed with chilling efficiency in Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir, the northeast and in cities like Mumbai and Delhi that too have been targets of terrorist strikes and organised crime.

As the lead agency in the fight against terror, the IB has used both covert operations and traditional information gathering, distinct areas for within-agency “cowboys and eggheads”, respectively. Although there is no legal basis for any security agency to authorise assassinations, which in itself must be repugnant in a society guided by the rule of law, the IB has from time to time facilitated extrajudicial killings with neither the political leadership nor the public any wiser. Targeted executions took on a ‘when-nothing-else-works’ character.

The attention the IB has drawn because of the Ishrat Jahan case — it is still unclear whether the officer in question played any direct role in the alleged fake encounter, though the Special Investigating Team believes it has sufficient evidence to nail him — is totally foreign to an agency accustomed to limited accountability and virtual independence in most of its activities.

Since the IB is not a creature of law, it took — and continues to take — advantage of the concept of “plausible denial” which determines when the agency’s top management would wash their hands of wrongdoings or malfeasance. In most cases, the political leadership offered protection to the agency, which, on its part, supplied the government in power with political intelligence. This is a convenient trade-off, suiting both parties.

The bureaucracy and successive political parties in power have largely been dictated by a mindset that has traditionally been apathetic to human rights in situations of fighting Islamic terror. This is typical of an ‘end justifies the means’ approach in which decision-makers raise no objections because the intelligence agencies are perceived to be working in the best interests of the country and national security priorities.

True, the IB’s missions require secrecy and to do their job well intelligence officers, both handling operations and analysis, must be willing to take risks. They must anticipate dangers to national security and take steps to meet those challenges. Action based on “duff intelligence” or planning extrajudicial killings are not means that should shape the response of a security organisation that is more venerated among several others in terms of the credo of professionalism. No matter how powerful an intelligence agency, that power is not licence for it to collude in or facilitate extrajudicial killings.

Protecting an intelligence agency, on the ground that in the fight against terror simple intelligence gathering would not suffice and sometimes brutal methods need to be applied to defeat the monster of terrorism, can be counterproductive. The secrecy and the deception that surrounds clandestine dark operations are justified, often by turning a blind eye or a deaf ear, as indispensable to the agency and to national security interests.

But when it spills into the domain of counterterrorism policy, serious questions involving subversion of the democratic process and the rule of law arise. Among the most basic of questions is: to what extent are the IB and some other security agencies compatible with the democratic system and how can they be effective organisations and yet not abuse human rights?

Much before Punjab this argument was heard in the North East; then repeated in Kashmir. As terrorism spread its footprint across India through the 1990s and first decade of the new century, reaching a horrific, televised climax in Mumbai when gunmen, armed and trained in Pakistani sanctuaries , a dilemma has ebbed and flowed through the tides of Indian public opinion. Can outlaws be contained through the binding laws of a liberal democracy ? Should right to life, a fundamental tenet of our Constitution, be extended to those who kill innocents , arbitrarily, bomb buildings, hijack aircraft, or target places of worship in order to inject poison into the demographic veins of India? Theory has the good fortune of living in a black-and-white textbook . Reality is grey. Terrorists thrive in shadow wars, protected by a paradox: since they are out of uniform, they can always claim innocence until the moment they pull a trigger. We forget the number of alibis that were floated even after something as self-evident as the 2008 Mumbai attack and some were repeated in Parliament by a Cabinet minister in the UPA government. Our security forces have to hunt in such treacherous fog. Their job is to succeed before the trigger is squeezed, to find Indira Gandhi’s and Rajiv Gandhi’s assassins before they have succeeded, and to stop a thousand attacks on civilians during a festival or any other day. The Army has the umbrella of a special act to limit accountability in case of a mistake. The spirit of democracy argues against such privilege, but the visceral need for security against covert evil pulls in the other direction. The trouble with sanction for murder is that it brutalizes and breeds rogues, particularly in our police, where any moral code has been weakened by corruption and arrogance. Police have jailed and killed innocents, coerced money out of helpless victims, confident that politicians, themselves largely corrupt, will never find the courage to confront them. The worry is that public opinion often condones “Dirty Harry” methods, in which a bullet takes precedence over due process. When, in 1993, it became clear that criminals owing allegiance to Dawood Ibrahim were involved in the horrific Mumbai blasts, the city’s police were offered freedom of the trigger. Citizens approved, as did the Congress, Shiv Sena, BJP and voters. Films glorified ‘encounter specialists’ . The syndrome is no longer as gory, but Chulbul Pandey still shoots first and whistles later. In 2008 Delhi police killed young men at Batla House. This year, on May 18, a young man in custody, Khalid Mujahid, died in “mysterious circumstances” while being taken to Barabanki jail by the UP police; 42 of them, including senior officers , are under investigation. For years in Hyderabad and Malegaon, “suspects” have been jailed for years without proof of complicity in any terrorist act. Congress or Samajwadi Party were in power in these states. And of course BJP ruled Gujarat when 19-year-old Ishrat Jahan was killed by the police. There is no standard response. Let alone outrage, there is hardly any rage about Delhi, UP, Andhra or Maharashtra. Most people have probably chosen their sides over Ishrat Jahan. The CBI’s chargesheet is enough for those who believe she is guiltless. Others stress the IB version that David Headley, convicted of terrorism, mentioned her name; or wonder what she was doing in the company of three men recognized, even by the CBI, as terrorists.

Only one thing is clear in this dust storm of fierce argument. We are not interested in truth. A complex reality has been distilled into campaign fodder in election season. Politics is the petrol that can turn such a fire into conflagration.

The answer is genuine reform. It is easier to reform the bureaucracy. Transforming the intelligence agencies, considered national security holy cows, is more difficult because of a variety of reasons — their unbridled power to act in secrecy, the resistance to change and the status quoist attitude of the political leadership that views the agencies, including the Central Bureau of Investigation, as handy tools to bully and browbeat the opposition or other political rivals. In a government where candour and leadership are in short supply, there is little commitment to being more open in the manner in which intelligence agencies function and lesser still for the protection of individual human rights.

Of course, covert operations cannot be outlawed altogether because we have learned to our peril — several times — when intelligence has let us down. But simplistic minimalist measures to reform the intelligence agencies by reaffirming lawful and ethical behaviour are not enough. Lasting reforms are necessary if the government in general and the intelligence agencies in particular have to win back the trust of the public. The Ishrat Jahan case illustrates the necessity for much greater independent and parliamentary scrutiny of the intelligence agencies.

Why this Kolaveri – Hindraf Wyatha Moorthy Version

Always watch out for ‘The Big Obsessive Scam’ the media goes after. It often covers up a great deal more than it reveals. It also draws away our immediate attention from issues where we were about to get close to a dangerous truth or two. Poirot famously described it as a red herring, a cunning device to draw people’s attention away from real issues to focus on a non sequitur MacGuffin.Like the MacGuffin, which Hitchcock made cult, The Big Obsessive Scam vanishes or becomes irrelevant once its purpose is over.A wonderful school which opened every morning with a chapel service. One of the most quoted lines there was from Corinthians. It spoke of three great virtues: faith, hope and charity, of which the greatest was charity. Years later, Mother Teresa told me it was her favourite verse.Police not the only ones corrupt, DBKL just as bad, says FT minister

This is what scam could be: Too much outrage chasing what matters so little to most of us. The evidence in hand is flimsy, so flimsy that it’s unlikely to get past the smallest court but the noise around it is so much one would think World War III has broken out.When the tail seeks to wag the dog snaky Minister Tengku Adnan can be trusted to trade diatribes on which one has effectively addressed issues of urgent concern to voters: development, inflation, corruption and governance. Each one will also have to spell out what differentiates it from the other. Two battle-lines are in sight. One will pit … Read more

What do you make out of the kind of statements and rebuttals coming out from our elected and or appointed leaders these days – especially when words like “kaki pukul” and “shit stirrers” are spewed?

Just as when citizens were worried-wax about robbers striking even clinics and fleeing while citizens held under custody were said to be dying with brutal beatings and markings to their bodies, you suddenly get the leader of national security indirectly claiming he is a “kaki pukul”.

As reported, the Honorable Home Minister had in rebuttal in Parliament lambasted the querying opposition member of Parliament that the MP was a worse off “kaki pukul”.

Wonder if the Minister ever realizes the consequences of his losing his cool. By using the words “kaki pukul” , he will be perceived as being a “kaki pukul” himself. Would we blame and reprimand the citizens if they now questioned how come the Prime Minister has a “kaki pukul” to head the Home Ministry?

As if this “kaki pukul” nightmare was not enough, hot on its heels we hear of reports of yet another leader accusing the Opposition political party as “shit stirrers”.

The above report refers to the article Ahmad Zahid riled up over ‘assault’ claim on Malaysiakini on July 9. Before going any further I would like to state here that I have no vested interest whatsoever in this matter.

I don’t know Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, nor do I know the alleged victim Amir Bazli Abdullah or even Gobind Singh Deo.

I am commenting on the above subject matter based on my experience being the former investigation officer of the infamous black-eye incident.

If it is true that Zahid said that assaulting a person is a civil case and not criminal in nature as reported, then I must emphasise that he is wrong from the legal standpoint. I am afraid he has misled the Parliament and the public at large.

Causing injury to a person falls within the meaning of Section 323, 324, 325 or 326 of the Penal Code, depending on the seriousness of the injuries suffered by the person assaulted whether minor or grievous hurt. But certainly it’s not a civil case as claimed by Zahid.

That kind of statement uttered by a senior minister in Parliament may cause confusion among citizens, especially those who have been charged in a criminal court and convicted for assault previously.

‘Why no RCI for Zahid?’

A case in point that come to mind immediately is the report against the former inspector-general of police Rahim Noor.

He was charged with assault under Section 323 of the Penal Code and subsequently sentenced to two months imprisonment and fined RM2,000 for assaulting Anwar Ibrahim.

If now the home minister said that assault is a civil case only and not criminal, then the government and the attorney-general (AG) must explain why the former IGP was charged with a criminal offence and duly sentenced for an offence under the Penal Code?

And why did the cabinet then, which include the present PM and Deputy PM, decided to establish a royal commission of inquiry (RCI) to look into this assault case if it was just a civil matter?

For that matter, the RCI recommended that the former IGP be charged with attempting to cause grievous hurt under Section 325 of the code.

Why didn’t the PM and/or DPM suggest that an RCI be established to investigate the report made against Zahid?

NONEIncidently the prime minister at the time of the incident in 2006 is Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who happened to be the one who referred Rahim Noor’s case to the Agong in 1999 when he was the deputy PM.

Should now the government turn around and agree that Zahid misunderstood the law, which I think is the case, then the next question would be, why has the AG not charged Zahid with the crime he allegedly committed?

Why must there be a double standards when dealing with the former IGP and Zahid? After all, both allegedly assaulted a person. Both victims also took the matter to civil courts as well.

AG ‘not empowered’ to indemnify

According to news reports the injuries suffered by Amir Bazli is more severe than that suffered by Anwar. If that be the case, then Zahid should have been charged under Section 325 of the penal code with allegedly causing grievous hurt to Amir Bazli.

Abdul Gani Patail must realise that although he is empowered to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings of an offence as provided in the constitution, yet he is not empowered to indemnify Zahid from any criminal culpability just because he was a deputy minister at the time of the offence or now that he is the home minister.

In this regard, the former minister in PM’s department Nazri Abdul Aziz has made it clear in parliament in March 2011, that the attorney-general cannot indemnify any politician caught in a sticky situation, in case the AG and/or Zahid forgets.

If this is the position taken by the government of the day, which includes Zahid, when dealing with politicians allegedly involved in some forms of criminal wrongdoings, then the cabinet should not wait a day longer but to have the home minister brought before a criminal court and charged accordingly.

The rakyat deserves an explanation from Zahid and/or the attorney-general, and fast.The Prime Minister should take stock of the decision of the Kuala Lumpur High Court today in finding the current Inspector General of Police, Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar responsible for the death of A. Kugan in police custody. It must have been brought to the notice of the Prime Minister that the conduct … Read more

The latest story progresses from ludicrous to absurd to appalling. The intelligence report – which the media in with gusto – is ribtickling for the very claim that has some secrets to keep on its disputes. “reports soon pulled the curtains on such theatre of the absurd.

Sirul and former chief inspector Azilah Hadri were found guilty and sentenced to death by the Shah Alam High Court in 2009 for killing Altantuya, then 28, at Mukim Bukit Raja in Shah Alam between 10 pm on Oct 19, 2006 and 1am on Oct 20, 2006.
Former political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda, who was charged with abetting them, was acquitted by the high court on Oct 31, 2008 after the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against him

READMORE Suara Keadilan Malaysia blogged Mahathir’s new strategy its UMNO election time the rope around Najib neck, who ordered the murder?

Here is “equal protection of law”? Is there a separate set of law for Zahid? MAT ZAIN IBRAHIM, former chief of the Kuala Lumpur Criminal Investigation Department is correct to highlight the discrepancy on the issue of equal protection of law. Why should Zahid be let off the hook when the ex-IGP was charged under Section 323 of the Penal Code for assaulting Anwar back in 1997? If “the rule of law” still applies, Zahid does not have any immunity. He should face the law, the same set of law as every one of us is facing. Mat Zain Ibrahim. Many Malaysians will continue to wait for the AG to institute criminal charges against Mr Ahmed Zahid Hamidi ireespective of the latters Ministerial status or influence. The AG has a sworn responsibility to up hold the integrity of his position. He has to be mindful of the legacy he leaves behind for his family and nation. Can we have two sets of interpretation when it come to application of law. One for me, one for you.

When Businessman Amir Bazli Abdullah, victim of prejudiced police mindset fell in love with Datu Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s daughter all hell broke loose.

Zahid is no greater than any ordinary citizen in this country. The police should arrest him and the Att Gen. should charge him for causing grievous injuries to another. Najib should order that Zahid be charged or else this will become an issue in the up coming UMNO meeting in December 2013. Thanks a lot Sir Mr Mat Zain for the crisp clear explanation as to why Zahid should be committed to prison for his gangsterism behavior.

WE THE RAKYAT DEMAND TO KNOW WHY NO ACTION IS TAKEN AGAINST ZAHID FOR CAUSING GRIEVOUS HURT. Tell us why before we take to the street to demand action to be taken against Zahid. The Attorney-general, Gani, is the worst and most corrupt of all the AGs that ever served in the Malaysian attorney chambers. There is no excuse for not prosecuting Zahid even though he is the Home Minister. Is he telling us that there are two laws in this country? One for UMNO minister and one for ordinary citizens? Zahid should be prosecuted and serve his sentence if he is found guilty

Mat Zain is spot on and gives an excellent analogy by comparing the case with the Anwar Ibrahim assault case. To understand the lack of action in the Ahmad Zahid Hamidi case you have to compare it with the Altantuya case which showed that the BN controlled police, AG and the judiciary did not follow the correct procedures and the law, and went all out to protect the Umno minister who was strongly suspected of being involved in Altantuya’s murder. The harsh and sad reality is that under the Umno controlled government some Umno/BN politicians and their enforcement agency lackeys (e.g. the killers of Teo Beng Hock, Kugan, etc.) are above the law. They can commit any crime they like and no one can touch them.

UMNO and BN politicians always get away from crime committed because the PDRM is behind them.Is this democray in Malaysia.My one encounter, if that is the appropriate word, with a policeman who had washed his hands in cold blood a dilemma has ebbed and flowed through the tides of Indian public opinion. Can outlaws be contained through the binding laws of a liberal democracy ? Should right to life, a fundamental tenet of our Constitution, be extended to police who kill innocents The trouble with sanction for murder is that it brutalizes and breeds rogues, particularly in our police, where any moral code has been weakened by corruption and arrogance.Police have jailed and killed innocents, coerced money out of helpless victims, confident that politicians, themselves largely corrupt, will never find the courage to confront them. The worry is that public opinion often condones “Dirty Harry” methods, in which a bullet takes precedence over due process.

“There is not a crime, there is not a dodge, there is not a trick, there is not a swindle, there is not a vice which does not live by secrecy.”- Joseph Pulitzer

Truth, like pregnancy, cannot be hidden for long.The Home minister and the police have some real explaining to do here. You can’t have one standard of policing for one set of people and another one for the rest of us down trodden people. Do away with this elitist attitude or else… the special status which goes with that designation — refer to people holding political office, like MPs. Ministers UMNO looks after its own. Barring elected politicians, no police, from the highest to the lowest, can be sacked, even if they don’t work. They are assured of dearness allowance, and pensions, and a host of other benefits, including subsidised housing, which are not available to ‘ordinary’ citizens. No wonder that a job — or even a connection with someone who has a police job — is a coveted acquisition to boast about. But hold on a minute. In a democracy — in a government of the people, for the people and by the people — aren’t all government officials supposed to be public servants, and serve the people? So how come these supposed ‘servants’ of the people become the ‘masters’ of the people, and lord it over us? That’s the open secret of our ‘Official’dom: there’s nothing ‘Official’ about it.

Malaysia wants to be seen as a country practising democracy instead of dictatorship ( of which we got out of that shackles after Mahathir’s reign of power). We must prove to the world that JUSTICE will be seen and heard as the corner stone to the RULE OF LAW.
At this time in moment, it looks as if powerful political persons and or politically connected persons are above the RULE of LAW by FORCING the police force to act UNETHICALLY to the detriment of the citizens and nation.

This seems to be a clear-cut case of police siding with politicians if the businessman’s version is truthful.
The Royal Malaysia police must explain why no investigations todate.
Ahmad Zahid seems to be a bully and should be punished by the courts. But since he is Home Minister, do the courts dare to punish him? He should have been suspended from his duty immediately at the very least, till the court case is over.When, in 1993, it became clear that criminals owing allegiance to Dawood Ibrahim were involved in the horrific Mumbai blasts, the city’s police were offered freedom of the trigger. Citizens approved, as did the Congress, Shiv Sena, BJP and voters. Films glorified ‘encounter specialists’ . The syndrome is no longer as gory, but Chulbul Pandey still shoots first and whistles later. In 2008 Delhi police killed young men at Batla House. This year, on May 18, a young man in custody, Khalid Mujahid, died in “mysterious circumstances” while being taken to Barabanki jail by the UP police; 42 of them, including senior officers , are under investigation. For years in Hyderabad and Malegaon, “suspects” have been jailed for years without proof of complicity in any terrorist act. Congress or Samajwadi Party were in power in these states. And of course BJP ruled Gujarat when 19-year-old Ishrat Jahan was killed by the police. There is no standard response. Let alone outrage, there is hardly any rage about Delhi, UP, Andhra or Maharashtra. Most people have probably chosen their sides over Ishrat Jahan. The CBI’s chargesheet is enough for those who believe she is guiltless. Others stress the IB version that David Headley, convicted of terrorism, mentioned her name; or wonder what she was doing in the company of three men recognized, even by the CBI, as terrorists.

Businessman Amir Bazli Abdullah, victim of prejudiced police mindset the man suing Ahmad Zahid, laid out his version of the events after the alleged assault in 2006, to The Malaysian Insider: “I first lodged a report at the Dang Wangi police station the day after I was assaulted but was referred to Kajang police.

“I met a chief inspector where my statement was recorded over three days.”

Amir said he was then admitted to a hospital in Cheras but was later transferred to a hospital in Kelantan upon his request as his family was there.

Three police officers, he said, went to see him in Kelantan and they obtained his medical report.

“Some three to four months later, the chief inspector informed me that my case was classified ‘no further action’. I questioned him why this was happening as he had promised he would investigate fairly.

“The officer was apologetic and said his hands were tied as the instructions came from above.”

Amir said he then went to Bukit Aman to see the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan to ask why his case was closed without any action taken against Ahmad Zahid, who was then the deputy Information Minister.

Amir says the IGP refused to see him. “I was instead referred to the IGP’s secretary. And even she did not want to see me.”

Then on the advice of other police officers, Amir put his complaint on paper and personally sent it to the IGP’s office.

“All I got was an acknowledgement that the IGP’s office received my letter.”

Musa, in a reply via text message last night, said: “I do not recall him contacting me. To be fair, you should ask the OCPD of the area where the report was lodged and ask him what is the outcome of the report and investigation.”

When there was no further action from the police, Amir filed his suit in July 2007 against Ahmad Zahid, alleging that the then deputy minister punched him in the face on Jan 16, 2006, at the Country Heights Recreational Club in Kajang, Selangor.

In his statement of claim, Amir said Ahmad Zahid punched and threatened to kill him. He also claimed he was held in wrongful confinement at Ahmad Zahid’s home in Country Heights.

Amir is claiming for special, general and aggravated damages, costs and other relief deemed fit by the court.

Ahmad Zahid denied the allegations and claimed that Amir had concocted the whole story.

He filed a counter-claim against Amir, claiming to have suffered humiliation and emotional trauma as a result of the accusation.

Amir’s suit will be heard at the Shah Alam High court next month. – July 11, 2013.

First, the story:

When E Ilavarasan, a 19-year-old computer science student in western Tamil Nadu fell in love with 21-year-old N Divya last year, all hell broke loose. Ilavarasan was a dalit and Divya a Vanniyar, considered an “upper caste.”

The couple got married on October 8. The Pattali Makkal Katchi, the party of Vanniyars, found in it a bigger dalit conspiracy to take away Vanniyar girls and show the “upper caste” in bad light. The prudes of the community taunted Divya’s father Nagaraj for having brought shame to the community. Nagaraj committed suicide on November 7. Soon, violence engulfed the village; 300 dalit houses were set on fire.

After months of unrest, just when the couple thought they had weathered the caste storm, Divya’s mother, ostensibly influenced by Vanniyar politicians, filed a habeas corpus petition in the Madras high court on March 15, accusing Ilavarasan of detaining Divya. Following reports that her mother is ailing, Divya visited her in June and appeared in court to say that she would go with her mother for a few days. She said she was torn between her parents and Ilavarasan, but would sacrifice her love and stay with her mother.

All through the hearing of the case, when the caste masters were silently at work, Ilavarasan stood stoically outside the courtroom to catch a glimpse of his love. His request to have a word with her was turned down. Ilavarasan told his family and reporters that he was sure that Divya would one day come back to him. And then, on July 3, she said that she had no more “feelings” for her husband and she would not return to him. The next day, the young man was found dead by the railway tracks in Dharmapuri. Was it a suicide or a murder, we may soon know.

Now, the blame:

Some like writer Jnani, who wrote an open letter to Divya through a newspaper column on Friday, has blamed his own ilk – writers, intellectuals, journalists and other liberal thinkers – for not doing enough for the couple. I agree.

It’s easier to blame PMK’s repulsive caste politics, but there is no point in saying the demon is bad. It’s for the angels to guard society against the demons. It’s like blaming the criminals for the crime and sparing police who couldn’t prevent it. Tamil Nadu’s two big parties — the DMK and the AIADMK — grew big on the promise of preventing such evil. After all, they owe their birth and existence to the Self Respect Movement that eventually led to the Dravidian ideology.

It has become a ritual for these parties to pay tributes to the father of the movement, Periyar Ramasamy, on his birth anniversary in September and death anniversary in December. They still organise ‘self respect marriages’ – where couples from different castes tie the knot – but the occasion is often used to deliver political speeches that blame rivals than rededicate themselves to the ideals of Periyar.

The old man with a flowing white beard took the atheist route to attack caste. It’s another matter that Periyar’s profession of atheism gave rise to a renewed sense of rural religiosity. I am not a fan of Periyar’s anti-Brahmin acts that included breaking Hindu idols in public in the early 1950s (which the Supreme Court in 1959 called ‘foolish behaviour’), but I salute his goal which was to create a casteless society.

This goal now lay in a shambles as politicians who claim Periyar’s legacy do nothing to stop the casteist juggernaut. The PMK sees dalit boys luring Vanniyar girls through such “curses of modernity” as mobile phones as the biggest threat to society. That such a party has alternately ridden on the shoulders of the DMK and the AIADMK to the corridors of power speaks volumes about how the Dravidian parties have rolled out the red carpet for casteism over the cemetery of Dravidianism.

And the solution:

It’s not easy to weed out casteism when politicians use it as a fertilizer for electoral fruits. A beginning, however, would be to own up episodes such as this as the failure of we the people who believe caste has no right to separate people who love each other. And let the demons party together. That way, at least we know there are no angels.

The rakyat knows that sc UMNO practices 2 sets of laws in Makaysia : one for sc UMNO one for the rest of the Rakyat.

The Home Minister is in a mess and is causing problems for the current government. He should resign and not make it difficult for the PM. The AG -please do your job courageously. You are answerable to God.

First World leaders versus Third World leaders. In the former, a leader will take responsibility for any mistake, whether failure by commission or omission. See how the chairman of a Korean airline apologised to the family members of the victims in the recent Boeing 777 mishap in US. See also how a Japanese politician is made to relinquish an official post if he is found uttering something which is misleading. On the other hand, somehow we do not see similar behaviour, a weakness in trait more to do with their lack of enlightenment (Popper, 1994). That explains why Malaysia is backward, and certain politicians have no class, dignity, and morality. The case in point is Zahid.

The current AG should resign if he is unwilling to charge Ahmad Zahid for assaulting people. There is no credibility as an impartial Government servant paid by our tax. The people has the right to see justice done and AG has failed many times over.Clear your own charges before acting like a minister, Zahid! You can go punching others everywhere and we cannot say anything against you tyrants?This generation who grew up and exercised all the powers under this undemocratic SACK ATTORNEY GENERAL NOW, HOME MINISTER NEXT WEEK ZAHID SET FOR COLLISION WITH NAJIB

laws has no idea how to govern without them. Citizens are sick of the abuse by police and selective …Read more

Najib is busy in the humdrum of political one-upmanship and media searching frantically for new enhancer noises, for god’s sake, don’t mistake this to be the denouement of any criminal case. That’s still years away. And the truth is still not out.But politically, has become a hot potato again. Our legal system makes mountains out of molehills, and vice versa Contrary to the popular saying, the law is not an ass. At least law as practised in Malaysia is very definitely an asshole law.

The real truth is that the PM must do what he’s promised. Take action after reading my comments. For now, the AG must go. Maybe next week, home minister Minister may have to go as well. The PM should worry more about his legislative agenda – and stay focused on that. We the people in the meantime should be careful not to mix issues….

AT IS HAPPENING? NO APPEAL FOR A MURDER CASE AND YET IN to contest the High Court’s decision which found the police responsible for covering up the death of detainee A. Kugan, VERY QUICKLY. THE MALAYSIAN PUBLIC HAS THE RIGHT TO KNOW THE REASONS FOR THIS APPARENT DISCRIMINATION. MAYBE, RAZAK BAGINDA IS A CLOSE ASSOCIATE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER, NAJIB TUN RAZAK, WHEREAS RAJA PETRA IS NAJIB’S STRONGEST CRITIC. IF NOT, WHAT ELSE? PLEASE, DEPUTY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR TUN MAJID TUN HAMZAH, CAN YOU EXPLAIN?

Is this an indecent government? They are at least four functions of a government: to promote economic development (GDP per capita, health, education, public housing); to protect the weak; to provide public goods (roads, water, and electricity); and to maintain law and order. But the underlying principle of a truly democratic government is it must be seen to be just, equitable, and uphold freedom. Clearly then the moment the newly minted home minister Zahid decided to appeal against “the Kugan verdict”, it has breached the very principle of upholding justice. Why is the government not aligning its position with the weak, downtrodden, and helpless is illogical, undemocratic, and insensitive. Unless the home minister Zahid is saying that it is sanctioning police brutality as its standard operating procedure, how can a decent government condone, facilitate, and promote

A sad day for justice and democracy in our country. This is pure bullying and intimidation by a govt out to discourage anyone seeking justice over the brutality that they face in police custody. I suppose when you have a home minister with a dubious past record, this is exactly the sort of petty minded response the nation can expect.

Surendran said it was obvious that Home Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and the government are indifferent to the suffering of Kugan’s family and to the families of the others who had died in custody. “In Kugan’s case, there is clear evidence of torture and murder by the police. The post-mortem showed 52 injury marks on Kugan’s body and concluded that he had been beaten to death,” said Surendran.

“Yet, despite this, Zahid, the Attorney-General and the government have obstinately proceeded with the appeal. It is clear that the appeal has political motives and is related to the on-going public clamour for the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission to be set up.” In fact, he added, even the judge who presided over the civil case had called for the setting up of the IPCMC.Any where in the world this would have been a straight forward case…only in Najib’s minority government a Kaki Pukul can be Home Minister and a police-man involved in the death of a detainee be IGP…bravoo well done…what the fcuk is Paul Low doing…..has sold his soul to the DEVIL…

In delivering his judgment in the civil suit brought by Kugan’s mother against the government, Justice Datuk V.T. Singham said the the current IGP, Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar, who was then the Selangor police chief, had tried to cover up Kugan’s death.

Kugan was detained on Jan 14, 2009, on suspicion of being involved in a luxury car theft ring in. He was detained at the Taipan police station where he died on Jan 20.

Despite calls for the government not to contest the High Court’s decision which found the police responsible for covering up the death of detainee A. Kugan, an appeal was filed today.

The notice of appeal was served on human rights lawyer N. Surendran who is acting for Kugan’s family.

“This is unjust and politically motivated. It will only cause further suffering to Kugan’s family, especially his mother, N. Indra,” said the lawyer, adding that there must be a closure to this four-year-old case.how to change the UMNO/BN Government when stupid idiots/voters still vote them in. I mean UMNO/BN MPs corruptors. 2. These UMNO/BN MPs and Ministers still talks about serving the people and country and giving comparison between Malaysia and the African countries where we are better off than them BUT dare not to compare the countries that are near to us. 3. worst still, we have a PM we do not know whether he is managing the country truthfully or not. 4. PM, if u care not for our beloved country, pls resign gracefully and let peoples committed to manage the country.

WWW.MALAYSIAKINI.COM
NO APPEAL AGAINST ABDUL RAZAK’S ACQUITTAL

HAFIZ YATIM | NOVEMBER 14, 2008

THE CLOCK HAS RUN DOWN ON A POSSIBLE APPEAL AGAINST THE ACQUITTAL OF POLITICAL ANALYST ABDUL RAZAK BAGINDA, WHO HAD BEEN CHARGED WITH ABETTING IN THE MURDER OF MONGOLIAN NATIONAL ALTANTUYA SHAARIIBUU.

THE PROSECUTION HAD 14 DAYS TO FILE AN APPEAL AFTER SHAH ALAM HIGH COURT JUDGE MOHD ZAKI MD YASIN DELIVERED HIS RULING ON OCTOBER 31.

CHECKS WITH THE COURT REGISTRY AT 5PM TODAY SHOWED THAT NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED.
DEPUTY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR TUN MAJID TUN HAMZAH(RIGHT) SAID THE COURT HAD MADE A FINDING OF FACT AND HE CONFIRMED THAT THE PROSECUTION WOULD NOT FILE AN APPEAL.
“NO FURTHER COMMENTS AS THERE IS AN ON-GOING TRIAL,” HE SAID WHEN CONTACTED
MOHD ZAKI IN HIS WRITTEN JUDGMENT HAD SAID: “ONCE THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF ABETMENT – BY INSTIGATION, BY CONSPIRACY AND BY AIDING – [...] ARE NOT PROVEN ON THE BASIS OF PRIMA FACIEEVIDENCE, ANY OTHER INFERENCES AND DOUBTS THAT MAY HAVE ARISEN MUST BE RESOLVED, AS IS TRITE, IN FAVOUR OF THE ACCUSED PERSON.

abdul razak baginda and altantuya shaariibuu murder case

“IT IS NOT FOR THE COURT TO CALL FOR THE DEFENCE MERELY TO CLEAR OR CLARIFY SUCH DOUBTS [...] I FIND THERE IS NO PRIMA FACIECASE FOR HIM (ABDUL RAZAK, LEFT) TO ANSWER HIS CHARGE…”

HOWEVER, THE JUDGE ORDERED SPECIAL ACTION SQUAD POLICE OFFICERS AZILAH HADRI, 32, AND SIRUL AZHAR UMAR, 38, TO ENTER THEIR DEFENCE.

THEY ARE JOINTLY ACCUSED OF MURDERING ALTANTUYA, 28, AT A LOCATION BETWEEN LOT 12843 AND LOT 16735 IN MUKIM BUKIT RAJA, SELANGOR BETWEEN 10AM ON OCT 19, 2006 AND 1AM THE FOLLOWING DAY.
THEY HAVE ELECTED TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH WHEN THE HEARING RESUMES ON NOV 10. THEIR OTHER OPTIONS WERE EITHER TO GIVE A STATEMENT FROM THE DOCK OR TO REMAIN SILENT.

READMORE HERE HTTP://THEMALAY-CHRONICLE.BLOGSPOT.COM/2012/01/HOW-NAJIB-IS-LOSING-STUPID-DEBATE.HTML

KARPAL SINGH WHO IS COUNSEL FOR THE FAMILY OF MURDERED MONGOLIAN TRANSLATOR ALTANTUYA SHAARIIBUU SAID THE MONGOLIAN GOVERNMENT HAD AGREED TO POST A SECURITY DEPOSIT BOND OF RM60,000 FOR THE FAMILY TO ENABLE THE COURT OF APPEAL TO CONTINUE WITH THE COMPENSATION HEARING.

“THEY (MONGOLIAN GOVERNMENT) HAVE AGREED TO MAKE THE PAYMENT BEFORE JUNE 30. THE FAMILY’S CASE SEEKING COMPENSATION WILL CONTINUE NOW,” KARPAL TOLD FMT YESTERDAY.

HE SAID, HOWEVER, THAT THE COURT PROCESS COULD TAKE TIME. THE CASE IS CURRENTLY WITH THE COURT OF APPEAL AND WILL CONTINUE TO THE FEDERAL COURT.

FOLLOWING THE COURT’S ORDER FOR A SECURITY BOND, KARPAL HAD APPEALED TO ALL PAKATAN RAKYAT MPS AND STATE ASSEMBLYMEN TO CHIP IN AND HELP THE FAMILY WITH FUNDS.

“BUT NOW THAT THE MONGOLIAN GOVERNMENT HAS AGREED TO ASSIST ALTANTUYA’S FATHER SHAARIIBUU SETEV POST THE BOND, THERE WILL BE NO NEED TO COLLECT DONATIONS FROM THE MPS AND STATE REPS,” KARPAL SAID.

ON JUNE 4, 2007, ALTANTUYA’S FATHER, SETEV, MOTHER ALTANTSETSEG SANJAA AND HER TWO SONS MUNGUNSHAGAI AND ALTANSHAGAI MUNKHTULGA HAD SUMMONED THE MALAYSIAN GOVERNMENT, ABDUL RAZAK BAGINDA, AND THE TWO ACCUSED – CHIEF INSPECTOR AZILAH HADRI AND CORPORAL SIRUL AZHAR UMAR – TO SEEK RM100 MILLION IN COMPENSATION FOR HER DEATH.

THEY ALLEGED THAT AZILAH AND SIRUL, WHO WERE ATTACHED TO THE SPECIAL ACTIONUNIT , HAD SHOT ALTANTUYA AND DISPOSED OF HER CORPSE BY EXPLODING IT USING A C4 BOMB. BITS OF ALTANTUYA’S BODY WERE LATER FOUND IN THE FOREST AREA IN PUNCAK ALAM, SHAH ALAM, ON NOV 7, 2006.readmoreNAJIB WHY DID ALTANTUYA HAVE TO DIE? CORRUPT POLITICAL LEADERSHIP DOES NOT ATTRACTIVE MEN OF OUTSTANDING INTEGRITY;

Former political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda, who was charged with abetting them, was acquitted by the high court on Oct 31, 2008 after the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against him.readmore INSP AZILAH HADRI, 30, AND KPL SIRUL AZHAR TOLD

The law is an ass, and all that

This government undermined the rule of law

It may seem bizarre to invoke tradition when that tradition was responsible for so much unjust hierarchy and social injustice. But the rule of law originated in religion almost everywhere. In the West, it emerged from Christianity. Long before modern European states, Pope Gregory I established laws for marriage and inheritance. The Church also discovered the old Justinian code, which became the basis of civil law in continental Europe. Frederic Maitland says the rule of law gained higher legitimacy because it emerged from religion; thus, no English king ever believed that he was above the law. kings had the same conviction about dharma. In the same way, the rule of law is central to Muslim civilization.

The ideal of a ruler guided by ‘dharma’ exists in the Indian imagination even today, thanks to the extraordinary continuity of our civilization. When the vast majority on the subcontinent is deeply religious, it is not inappropriate to turn to tradition to seek that moral core that can restrain public officials and citizens. Fusing tradition with modernity could help restore the moral core in a meaningful way in support of the modern rule of law to re-invigorate Malaysia’s democracy.

All of which goes to show that, far from being the ass that it is sometimes claimed to be, our law is very clever in doing what it seems designed to do best: going after the small fish while the really big fish largely get away scot-free.The law will of course look into all that. But just give it a little time to get its breath back. if not most, of the contending parties have both literally and metaphorically given up the ghost and have departed the earth for a better place.

let zahid appeal; that is his right. But the fact remains that there are 300 persons brutally murdered and butchered by the police at the police stations. No one can deny. Let Court of Appeal consider the case. Afterwords, Surendran and the victims may appeal to FEDERAL COURT. TRUTHS SHALL PREVAIL.

Why this Kolaveri – Hindraf Wyatha Moorthy Version Always watch out for ‘The Big Obsessive Scam’ the media goes after. It often covers up a great deal more than it reveals. It also draws away our immediate attention from issues where we were about to get close to a dangerous truth or two. Poirot famously described Then go all out for IPCMC to be implemented. NOBODY is above the Law!… Read more THREE IDIOTS THE ART OF BULLSHIT, “SHIT STIRRERS” ,COLD MURDER AND A SCAM THAT WON’T DIE

Padma Lakshmi went and did it. She dropped her clothes for American magazine Allure. Four other celebrities joined her in strutting their stuff, but Padma Lakshmi is the one significant for us. Supermodel, actor, cook show host, author but most important, fourth ex-wife of Salman Rushdie.

Even as Rushdie showed off his new arm candy, gorgeous Pia Glenn, 29 years his junior, Padma decided to show off her booty. And why not? The woman has wares to be proud of and she makes no bones about it. Padma tells the magazine that she loves the weight she has put on as it has given her “fuller breasts.” She confesses to sleeping in the buff and being “a very tactile and sensual-leaning person.”

We can just imagine many of our Bollywood female stars straining at the bit as they witness the steady disrobing of every Hollywood icon and the attention it gets them. Kate Winslett had barely worn her clothes after shooting for The Reader when she readily dropped them again for the cover of Vanity Fair in a bid to promote the same movie as well as her other release that month, Revolutionary Road. Not to be left behind, Jennifer Aniston shot for the GQ cover in just a necktie and nothing else in the same month. She was promoting He’s Just Not That Into You.

And to think all our female stars can do to promote their films is pretend an affair with the lead actor or to just keep giving interview after boring interview to media! And all the media can hope to get from them in the name of magazine covers is a smirk or a tried-and-tested come-hither look, smoky eyes seducing the camera or glancing off shoulder!

There are some who have tried to go beyond. Back in 1993 Mamta Kulkarni went bare down till her suggestively unbuttoned jeans for Stardust. The poor girl was smarting for years from the censure she was subjected to once the leering and leching was over. She lashed back at her detractors and matters became worse when she appeared in court in a burqa to avoid photographers. That got her threats from the Islamic community. So whether in bare torso or burqa, she became the favourite whipping girl of one and all…. She was convicted in July 2000.

Another star who dropped clothes for a magazine cover was Pooja Bhatt, who got her naked body spray painted a la Demi Moore. Earlier in 1974 Protima Bedi had streaked down Mumbai roads for Cine Blitz, though that wasn’t a cover shoot.

Milind Soman dropped his clothes to strut around naked on Delhi Ridge for an exclusive cover shoot for Saturday Times with Bharat Sikka in the early 90s. Now we hear Neil Nitin Mukesh has shot in the raw for Jail. Surprisingly a man dropping his clothes doesn’t create all that much a stir.

That’s about it so far as uncovered covers go in Indian media. Watching the disrobing in the West, I’m sure our Bollywood babes are itching to drop their clothes and photographers waiting just as eagerly to take some candid shots. Wonder who will take the lead….?

A love affair gone bad is no reason to charge a man who got a woman pregnant with rape, the Bombay high court has ruled. Justice Sadhna Jadhav acquitted Borivali resident Manesh Kotiyan (39) of rape charges three years after his arrest and subsequent conviction.

“The very fact that the prosecution has admitted in the cross-examination that she had a love affair with the accused and she desired to marry him. In these circumstances, offence underSection 376 of the IPC (rape) would necessarily fail,” said Justice Jadhav ruling that the rape charges against Kotiyan were “unsustainable”.

The court went through the prosecution case and noted that the accused had proposed to the girl. “The complainant is an educated adult person,” said the judge. “She was fully aware of the fact that he (Kotiyan) was attracted to her. She chose to accompany him to Gorai. She also checked into a hotel to celebrate his birthday. She was aware of the consequences,” said the judge.

“She had not cried for help and had not taken her resistance to a logical end. Hence, it would not be justifiable to hold that the consent was obtained by intimidation, force meditated imposition, circumvention surprise or undue influence,” said the judge.

The court, however, upheld Kotiyan’s conviction on charges of cheating as he had failed to disclose to the victim that he was married and had children. Since he has served around three years in prison, the court ordered his release.

“There is no evidence that the accused coerced her and raped her,” said advocate Arfan Sait, who was appointed by the high court legal aid cell to defend Kotiyan. “He had always intended to marry her and had told her he would do so once the divorce proceedings ended.”

The case dates back to March 2010, when the girl who was four months pregnant lodged a case of rape against Kotiyan. The two had met when they were working at a stationery shop in Borivli. In November 2009, they had gone to Gorai to celebrate Kotiyan’s birthday, where according to the prosecution he forced her into having sexual intercourse. A sessions court in 2012 held Kotiyan guilty of rape and sentenced him to seven years rigorous imprisonment. Kotiyan filed an appeal in the HC. “It is clear from her deposition that she had lodged the FIR in a fit of rage,” the HC said.

Despite its colonial bias, the Indian Penal Code enacted in 1861 by the British who ruled us then, is still serving us far better than the entire gamut of post-independence legislation, especially the laws enacted ostensibly for protecting or strengthening women’s rights. But every time a law fails to deliver its promised results, instead of taking a cool headed review, a small but volatile and media savvy coterie of NGO’s starts a hysterical campaign for making the law more stringent.

The government of the day willingly obliges by adding a few draconian provisions to the existing law—increase the term of imprisonment, make the crime non-bailable, shift the burden of proof on the accused and brush aside due process to placate the hysterical NGOs and their allies in the media for the simple reason that it helps deflect attention from its failure in getting the existing laws implemented with honesty.

Since most of these laws are passed as knee jerk reactions their “use-by date” is over even before women for whose benefit the law has been passed get to know of its provisions or intent. But that does not stop zealous reformers from baying for more amendments, more stringent punishments to be added to the much amended law, as they did with laws to combat dowry, domestic violence, obscene portrayal of women in the media, foeticide and so on. They are often enacted even before law makers have had the time to define the crime with clarity and accuracy.

Take the example of anti-rape law. It was amended in 1983 under pressure from women’s rights activists after the rape of young Mathura in a Hyderabad police station. It enhanced the minimum jail term for rape to 7 years with 10 years for custodial rape. In case of death due to brutal rape, there is provision for life imprisonment as well as death sentence. But none of these provisions proved effective in curbing sexual crimes against women which appear to have actually become more rampant and more gruesome. Leave alone curbing incidents of rape in secluded places or in privacy of homes, government machinery has failed to curb even custodial rapes in thanas and hospitals.

Last year the over zealous Women and Child Development Minister, Krishnna Tirath raised the age of consent for consensual sex from 16 to 18—thereby treating a 17 year old male who has consensual sex with another 17 year old as a “rapist”. She was then brimming with confidence that the law would act as a magic wand for persuading or frightening teenage girls from having sex before they turned 18. But this pious measure also failed to produce the desired result.

In the meantime, the police made it merry by harassing young lovers looking for some private lovey-dovey moments in parks or other secluded places. The police also make a kill by implicating men on the basis of motivated, trumped up charges or absolutely absurd allegations of rape under the existing supposedly “lenient” provisions. For example, in recent years there have been a spate of cases of women getting their lovers and/or live-in partners arrested on the charge of “raping them continually for X number of years” by making a false promise of marriage or a film role or a particular job. These men surely deserve condemnation for breach of promise. But to charge them of rape is making a mockery of women who actually suffer gruesome assaults on their bodies.

But for the media expose, we could well have had a case filed by the woman lawyer who was caught on camera with Abhishek Manu Singhvi alleging rape, had he failed to make her a judge of the High Court—a job she demanded in return for sexual favours!

To say that a man is legally obliged to marry a woman or give a promised job to a woman he has had sex with and failure to do so will mean a prison term for 10-20 years is to play with fire. Are we willing to extend the same logic to women and have them arrested and jailed if they change their mind about marrying a man with whom they have had an affair? Can women demand such one sided laws in the name of equality without making themselves objects of disdain?

Predictably, the only people who benefit from such fierce laws are corrupt policemen and unscrupulous lawyers. Just as the police bribe rate goes up for helping criminals in cases of non bailable offences, so also the lawyers’ fee rises astronomically if the offence invites draconian provisions. Genuine victims rarely get the kind of support our police gives to those who have committed crimes against women. Most genuine victims can’t afford to hire lawyers who charge a bomb for arguing their case.

All this would have gone on for ever without any one in the Government losing any sleep if a few gruesome cases of rape in the heart of Delhi had not mesmerized TV channels into making rape into a cause celebre last year. Therefore, in sheer panic the Government appointed a special Commission headed by legal luminaries who too in sheer panic submitted a humongous report in record 30 days’ time and then pressed more panic buttons to demand that their recommendations be turned into an Ordinance in order avoid delays in passing a new rape law. Never mind that the public hearings of the Commission held just 48 hours before they were to submit the voluminous report were a mere formality because the feminists who wanted certain law changes had already supplied all the ammunition to the Commission before it carried out the formality of public hearings.

So now we have a situation where even before there is consensus on whether to call the crime ‘rape’ or “sexual assault”, whether to raise or decrease the age of consent, how to define ‘voyeurism” or “stalking” it has been decided to make it a non bailable offence—meaning the moment a woman makes this charge, police are duty bound to arrest the person and send him to jail because only court can give him bail. It has also been decided in the draft law that the minimum punishment for rape will be raised from 10-years to 20. Now that the BJP has decided to beat the feminists at their own game, it is going to support a “tough” law simply to get one-up on the Congress party!

Since I am actually feeling sorry for the UPA government for having to act under siege, I have a humble suggestion to help it overcome future embarrassments. Along with the new rape law, the UPA government should enact another law that mandates that EVERY woman must at ALL times carry copies of ALL the laws ( along with their numerous amendments) enacted for protection of women on her person. These copies should be duly certified by the area magistrate so that she can wave the appropriate law with utmost confidence about its authenticity at whoever comes to harm her, beat her up, rape her, violate her dignity, and sense of pride as a woman! This could be called the “The Duty to Wave Appropriate Laws before Offenders”. This could be a drunkard husband come with a knife to kill her or break her skull or a gang of sadists come to rape and tear her body apart or a leery boss wanting sexual favours in lieu of allowing her leave when her child is sick or a pervert carrying a can of acid to disfigure her for having dared snub his advances.

Failure to carry any or all of these laws on her person should invite strict action against the woman or at the very least disqualify her for seeking the help of the police in booking the said criminal because failure to wave the law with a confident flourish is indisputable evidence of “contempt and mistrust of government” and ‘lack of trust” in the magical power of the said law. This simple measure will help curb if not crimes against women, it will surely bring a radical decline in the number of women who will walk into police stations to report and register crimes.

After all, a woman who does not feel strengthened by the sheer ferocity of draconian provisions written into law made especially for her protection, needs “consciousness raising” by duly certified feminist NGOs. For this purpose, the Government should allocate a corpus fund of 50,000 crores with 10% additional yearly increase to provide handsome grants in perpetuity to feminists of the correct political persuasion to conduct legal literacy classes, psychiatric counselling and the art of waving laws with speed and flourish whenever they feel endangered. Grants emanating from this may be used for going on global tours to hold workshops, prepare training modules, audio visual material, films and explore all manners of new consciousness raising techniques with the help of best international experts on the subject.

Once government makes high voltage feminists become “partners in woman’s empowerment” they will be able to protect it from disgruntled citizens far better than the government knows how to.

If this too does not work, let us please request the British to come back for a specified period and update all our laws to sit the requirements of a 21st century democracy in India, since we have failed to do the job on our own steam.

Gurgaon is often referred to as the Millennium City of India. Once touted as the City South of Delhi, a clear take on South Delhi, the playground of Delhi’s rich and upwardly mobile, it has, in the past few years, beaten the country’s capital with the pace and quality of its real-estate development. The city is now home to some of the biggest corporate houses and professionals.

It is to cater to this upwardly mobile, with loads of cash to spare, clientele that it also spawned a huge ‘mall’ culture with plenty of opportunities thrown in for shopping, entertainment, fine dining and bars. But that is where the good things end. While the private sector rose to the occasion and delivered, as expected, the local administration has failed – and miserably. The city’s infrastructure is a joke. The roads are a mess. There is nothing called rainwater drainage. Sanitation is non-existent. Power supply is erratic, at best. Whichever way one looks at it, it is ‘ slumdog India’. Despite the city contributing the maximum to Haryana’s coffers, it seems the politician-builder nexus has no long-term vision and is content using the city a milch cow.

In between, there seemed to be some hope when the city was given a municipal corporation and to make things even better, recently a maverick, but proactive gent was given charge of the local body responsible for the upkeep of the urban areas. Sadly though, they too have failed, which I suspect is more due to the nexus mentioned above. That, however, doesn’t absolve the administrators who too have bungled. And the latest diktat of the district administration to ask women to stop working after 8 in the evening is perhaps the most stupid diktat.

It is a diktat that screams: We are useless. We have abdicated our responsibility. We cannot guarantee safety to the residents of our city. We cannot guarantee the workforce its safety. Our police is no good. We admit, this lawlessness is beyond us.

It is a diktat that shows the administration in an Ostrich-like mode. Take the easy way out and instead of trying to tackle the issue head on, ask women employees to stop working 8pm onwards. Brilliant. As someone responded to me on twitter: Does this apply only to women workers or even shoppers? I would add to it. Does this apply to office workers and countless BPOs that dot the city and have hundreds of women working in different shifts? There are even some high-profile women honchos in the city working for large corporates and am sure they keep long hours. Would they be forced to leave by 8 too? And most importantly, does the rapist know if the woman walking out is an office-goer, or a shopper or a BPO employee or a bar employee?

I agree that there is a huge culture issue in the North. And I am not saying this to spark a North-South-West-East debate, please. Rapes happen all over, but when it happens with the alarming frequency as has been happening here, it tells a tale. I have already discussed in the past the huge socio-economic problems that are looming due to this overtly materialistic society. It is impacting a lot of youngsters, especially those whose families sold off their land where these luxury apartments and malls now stand. These youngsters have now blown up all their money but have no fallback option.

Right, but these are the problems that need to be tackled head on. Taking the easy way out by either ignoring them or denying that the issue exists is stupid. But giving diktats such as what the administration has done is even worse. It shows the administration that has thrown its hands up. That seems to convey that women are a problem. Nothing can do more to shake the confidence of the residents of any city than this. It is an order that needs to be revoked.

Ravana had also tried to kill the monkey king Bali, who was performing prayer to the Sun God at a seashore.
Bali was so powerful, that he carried Ravana with his arms and took him back to Kishkindhya, where he asked Ravana what he wanted. .It was Ravana, a Brahmin, who performed the rites of a purohit, when Lord Rama constructed the Rama Sethu to lead his monkey brigade to attack Lanka. Ravana had acquired a boon from Lord Brahma by beseeching that no god, demon, kinnar or gandharva could ever kill him. Ravana had acquired a boon from Lord Brahma by beseeching that no god, demon, kinnar or gandharva could ever kill him. He was granted this boon, little knowing that he did not seek the boon for protection from human beings. It was Rama, as a human, who ultimately slayed Ravana.

Rowena, a product of the bumi first, BTN racist policy and the beneficiary of the elites and cronies trying to defend the indefensible. Firstly, the majority is supposed to look after the minority who are normally suppressed and oppressed in many ways. The minority Sunni Group in Bahrain and Alawite Group in Syria persecute and or oppress the other majority religious group through the power of the gun and rule by their laws instead of through democratic means. As in Malaysia, we now have a minority govt which is trying suppress the majority (of all races & religion) who voted for change through the various govt institutions which is wrong and immoral. Tindak Malaysia has done an excellent job in educating Malaysians of their responsibility to volunteer in the election process and to ensure free and fair elections. What has Rowena or her Dad contributed to Malaysia except scandals of corruption and murder?The majority Malays in Malaysia are well protected by the Constitution and the Monarchy, which consists of the Malay sultans and Agong. Umno elites have created so many special privileges for the Malays just to enrich themselves and their cronies unfairly. Although all Malays are Muslims, Umno have broken the sacred Islamic rule which says that all men are equal. Not only has Umno, which is 100% Malay failed to treat the non-Malays fairly but the elites have enriched themselves so prohibitively that majority of the bumiputras are living below the poverty line. Rowena, my advice to the ordinary Malays is to beware of Malays like your father,

Baginda Razak and your mother, who owned companies involved in the 500 million Scorpene commission. Altantuya, your father’s ex-lover who came for her share of the commission was blown to pieces. They now have to be wary of you too.

what this woman is saying by asking the of Malays in the NGO is that all NGOs, voluntary organizations, should have majority of Malays to dominate other races, UMNOBARU style in BN She looks like a good candidate for UMNOBARU Wanita and she should table such a resolution in the forth coming UMNOBARU AGM. Once adopted,

she couldn’t see the real picture. The majority want electoral reforms and she is the minority. She is minority not because of her race but for being a reactionary. her family is a minority in UK and is she not wanting to be protected from the majority. think about it……brainless woman.. think about it…..
it becomes law as UMNOBARU resolutions are as good as legislation by Parliament. She really displaced her ignorance publicly in a public forum. How silly. Keeping her moth shut would have been good discretion.
Come on young woman, let’s cut out all the race stuff. You are just being irrational. Have that
murder suspect of a father of yours taught you to think along this line. Of course I have forgotten that your whole family is drowning in the ill gotten money which your father and mother have stolen from the people. You still want “protection” to steal more money? Rowena, you and your kind are part of the majority here and enjoying all the benefits at the expense of suppression, oppression, intimidation, degradation, humiliation and deprivation of opportunities of the minorities. Digest those few words….. Now God finally wake up, realise and pity the minorities and with divine power change you rowena and hence your posterity to be one of the minority, then go enjoy and endure all the above for decades, then your are only qualify or entitle to go yapping about minority and majority rights in the universal form.

Ravana’s empire spread over Balidweepa (today’s Bali), Malayadweep (Malaysia), Angadweepa, Varahdweepa, Shankhadweepa, Yavadweepa, Andhralaya and Kushadweepa Ravana had acquired a boon from Lord Brahma by beseeching that no god, demon, kinnar or gandharva could ever kill him.
He was granted this boon, little knowing that he did not seek the boon for protection from human beings. It was Rama, as a human, who ultimately slayed Ravana. He was granted this boon, little knowing that he did not seek the boon for protection from human beings. It was Rama, as a human, who ultimately slayed Ravana.
Ravana had also tried to kill the monkey king Bali, who was performing prayer to the Sun God at a seashore.
Bali was so powerful, that he carried Ravana with his arms and took him back to Kishkindhya, where he asked Ravana what he wanted. .It was Ravana, a Brahmin, who performed the rites of a purohit, when Lord Rama constructed the Rama Sethu to lead his monkey brigade to attack Lanka.
Ravana offered friendship and the two became friends. It was Bali, who while fighting with Sugriva, was slayed by Lord Rama. Though demon king Ravana is the prime antagonist character in the epic Ramayana, yet most of the people are not aware of his background, his conquests and his erudite knowledge. To put it in a nutshell, here are eleven big facts you should know about Ravana (of course, they are based on Hindu shastras and religious texts): Though demon king Ravana is the prime antagonist character in the epic Ramayana, yet most of the people are not aware of his background, his conquests and his erudite knowledge. To put it in a nutshell, here are eleven big facts you should know about Ravana (of course, they are based on Hindu shastras and religious texts): Though demon king Ravana is the prime antagonist character in the epic Ramayana, yet most of the people are not aware of his background, his conquests and his erudite knowledge. To put it in a nutshell, here are eleven big facts you should know about Ravana (of course, they are based on Hindu shastras and religious texts): Ravana’s empire spread over Balidweepa (today’s Bali), Malayadweep (Malaysia), Angadweepa, Varahdweepa, Shankhadweepa, Yavadweepa, Andhralaya and Kushadweepa. Eyebrows were raised at a forum today when political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda’s daughter sparred with Tindak Malaysia’s leader over race and electoral reform.

Knowing the psyche of typical desperate Umno Malay who had been ostracised or rather excommunicated from their mainstream community they often use another minority race (Chinese) as bogeyman, to win back support and ‘respect’ from the Umno public. In this case, Rowena, daughter of the trial-freed suspect of a most foul murder of Altantuya, probably and deliberately is making use of the Bar Council forum and the NGO, Tindak Malaysia, using race as bait, to announce her presence to the Malaysian public. For so many years since the murder trial – after she had grown up, there was no news of her or any involvements with any public issues and associations. Least of all, nothing was known of her stand on such controversial issues like racial politics. So why did she suddenly pop in her first public appearance with a rather naïve and controversial statement? 1/2.

Then, the widely used Indian excuses of “compulsions of a coalition”, and “anti-incumbency” are always there. There are some truthful confessions in this. Literally it means that since we all ganged up to run this land, we have every right to fight for our piece of the underhand deal. Secondly, since we ruled so long, you must accept that power corrupts, and even if the act is not absolute, we are decent enough to accept that we had a nice time running the show, breaking a rule here and there, with a rather archaic Supreme Court coming in the way. So you know how it piles up, and it is quite natural that you the countrymen will have a bias against us. This is a corollary for every government in power facing elections in this great democracy.

The idea of employing professional ad agencies is still to be welcomed. The history of winning elections in any democracy, depending from when it started, generally follows a common trend. The first is overwhelming iconic influence of the overwhelming party. You may include Abraham Lincoln, Nehru, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and more recently the legendary Mandela in such a category. These are historic tides of opinion that have a place reserved for them. I would even put Mrs indira Gandhi in this category once she broke away from the old congress.

The secretary to the Ministry of Trade and Industry avers that trade negations must be done in secret, I suppose by the officers concerned. There should apparently be no public debate or even within the Government.

I don’t think it is such a good practice, if indeed that is the practice. Let us see the record of trade and other agreements negotiated by the Malaysian Government. They do not seem to favour Malaysia much. In fact they seem to result in Malaysia accepting unfavourable terms.

The next phase is of a generation that has to negotiate, think of vote-bank politics as a necessity, and still play straight. Consider Golda Meir, Ranatunga, Margaret Thatcher, Olaf Palme in this category, though you have a right to complain that one can’t put everyone in a straightjacket. The third phase is charisma over ruling human infirmities, in the absence of a matching challenge. Consider JFK, Willy Brandt the German chancellor, even a ‘clean’ but inexperienced Rajiv Gandhi hereater

Firstly let us look at the water agreement with Singapore. Malaysia agreed to sell raw water at 3 cents per 1000 gallons. In return Malaysia can buy 12 per cent or less of the treated water for 50 cents. If the rates are to be revised both countries must agree.

If Malaysia raises the rate to 6 cent per 1000 gallons (i.e. 100 per cent) then Singapore can raise by the same factor to 1 dollar per 1000 gallons of treated water. This is not going to benefit Malaysia. And so we never tried to renegotiate the prices.

The first agreement lapsed in 2011 and we did not renegotiate at all. The next agreement will lapse in 2060. So we will be getting 3 cents per 1000 gallons of raw water when the cost of living has probably gone up many-many times.

To avoid Singapore revising the price of water if we raise the price of raw water, Johor was given enough money to build its own treatment plant. Not having to depend on supply from Singapore, we could raise the price of raw water without Singapore raising the price of treated water.

I am told that Johor still needs to buy treated water from Singapore. I really do not know why. So the price has not been renegotiated and I suppose will not be renegotiated until 2060.

Today the Singapore Dollar is 2 ½ times the value of the Malaysian Ringgit. At the time of the agreement it was one to one. Are we receiving payment in Singapore Dollar or Malaysian Ringgit? Or is this a secret also?

Frankly I don’t think we thought very carefully when we negotiated. Incidentally Johor sells water at 30 cent per 1000 gallons to Melaka, i.e. 1000 per cent higher than for Singapore.

F/A-18 fighter jets

Then there is the purchase of the F/A-18 fighter aircraft. Actually the Government wanted the MIG-29. Somehow part of the fund was used to purchase the F/A-18. I suppose the people who made this decision know why they must have the F/A-18.

Unfortunately the agreement to purchase did not include the source code. Without the source code the F/A-18 can only fly on missions approved by the United States. Until then these very expensive fighter planes can only be used for show at LIMA. Very expensive toys.

Then there is the AFTA, the Asean Free Trade Area. We agreed that cars with 40 per cent local contents qualify as national and tax-free entry into ASEAN markets. Forty per cent local contents are easily achieved by cars from outside ASEAN. This means the Japanese, Korean, Chinese and European cars can get ASEAN countries’ national status merely by being assembled in ASEAN countries together with batteries, tyres and a few other components.

Proton

We produce the Proton in Malaysia with 90% local contents. Naturally our costs are higher and cannot compete with non-ASEAN cars assembled in ASEAN countries. While these cars flood the Malaysian market, hardly any Proton is seen in ASEAN countries.

The negotiators may think they negotiated a good deal but I just don’t think so. We are simply opening our markets to countries with closed markets.

But to make matters worse, while Proton must comply with Malaysian safety and other standards, the imported cars are given exemptions from most of these. If Proton wishes to export to the countries of the manufacturers, it must comply with all their standards. So far we cannot export to Japan, Korea and the European countries. This is how good the agreements we have entered into.

Pulau Batu Puteh

We lost Pulau Batu Puteh but we cannot build the bridge or remove the causeway, or settle the provident fund issue. But we have given up our railway land worth billions to Singapore for practically nothing. And now we must ask Singapore’s permission to build our high speed train.

Look at all the agreements we have entered into and you will find practically none of them favours us.

Why the US invented TPP

Now we want to swallow the American conceived TPP, Trans Pacific Partnership. This is another attempt by America to let their huge corporations penetrate the domestic markets of the small countries, in particular Government procurements.

When the GATT (General Agreement on Trade and Tariff) failed they invented WTO (World Trade Organisation) for the same purpose. That also failed. They then invented APEC. Still they cannot achieve their objective. They introduced bilateral free trade agreements. Then they promoted a Globalised World, a world without borders in which their money can go anywhere, destroy economies and then pull out. In case we have forgotten they did this in 1997 – 8.

Still they cannot get at Government procurement. And now they invented TPP, a partnership of unequal, of the strong to take advantage of the weak.

They can sue us for billions

This is going to be legally binding. If we breach the agreement, their corporations can sue the Government for billions. I have my doubts about our ability to convince the international arbitrators or courts. We cannot even convince the World Court over Pulau Batu Puteh.

They will have the best lawyers, lots of them. We will exhaust all our funds to pay our less experienced lawyers. At the end we will lose and pay indemnities and fees running into billions. And we will continue to pay until we comply. And when we comply we will lose more money.

We have a domestic problem and we have to solve this problem. They don’t care. Anyone who talks about the New Economic Policy (NEP) is labelled racist by our officials. When the currency rogues attacked us the purpose was to gain control over our economy. We resisted that because we were still free then. But after we sign the TPP we will be bound hand and foot. No more capital control. We will be colonised again. President Sukarno was right about neo-colonialism.

Secret harm to M’sia

I know MITI is already set to agree to the TPP. It will not entertain any counter arguments. It wants to do this secretly. We don’t punish people who make agreements detrimental to the interest of this country. So what is there to lose.

This is my country as much as it is the country of the officials and politicians. If people secretly do harm to my country I have a right to complain.

We talk a lot about transparency. Let us see transparency regarding the TPP negotiation. The October 2013 ultimatum should be ignored. And let China also be included.

Coming to the deployment of ad agencies in electoral campaigns, the first example who would never have made it without such support is of PM John Major. Major was to be a temporary substitute to Margaret Thatcher’s forced resignation. A man of credentials, idealistic, bit of a dreamer, he was so different and poorly armed to match his predecessor, and his oratorical skills were no match for a more aggressive rival in Niel Kinnock. The job was done by Saatchi and Saatchi. John Major was pulled out of the shadows of being Thatcher’s boy. With a politically declining Conservative government, he was shown in the Conservative mode, but as his own man, approachable, kind, and aggressive at the right moments. The very qualities that are appreciated in an individual are often considered a mark of incompetence in politics. Saattchi and Saatchi worked out just the right recipe.

Projected Major as his own man, and yet showed him apart from the misdoings of his predecessor. John Major still leaves mark on UK politics. Will the ad combination be able to show the right distancing of a young PM aspirant as his own man, teach him to touch the crucial issues for the common man and the corporate world, and portray a right distancing from the floundering of a somewhat defamed UPA II, whatever be the reasons. That grooming, individuality, aggression and distancing from what the country did not appreciate in the present government will be the key factors in the Congress’s survival. Mrs Indira Gandhi did it her own way by throwing out the syndicate, and the country liked it.

There is another recent campaign to be learnt from, before I come back to the Indian scene. It is on record, that the ever charismatic Clinton influenced Ted Kennedy, that president Obama would still do well serving coffee to the Democrats. It was a different obsession for Ted who knew that he had no more than a year to live, that he should be the first Democrat to install a black President. Still, in the absence of the likes of a Saatchi, the Illinois governor did bank on his audacity of hope. I was in the US for a conference, and it was the time for the Texas primaries. Texas is predominantly white, and the women vote counts. An unheralded Obama quietly slipped into the library of the Texas University, scrolling over books and journals. He was casual in meeting any student who would want to shake hands with a Presidential hopeful. It was exemplary humility, or perhaps a compulsory strategy to stay in the race. He was the first one to realize the strengths of the social media. He won the huge young unblemished votes! Besides his oratory is incomparable to what we see in recent times.

We can’t underestimate the accomplished Gujarat strongman. He has risen from the ranks, and the inherent pragmatism of being from his land, he will show absolute comfort in a suit and a tie as in a dhoti. Have no illusions that he already does not have his ad and image advisors from wherever he wants them. His oratorical skills do stand out. Much depends how adeptly he unshackles himself from a party at the moment in hierarchal shambles. It’s a tough game, but he seems to be more corporate savvy. Will that matter? By all estimates that will, with the country on the brink without FIIs. Mr Modi however has to carve out his team, even if that amounts to picking up non-political professionals, even corporate honchos. A young India could not be less pleased.

Manmohanji has been a great statesman over two decades. He will be meeting Mr Nawaz Sharif on the sidelines of the upcoming annual UN Conference. He may go for a makeover to take a shot at another seat of power if he can start projecting that he is his own man. He has enough exposure, so an ad agency is not required. If he can just change the color of his turban to indigo or purple, he does not have to change anything in his style of functioning. Enough in this country judge just by the attire!

Now, for the mandatory Urdu couplet that a certain generation cherishes so much,
“Hum meheveyas to they, ki na hosh aata,
Magar tere tagaaful ne hoshiyar kiya!”
( I was in a trance, waiting, and would never have come to my senses,
But it was your neglect that brought my senses back back! )

Deputy Home Minister Datuk Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar the truth is that you do not know enough to go into a debate with Gobind. You have uttered utter nonsense just days ago. You don’t even know why the IPCMC was not established.has shrugged Member of Parliament for Puchong Gobind Singh Deo’s challenge to a debate on the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) as a sheer waste of time.Junaidi old fool, with your kind of intelligence you certainly need to resort to shouting the loudest so as to drown out Gobind’s voice should the debate be materialised. You just dont have the substance and not of the standard to match even a form 3 school boy to debate.

Wan Junaidi said the debate would be an exercise in futility as the government had rejected the proposed commission in 2009.

“Instead, the government had passed the law Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission Act or EAIC.

EAIC is as good as non existent. Anybody going to them will end up disappointed. Its a thorough waste of time. I did refer a matter to them and I was shocked when there was no inquiry not even taking a statement from me the complainant.That is how pathetic this EAI is. Its another avenue to enrich themselves, the staff and so called people involved. Everything in this country is sick. Where is their conscience. They take tax payers money without doing nothing.I think they are downright shameless. The PM should simply disband this so called agency and put the money spent to better use.

“Therefore, his call to a debate is a futile effort and will result in nothing. He is after a cheap publicity,” Wan Junaidi told reporters after visiting the site of a new mosque in Muara Tebas here today.

Gobind was reported as saying that Wan Junaidi’s dismissal of the IPCMC was flawed. He added that by and large, the opposition and critics of the police had been demanding that the IPCMC should be set up, as recommended by a Royal Commission of Inquiry.

“I’m not interested to debate with anyone who is incapable of being polite. The debate will end up with who shouted the loudest,” said Wan Junaidi. – Bernama

Deputy Home Minister Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar has shrugged member of parliament for Puchong Gobind Singh Deo’s challenge to a debate on the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) as a sheer waste of time. to show everyone how capable the Home ministry is by defeating every point raised by Gobind. Regardless of how uncouth any participant might be for it will only prove the person’s mettle. It is about time BN debate PR on important issues to allow the Rakyat to assess who is better.

The crux of the issue is that suspects should not die while in custody. The number of deaths is astoundingly high even over a 13-year period. This is an average of one person dying in the cell per month.

As such, this should be investigated by an independent body, and not the police force themselves. The police obviously have things to hide.

Recently, a prominent Gujarat-based activist handed me over a Gujarat government-sponsored report, “Impact of Caste Discrimination and Distinctions on Equal Opportunities: A Study of Gujarat”, drafted in May 2013. Authored by a few CEPT University, Ahmedabad, scholars led by Prof R Parthasarathy, whom I know as a fine academic, I scanned through the report but was not shocked, as I knew it would simply reflect the mindset of the Gujarat government, especially when the issue involved is rather ticklish – untouchability.

Whenever Umno politicians lack an intelligent response to demands for major changes, their only means of rebuff is cooking up spurious and baseless arguments.

Other forms of defence include that raising the issue is seditious, unconstitutional, it will hurt the sensitivities of the Muslims, it will confuse the Malays, it’s ‘haram’ and more recently, the taunt to emigrate elsewhere.

We all know that the police force does the bidding of the government and therefore are a protected species. So it is no surprise that Umno leaders in particular feel very threatened by the idea of the establishment of the IPCMC.

Why would the government want the police to be answerable for the heinous acts it commits on innocent citizens?

To date, not a single police officer has been charged with the use of excessive and unreasonable force, manslaughter or murder – except one scapegoat in the A Kugan case – in any of the other 166 deaths in custody.

In what is certain to escalate the already vicious fight between the CBI and theIB over the IshratJahan ”fake encounter case”, a former home ministry officer has alleged that a member of the CBI-SIT team had accused incumbent governments of “orchestrating” the terror attack on Parliament and the 26/11 carnage in Mumbai.

It calls caste discrimination a matter of “perceptions”, but so what? What does one expect from a government headed by Narendra Modi? Let me recall, in 2007 Modi got published some of his speeches he had delivered at the annual bureaucratic conclave, Chintan Shibir, in a book, “Karmayog”, where he said, Valmikis cleaning up others’ dirt was nothing but “an internal spiritual activity” which has “continued generation after generation.” Indeed, I have reason to believe that, with this mindset, Modi’s babus would have prevailed over Prof Parthasarathy and others on the issue of untouchability.

Being a member of the royal commission of inquiry (RCI) which tabled the proposal for the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC), former Umno Wanita deputy chief Kamilia Ibrahim is the latest of the many concerned voices against the government’s reluctance to accept and implement the commission’s recommendations.

It is starkly clear that without the IPCMC, if the current situation is allowed to persist, more deaths under policy custody will occur.

The latest incident happened last month where P Karuna Nithi, who turned himself in to the police after a family squabble, was found dead while being detained with close to 50 wounds in his body. The police have denied any wrongdoing.

Without the IPCMC, there is little clout to prosecute those within the police force who had indiscriminately abused their power to committed murder or be complicit in causing deaths while under detention.

In short, without the commission to regulate the conduct of the police force, errant police officers can literally walk away with murder. Why the ruling government allows this is truly mind-boggling.

Sinner: Psychologists must study this phenomenon. As soon as people leave Umno, they regain their intelligence and senses. Incredible.

Govt behind Parliament attack, 26/11: Ishrat probe officer

The official has alleged Verma levelled the damaging charge while debunking IB’s inputs labelling the three killed with Ishrat in the June 2004 encounter as Lashkar terrorists.

R V S Mani, who as home ministry under-secretary signed the affidavits submitted in court in the alleged encounter case, has said that Satish Verma, until recently a part of the CBI-SIT probe team, told him that both the terror attacks were set up “with the objective of strengthening the counter-terror legislation (sic)”.

Mani has said that Verma “…narrated that the 13.12. 2001(attack on Parliament) was followed by Pota (Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act) and 26/11 2008 (terrorists’ siege of Mumbai) was followed by amendment to the UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act).”

The official has alleged Verma levelled the damaging charge while debunking IB’s inputs labelling the three killed with Ishrat in the June 2004 encounter as Lashkar terrorists.

Contacted by TOI, Verma refused to comment. “I don’t know what the complaint is, made when and to whom. Nor am I interested in knowing. I cannot speak to the media on such matters. Ask the CBI,” said the Gujarat cadre IPS officer who after being relieved from the SIT is working as principal of the Junagadh Police Training College.

Mani, currently posted as deputy land and development officer in the urban development ministry, has written to his seniors that he retorted to Verma’s comments telling the IPS officer that he was articulating the views of Pakistani intelligence agency ISI.

According to him, the charge was levelled by Verma in Gandhinagar on June 22 while questioning Mani about the two home ministry affidavits in the alleged encounter case.

In his letter to the joint secretary in the urban development ministry, Mani has accused Verma of “coercing” him into signing a statement that is at odds with facts as he knew them. He said Verma wanted him to sign a statement saying that the home ministry’s first affidavit in the Ishrat case was drafted by two IB officers. “Knowing fully well that this would tantamount to falsely indicting of (sic) my seniors at the extant time, I declined to sign any statement.”

Giving the context in which Verma allegedly levelled the serious charge against the government, Mani said the IPS officer, while questioning him, had raised doubts about the genuineness of IB’s counter-terror intelligence. He disputed the veracity of the input on the antecedents of the three killed in June 2004 on the outskirts of Ahmedabad with Ishrat in the alleged encounter which has since become a polarizing issue while fuelling Congress’s fight with Gujarat CM Narendra Modi.

Gujarat Police has justified the encounter citing the IB report that Pakistani nationals Zeeshan Zohar, Amzad Ali Rana and Javed Sheikh were part of a Lashkar module which had reached Gujarat to target Modi and carry out terrorist attacks.

In its first affidavit, filed in August 2009, the home ministry had cited IB inputs that those killed with Ishrat in the alleged encounter were part of a Lashkar sleeper cell, and had objected to a CBI probe into the “encounter”.

In its second affidavit, filed in September 2009, the home ministry, irked by the Gujarat government treating the first affidavit as justification of the encounter, said the IB input did not constitute conclusive proof of the terrorist antecedents of those killed. It supported the demand for a CBI probe.

Mani said Verma doubted the input saying MHA’s first affidavit was actually drafted by IB officer Rajinder Kumar, who looked after IB’s operations in Gujarat at the time of Ishrat “encounter” and now runs the serious risk of being chargesheeted by the CBI for hatching the conspiracy behind the alleged extra-judicial killings.

Mani said Verma stuck to his guns even after being told that the home ministry did not need outside help. The former home ministry official said Verma insisted that the “input” was prepared after the encounter.

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition by Gujarat Police’s additional director general P P Pandey, challenging the Gujarat high court order which handed over investigation into the encounter killing ofIshratJahan and her associates to the CBI.

Holding that the high court order had been challenged two years after it was passed in Dec 1, 2011, and the chargesheet in the case had already been filed, the apex court bench of Justices Gyan Sudha Misra and Kurian Joseph said it was not a fit petition to be entertained.

Pronouncing the order, Justice Misra said there were numerous instances where high courts, upon finding that the investigation by the state police was not being carried out satisfactorily, handed investigations to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and ordered the registration of a fresh FIR.

It is not “uncommon and unknown to law for the high court to hand over the investigation into a case to CBI if, in its opinion, the facts of the case justified it,” said the court pronouncing its order.

Rejecting Pandey’s plea, the court further noted that there was no valid or justified contention that the matter should not have been handed over to the CBI.

Rejecting the plea that the long delay in filing the petition challenging Dec 1, 2011 order of the high court was because Pandey was party to the case, the court said that he could have impleaded himself before the high court after he was named as accused in the second FIR.

Rejection of Pandey’s plea has further compounded his woes, as the trial court has already declared him an absconder as he has evaded arrest so far.

Ishrat Jahan and her three associates were killed in a staged shootout by Gujarat Police June 15, 2004 after an input by the Intelligence Bureau that the operatives of Lashkar-e-Taiba were heading towards Gujarat to kill chief minister Narendra Modi. ians

With IPCMC,

1) The corrupt practices in the force, from the highest to lowest rank, are being threatened.

2) Police can no longer select who they want to investigate.

3) VVIPs and the well-connected cannot be exempted from the law.

4) Police are no longer ‘Police Raja Di Malaysia’.

5) Police cannot shoot and ask questions later.

6) There will be no protection or cover-up by the higher rank for the lower rank, or vice versa

7) Torture during interrogation cannot be used and is punishable.

8) Lazy cops will get the sack.

9) Power abuse will be checked.

10) Free food, drinks and chicks at the protected entertainment outlets gone.

11) No more free car wash and service.

12) Cops can no longer break traffic rules while telling us mortals to obey the rules, etc, etc.

Now you tell me why they want to implement IPCMC.

Rejecting Pandey’s plea, the court further noted that there was no valid or justified contention that the matter should not have been handed over to the CBI.

Rejection of Pandey’s plea has further compounded his woes, as the trial court has already declared him an absconder as he has evaded arrest so far.

Judicial delays have encouraged the criminalization of politics, and indeed of all society. To curb it, the Supreme Court cannot depend on its two latest judgments. Rather, it must devise and enforce procedures for quick justice

Every party in power misuses the police to harass opponents while protecting its own goons. Instead of justice and clean politics, we have rising criminalization and rising mud-slinging, without accountability for either the criminals or mud-slingers.Seen in this light, the rise of criminalized politics is not simply due to politicians becoming more crooked. It is also that endless judicial delays have created huge inducements for criminals to enter politics, and to succeed over law-abiding rivals. Many judges have condemned criminalized politics, amidst much public cheering, but need to acknowledge their own culpability in this mess.

We cannot truly reform politics until we reform the justice system. A land without justice in a reasonable period will necessarily be a land in which lawbreakers will beat law-abiders. This will be true not only in politics but in business, the professions, and everything else.

A majority of the police personnel are not breaking into a sweat over the setting up of the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC), says retired Kuala Lumpur criminal investigation department chief Mat Zain Ibrahim.

Mat Zain said most of them are not even aware of the existence of the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) or what this organisation is all about, or its functions.

“I can say the men in blue fear the police discipline branch more than even the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission. So whether the IPCMC is formed or not does not really make any difference to most of them,” he said…

Then-prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad instructed New Straits Times to “do away with” his former deputy Anwar Ibrahim following his sacking in 1998, said the daily’s former group editor-in-chief A Kadir Jasin.

“His (Mahathir’s) feeling was that we should try to do away with Anwar. Maybe we should try to erase the memory of Anwar,” Kadir said.

NONE Kadir (left) said he had responded that this was nearly impossible because the daily had developed Anwar, for the past 16 years, as Mahathir’s successor on the PM’s instructions.

It would be impossible to change tack overnight, so Kadir said he proposed to simply ignore Anwar as a public figure.

“Of course, this could not be accepted because in Umno, they believe that you have to use all your might and your power to destroy Anwar. I think it did not quite work out,” he said.

He was speaking at a seminar at Universiti Islam Antarabangsa (UIA) Malaysia today on the role of the media in elections.

Kadir, who served as New Straits Times group editor and New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd group editor-in-chief between 1988 and 2000, said this when illustrating his point that Media Prima, which now owns the New Straits Times group, is answerable only to the Umno president.

Therefore, he said, people should not expect the mainstream media to change following the 13th general election, since this would require the Umno president’s consent.

“If you are answerable to the party in general, then you are answerable to a lot more people.

“Maybe some people in the Umno supreme council may want changes, but in the case of the Media Prima Group, it is answerable only to the (Umno president),” he said.

However in view of Umno’s improved electoral performance, he said, this was unlikely.

“Just after May 5 (polling day), the attitude among the practitioners of the mainstream media was this: Why should we change? We did not lose.

“As far as Umno is concerned, it had done better. So why should we change? If we did not do badly this time, we could be doing better next time… so there is no reason to change,” Kadir said.

Citing examples of regime changes in South Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia, he said the only way the mainstream media would change is in the event of a change in government, because the media would be forced to follow suit.

Pointing to The Star, Kadir said the daily has already toned down its pro-BN stance because its owner, MCA, had performed badly.

In the last general election, Umno increased its holdings in parliament from 79 seats to 88 seats, while MCA declined from 15 seats to seven.

‘Hard to remain balanced’

Another speaker, Sin Chew Daily deputy editor-in-chief Tay Tian Yan, said it was increasingly difficult for newspapers in the mainstream media to remain balanced.

NONE Tay (left) said, “I think that we are quite balanced and fair. However, to be fair and balanced in the Malaysian media context is not an easy task, in fact it is quite difficult.”

He said the media was constantly being attacked from both sides of the political divide.

“On the other side, Pakatan Rakyat supporters think that to be balanced is not enough, the media has to agree with their aspirations and stand on their side.”

Tay said an internal study had found that Sin Chew had been balanced in covering both BN and Pakatan Rakyat, which concurred with the findings that a Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia researcher presented at this seminar yesterday.

However, as if proving his point that no one is satisfied, Kadir later said, “Sin Chew Daily has always been seen, from my point of view, even then (as group editor-in-chief of NST), as anti-establishment.”

Meanwhile, another speaker, Malaysiakini editor-in-chief Steven Gan, when answering a question about the falling revenue of the print media, questioned how long Sin Chew’s increasing circulation would last as a result of its political stance.

“It will be untenable. When you have 80 percent of the Chinese voting for the opposition, will they continue to read Sin Chew?”

‘No longer setting the agenda’

Asked whether the mainstream media would continue to be relevant in setting the news agenda, Kadir said that the answer was both “yes and no”.

“Yes, the mainstream media is still important. A lot of people still read, listen and watch, just not necessarily believing them.

NONE “And no, because assuming all the mainstream media is biased towards the government – in fact during the election period they had to be nothing more than the mouthpiece of the ruling party – then the outcome of the May 5 election would suggest that more than half of the voters did not listen to the mainstream media.

“However, despite not getting the majority votes, the mainstream media still has lots of influence among the rural votes, among the Malays,” Kadir said.

Gan (right) agreed that despite the growth of online media, the mainstream media still had a powerful role in setting the agenda.

He said, “The mainstream media is still very much a formidable force. You cannot to rule them out in the near future.”

The real cost of a bribe

If, in 2002, a traffic cop in the fairy-tale townbazaar, NATO troops could have left Pakistan by 2003, Iraq might have escaped NATO’s invasion, Barack Obama would probably be an unknown Senator from Chicago and George Bush Junior’s presidential library in Texas would certainly have something to cheer about. But, according to Maryam, her husband Ibrahim al-Kuwaiti “quickly settled the matter”, and the bribed Swat cop never realized he had just let Osama bin Laden escape. Maryam was giving evidence before the Justice Javed Iqbal commission, set up to enquire into the events of 2 May 2011, when US Navy Seals flew three hours into Pak territory, found and killed Osama. Nothing works on our great subcontinent better than instant cash. Al-Kuwati, Osama’s most trust aide, knew that. This is the kind of authentic detail which makes a fabulous story so entirely believable.
Which bit of this enquiry report, spread over 336 pages, garnered from 201 witnesses, is beyond doubt, which is useful, and how many witnesses have spun out little gossamer tales hide truth in a silken web?

Trivia, as indicated, deserves its place in the footnotes of history. Osama, according to a wife, wore a cowboy hat to protect himself from aerial surveillance. Well: where do you buy a 10-gallon Texan hat in Abbottabad? Can’t bring it in the luggage from a Bora Bora battlefield, either. Perhaps she confused it with a baseball cap. We also learn that Osama sometimes shaved his signature beard as part of a disguise. True, this would be perfect deception, but how long would it take to get that beard back to its original majestic length? Presumably no one in that band of brothers and wives had the courage to click a mobile picture of Osama in transition, not even a young consort in a playful mood.

In 2005, after pit stops in five Pakistan cities, the Osama entourage settled into this military garrison town, in a house so visible that no one could see it. The property was bought with a fake ID; perhaps the traffic cop principle was operational again. Four electricity and gas meters were installed in that house; no one asked why. This might have a proper explanation. No one checks electricity meters in Pakistan, so why make an exception in Abbottabad?

The high wall surrounding the house collapsed in the 2005 earthquake, and rubble lay around for months, but no one bothered to enquire, or even see, who lived inside. If you want to raise one eyebrow, reserve your second for the next story. An official survey area listed this home as “be-chiragh” or uninhabited. The Iqbal commission knows the answer: it acknowledges something “more sinister”. In 2005, Pak intelligence “closed the book” on Osama bin Laden; there was “grave complicity (at an) undetermined level”.

That level was obviously former dictator Pervez Musharraf, for this is how decisions are made during army rule. There was no incompetence. There was complicity. Take just one fact: CIA gave ISI certain phone numbers to monitor; it did not. At each turn, Islamabad manufactured and sold a lie to the world. In the beginning came Musharraf’s repeated denials, often accompanied by the hearty laugh reminiscent of retired colonels in the old British army. At the end, when Washington declared Osama dead, a chorus of spokespeople was paraded before media, not least Indian television, to nudge-wink the suggestion that Osama’s capture was a joint US-Pak operation. America had long stopped trusting Pakistan on Osama. Justice Iqbal and his brave colleagues refused to seal a lie with interpretative approval, and deserve our unstinted praise. The episode, they say, indicates not just incompetence or irresponsibility, but something “worse”.

The commission touched one significant nerve when it analyzed the complete failure of Pakistan’s military defences on its western frontier, breached totally by America on that historic night of May 2. The Pakistan air force apparently learnt about Operation Neptune Spear only when it saw media reports. “In the premier intelligence institution,” the report notes, referring to ISI, “religiosity replaced accountability.” The meaning is not complicated. India is the only enemy.

Pakistan’s security regime defines sovereignty in what might be called Indian terms. This is not new; it claims Kashmir but calmly hands over a part under its control to China. America does not respect Pakistani sovereignty over its skies, and uses drones where and when it wants. Protest from Islamabad is token, if not hypocritical. Accommodation with China or America is justified by realpolitik, but any effort at adjustment with India, even along the Cease Fire Line, internationally acknowledged as the acceptable dividing line, is dismissed as “capitulation”.

The people and most politicians of Pakistan have inched away from anti-India obsession, but the military-religious pincer is so strong that even elected governments feel locked in, helpless. Peace between India and Pakistan is blocked not by ground reality, but by ghosts in the mind. In the meantime, worry about the cost of a bribe.

What is the answer to our political discontent

Trayvon Martin

Democracy is as depressing in practice as it is uplifting in theory. There have been so many corruption scandals in the past few years but political parties refuse to learn. In Malaysia, UMNO always leads the country in bad behaviour,back to their crooked old ways while they settle scores against poor and middle class Malay. Our political discontent deeply divides men and women to work selflessly to create the concept of ‘citizen’ through a fine Constitution. It was one of the great moments in our history. India was blessed with an amazing first generation of leaders who thought of politics as the noblest of endeavours. In the Mahabharata, Bhishma returned from his deathbed to give the same message to Yudhishthira, who wanted to renounce the throne after the bloody war at Kurukshetra. Sixty five years after independence the nobility of politics has been replaced by criminality. The best spurn politics, leaving it to the worst. If decent men and women do not take the plunge, criminals will take over entirely.

Bersih 4.0 if EC bulldozes through re-delineation

Ambiga ’s movement has proven that crowds may awaken people but they do not achieve the goal, and Pakatan is discovering that it is not easy to turn a protest movement into a winning political party. What then is the answer to our democratic discontent? The key lies with decent individuals to move out of the dogged pursuit of material comfort and engage with politics. The right place to begin is one’s neighbourhood. When public spirited individuals engage in the community they help create new ‘habits of the heart’ in society. This was the great insight of Alexis de Tocqueville who wrote, Democracy in America, perhaps the best book on democracy. What impressed Tocqueville about Americans almost 200 years ago is that they were ‘joiners’ and engaged in volunteer activities for a few hours a week. By joining local clubs and social activities, they connected with neighbours. And when neighbours meet, what do they talk about? They discuss the condition of the roads, the schools, garbage collection and so on. Thus, civic life and ‘citizen’ are born.

What inhibits decent people from entering politics in in Malaysia is and political dynasties. A talented, high minded person will not join a party without inner democracy where merit is not rewarded. Fortunately, a new generation of political leaders has begun to realize that a young Malay is waking up politically and it will not tolerate the old sycophantic politics of ‘rishwat’ and ‘sifarish’. Political parties will have to learn to value talent the way our young youngs’ do, and a party with inner democracy and meritocracy is bound to gain competitive advantage in the end. Dynasties are thus warned.

Pakatan Rakyat asking the High Court to set aside results of all 222 parliamentary seats in GE13, disband the discredited Election Commission and order fresh polls,put voters in a dilemma. On one hand, as citizens of this country, we are bound by the need to respect the rule of law. On the other, we still have to appreciate that practicality ought to shape our decisions. don’t think this business about the courts deciding poll timelines should be cast in granite. Interpretation of the law should always be guided by sustainable pragmatism and a thorough view of prevailing situations.

Najib has lost control over his Ministers; they are playing a different tune as if he does not exist. At a time when our country needs firm leadership to deal with many challenges, Is our Prime Minister scared of his own shadow? Is he so weak that he wilts under pressure of his Office? Or is he just incompetent? It is time he got back into the business of running our country. Focus on the economy and proceed with his reformagenda in earnest. Action, urgent action is needed. By failing to do so, he might lose hispremiership.I wish to preach, not the doctrine of ignoble ease, but the doctrine of the strenuous life, the life of toil and effort, of labour and strife, to preach that highest form of success which comes, not to the man who desires mere easy peace, but to the man who does not shrink from danger, from hardship, or from bitter toil, and who out of these wins the splendid ultimate triumph.”–Teddy Roosevelt to the Hamilton Club, Chicago, April 10, 1899.

Eventually it will happen. Not today, not next week, not even next month. But there will come a time when Malaysians will ask this question: for how long more is Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak going to stay silent during roiling debates on the most important issues facing the country?

And then there will come a time when Malaysians will just stop expecting any intervention from the man who occupies Putrajaya; when the mandate he won on May 5 will not matter and Barisan Nasional’s intellectual heft or the last word on government policy will be what the likes of Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim and Datuk Seri Dr S. Subramaniam throw at us daily.

There does not appear to be collective responsibility in the Cabinet. Last year, Najib said the Sedition Act will be replaced by the National Harmony Act but Home Minister Zahid Hamidi believes he is not bound by the decision of the Cabinet.

Simply put, the country has been adrift for awhile. But the PM has chosen the option of silence, which, for a leader, is no option at all. The more controversial the issue, the less likelihood of anyone seeing Najib’s footprint in the debate.

His aides and supporters say that he believes in moderation and that behind closed doors he is full of ideas on helping all Malaysians. Really? How about making public those points? What does he think of the conversion bill? Has he read the riot act to Zahid for breaking ranks with him on the Sedition Act? Has he had a re-think about abolishing certain laws, given the pushback from Umno?

Pre-election Najib was advised that staying clear of hot button issues was smart politics and would guarantee self-preservation. Post-election Najib should realise that that policy landed him in no-man’s land. He won, but without a strong enough mandate.

Staying silent and letting Zahid Hamidi, Wan Junaidi and their ilk set the national agenda is just setting up Najib for a big fall. Maybe not next week, or next month but eventually

Until the killing of Black men, Black mothers’ sons, is as important as the killing of White mothers’ sons, we who believe in freedom cannot rest.

“We are a nation of laws and a jury has spoken,” the first black US president said in a statement. “I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son.”

The jurors who deliberated for 16 hours over two days found Zimmerman not guilty of second-degree murder and manslaughter. If found guilty of the most serious charge, Zimmerman could have faced life in prison.

Zimmerman’s lawyers argued he acted in self-defense the night of Feb. 26, 2012, when he and Martin met inside a gated community in the central Florida town of Sanford. They accuse civil rights advocates of wrongly injecting the issue of race.

“It was such a shame. The whole case nearly destroyed George from Day One … . That they put a racism spin on this prosecution just hurt him very deeply,” said John Donnelly, a close friend of Zimmerman who testified in the trial.

The reaction to the not guilty verdict from George Zimmerman’s jury was swift and strong. Young people poured onto the streets in peaceful protests in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, and Washington, D.C. By 3 a.m. more than 100,000 people signed an online petition urging the Justice Department to pursue civil rights violation charges against George Zimmerman.

The outrage over the killing of an unarmed Black teenager who was doing nothing wrong must continue until some semblance of justice is achieved. People who want to keep faith in American justice feel uncomfortable, upset and disheartened. Where is the justice if walking while Black is enough to get you “stopped and frisked” in New York City and fatally shot in Florida with its senseless violent “Stand Your Ground” law that allows people to defend themselves with deadly force anytime and anywhere they imagine they are or say they feel threatened even if they are the stalker?

Many decades of struggle and progress to eliminate racial profiling, arbitrary arrests, unfair sentencing, imprisonment and criminalization of Black males at younger and younger ages are being reversed by determined special interests like the gun lobby putting profits before the most basic American civil rights. The National Rifle Association and their allies’, including the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), determined efforts to support and pass “Stand Your Ground” and other destructive laws to protect guns rather than children perpetuates the epidemic of gun violence, especially for Black male teenagers like Trayvon Martin.

Black children and teens were 17 times more likely to die from a gun homicide than White children and teens in 2010. Since 1963, 59,265 Black children and teens have been killed by guns — more than 17 times the recorded lynchings of Black people of all ages in America between 1882 and 1968.

What made a Black male teenager in a hoodie walking home in the rain appear suspicious and “up to no good” in George Zimmerman’s eyes? Would he have stopped a White male teenager? Isn’t it long past time that we have a candid conversation about how we can create a post-racial America for our children and grandchildren beginning today?

Let us refuse to be silent. If Trayvon Martin’s parents had been silent and other voices had not joined with them, George Zimmerman never would have been arrested and never would have been brought to trial. Let us continue to refuse to be silent until all the George Zimmermans of this world are deterred and held accountable for vigilante justice against Black males. Let us refuse to be silent until the killing of Black mothers’ sons is as important as the killing of White mothers’ sons. Only then will we have a post-racial America.

In Sanford at the largely black Allen Chapel AME Church, pastor Valarie Houston dedicated a Sunday morning prayer service to Martin.

“I am hurt. I am sad. I am disappointed and my heart is overwhelmed with pains,” Houston said. “I thought in my heart that justice would be served.”

Civil rights leaders including Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Benjamin Jealous, president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), urged the Justice Department to pursue federal civil rights charges against Zimmerman.

Jealous said Martin’s family may bring a civil suit against Zimmerman but said federal criminal charges should be filed because evidence suggests race was a factor in the case.

A justice department spokesperson said in a statement on Sunday it would determine whether “the evidence reveals a prosecutable violation of any of the limited federal criminal civil rights statutes within our jurisdiction.”

‘WE DON’T GET JUSTICE’

The jurors, who were sequestered during the three weeks of testimony and remained anonymous by court order, have declined to speak with reporters since handing down the verdict in one of the highest-profile trials of the year.

Zimmerman, who showed little reaction when the decision was read, was unshackled from a monitoring device he had been wearing while on bail. He previously only left home in a disguise and body armor, his lawyer said.

His brother said he would remain out of public view for some time, but friends said the former neighborhood watch volunteer had recently spoken about the possibility of entering law school.

The tense drama that climaxed with the verdict had been building for more than a year, since police initially declined to arrest Zimmerman for shooting Martin, whose gray hooded sweatshirt has become a symbol of injustice for many.

Zimmerman, 29, who is white and Hispanic, spotted Martin from his car and called police, believing Martin to be suspicious. The teenager, who was staying in the neighborhood at the home of his father’s fiancee, was walking back from a convenience store where he had bought candy and a soft drink.

Minutes later, after Zimmerman got out of his car, the two engaged in a fight that left Zimmerman with a bloody nose and head injuries. The encounter ended when Zimmerman shot Martin once through the heart with a 9mm pistol.

Prosecutors had to prove that Zimmerman committed a crime in pursuing and killing Martin and that he did not act in self-defense, a bar they failed to clear with jurors.

The acquittal will weaken any wrongful death civil lawsuit that Martin’s family might bring. Zimmerman’s lead defense lawyer, Mark O’Mara, predicted Zimmerman would seek and win immunity from a civil suit.

Around Sanford, some residents expressed relief at the verdict, while others said they failed to see how Zimmerman could have been acquitted.

“You said he’s not guilty, but why would you say he’s not guilty?” said 28-year-old Robyn Miller. “It’s crazy.”

At rallies in Boston and New York, several hundred demonstrators expressed a similar sense of frustration. “I feel we don’t get justice when it’s needed,” said Kabrina Oliver, 18, a Boston high school student.

INJUSTICE ANYWHERE IS A THREAT TO JUSTICE EVERYWHERE this is what we called the unprofessional and childish behavior of HR practitioner.So sad on what happened to Katheriene just because didn’t attend course and the Bank taken mandatory punishment. this is ridiculous and sickening ! Woman claims bank dismissed her ‘on racial grounds’ bank employee has accused her employer of alleged union busting and racial discrimination after she was sacked for not attending a Bank Negara-mandated refresher course.

The infamous politician and the man who shamed UMNO

But should we stop at being happy that the patron saint of corruption inUMNO has been NOT shown the door? A number of questions remain, the most pertinent being: After the disastrous experience, what with the huge corruption scandals marking almost everything associated with it, and the embarrassments that the nation suffered repeatedly over these exposes, how does he still get to be our nation’s nominee for such posts?

with Muhyiddin, will have his eye on the coming UMNO general assembly meeting which will see the election of party supreme council members, a position which he is clearly aiming for. What better credentials to win the votes of delegates than a reputation as the man who single-handedly destroyed the rice bowl of opposition-inclined traders?
This would also embellish his international reputation further.

Idris, during his first years in Parliament, made news headlines for complaining that the body-hugging outfits worn by stewardesses on Malaysia Airlines would result in male passengers sexually harassing the stewardesses. One wonders if this observation could have been provoked by his own response to the dress wear.

“Leave Malaysia” if you don’t likeThe last in this group, Bung Moktar, the MP for Kitabatangan had previously made the headlines with various political antics and a polygamous marriage which did not meet the procedures and conditions required by Islamic law.This time around when debating the motion of thanks on the Royal Address, the Sabah UMNO representative lowered his standard of buffoonery to engage in character assassination of AirAsia X chief executive Azran Osman Rani. Calling Azran a “Melayu biadab” (rude Malay) who did not deserve to be a citizen, he is reported to have yelled, “Leave this country and go live anywhere else you like.”

His outburst led the Speaker to point out to Bung Moktar that he should not use the privilege to speak in the Dewan Rakyat to criticise civilians and government officials who were unable to use the same platform to defend themselves.

The Speaker should have also reminded the member of the House that such acts of political coward will live forever in the pages of Malaysian political history through our Hansard records.

There is however one solace. In Shakespeare’s comedies, fools are called upon to encourage a more serious examination of the situations and characters of a play. Fools not only amuse and entertain, but they also help the audience to ponder on serious social, religious and political issues.

This is so true in the prolonged wayang kulit and the performing political clowns that invariably take centre stage before UMNO’s big day, the party election due this year in November.

The people and most politicians of Malaysia have inched away from obsession, but the Perkasa-religious pincer is so strong that even elected governments feel locked in, helpless. Peace between Muslims and Christains is blocked not by ground reality, but by ghosts in the mind. In the meantime, worry about the cost of a bribe. Celebrities live in a world which makes ours seem woefully dull by comparison. And so we look longingly at them and theirs, and fantasise about their fairy tale lives and worse, try to emulate their designer clothes, botox-enhanced looks and even their synthetic mannerisms. Actually, this is rather silly and, in moments of epiphany, when we do realize our folly, we just go ahead and blame the media for misleading the public! Well, that’s not exactly fair because the real celebrity spinmaster is our own mind, which tricks us into believing that celebs are demigods and goddesses and we must have this profound and insatiable need to idolise them.In fact, experts say that as long as there have been those who pull ahead of the crowd in fame or fortune, there has been a curious crowd wanting to follow. Psychologists who have academically studied the cult of celebrity, say that the very need to find an idol and follow him is programmed into our DNA. Wow, isn’t that enlightening?

Twenty-one years after the Rodney King verdict, Americans have proven again that in a court of law, perception matters more than proof. Perception is rooted in power, a power bestowed upon birth, reified through experience, and verified through discrimination masked as fairness and fact. A child watched policemen beat a man nearly to death, and watched my country acquit them.was shocked that police would attack a man instead of defending him. was shocked that someone would record the attack on video and that this video would mean nothing. was shocked that people could watch things and not really see them was shocked because was a child. was shocked because as a white.

With many critics angry over Zimmerman’s acquittal, his freedom may be limited. He may also face civil lawsuits from Martin’s family.

“He’s going to be looking over his shoulder the rest of his life,” his brother, Robert Zimmerman Jr told CNN.

Obama called Martin’s death a tragedy for America but asked that everyone respect calls for calm reflection. It was a rare statement from the president on a case that doesn’t directly involve the federal government.

“I know this case has elicited strong passions,” Obama said. “And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken.”

More protests were planned Sunday night. Beyonce called at a concert for a moment of silence for Martin. Rapper Young Jeezy released a song in Martin’s memory.

Rand Powdrill, 41, said he came to the San Francisco march with about 400 others to “protest the execution of an innocent black teenager.”

“If our voices can’t be heard, then this is just going to keep going on,” he said.

Many, including Martin’s parents, said Zimmerman had racially profiled Martin. Zimmerman, whose mother was born in Peru, identifies as Hispanic.

Despite the racially charged nature of the case, race was barely mentioned at the trial.

Martin’s family has maintained the teen was not the aggressor, and prosecutors suggested Martin was scared because he was being followed by a stranger. Defense attorneys, however, said Martin knocked Zimmerman down and was slamming the older man’s head against the sidewalk when Zimmerman fired his gun.

Prosecutors portrayed Zimmerman as a vigilante who had grown frustrated by break-ins in his neighborhood committed primarily by young black men. Zimmerman assumed Martin was up to no good, prosecutors said.

The justice department opened an investigation into Martin’s death last year but stepped aside to allow the state prosecution to proceed.

In a statement Sunday, the Justice Department said the criminal section of its civil rights division, the FBI and the local US Attorney’s office are continuing to evaluate the evidence.

The department has a long history of using federal civil rights law in an effort to convict defendants who have previously been acquitted in related state cases.

But experience has shown it’s almost never easy getting convictions in such high-profile prosecutions.

Alan Vinegrad, a former US attorney, said federal prosecutors “would have to show not only that the attack was unjustified, but that Mr Zimmerman attacked Mr Martin because of his race and because he was using a public facility, the street.”

The court did not release the racial and ethnic makeup of the six-person jury, but the panel appeared to reporters to be made up of five white women and a sixth who may be Hispanic. The jurors did not talk to reporters after the verdict.

Trayvon Martin is dead and the man who killed him walks free. Americans are afraid there will be riots, like there were after the King verdict in 1992. But we should not fear riots. We should fear a society that puts people on trial the day they are born. And after they die.

-fueled racism

The Trayvon Martin trial was not supposed to happen. This is true in two respects. The Trayvon Martin trial only took place because public outrage prompted Florida police to arrest George Zimmerman, the man who killed him, over a month after Martin’s death. The Trayvon Martin trial took place because that same public went on to try Martin in his own murder, assessing his morality like it precluded his right to live. It was never a trial of George Zimmerman. It was always a trial of Trayvon Martin, always a character assassination of the dead.

One might assume that rising privation would increase public empathy toward minorities long denied a semblance of a fair shot. But instead, overt racism and racial barriers in America have increased since the recession. Denied by the Supreme Court, invalidated in the eyes of many by the election of a black president, racism erases the individual until the individual is dead, where he is then recast as the enemy.

Trayvon Martin was vilified for being “Trayvon Martin”. If he were considered a fully human being, a person of inherent worth, it would be the US on trial. For its denial of opportunity, for its ceaseless condemnation of the suffering, for its demonization of the people it abandons, for its shifting gaze from the burden of proof. The Trayvon Martin case only sanctioned what was once tacit and disavowed. A young black man can be murdered on perception. A young black man becomes the criminal so that the real criminal can go free.One might assume that rising privation would increase public empathy toward minorities long denied a semblance of a fair shot. But instead, overt racism and racial barriers in America have increased since the recession. Denied by the Supreme Court, invalidated in the eyes of many by the election of a black president, racism erases the individual until the individual is dead, where he is then recast as the enemy.Trayvon Martin was vilified for being “Trayvon Martin”. If he were considered a fully human being, a person of inherent worth, it would be the US on trial. For its denial of opportunity, for its ceaseless condemnation of the suffering, for its demonization of the people it abandons, for its shifting gaze from the burden of proof. The Trayvon Martin case only sanctioned what was once tacit and disavowed. A young black man can be murdered on perception. A young black man becomes the criminal so that the real criminal can go free.

Americans should not fear riots. They should fear a society that ranks the death of children. They should fear a society that shrugs, carries on, and lets them go.

In June, the Supreme Court invalidated part of the Voting Rights Act , stating that “our country has changed”, implying that discrimination against African-Americans was a thing of the past. In May, the city of Chicago shut down majority black public schools. In April, a black high school student, Kiera Wilmont, was prosecuted as an adult after her science project exploded. In February, The Onion called nine-year-old black actress Quvenzhane Wallis an extremely vulgar name. The US that proclaims racism a thing of the past abandons and vilifies black children.

Many Americans, of many races, will be outraged that George Zimmerman has gone free. They will advocate for tolerance and peace. This is a noble sentiment, but what the US needs is a cold, hard look at social structure. We need to examine and eliminate barriers to opportunity, some of which are racially biased in an overt way, but many of which are downplayed because they are considered ambiguous social issues – social issues, like decaying public schools, low-wage labor and unemployment, that affect African-Americans at disproportionate rates.

Trayvon Martin was murdered before we could see what kind of person he would become. But the truth is, he had a hard road ahead of him no matter what he did. He would have confronted an America of racial and class barriers that even the most ambitious young man cannot override without a good deal of luck.

In a US of diminished opportunities, luck is nothing to bank on. Neither is hope, or dreams, or the idea, espoused by President Obama, that for young black men, “there’s no longer any room for excuses”. Trayvon Martin shows that there is plenty of room for excuses. There is even more room for social and economic reform, for accountability, and for change.

Above all, there is room for responsibility. The death of Trayvon Martin is a US tragedy. He was part of a broken system we all experience, but that black Americans experience in ways white Americans cannot fathom. The children who grow up like Trayvon Martin, discriminated against and denied opportunity, are everyone’s responsibility. Providing them a fairer, safer future should be a public priority.

Americans should not fear riots. They should fear apathy. They should fear acquiescence. They should not fear each other. But it is understandable, now, that they do.

So what is it that gave them the strength to carry on? To continue to fight towards realizing the dreams they believed in? Their overwhelming, almost stubborn, will to live, survive and thrive in the face of devastating adversity? Their desire to live life to the fullest, given the realization that life is so short, and those without and even encourages then to join the mainstream? All of the above? Probably, all this and much more…

Here is a list of different kind of guys that interest a girl. Which is your kind?

Always wondered why some guys always manage to get the best of girls? Well, the secret is not good looks or a well-defined six pack, but the fact that women simply get attracted to certain personality traits and flock to men who possess them.

Below are seven of these “ideal types” of guys that women are drawn to, and an explanation as to why these guys are so appealing, reports Fox News. The list could help you understand what women are looking for, and most importantly, to make sure that you fit the bill.

The intelligent one
He instigates conversations that are intellectually stimulating, and listens to what she has to say in response. He makes her laugh with his clever sense of humour, and has an uncanny ability to make politics interesting. He can shoot the breeze with her for hours, and it will never get boring.

Why he is so irresistible
An intellectual connection is a big part of what sustains a relationship, and if you can show her that you’ve got that, she’ll be hooked pretty quickly.

The confident guy
He is totally secure and sure of himself. He is assertive in public, and gives off an aura of power and control. In a relationship, he doesn’t get jealous of other men; he doesn’t feel threatened by his girlfriend’s male friends or co-workers.

Why he is so irresistible
Women are attracted to confident men. Consider this: If you think you are great, she will probably be influenced to think the same. The confident man doesn’t seek approval from women, and this makes them want him even more.

The artistic guy
The artistic guy is spontaneous and lives for the moment. Often, he will use his creativity to woo her, such as with a song he has written about her or a painting he has made for her.

Why he is so irresistible
Every woman wants to feel unique and special. There is no better way to make her feel this way than to use her as your muse or your source of inspiration. She is intrigued by the artistic guy’s creative mind, and especially by the way he incorporates her into his art.

The exotic element
He comes from a faraway exotic country, and has a cute accent or a unique way of seeing the world. His social customs, and everyday behaviour can be a little quirky, but he always manages to come off as uniquely charming.

Why he is so irresistible
Women often choose this kind of guy if they are curious about the world, but most of the appeal comes down to a fascination with dating someone from another culture.

The considerate guy
He holds open her car door, and pulls out her chair. He foots the bill for dinner, and makes sure to offer her dessert. He always asks her out with reasonable notice, and picks her up at her door. He is generally sensitive to how she is feeling, and when she is ready to go home.

Why he is so irresistible
Once a woman has gone through her share of the bad guy, the rude guy and the not-calling-her-back guy, she will likely re-evaluate her priorities. It takes a bit of maturity on her part to realize this, but eventually most girls come around and realize that they want a guy who will treat them well in the long run. But, think twice before copying any of the above character types, for women can know when you are faking it.

Eternal romantic
He believes in classic romance. He is constantly bringing her flowers, chocolate and lighting candles during dinner. He calls her often to let her know he is thinking about her, and looks into her eyes and tells her how he feels.

Why he is so irresistible
A woman loves to feel appreciated, and the romantic guy makes this happen. He uses romantic gestures to show her he is thinking about her. As an added bonus, she feels free to reciprocate and act on her own romantic tendencies.

The free spirit guy (aka the Bad Boy)
The free spirit guy goes where the wind takes him, and the wind usually takes him on some kind of whacky adventure. He might ride a motorcycle, or he might skip work to take her on a last-minute road trip, but this guy doesn’t worry too much about the consequences – he just sees where his own devices take him.

Why he is so irresistible
Every woman wants a bit of a rebel. She loves his carefree attitude and hopes that it will rub off on her too. The bad boy spirit adds an element of youthfulness to the relationship, and she loves to try taming him, although she knows she’ll never actually succeed.

University students, who engage in casual sex – having intercourse with someone whom you have known for less than a week -suffer from higher levels of general anxiety, social anxiety and depression, researchers have claimed.

3,900 straight students in the age group of 18 and 25 from 30 different US colleges were questioned about their sex lives and mental well-being.

The researchers found that people who recently engaged in casual sex seemed to have low levels of self-esteem, happiness and life-satisfaction than others who didn’t hook-up with a relative stranger in last 1 month, the New York Daily News reported.

Lead author Melina Bersamin of California State University, Sacramento said in a statement that it’s premature to say that casual sexual poses no harmful psychological risks for young adults.

She added that the results study suggested that casual sex was negatively associated with well-being and positively linked to psychological distress.

The study has been published in The Journal of Sex Research.

The art of flirting is a tricky one, and it’s not easy to always know what the flirting mistakes are. Though for some women it is a lethal weapon, for most others it is complicated and difficult

Remember your limits
One of the most important and crucial things about flirting is that you make sure that you know your limits. Most social flirting happens at a bar or a party and that means you will be drinking. Flirting should be fun and taken and done lightly. Remember to not go overboard with an excess of alcohol in your system.

Don’t be a tease
Make sure you don’t fall head over heels for someone while flirting. Keep it light and subtle. Do not indulge in touching or teasing. If you throw yourself at him or are overtly sexual, it could give him wrong ideas about what you want.

Don’t play too hard to get
Remember that if you play too hard to get, it could ruin all the fun. No one likes to interact with someone who thinks no end of herself. It could make you look snooty. Try and be as normal as possible with him.

Relax
When most woman flirt for the first time, they get all worked up about it. This in turn makes them look ridiculously hyper. Relax and be calm. Flirting is meant to be fun. Try and keep it like

God forbade this should never happen to you but still for the sake of getting the message of this blog sink into your understanding, request you to please think of this unpleasant situation. Won’t you get extremely depressed to know that you are convicted of some crime in some court and you are told that the police are in search for you? Sounds harsh, isn’t it. Let me present a mild version, “You did nothing wrong but someone is after your reputation and is hell bent upon throwing mud on your linen.” You are told that the enemy has gone to different newspapers and spread ill-reports about you! Would you not be bothered about what story tomorrow morning’s newspaper might carry? Surely most of us will. As for me, even if a distant relative or a friend gets accused of something wrong, some part of my bone marrow shivers inside, but not so for our dear politicians.

Literary giant Ernest Hemingway lived, loved and died by his own rules, leaving a trail of exceptional work, but also broken women and homes Intellect is seductive… and is equally eager to be seduced. Women are drawn to intelligent men; the interest of a worthy man gives a woman an increased feeling of self-worth. And genius is a world apart. We forgive our men of letters many evils, and indeed many of them – most dead, some still alive, are boors when it comes to real life, however delicious they may be between the pages of their books.

And it is equally true that these men, when they get out of their own intensely thoughtful heads, have sought women like muchneeded tonic – ever younger, more beautiful, doting and appreciative. After the initial charm wears off, reluctant to settle with anything lesser, they have changed women as one changes clothes, seeking to stay on the high which the initial flush of love and sex brings. This keeps the adrenaline flowing, the ego sated. And of course, it keeps the ideas coming.
One such giant of English literature, Ernest Hemingway took birth and died this month many years ago (July 21, 1899 – July 2, 1961). In between the two defining dates, he lived life to the fullest on his own terms, indulging every whim, courting danger and flirting with death – be it on the battlefields of two World Wars, the bullfighting arena of Spain, the jungles of Africa, his regular trysts with the sea, or two airplane crashes on successive days! Ironically, he escaped these deadly arenas, and finally met Death in his own home foyer on his own terms, by blowing his brains out with his favourite shotgun. This last was the only tale he did not live to tell, the only experience he could not share.

Hemingway’s dangerous living is explained in his words from Paula McCain’s book The Paris Wife. Talking of the bull fighting in Pamplona, Spain, Hemingway says to first wife Hadley Richardson, “The torero has to know he is dying and the bull has to know it, so when it’s pulled away at the last second, it’s like a kind of magic. That’s really living.” Hemingway was a cocktail of contradictions, as history’s most interesting human beings are.

He loved with a passion that saw nothing wrong in chasing many women at the same time, and hated with a vengeance that saw nothing wrong in ridiculing and harming those who supported him on his upward journey. A man who was scared of Death and yet courted her repeatedly; one who had built a heroic myth around himself, yet was scared to sleep with the lights off. One who needed his space and solitude to write and yet could not bear to be alone.

Hadley, who probably loved him best of all four wives, says of him, “He was such an enigma – fine and strong and weak and cruel. An incomparable friend and a son of a bitch. In the end, there wasn’t one thing about him that was truer than the rest. It was all true.” For Hemingway, life was about honing his art of writing and gaining popularity.

A serial womaniser, each time he got bored with his wife, he sought out a new attachment while still married. Hadley was eight years older to him and was credited with grounding and encouraging the young Hemingway till he found his feet in the wetlands of literary Paris. Within five years of marriage and a son, Hemingway started an affair with Pauline Pfeiffer, Hadley’s best friend.

Unwilling to let go of either woman, he tried to carry on with both for a while before Hadley called it a day. He married Pauline in 1927 and had two sons with her. By 1936, Papa Hemingway was ready for another innings. This time, he fell for Martha Gellhorn, a war journalist and author almost cast in his own mould. It was a foregone conclusion that this union wouldn’t last as Hemingway could never stand competition.

Within four years, he started living with his fourth and last spouse Mary Welsh even before the formal divorce with Martha. At the end of all this, what did Hemingway feel? Ironically, in his memoir A Moveable Feast, he says about first wife Hadley, “I wish I had died before I loved anyone but her.”

One of Hemingway’s fictional women says about men in To Have and Have Not, “They want someone new, or someone younger, or someone that they shouldn’t have, or someone that looks like someone else… Or they just get tired, I suppose.”

Martha, the wife who hated him most, said of him, “A man must be a very great genius to make up for being such a loathsome human being.”

Hemingway was indeed a tormented man when he died. Much of that torment came to him; his own father had committed suicide, as did five close relatives. The rest he created for himself with his overindulgences, fickleness, huge demands on love and lovers. He once said, “About morals, I know only that what is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral is what you feel bad after.”

The mental torture and his unending compulsion to be liked and applauded created the myth of an invincible Papa Hemingway, who ultimately died as he lived and loved – by his own rules.

I have never seen a politician crying or even worrying because his name appeared in the newspaper for some wrong reason. A lesson weak hearted people like me should learn from our politicians is to gain this skill to become mentally strong. Adversities should never be considered as adversities, albeit those should be designed as opportunities for future. After all isn’t this behavior similar to what Lord Krishna expected from Arjuna when in the battle field. Bhagwat Gita advocates the concept of “samdrishti” i.e. looking at ups and lows in life with equanimity. Of all kinds of people in India, I find this equipoise to be practiced largely by our politicians and hence they inspire me a lot.

It is said that in politics there are neither permanent friends nor enemies. This definitely does not hold true for us mango people. We make friends for life but when a friendship goes soar we also make enemies for life. It becomes so much difficult for us to reconcile. I still swear in the names of two of my school time friends named as Raja & Bappa who cheated me and looted a bunch of Indrajal Comics from me. Right from my childhood days, I have always considered books to be the objects of biggest treasure. Although this incident happened almost 30 years back, the heartburn was so harsh that it still throws a current of sorrow as and when I recall the incident. We all have one or more of such similar stories in our life. Our enmity continues for a long duration although this is a behavior best not practiced. Mahatma Gandhi said, love your enemies but we never could do so. Once an enemy, usually the tag stays for lifetime. Not so for our politicians, map them over a period of few years and we can see them dwindling in between stages of friendship as well as animosity. Our dear politicians are the real ambassadors of spiritual saints; they have the power of converting hate into love. Stretching ahead, I think they never make enemies. Should we not learn this art of living an animosity free life from our politicians?

There is a flood of literature and teaching available on the secret of positive manifestation in the self help shelf. Recall the language of any politician before elections and you will see the embodiment of optimism in every action. Most of these people are fully aware of the shallow political base available to back them but when they present in front of public and media the energizing language they use surely reveals the secret behind their success. Even a three times looser candidate proclaims that he will win in the forthcoming elections. What about you and me? When we lose in one game it requires so much of effort to restore our willingness to start fresh and perform again. Isn’t this high application of optimism a must have lesson for common man on the street? One more quality of our politicians which inspires me a lot is the confidence with which they take defeat. They might lose in the election but they never loose their heart and cool. They get ready preparing for their next opportunity. Their self dignity never gets washed away irrespective of the situations.

I also respect the power of memory demonstrated by a successful politician. I once went to meet an MLA whom I had met only once and that too three years back. In these three years there was absolutely no interaction nor on any platform did we even see each other. When I started introducing myself, I was astonished to know that the MLA could actually recognize me by name. He could even recollect the reason why I had met him a few years back. Having a powerful memory is a big aid which enables success. This is a quality not found commonly with most of us. I am sure I am not wrong in admiring our politicians for this trait!

Many businessmen in India and abroad become successful without actually having a degree in management. So is true for politicians, they defy age as well as education. To become a successful political leader, qualification does not matter; education does not come in the way to building a successful career. You do not have to necessarily get a post graduate degree in political science to become a politician. In fact you do not have to go to a college even to be so. In politics there is no retirement age; if you are lucky your image might be the cynosure of eyes for the future genre of politicians even after your death. Politicians teach us to follow our passion up to death and beyond.

“The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty , understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness , greed, acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and selfinterest , are the traits of success . And while men admire the quality of the first, they love the produce of the second .” In these famous lines, John Steinbeck goes to the root of our present crisis in public morality.The problem of silence is at the heart of today’s political crisis. The rage of Malaysians is over an honest Prime Minister who seems to be presiding over one of the most corrupt governments in recent Malaysian history . In these dark days, people have desperately wanted to clutch on to an honest man. They DID NOTFIND one in selfless, ethica lNajib

The G13 witnessed a remarkable spectacle in which Malaysia’s democracy won but Malaysians lost. It does seem odd that democracy should win and people lose. But democracy’s great flaw is that it is easily captured by vested interests like Mahathir and Najib. Better in giving protection to whistleblowers and victims of corruption; the government’s is better in stipulating strong punishment for false complaints. The internet is the corruption fighter’s best friend in cutting harassment corruption.I believe this will only come about if those charged with enforcing the law do not see themselves as above the law. To perceive oneself below the law needs a cultural change, especially in the police. The best feature of this court judgment is that senior officers have been punished for crimes committed by their juniors. Cultural change begins at the top. This is why we need Anna Hazare to continue his fight against corruption.

R. Nadeswaran wants the people to look at the bigger picture instead of zooming in on the police

Early this year, the then Bar Council president, Lim Chee Wee, met senior officials of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission on the allegations including one of a senior judge colluding with the lawyer appearing for one of the parties in a civil suit.

For obvious reasons the names of the judge and lawyer have not been revealed but the actions of a fellow practitioner has got the whole legal fraternity hopping mad. There was talk that the duo were exchanging text messages when the court was in session.

But the latest figures make compelling reading. Were Malaysians and the authorities lulled into complacency by the glossy figures and finely-crafted media advertisements and paid-for editorials by the Performance Management and Delivery Unit of the Prime Minister’s Department (Pemandu)?

The GCB figures show that people’s perception of the government’s effectiveness in combating corruption has plunged significantly from 49% in 2011 to a shocking low of 31%. This is a slap in the face for those advocating and setting goals of 70% by 2015. Were we taken in by snake oil salesmen with their sweet words?

In the website and at most public presentations, those tasked with anti-corruption initiatives whip out so-called facts and figures about the arrest rate, prosecution rate and conviction rate to justify their claim that the battle against corruption is winnable.

Pemandu’s Anti-Corruption NKRA director Ravindran Devagunam among others says the Societies Act will be amended to stop internal leakage of funds within political parties. Leakage is one thing but where is the source of it all?

Most Malaysian are so outraged by the rising tide of criminals in politics The key problem is not that politicians are inherently crooked or criminal. Rather, the moribund justice system gives a huge incentive for criminals to contest and win elections. Judicial processes are so dismally slow that hardly any resourceful person gets convicted quickly, and many die of old age before exhausting appeals. So, nobody knows for sure who is a criminal and who is an innocent victim of false accusations.a group of foreign investors asked me, “If you had to reform just one thing in India, what would that be?” I replied without hesitation, “the police-judicial system.” This surprised the foreign investors, who expected me to flag some economic or political issue. No, I said, many of the worst flaws in politics and business flow from the flaws in the policejudicial system.

Someone must have brought my column to the notice of Najib,http://suarakeadilanmalaysia.wordpress.com editorial elder

I replied saying that I wrote “such stuff” because I thought my readers – which was the only concern to which I owed loyalty – would like it. Back came , saying he’d never heard anything so pompous in his life and that Najib didn’t have anything more to say to me.

This ended our internet conversation. A minnow like me was of no further interest to Mahathir , who obviously had bigger fish to fry. A fish called Najib, maybe?

There was a report yesterday about police using the services of psychological science to understand the mind of politicians, corporate executives and other high-profile people and use that knowledge to prepare better and remain stress free during interrogations. On the face of it, this appears a noble aim and with police being faced with many high profile scams involving high-profile people, this move and marriage seems quite legitimate. However before we can make our minds as to whether this will really benefit investigations and lead to accurate and speedy justice, we need to pause and review the history of police-psychologist co-operation and how most of the times the psychologists/ psychiatrists have been an unwitting party to abuse of psychological science in the hands of police and law enforcement agencies.When nobody is convicted beyond appeals for decades, those with muscle and money quickly overwhelm those who are honourable and law-abiding. There is an old saying that if law-breakers are not in jail, they will be in the legislatures. That is the case today.

Don't get rid of the Sedition Act, just call it something else - 'Black eye' ex-IGP

Police is not above the rule of law

UMNO in power misuses the police to harass opponents while protecting its own goons. Instead of justice and clean politics, we have rising criminalization and rising mud-slinging, without accountability for either the criminals or mud-slingers.This government undermined the rule of law

l of police Abdul Rahim Noor has said that if the government insists on replacing the Sedition Act 1948, it should still put old wine in a new bottle.

“If indeed the act is to be abolished, the government must create a (new) act that can cover the security issues and racial harmony.

Like the English saying: ‘Put the same wine in a different bottle’,” he was quoted as saying in an interview in Berita Harian today.

However, Rahim said he would prefer if the law was retained and if necessary, some amendments be made to it.

“I do not see the rationale of abolishing it. Perhaps there needs to be some amendments, but what are the reasons to get rid of it?” he was quoted as saying.

najib abdul razakHe warned that the government should not sacrifice the long-term interests of the country for short-term gains.

While acknowledging that Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak had promised to replace the Sedition Act and failing to do so would be breaking a promise, Rahim said similar moves previously have not helped BN’s fortunes.

“What I see, many acts concerning security were abolished or got rid of by the government before this but it has not helped to improve BN’s victory (in the 13th general election),” he said.

He added that there were “political risks” if the ruling coalition went against its word and the opposition would capitalise on the matter, but said racial harmony and unity was more important.

In July last year, Najib had announced that a National Harmony Act would replace the colonial-era Sedition Act but has faced urgings against the move from his new cabinet members following May’s general election.

Despite renewed calls to set up the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC), Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar said there is no need for such a body.

Instead, he threw his support behind the Enforcement Agencies Integrity Commission (EAIC) to handle issues relating to the integrity and discipline of the police.

“I don’t see a need for that (IPCMC). This has been debated widely,” he said, adding that it was out of these debates that the EAIC was set up.

“We also have an internal committee to look into misconduct of police personnel.”

Khalid told reporters at the Federal police headquarters in Bukit Aman that they had dissolved an internal task force set up to investigate the deaths in custody of N. Dharmendran and R. James Ramesh.

“We have completed our investigations and have handed over our findings to the EAIC for further action,” he said, adding that police will cooperate with the commission on the next course of action.

Lastly, I’m not a nay sayer. I do believe that there is immense scope for a mutually beneficial exchange of information between law enforcement and psychology; for example police and lawyers and judges need to be made aware of Loftus’s research on false memory y and eye-witness testimony and how confidence in a memory may be no guarantee of its accuracy/ reality.

Similarly, police and emergency response teams need to be aware of bystander effects and how to minimise that effect or ensure that help is provided speedily in such situations. Or they need to know about ‘broken window’ theory and how being strict about small and petty crimes can lead to reduction in big crimes too. They need to understand how the psychology of individuals gets changed when they feel they are a part of a crowd and how that can be channelized. They need to learn how to behave with rape victims or their families and friends.

Two weeks have gone by since the Allahabad High Court pronounced a historic verdict on a property dispute that seems to go back at least five hundred years. The verdict says less about the law and more about our country which is remarkable for the extraordinary continuity of its traditions rather than their antiquity. We live at the same time in the first, the eleventh and the twenty-first centuries, and the court’s judgment has upheld this continuity and simultaneity of our historical lives. The verdict has ensured communal harmony but do we have reasons to worry that it might encourage demolition of other mosques on sites where there were pre-existing temples?

Nothing is quite perfect in the world and certainly not human beings. Well-meaning legal and secular fundamentalists, who have criticised this judgment, seek moral perfection in a pragmatic nation. Both Hindus and Muslims worshipped inside the 2.77 acre compound of the Babri Masjid–at least since the 19th century. This peaceful practice was disrupted in 1949 when someone placed idols of Ram inside the mosque as a political act. The judgment of the High Court has restored the plural situation which existed before this political act. Court verdicts are inevitably political but the best ones have kept us united and democratic. This verdict is a good example of prudence, the chief virtue of rulers according to Edmund Burke, because prudence eschews perfection.

Whether Ram was born in a particular spot is of little significance to me and given a choice I would have built a park on this disputed property. However, I respect the deep meaning it holds for others. The High Court judges have also shown consideration for this ideal of public dharma, which in fact gave birth to the Indian republic. India’s founding fathers came to this ideal from different inspirations–Gandhi from the Gita; Nehru from the deeds of Emperor Asoka, and Ambedkar from the Buddha. Such was the importance of this ideal that they placed it at the centre of the Indian flag as dharmachakra, the wheel of dharma. India cannot be understood without dharma, just as France cannot be comprehended without “égalité” nor America without “liberty”.

The good Vidura says in the Mahabharata that in judging a ruler’s actions he looks to the results. If it benefits the people, it is an act of dharma; if it harms them then it is adharma. This is also the spirit behind the pragmatic verdict of the High Court. Unlike Yudhishthira, Vidura would agree to ‘sacrifice an individual for the sake of a village and a village for the sake of a nation’. Vidura is half brother and royal counsellor to the king of Hastinapur and he speaks from the experience of managing a state. In agreeing to sacrifice a person in order to save many, he has drawn a distinction between public and private dharma. The English thinker, Jeremy Bentham, went on to make this criterion famous in the 19th century via his Utilitarian slogan-’the greatest good of the greatest number’.

Conquerors have come and gone in all countries. Each conqueror razed old monuments to build new ones. Christian shrines came up on pagan temples of Rome and Greece. Muslim conquerors built mosques on Hindu temples just as Hindus and Buddhist fought over their sacred spaces. It is the way of the world. We not unique and we should be relaxed about our history. Since some people are not, this historic judgment has prudently revisited history in order to close it without opening new wounds. It acknowledges the birthplace of Ram without holding anyone responsible for the destruction of a temple or a mosque.

The reaction of people has been mature, which is not surprising at a time of galloping economic growth and rapid change in our society. Indians have moved on–we are not less religious, but we care about other things now and have less appetite for the politics of religion. We are more self-confident and optimistic. For these reasons this verdict will not encourage demolition of other mosques, as some believe. The young, especially, have moved away from the politics of Ayodhya, which is a cautionary warning to the BJP about Hindutva’s relevance. It too should move on to more relevant concerns such as governance. There are more votes in promising judicial, administrative, and police reforms.

This is an important judgment for modern India and the people have responded in a mature and wise manner. By appealing to the subtle, pragmatic, and ancient art of dharma, it is a very Indian verdict. Those who have criticised it seek rational solutions when the vast majority of Indians are driven by belief. The High Court has wisely reclaimed the ancient ideal of public dharma, which is happily the proud foundation stone of our Republic.

Najib has not used his office as prime minister to lower the temperature. Although he gave a press conference in London, he didn’t mention the attempts to oust the Vatican ambassador, growing questions over promised repeal of the country’s sedition act, which hasn’t taken place, or the racial tension fanned on both sides but mainly by Malay nationalists. Puppy analogy to create some more PR for himself…..and to polarize our politics a little more. It led to an immediate response from all and sundry, exactly what Mahathiri wanted. This criticism will help Najib grow Mahathir said. Since nothing about Najib is “sudden”, and since he is particularly good with words, one has to assume that the puppy analogy was well thought through. It also fits in well with Najibi’s usual style of politics…..provoking the “pseudo secularists” (read every party except UMNO and its allies) by attacking the minorities, and then collecting the “blessings” from the thin sliver of UMNO bigots

In the meantime, UMNO bloggers and cybertroopers paid by the party and the government, once supportive of Najib in the overthrow of his predecessor, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, have now turned against the prime minister. Malaysia Bloghouse, a loose association of UMNO-friendly bloggers loyal to Mahathir, are asking for Najib’s head. They include former Information Minister Zainuddin Maiden, a Mahathir acolyte, and Kadir Jasin, a former New Straits Times editor and Mahathir/Daim apologist.

So will Pakatan continue with its opposition to what is decidedly policy aggression of UMNO , and risk being accused of disrupting Malaysia’s growth story? Already, its vociferous resistance to, and the threat of reversing when it came to power,Since the election, however firebrands have continued to fan religious and ethnic flames. In particular, a bill suddenly appeared in the cabinet, allowing the consent of just one parent for the conversion of a child to Islam, a major concern for the mostly Chinese wives who have married ethnic Malay males. The bill was hastily withdrawn after a public storm.

Other storms have erupted, including one over a statement by the Papal ambassador, Archbishop Joseph Marino, for “interfering in domestic affairs” after the Catholic official pointed out that everywhere else in the world, Christians refer to their god as “Allah,” and should be allowed to do so in Malaysia as well.

“Under the 1961 Vienna Convention on diplomatic ties, Marino has clearly overstepped his authority as an ambassador by interfering in the domestic affairs of Malaysia,” huffed Perkasa vice-president Datuk Zulkifli Noordin. Khairy Jamaluddin, now the Youth and Sports minister and someone usually thought of as a moderate, has criticized the Catholic figure.

But the biggest storm erupted when two foolhardy Chinese sex bloggers, Alvin Tan and Vivien Lee, posted a picture on Facebook with the greeting Salamat Berbuka Puasa (happy Ramadan breakfast) while eatingbak kut teh, a popular herbal soup that is forbidden to Malays because it contains pork. The insult was doubled by the fact that Ramadan began on July 9 and Muslims are required to fast from sunup to sundown. The two were arrested and questioned for nine hours before delivering an abject apology.

The Facebook posting nonetheless caused outrage across the country, both on the part of Malays and non-Malays alike as raising racial tensions. In the meantime, say UMNO sources, members of the Chinese dominated Democratic Action Party, the biggest proportionate winner in the national election with 38 parliamentary seats, have been slinging racial insults of their own as fast as the Malays sling them back.

Throughout the controversies, however, Najib has not used his office as prime minister to lower the temperature. Although he gave a press conference in London, he didn’t mention the attempts to oust the Vatican ambassador, growing questions over promised repeal of the country’s sedition act, which hasn’t taken place, or the racial tension fanned on both sides but mainly by Malay nationalists.

“It’s the political trend so far,” the source said. “It is what the Malays want, Daim and Mahathir running the show, Najib will have to amend his course. It is talked about in every meeting I attend.”

“Najib still chairs the cabinet meetings, still makes stupid decisions,” said a Kuala Lumpur-based businessman. “But Mahathir and Daim are agitating for changing all of the posts. Daim is talking to people to challenge the prime minister. A lot of this is happening because (Najib) is sitting on his ass and doing nothing. It is going downhill.”

As a result, the businessman said, his group’s own plans for a major investment in the Iskandar project are on hold.

“Since the election, all policies, his 1Malaysia policy, have all gone quiet. We don’t know if it’s on or off. We don’t know if we’re going to get support from the government. So we are going to have to decide what to do, whether to commit. Nobody seems to know. Nobody has mentioned the ETP, nobody has talked about 1Malaysia.”

Major concerns over Malaysia’s always tense racial situation, which has grown more worrying in the face of expectations that tensions would abate following the election, in which Malay nationalists goaded on by Mahathir used ethnic concerns to charge that if the opposition won the election, the Chinese would dominate the political process as they have the country’s economic landscape, leaving ethnic Malays behind.

The common denominator appears to be the return of Mahathir Mohamad, the 88-year-old former prime minister, and his close friend and ally, former Finance Minister Daim Zainuddin, at the top of the power structure in UMNO, politically emasculating the current Prime Minister, Najib Tun Razak. Despite the loss of the popular vote, the majority of the rank and file inside UMNO believe it was Mahathir’s strident racial politics that preserved the Barisan’s – and particularly UMNO’s – place at the top of Malaysian politics, and that it was Najib’s attempt to reach out to the other races that cost them.Ethnic Malays make up 60.3 percent of Malaysia’s population, Chinese 22.9 percent and Indians 7.1 percent, according to the latest census. Malays and Indians dramatically abandoned the Barisan Nasional in the May election, with the Malaysian Chinese Association hit so hard that the party, once the second-biggest in the coalition, refused all cabinet positions. The Malaysian Indian Congress fared somewhat better, but not much.Najib himself has gone silent, leaving his faction in the party distressed and at sea, believing he was so discouraged with the election results that he has basically given up. After the election, he left for an extended government trip to Tanzania and London, followed by a holiday on the French Rivera, then returned to Malaysia after two weeks to continue to remain mute. That spurred a news analysis in the increasingly influential Malaysian Insider news site asking: “There will come a time when Malaysians will ask this question: for how long more is Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak going to stay silent during roiling debates on the most important issues facing the country? And then there will come a time when Malaysians will just stop expecting any intervention from the man who occupies Putrajaya; when the mandate he won on May 5 will not matter…:”

It’s not his puppy comment by itself that is the subject of this post, but the curious spin Mathir gave to it that is. Najib tried to do a bit of a u-turn, saying that Mahathir puppy comment was misinterpreted. He said that what he actually meant was that we Malays love pets . I am sure Mahathir’s die-hard supporters – and their numbers are far smaller than they would like to believe – would have gone “take that” at this comment. Here was their leader in full flow, mocking those “infidels” (his critics), so clever with words that no one could question him any more.

But Mahathir can’t get away with such a cavalier attitude. He has to answer one key question. If he loves puppies, and thinks of them as adorable pets, why hasn’t he ever held one or two in his hands? Why hasn’t he ever cuddled them ever the way you do pets? Why doesn’t he give them a place in his home, if not his heart? Why doesn’t he ever walk along with them? Or plant a peck on their heads? These are the queasy questions that Mahathir has to answer.

The fact is tha Mahathir is a Malay first and then anything else. For him, anyone other than a Malay is a “problem” for Tanah Melayu. This is Perkasa ideology.

Any person who puts Malay first before nationalist is a bigot. If this is how it works, then every person would adopt that route. Imagine Muslim nationalists and Christian nationalists Hindu nationalists. That’s bizarre right? UMNO would then ask “which nation?”. The fact is that there are only one type of nationalists. The ones who don’t juxtapose their religion with the word nationalist. That’s it. Either you are an Indian or you are not. Religious and caste identities come later. How can a person who puts his religion before nationalism be called secular at all the real truth is that it’s amazing how the only time Mahathir spoke about 2013, he brought up the puppy analogy. A man so good with words, one who can mesmerize others with his speech, spoke about puppies. Not in any other context, but only this one. Everytime Mahathir speaks, we get to know him better. Speak more about Najibi…..that’s best for everyone!

What Rowena Abdul Razak, daughter of one of Malaysia’s most infamous toadies, said that minorities were incapable of ruling, it is not just an affront to Malays, but an insult to all Malaysians.

Rowena should know that when you raise your head above the parapet, you can expect it to be shot. It is alarming to hear a woman with a sound education, who has enjoyed a privileged upbringing, and is currently pursuing her postgraduate studies, talk about the governance of a country in terms of majority rule, Malay rights, protection and race.

It is disheartening to hear educated Malays talk in such a shortsighted manner and act as if they learned nothing from their times spent in civilised countries. They have learnt nothing of the outside world, nor of the fallacy of Malay supremacy.

Students like Adam Adli Abdul Halim have had their education curtailed, whereas children of UMNO Baruputras enjoy the largesse of the taxpayer. Adam was trying to help all Malaysians, whereas Rowena appears to be selfishly championing UMNO Baruputras.

At a Bar Council Forum on electoral reforms Rowena queried the ability of the minority to protect the rights of the majority.

Has she not heard of Benjamin Disraeli, Barack Hussein Obama and Alberto Fujimori? One was Jewish but became Prime Minister of Great Britain, the man who was of African extraction now heads America and a Japanese once ruled Peru.

Rowena talks like an UMNO Baruputra. Most normal people want a country which is ruled by an able leader, who is prepared to look after its citizens with equality and fairness.

She said, “In Malaysia, you are proposing something where the minority would be empowered, how then do you protect the rights of the majority?”

How ironic that what she said is true. This illegitimate minority UMNO Baru government has already broken many of the promises it made before GE13. It does not champion the interests of the majority but it excels in protecting the rights of UMNO Baruputras.

By referring to “the majority”, Rowena presumably means the Malays. If the truth be known, the original Malays are a minority in Malaysia and it is the pseudo Malays, those who want to take advantage of the perks which were granted to the Malays, in the constitution, who form the majority in Malaysia.

Holding the rest of Malaysia to ransom

We once had a PM, Mahathir Mohamad, who was of Indian extraction. He sought to confuse the Malay mind by creating a dilemma within the Malay world. What emerged was another Malay species – the UMNO Baruputra. In a sense, the minority UMNO Baruputras could be classed as a minority species and it is they who are holding the rest of Malaysia to ransom.

In Syria, the ruling minority Alawite sect, to which President Bashir Al-Assad belongs, punishes and kills the majority Sunnis for opposing his rule. Rowena is right but conversely, we have seen that Mahathir’s policies continue to wreak havoc on the Malay psyche. Rowena is therefore wrong when she said that “the minority cannot even protect themselves”. The UMNO Baruputras who govern, only think of themselves and jealously guard their turf.

If we allowed Rowena the benefit of the doubt, and assume that the Malay majority can protect others, why have we issues with forced conversions of children of another faith into Islam, why are Christians forbidden from using the word Allah, why is the Ambassador from the Vatican shown the door and why are certain people – Indians, Orang Asli and Penans having problems establishing their citizenship?

Why did Mahathir dilute the percentage of the true Sabahans with an influx of Muslim foreigners from the Philippines, Indonesian and Pakistan? The former majority Kadazan-Dusun population was cheated by a minority group.

Rowena criticised the NGO Tindak Malaysia for the low (10 percent) percentage of Malays in the organisation which she said was not representative of Malaysian demographics. Is this a fair criticism? Are Malays averse to volunteering? Do they avoid corporate social responsibilities?

It is wrong of Rowena to publicly admonish Wong Piang Yow, theTindak Malaysia chief, for something beyond his control. Malays may form a majority in some other NGOs, like Perkasa, but this is not necessarily a good thing.

In November 2006, when Rowena’s father, Razak Baginda, was charged with abetting two police personnel in the murder of the Mongolian national Altantuya Shaaribuu, observers were shocked when Mazlinda Makhzan, Baginda’s wife, screamed, “Why charge my husband, he does not want to be the Prime Minister…”? What was Mazlinda insinuating?

After Baginda was acquitted in 2008, he held a press conference, and stressed throughout the 50-minute-long media briefing that Najib Abdul Razak, the Deputy Prime Minister at the time, and his wife, Rosmah Mansor, had nothing to do with Altantuya’s murder. Why did Baginda blame bloggers for misleading the public?

It is curious that Rowena and her mother, Mazlinda, attended this Bar Council forum on electoral reform and attracted attention with their remarks. One would think that a family, with a chequered past, such as theirs, would want to be as discreet as possible, especially as large sums of the taxpayers’ money were stolen under the guise of commission, a woman was murdered violently and a cover-up involving the Judiciary, Police and Immigration Department allegedly followed.

Stuff of spy-thrillers

The trail of sex, corruption and scandal which Baginda weaved with his alleged lover across Europe and Asia is the stuff of spy-thrillers. There was no romance involved, just plain deceit and lust. The rakyat demand answers and justice.

Why would the Baginda family be interested in electoral reform, especially as a change of government could trigger a re-trial of Altantuya’s alleged murderers and force Baginda to return the millions he sequestered? More importantly, Najib’s true role might be exposed.

Rowena should realise that the sins of her father have cast a shadow over her. Is the rakyat being misled by remarks made by her and her mother? Is this a distraction designed to dissuade people from attending Suaram’s Scorpene fund-raising dinner, to be held on July 19, at which new revelations about the progress of the French lawyers could be revealed?

Has Rowena been pressured into becoming the new “Ummi Hafilda”; another sexton charged with burying news that are detrimental to UMNO Baru?

Conversely, having been betrayed and having to endure the wrath of the public, there is a slight possibility that both mother and daughter want justice to be served. They must know this can only happen if Pakatan forms the next government of Malaysia.

Kuala Besut will decide Najib’s fate

If we do not do this we will be cursed by our descendants for having betrayed the our race

If it looks and smells like shit there is no need to taste it because chances are it is shit.

UMNO Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar has urged young voters in Kuala Besut to support the coaliton’s candidate, explaining that defeat in Terengganu would ‘threaten the position of Najib Abdul Razak’.Game change has a different connotation to different people.To my mind in UMNO game change cannot mean change in the government or in the political leaders or in the laws or in the judicial system. Game change in UMNO can have only one real meaning: raising the standard of living of all the malays not the elites

Malaysian Constitution was based on western models. We borrowed parliamentary democracy and an independent judiciary from England, federalism and the fundamental rights from the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution, the Directive Principles of State Policy from the Irish Constitution, etc. Thus we borrowed a modern Constitution from western models, and transplanted it from above on our largely backward, feudal society.Democracy is a feature of an industrial, not feudal, society. But the intention of our founding fathers was that democracy and other modern principles, such as liberty, equality, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, liberty or equality, as well as modern institutions such as Parliament and independent judiciary, etc would pull our backward, feudal society into the modern age.Race and religious vote banks, which could be craftily manipulated by many of our politicians to serve their selfish ends, emerged and became a normal feature of elections and other political activity in most parts of Malaysia. Everyone knows that in most parts of Malaysia people vote on racee and religious lines, instead of looking at the merits of the candidate, Najib should answer, who actually the master mind behind the murder of Altantuya. We don’t want a PM who’s involved in a murder case. How can his bodyguards were found guilty but without any motive to kill

It is for this reason that many persons with criminal background have often been elected. Democracy was never meant to be run in this manner, and this has blocked our progress. Hence fundamental social and political changes are now required.The unfortunate truth is that most of our people are still intellectually very backward, with faith in racism, communalism and superstitions are prevalent in large parts of Malaysia.There are no doubt fundamental rights in our Constitution, e.g. right to life, freedom of speech, liberty, equality etc. but these are meaningless to a man who is poor, hungry and unemployed. Therefore it is the duty of all patriotic people to help our country abolish poverty, unemployment, and other social evils. That alone can be regarded as a game change. How this will be done is for the people themselves to find out, using their creativity.

Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak today revealed that the National Harmony Act slated to replace the Sedition Act will retain three key elements.What national interest? More like UMNO’s interest and a political tools to silence dissenter. PM is telling Malaysian there that he guarantee freedom of speech but no guarantee of freedom after the speech. enough of the double standards and selective prosecution practised by the corrupt BN minority government which has lost its credibility. There should not be any replacement for Sedition Act which can be abused by the authority against human rights and opposition politicians.. well as to deal with actions that question the status and privileges enshrined in the Federal Constitution.” This is just a Sedition Act with another prettier name. Lame duck PM.

The cartoonist did nothing illegal. In a democracy many things are said, some truthful and others false. I often used to say in court when I was a Judge that people can call me a fool or crook inside court or outside but I will never take contempt of court proceedings, because either the allegation is true, in which case I deserve it, or it is false, in which case I will ignore it. These are occupational hazards, and politicians, like judges, must learn to put up with them.

In fact arresting a cartoonist or any other person who has not committed a crime is itself a crime under the Indian Penal Code called wrongful arrest and wrongful confinement. So policemen who make such illegal arrests cannot take the plea that they were obeying orders of political superiors. In the Nuremberg trials thr Nazi war criminals took the plea that orders are orders, and that they were only obeying the orders of their political superior Hitler but this plea was rejected by the International Tribunal, which held that illegal orders should be disobeyed.

Transcript of Justice Markandey Katju’s interview with Karan Thapar on CNN-IBN’s Devil’s Advocate.

Karan Thapar: Hello and welcome to Devil’s Advocate. Should the law on sedition be scrapped – that’s one of the key issues I shall explore today with the Chairman of the Press Council and former Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju. Justice Katju, let’s start with Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code which lays down the law on sedition. After its abuse in the Aseem Trivedi case and several other instances, do you think it should be scrapped?

Justice Markandey Katju: I don’t think it should be scrapped. In 1962, in a judgement called Kedarnath Singh vs State of Bihar, the Supreme Court considerably narrowed down the scope of that provision and said that it will apply only to incitement to violence. So merely criticising the government or bringing the government into disrepute is not sedition.

Karan Thapar: But despite SC ruling, it continues to be misused.

Justice Markandey Katju: See every law can be misused. The law is very clear as in the Kedarnath case. It has stated down that law of sedition will only apply to cases of incitement to violence.

Karan Thapar: Surely the SC has laid down in crystal clear terms how the law should be used. But that’s still being ignored as seen in the Aseem Trivedi case. The law was used against a cartoonist who merely ridiculed the government. Therefore the law of sedition has become a means to silence critics. Surely these are pressing reasons for scrapping the law altogether.

Justice Markandey Katju: No, wrongful arrests is a crime under the Indian Penal Code, Section 342. The policemen should have been booked and put in prison. And politicians who ordered the arrest should have been put on trial too.

Karan Thapar: But the courts did not take that view at all. The lower court admitted the case. The higher court went on to consider the matter of bail. None took the line you are taking.

Justice Markandey Katju: I cannot comment on pending case. It won’t be proper. I am only expressing my personal opinion that it is a crime punishable by law under the IPC to arrest a person who has not committed a crime.

Karan Thapar: The reason why the lower and higher courts take a completely different line is perhaps because the language of Section 124 is so vague that it can be interpreted in a hundred million ways. Let me quote to you. It talks about “bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt”, and “exciting or attempting to excite disaffection”. See these terms can be interpreted in a thousand different ways leading to abuse.

Justice Markandey Katju: In Kedarnath Singh case, the SC was told that this provision should be declared unconstitutional, for being violative of fundamental rights granted by the Constitution.Karan Thapar: That was not done.

Justice Markandey Katju: The SC said that instead of striking it down, we will narrow it down and thereby make it constitutional.

Karan Thapar: But that is not being done. The SC’s narrowing down of the law is not being observed by the government. Aseem Trivedi’s arrest is proof. Arundhati Roy, Binayak Sen, the Kudankulam protests are all proof that the government is not observing the SC’s narrowing down of the law.

Justice Markandey Katju: It can be very well observed. I will tell you something. A police case can be started in two ways: either you file an FIR with the police or you file a criminal complaint before the judicial magistrate. FIR will not work because the police is under the government. But the magistrate is not under the government. He is under the High Court. So file a criminal complaint and make the police and the politicians accused in such cases. They will be put on trial.Karan Thapar: But is it not simpler to strike down a law that is being repetitively misused?

Justice Markandey Katju: I blame the lawyers for all this. Why can’t they advise their clients to file a criminal complaint?

Karan Thapar: Even the judges didn’t follow your line in the Aseem Trivedi case. That’s the sad part.

Justice Markandey Katju: Let me tell the whole nation this. If this thing is repeated and it comes to my knowledge, I am going to institute criminal proceedings and I am going to get the person or the politician or the DGP of police whoever ordered a wrongful arrest, locked up. By now, you must be knowing what kind of a person I am. I will get it done.

Karan Thapar: That is very reassuring. But let me point out one thing to you. The problem is the high-handed attitude of our authorities coupled with their intolerance of criticism, which makes this law on sedition a weapon in their hands which they misused to silence or punish their critics. So why not scrap this law altogether?

Justice Markandey Katju: I have no objection. You put this question to Parliament. I am not Parliament. I cannot remove the law. Parliament does all that.

Karan Thapar: That’s an interesting development in your thinking. You began by saying the law should not be scrapped. Now you say that it can be considered.

Justice Markandey Katju: No I have no problem in scrapping the law. All I said was if the law is not scrapped, there are safeguards.

Karan Thapar: Quite right. But given the way it is abused by our politicians, isn’t it better for the law to be scrapped? Would you accept it?

Justice Markandey Katju: It is better to scrap it, let us agree on that.

Karan Thapar: You have given a very clear answer which is reassuring. First, you have given a very clear commitment that in case such a thing happens in future that a wrongful arrest is made, you yourself will take action against the abusers of the law. Secondly and more importantly, you have agreed that it is better that the law of sedition be scrapped.

Justice Markandey Katju: Absolutely.

Karan Thapar: Now, do you believe that Aseem Trivedi’s cartoons – depicting Parliament as a commode, depicting the national emblem with wolves instead of lions or converting ‘Satyamev Jayate’ to ‘Bhrashtamev Jayate’ – should be punished in this way?

Justice Markandey Katju: In criminal law, there is a principle called ‘mens rea’. It means guilty mind. That is an essential ingredient of criminal offence. Now Aseem had no intention of insulting the national emblem or Parliament. He said what most of the people agree with. His intention was to say that these politicians are corrupt, the system has become corrupt. There was no mens rea. He had no guilty mind. There was no intention to denigrate the symbol.

Karan Thapar: So, that second charge against him of denigrating the national emblem is a wrong charge and should be dropped.

Justice Markandey Katju: Absolutely. The intention was not to denigrate the symbol but to say that politicians are corrupt.

Karan Thapar: Now the police commissioner of Bombay has gone on record to say that cartoonists and artists should not cross limits. Is it fitting for the chief of police to speak in such threatening terms?

Justice Markandey Katju: He is talking nonsense. Don’t think that people in high posts are not capable of talking nonsense. There are many such people and he seems to be one of them.

Karan Thapar: So you criticise his statement?

Justice Markandey Katju: Not only criticise, it is utter rubbish. He is talking humbug. He is talking anti-democratic things. He does not deserve to be a police commissioner. In a democracy, people are the rulers. All authorities are the servants of the people, not their masters. The masters have the right to criticise their servants and take them to task. So people have the right to criticise all authorities.

Karan Thapar: So what you are saying is that the police chief should be admonished for making such a statement.

Justice Markandey Katju: He should be sacked. He does not deserve to be a police chief.

Karan Thapar: Let’s widen the discussion. The Indian Express reports that the National Security Council has proposed a new law protecting the privacy of people holding high public office. Do you believe this is necessary or do you believe this is an attempt, perhaps an unjustified attempt, to limit the scrutiny the press would otherwise pay to their lives and behaviour?

Justice Markandey Katju: Please get your fundamentals clear. In a democracy, people are supreme. In a monarchy, it is the king. But in a democracy, this is reversed. So, people have the right to scrutinise government officials.

Karan Thapar: So you mean to say this is a wrong proposal?

Justice Markandey Katju: It is.

Karan Thapar: Would you take a step further, and as the Chairman of the Press Council, say that the media is justified in scrutinizing the private lives of public officers if it affects the national interest?

Justice Markandey Katju: Yes of course. Because once you are in public life, your private life does not remain as private. You must act in accordance with national interest.

Karan Thapar: So this attempt to provide additional protection to the privacy of the high and mighty is actually a form of censorship through the backdoor?

Justice Markandey Katju: Prima facie, this proposal is not democratic. Although it would not be proper for me to comment on it, but it is undemocratic.

Karan Thapar: Justice Katju, the Supreme Court has this week ruled that to ensure justice and fair trial, a court, on a case by case basis, for a limited period, can restrain media coverage of court proceedings. Do you think that’s a correct ruling or a wrong ruling?

Justice Markandey Katju: I think it is correct. It has struck a balance between freedom of the media and also to give protection to the accused.

Karan Thapar: Some people say this law could be tantamount to partial or limited censorship on behalf of the accused and that is not just damaging the freedom of the press but also justice.

Justice Markandey Katju: Even if this ruling had not come, this law was already there. A judge always has the discretion to stop media coverage of a trial if he or she feels that it can affect the outcome of the case or the proceedings themselves.

Karan Thapar: Except that earlier, power was inherent. Now the Chief Justice has made it explicit. Let me tell you why this is a possible cause for concern. One of the great achievements of the media in the BMW hit-and-run case was that it exposed without doubt the collusion between the accused and the prosecution. Had this ruling been in existence at that point of time, it is quite possible that that exposure may never have happened. And therefore, the injustice that was being perpetrated might never have been revealed.

Justice Markandey Katju: See a law can be abused. That is true. The law can be abused in particular cases. But broadly, the judge has the right to control the proceedings in his court. This law was there already. This is necessary to ensure that justice is done.

Karan Thapar: Two very senior SC lawyers have publicly and strongly criticised this SC ruling. Dushyant Dhave called it possibly one of the worst rulings from the Supreme Court. Rajiv Dhawan said this could amount to a form of censorship of the press.

Justice Markandey Katju: I disagree with both of them. This is a very balanced judgement. They have said, only in exceptional circumstances when it is urgently required. Even without this formal ruling, this law was already there. A judge has the authority to control the proceedings in his court to ensure justice.Karan Thapar: Now aside from this ruling, the SC also refused to lay down across-the-board general guidelines for the reporting of the media.

Justice Markandey Katju: I think SC acted correctly. So far as the Press Council is concerned, we already have guidelines. However, they are restricted to print media. So the guidelines are already there…

Karan Thapar: Except that they are voluntary. They can be observed or not observed. Had the SC laid down the guidelines, they would have been much more stringent with provisions for punishment.

Justice Markandey Katju: SC must be battered from both sides. I mean you batter it for what it has done and you batter it for what it has not done, what do you want?
Karan Thapar: That is the power of critical comment. Isn’t it?

Justice Markandey Katju: And I think it is a very balanced judgement. I think Justice Kapadia has written a very balanced judgement.

Karan Thapar: Let me then move on to the very last question. You are a firm believer of a formal system of regulation of the media. Many have turned around and said self-regulation is enough. You say it is not. What would you say to critics who say that formal regulation would impinge upon the freedom of the press?

Justice Markandey Katju: Firstly, there is a distinction between regulation and control. In control, there is no freedom. In regulation, there is freedom but it is subject to reasonable restrictions in the public interest. I am in favour of regulation.

Karan Thapar: Why not self-regulation?

Justice Markandey Katju: Self-regulation is no regulation, it has been proved. In fact, how many licences have till now been cancelled?

Karan Thapar: But is it essential to scrap licences to prove you are effective? Can something be done without going to that extent?

Justice Markandey Katju: How? They just imposed fine on one TV channel of Rajat Sharma.

Karan Thapar: That was sufficient for all others to fall in line thereafter.

Justice Markandey Katju: No no, they went there with folded hands to Rajat Sharma.

Karan Thapar: They specifically deny it.

Justice Markandey Katju: Alright, they may deny that but we know what happened. They withdrew that order. Rajat Sharma came back. Why don’t they televise the proceedings? I am prepared to televise anything.

Karan Thapar: Lots of proceedings aren’t televised but that does not mean they haven’t had effect.

Justice Markandey Katju: What effect have they had? In fact, I had effect. When I started raising my voice, on your show Devil’s Advocate, regarding the broadcasting of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan’s pregnancy, that is when they issued guidelines for the media. They would not have done it had I not raised the voice.

Karan Thapar: My last question to you – are you therefore saying to me that although the electronic media as a whole is saying that the News Broadcasting Standards Authority is sufficient and effective, you say it is not. And you believe that electronic media should be regulated and from outside.

Justice Markandey Katju: It should be regulated and by an independent statutory authority and not the government. Like the Press Council, see I am only the Chairman, there are 28 members.

Karan Thapar: But you are government-appointed.

Justice Markandey Katju: I am not government-appointed. I was selected by a three-member committee, consisting of the Vice President of India, the Lok Sabha Speaker and one representative of Press Council.

Karan Thapar: We have run out of time, but the bottomline is that despite the criticism you face, you stand by your position that there must be third party regulation of the media.

Justice Markandey Katju: That’s right.

Karan Thapar: Justice Katju, a pleasure talking to you.

Justice Markandey Katju: Thank you.

The Malaysian Attorney-General’s Chambers had never charged any individuals who were detained under the Emergency Ordinance. Gani had disagreed with the home ministry’s proposal to introduce laws that allow detention without trial as a step to curb crime.We reject any new laws that propose detention without trial, or upon the minister’s orders, or of that which denies them legal rights,” he said in a statement today welcoming the Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail’s statement yesterday that a new preventive law was not necessary to replace the scrapped Emergency Ordinance. a person charged or arrested under SOSMA can only be detained for a maximum 28 days for investigations. it was illogical to have a new preventive law without trial just to curb crime when the existing laws to prevent terrorism and other national threats, such as Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA), were sufficient.He said that a person must then either be charged in court or be freed at the end of the 28 days.

‘Zahid must apologise or face privileges committee’

Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi must apologise to the Dewan Rakyat for his reply on the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Committee (IPCMC) or he will be referred to the rights and privilege committee, a DAP parliamentarian said

If an apology could change the past, it might mean something. If it could rescue the future, even more so. But no apology arrives until the mind has already changed, making it a historical tautology. It took a British PM 93 years and 11 months to admit that the Jallianwala massacre was “deeply shameful”. The “sorry” word still did not slide through British constipation, but who cares?

The slight delay in David Cameron’s pseudoapology was logical. The British remain convinced that the Raj was a good thing for the natives. Britain’s best-known , as distinct from its best, historians get lucrative media space and happy television assignments to add decibels to collective self-congratulation. Their narrative glosses over some inconvenient facts. The British empire was launched in 1765 with the zamindari of Bengal. Almost immediately , a man-made famine killed one-third of Bengal’s population, estimated at a staggering 10 million, because of the East India Company’s insatiable greed for land revenue. British rule ended in an equally devastating Bengal famine; this time, some three million died.

The average rate of growth in the last five decades of the Raj was just 1 per cent, and the rural economy lay devastated, but who dare argue with the march of bagpipes at heaven’s command through textbooks? Even our Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh thanked the British for their rule.

The majority British view was that Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer saved the Empire in 1919 when he ordered his Indian and Gorkha troops to open indiscriminate fire on peaceful protestors gathered at Jallianwala on Baisakhi day, April 13. With 1,650 rounds, they killed 530 and left over a thousand seriously wounded. That was efficiency. Barely a bullet was wasted. Dyer had not imposed martial law, nor given warning. He shot to kill and justified this decision before the subsequent Hunter Committee by claiming that he had scotched a serious Punjab rebellion with this show of force.

The governor of Punjab in 1919, Michael O’Dwyer , thought Dyer went overboard when he ordered Punjabis to crawl, but supported the carnage at Jallianwala. Public opinion in England was vigorously supportive of Dyer. The Morning Post opened a subscription to reward Dyer, ‘Defender of the Empire’ ; its editor, Sir Edward Carson, was the first to send a donation, followed by O’Dwyer. The grateful British gifted a purse of £30,000 to Dyer.

Dyer and O’Dwyer (who was shot dead in London in March 1940 by Udham Singh) could not comprehend that their only significant achievement , in historical terms, was to put India on a radical orbit that ended with freedom in 1947. Rabindranath Tagore returned Western honours; Gandhi switched from a recruiting agent for the British army to the Swaraj struggle; Motilal Nehru abandoned European furniture at Anand Bhavan and Savile Row suits to wear homespun.

The 20th century was born at Jallianwala Bagh. In a curious way, India should thank the butchers of Jallianwala for ripping apart the last mask of British colonization.
But colonization was an achievement, not a regret , in the age of empires. There is no particular reason for Cameron’s contrition. But there are many reasons why Indians should apologise.

When will Indians and Gorkhas apologise for killing fellow Indians at Jallianwala? They continued to squeeze the trigger on unarmed, helpless civilians amid screams and shock until ammunition ran out. When will brown bureau crats of the Indian Civil Service, who found clever explanations for colonial exploitation apologise ? British rule was never a solely British enterprise. It could not have survived a day without an obedient Indian comprador class, most purchased by nothing more glamorous than a salary. When will the zamindars and nawabs, who squeezed a famished peasantry to death and feasted in garden-palaces on the rewards, apologise?

The British used a million Mir Jafars, who queued up to serve, during their 150 years of true power. They had come a long way to rule, not to turn the other cheek. A transfer of wealth to the “mother country” was standard procedure in the era of European colonization, and not uniquely British. It must also be stressed that British rule, for all its faults, was much more humane than that of France in Algeria, Belgium in Congo or the Dutch in Indonesia.

India’s problem with history is a consistent unwillingness to do some serious research in a mirror. The British did not establish their rule, step by careful step, merely because they were strong; they succeeded because Indians had become weak. How about a collective Indian apology on behalf of our recent forefathers?

Cameron could do both Britain and India a favour by clarifying that his “deep shame” was only a political nod to his domestic Punjabi voters ahead of a difficult election in 2015. That would make sense. Britain and India could then forget about any silly apology, and continue treating each other like very good tourist destinations.

Atul Billore, judicial magistrate class I, posted in district and sessions court Dhar had a taste of retributive justice when one of the thieves he may have sentenced to imprisonment during the discharge of his official duties, broke into his home, rummaged through all the belongings and scampered off after leaving him a cheeky message on the wall – written of course with Mrs. Billore’s lipstick.
“Toone mujhe saja di, maine tujhe (you have punished me and so have I),” read the big bold letters scribbled across the drawing room walls when the peon who had been guarding the bungalow in Manawar officers colony arrived for the routine security check on Tuesday morning.

Billore, who was on a vacation in Indore, was promptly informed. He cut short his visit and rushed back within hours.

Interestingly, the thief hardly took away any valuables. The purpose obviously was to not burgle but to annoy the judge and leave him smarting. So he rummaged through the house, tampered with the furniture, broke open the wardrobes, threw things around the room to give it as messy an appearance as was possible. But the only thing which Billore found missing was a gas cylinder lying spare in the store room.

Meanwhile, a hunt has been launched to nab the culprit. Judge Billore incidentally is totally at sea and could offer no clue as to who among the countless accused sent to prison under his orders, could have shown such daring.

SP Dhar Bhagwat Singh Chaouhan told TOI that the police is closely scrutinizing the records of all the petty thief’s robbers and those charged with breaking into houses – whose cases were handed by the judge over last one year. This he said could possibly lead to some vital clues.

Chaouhan said he is also checking up with the jail authority if any prisoner who was jailed for theft or housebreak was recently let off. The idea is to identify the suspects, round them up and then match their hand writing. Every criminal leaves behind some link to trace him back and handwriting could be a sure give away, he said.

The Malaysian Constitution lays down a legal basis to a “constitutional democracy.”

In a constitutional democracy, there are legal norms put in place to ensure that each citizen has an equal right to political participation, that is, the right to participate in any political decision affecting their fundamental interests.

In a constitutional democracy, the ideals of the rule of law or legality and the ideal of democracy are mutually constitutive ideals: the former aspires to tame arbitrary power while the latter aspires to make such power systematically responsive to the interests of citizens.

Both ideals emphasize the citizen’s perspective as the primary perspective to assess all questions of political legitimacy. In Malaysia, these ideals are yoked together within the fabric of our Constitution.

Two judgments of the Supreme Court of India decided on 10th July, 2013 regarding disqualification of MPs and MLAs and one interim order of the Allahabad HC banning caste rallies have been a subject of great deal of discussion and debate recently.

I have perused and considered them, and with great respect to the courts which passed these orders I have serious reservations about their correctness.

In Lily Thomas vs Union of India the SC declared section 8 (4) of the Representation of the People, 1951 as unconstitutional.
Section 8(4) states:-

“Notwithstanding anything in sub- section (1), sub- section (2), or sub- section (3)] a disqualification under either sub- section shall not, in the case of a person who on the date of the conviction is a member of Parliament or the Legislature of a State, take effect until three months have elapsed from that date or, if within that period an appeal or application for revision is brought in respect of the conviction or the sentence, until that appeal or application is disposed of by the court”.

In Government of Andhra Pradesh vs P. Laxmi Devi (2008) the Supreme Court considered at great length the doctrine of judicial review of statutes (from paragraph 31 onwards). In paragraph 36 of that judgment, it was observed that invalidating an act of the legislature is a grave step and should never be lightly taken. A court can declare a statute to be unconstitutional not merely because it is possible to hold this view, but only when that is the only possible view not open to rational question (vide paragraph 41).

The philosophy behind this view is that there is broad separation of powers under the Constitution, and the three organs of the state must respect each other and must not ordinarily encroach into each other’s domain. In paragraph 44 of the judgment it was observe that there is one and only one ground for declaring a statute to be invalid, and that is if it clearly violates some provision of the constitution in so evident a manner as to leave no manner of doubt.

Keeping the above considerations in mind, one fails to see how Section 8(4) could be held to be unconstitutional.

The bench has given two reasons for its verdict: Firstly, it held Section 8 (4) violative of Article 102 and its corresponding provision Article 191 of the Constitution. A careful perusal of Article 102 show that there is nothing therein which makes Section8 (4) inconsistent with it.

Article 102(1) of the Constitution states:
1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament
(a) if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State, other than an office declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify its holder;
(b) if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court;
(c) if he is an undischarged insolvent;
(d) if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State, or is under any acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign State;
(e) if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament

In my opinion none of the 5 clauses in Article 102(1) are attracted so as to invalidate Section 8(4). Clause (e) is not attracted because section 8 (4,) which is a law made by Parliament, specifically states that a legislator convicted is not disqualified during pendency of his appeal, if made within 3 months.

Secondly, the Supreme Court has held that Parliament had no legislative competence to enact Section 8 (4). This reasoning, too, is difficult to accept because entry 72 to list 1 of the 7th Schedule specifically gives power to Parliament to legislate on elections to Parliament or the State legislatures. It is well settled that legislative entries in the Constitution are to be widely construed, and in any case Parliament has residual power under entry 97 to list 1.

The second judgment of the Supreme Court in CEC vs Jan Chawkidari also deserves reconsideration because it has held that if a person is in jail or police custody he cannot contest an election.

The SC has relied on the definition of elector in section 2 (e) of RP Act, 1951, and observed that in view of Sections 3, 4, and 5, to be qualified for membership of the legislature one has to be an elector.

Section 2(e) defines elector as follows:
“Elector” in relation to a constituency means a person whose name is entered in the electoral roll of that constituency for the time being in force and who is not subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950; (43 of 1950.)

There is no mention of section 62(5) of the 1951 Act in the definition of ‘elector’ in Sec 2 (e). It is therefore difficult to understand how the SC relied on Sec 62(5) for disqualifying persons who are in jail or police custody from standing for elections. There is a distinction between a voter and an elector Section 62 (5) only debars a person in jail from voting, not from contesting an election.

If the view of the Supreme Court is accepted then a rival politician need only get a false FIR filled against his political rival and have him sent to police custody or jail to disqualify him.

As regard the interim order of the Allahabad High Court with due respect I submit that it requires to be reviewed.

Firstly because the view taken by the High Court required a final, well considered judgment and not an interim order, and secondly there is no legal bar to a caste rally, as long as no law is violated. In fact Article 19 (1) (b) gives citizens a fundamental right to assemble peaceably. A political party can call a meeting of a caste e.g. the dalits to discuss the problems facing that community, and there is no law barring such a meeting.

With respect, the above decisions of the Supreme Court and High Court have made/amended the law, which function was in the domain of the legislature vide Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Course v Chander Haas (see online).

I make it clear that I am totally against criminalization of politics or casteism, but the problem we are discussing is not about one personal’s view but about the correct legal position.

Since when do you need to get approval to pray at a mosque? Even a Non-Muslims are allowed tenter, mosque what an insult who has the right to permit a person from entering it, especially for prayers UMNO must be controlling this mosque that is why Tok Guru is barred. My deduction is then only satan worshippers will vote for UMNO in Kuala Besut. Najib in all sorts of trouble. Group war is raging in UMNO and Mahathir group is seeking the ouster of Najib

Rivalry among Mahathir’s team and Najib has ensured that details were leaked to the media about extensive telephone conversations that Anwar had with Najib,

The saving grace is that Mahathir group itself is divided over bringing Najib

PAS: KJ’s remark on PM’s position very odd

The PAS spiritual adviser was not allowed to perform his Maghrib prayers at the RMAF base mosque in Gong Kedak, near Kuala Besut.but PAS spiritual leader Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat last night tore into Umno, saying that the ruling party was all about form and not substance.readmore Lukman Ismail says heads of Barisan on the brink of Malaysia’s greatest catastrophe

“They build lots of mosques but they don’t pray, ” he said, adding that the Umno “Islamic way” was only about structures but little to do with what was in their heart.

UMNO is getting famous in the Muslim world with their new version of Islam where they can simply set a new rule to prohibit another fellow Muslim from performing a prayer in the mosque due to political differences?

Speaking before about 1,000 supporters at Kampung Pak Beris in Kuala Besut, the charismatic former Kelantan menteri besar also slammed Umno for focusing too much on race.readmore Dr M agrees with Perkasa not supporting any political party

He pointed out that Umno always says that they are championing Malay rights but the reality was that a person’s place in heaven is decided by their deeds and not race.

Pakatan Rakyat hopes that Nik Aziz’s presence in Kuala Besut will help the opposition shorten the odds of victory at the by-election on July 24.

Pas candidate Azlan Yusof is facing Barisan Nasional’s Tengku Zaihan Che Ku Abd Rahman in the contest.

A Pas victory will give the opposition and BN 16 seats each in the state assembly and could increase the pressure on Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s position within Umno. But BN remains confident that it will retain the seat it won on May 5.readmore Najib making of Hindraf chairman P Waythamoorthy is it a healing touch or kiling Islam

Earlier at the ceramah, PAS information chief Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man spoke about the BN abuses at federal and state level.

“Look at the ink fiasco, the indelible ink turned out to be food colouring. Then we asked them to reveal the supplier and they refused. But our brother Rafizi exposed it. Look at how much they spent on it, millions of ringgit but the cost is only about RM185,000, ” he told a cheering crowd.

In Parliament this week, PKR’s Rafizi Ramli disclosed that a company with links to EC officials was given the contract to supply the indelible ink.

Closer to home, Tuan Ibrahim pointed out that the government spent RM33 million to build 200 flats. But with the state assembly tied at 16-16, it would not be easy to push through any such projects.

“Any budget or project will be endorsed if we find that it was made in the right way, ” he said. – July 19, 2013

Policy aggression replaces policy paralysis….

History forcefully made?

Arrogantly yours… Soi Lek, Alvin Tan and Vivian Lee

one must not react with a kneejerk but try and go beyond the shallow surface of a flawed human being. But every temptation has a price. is consid ered Soi Lek anti-Muslim and many cannot forgive him for the events , but why doesn’t he show remorse? people fear he might alienate India’ Muslims and this might enhance the risk of domes tic terror. The temptation to vote for prosperity and good governance must be tempered by the impera tive to keep the nation united and secular.

Malaysia today is discontented and troubled as a result of corruption scandals, high inflation, declining growth and a government in denial. Sick of the drift and paralysis, people desperately seek a strong leader, readmoreAn Offer to MCA Mr Liow that you Can’t Refuse Stop stop your blasphemousness MCA from Misinformation on Islam.

You’ve heard this before, but it’s a fact — The brain is THE most powerful sex organ. Fantasies allow us to free up sexual habits and try out new things. Shared fantasies can liven up a sexual relationship to add new excitement and rekindle arousal. The most pleasurable sexual fantasies are those that centre around ideals that are unobtainable in ‘real’ life.

Talk, talk, talk

When in the act, it’s essential for partners to talk to each other about what they feel. It isn’t a silent film. Tell each other what you’d like to do so your bodies adjust and pleasure each other. Talk, especially dirty, can be very erotic during sex.

For desiring glamour or poor demeanour, Alvin and Vivian spent the night in the slammer. There they’ll stay until their trial day. That’s for inviting the fasting Muslims to break fast on “halal” bak kut teh.

Just in case you don’t know, bak kut teh is pig bone soup. Sup tulang khinzirlah brother! Malaysian bak kut teh, I am told is world famous.

Strictly by the law book, Mr Tan Jye Yee’s and Miss Lee May Ling’s outlook appears grim. If they are found guilty, the x-rated cyber lovers could be in the slammer for up to 15 years.

But it depends on the AG’s Chambers. Its conviction record has not been stellar. On technicalities, alleged murderers and molesters had been set free. So Avivi (Alvin&Vivian) could have their case thrown out on technicalities.

To my soup craving Muslim brothers and sisters, beware and be aware. For as long as bak kut teh is bak kut teh, it can never be halal. Or is it? Why not bak kut teh tulang lembu or kerbau – like chicken ham and beef bacon?

Truly Malaysia boleh, for only in Malaysia is ham made of chicken or turkey fleisch – that’s German for flesh – and bacon is made of beef.

But beware and be aware not to ask for egg and bacon at a McDonald’s restaurant in the countries of the unbelievers. There bacon is not made of beef but of schweinefleisch – German for pig meat. Daging khinzirlah.

In Malaysia bacon and ham can be halal and boleh dimakan oleh Muslim.

Who knows some industrious and forward thinking Malaysians who have been sufficiently inspired by Alvivi are thinking of introducing halal bak kut teh.

Jokes aside, we cannot tolerate insult and lampooning of any religion and faith, especially so in multi-religious and multi-cultural Malaysia. Irrespective of their race and religion, such perpetrators should be dealt with swiftly and sternly.

And I am dead serious when I say Alvivi must be treated like a prince and princess, strictly according to the rules by the prison authority. They must be closely monitored and their movements recorded.

I know you know where I am coming from and I know you get my drift. Too many people are dying in custody. And dying with them is the setting up the IPCMC. – July 19, 2013

It’s tough to deal with abusive comments that keep coming every day. There are regular such emails and comments on the posts. Most of these guys don’t even bother to read the posts and it appears they are full of hate towards Islam and Muslims.

I was forced to start moderating comments sometime back when I felt that almost every day I was getting such comments that used to hurt and unsettle me. Often, they are full of so much hatred that you shudder and think, is this real? How much percent of people in this country hate Muslim and do they really hate us so much?

Then I would always console myself that cyberspace is different from normal world. Here people who don’t have the cheek to say or do anything openly, can make anonymous comments or send emails, and they are a handful of peoplewho keep doing that regularly and makes you feel that there are so many Islamophobes.

You write a post on harmony, the ganga-jumni culture and then you get an email that starts with ’Saale Kat*&*’ and keeps on telling you every atrocity which he believes Muslims have committed on him and his ancestors interspersed with English and Hindutani gaalis.

I feel bad, very bad.

No matter how much you think that you won’t give a damn to them, the fact is that everytime you get such a mail or comment, it hurts. Sometimes when it is terribly abusive, you feel why not get this guy tracked and booked for his action.

After all, if someone abuses you openly on the street, it is tough to act against him legally but if someone sends you an email or writes an abusive post, it is possible to teach him a lesson that he will not forget.

The evidence is strong, the IT [Information Technolog] Act makes any such crime punishable and the sentence is much more but nobody bothers. Sometime you feel you should take the lead and get a few guys caught. At least, this will send the message across. Racism and hatespeak aren’t taken seriously in India yet and people often forget, but it’s a serious crime.

If you hate me just for being a Muslim and will keep calling me names, it is irrational. You can write in proper and decent language. Anonymity gives you freedom to abuse. You don’t fear that a friend of you, who is a Muslim, may come to know that you have such deep biases. But if you are courageous enough, why don’t you stop every passing Muslim on the street and abuse him.

I still want to believe that such guys don’t form more than 1% of the populace.

Write your full name, address and also post your photo, if you dare, in forums, sites and blogs. Else talk in a civilised way. Blame me, be critical but enough of abuses. Don’t wear the mask of anonymity to spread hate on internet.

Sometimes I really wonder, what could be the cause of such deep hate?

Today there are bombs exploding and Islam is linked to terrorism. But why was such a similar hatred, 16 years ago or even before that, when Babri Masjid was destroyed and when Muslims were openly abused.

Tab Tushtikaran thaa…the so-called appeasement of Muslims by politicians. And people had suddenly become such experts in history that they could tell you how many atrocities Aurangzeb and Babur had done on Hindus in this country. Even then, it was not easy for Muslim to get a house on rent (I am not talking about jobs or any other thing).

Rafizi Ramli has claimed that Centre for Policy Initiatives (CPI) director Lim Teck Ghee appears to only endorse issues that go against Umno, the Malay culture and Islamic studies.Pandan MP Rafizi Ramli’s support of the proposal by the Higher Education Ministry to make the Islamic and Asian Civilisation Studies (Titas) course compulsory in private tertiary institutions (IPTS)

Tien Chua another wolf in sheep’s clothing

Tian Chua had been well aware that his Heavenly Snake faction in PKR might not have a role at all, or at best only a token one, if Anwar Ibrahim were to see DAP as the Pakatan component to be given responsibility for Chinese and Indian majority constituencies.

Tian Chua’s fear has now crystallized into reality and thus become a current contentious issue within PKR

we was told by a friend that Tian Chua has mucho influence in Malaysian Chronicle,

Wong Choon Mei said

This is a most unpleasant situation with racial overtones. Not all who have been dropped are Chinese but most are we Chinese very concerned. Who will be next?””At the end of the day, it’s the way they make decisions at the top. It is just like the BN. PKR is the new Umno and DAP the new MCA. Anwar talks about creating a new Malaysian identity but when push comes to shove, he sells out his own members. You can’t blame me for being angry because Tien Chua and me spent the past 3 years investing a lot of time and money to build a following in their designated constituencies. But it is Anwar’s betray that really hurts,”Several of PKR’s most senior Chinese leaders had even convened a meeting a few months ago to discuss the grouses of their grassroots. Their complaints were then formally presented to Anwar but it appears he has not seen fit to take their views seriously.

Perhaps, it is time for the PKR adviser to come down to earth and realize that his greatness came not only from God but from millions of unseen Malaysians who supported him in good faith and without condition.

Anwar should remember that his multiracial credentials, in particular over the past 4 years, were built largely by minority groups such as the Chinese, Indians, Dayaks and KDM, who were fed up with the Umno-BN and willing to fight for change behind his banner.

To treat them shabbily and discard them now that his goal of becoming the next Prime Minister is in sight would not only make a hypocrite of what he stands for but invite well-deserved criticism and retribution.

As at press time, PKR stalwarts such as Tian Chua and Jui Meng, who is the Johor chief, had not responded to calls from Malaysia Chronicle for their side of the story.readmoe Wong Choon Mei of Malaysia Chronicle watch your words our words are weapons

DO WE WANT FEAR OR HOPE IN THESE EYES!

“This isn’t an issue with us,” he said.

A new wave of anti-Muslim intolerance and antagonism is sweeping Europe. The far right political gains seen in some parts of the continent are alarming. Anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and extreme right parties seem to be cashing in on economic hardship and austerity measures. In a blinkered world of “us” and “them” they have found in Europe’s Muslim citizens the “others”.

In this fevered atmosphere of rising nationalism Islam, the religion of its most-impoverished people, is taking over the continent. Never mind the agonies such sentiments caused when acted upon by the Norway killer, Anders Breivik last year. “Racism is the lowest form of stupidity; Islamophobia is the height of common sense!” said one group in 2008.

To any person with a modicum of common sense such attitudes are absurd and bordering on a mythical view of reality. We must check their rise. In a powerful indictment, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Thomas Hammarberg, posted a blog about how European Muslims are stigmatised by populist rhetoric (October 2010).

“European countries appear to face another crisis beyond budget deficits – the disintegration of human value. One symptom is the increasing expression of intolerance towards Muslims. Opinion polls in several European countries reflect fear, suspicion and negative opinions of Muslims and Islamic culture,” he wrote.

He was not alone in giving Europeans this warning; many people across British politics and media have shared similar sentiments for some time. Amnesty International has shared this concern. In its April 2012 report “Choice and prejudice: discrimination against Muslims in Europe“, Amnesty exposes the impact of discrimination on Muslims. Marco Perolini, Amnesty’s expert on discrimination, says: “Muslim women are being denied jobs and girls prevented from attending regular classes just because they wear traditional forms of dress, such as the headscarf. Men can be dismissed for wearing beards associated with Islam… Rather than countering these prejudices, political parties and public officials are all too often pandering to them in their quest for votes.”

“It is disheartening that a continent… is allowing itself to be influenced by the forces of intolerance and hate.”

Amnesty International has accused France, Belgium and the Netherlands of failing to implement proper laws banning discrimination in employment.

It is disheartening that a continent that had learnt many lessons in such a hard way, after the devastation of the two World Wars, and which prides itself in equality and human rights, is allowing itself to be influenced by the forces of intolerance and hate. It is now open season to malign Muslims because of their religious and cultural practices. Yet Muslim immigrants arriving after the war joined in the effort to rebuild the economies of war-torn Europe in the 1950s. In almost every field of life, Muslims have been an integral part of the European tapestry. Muslims are today at home in Europe, have been contributors to its past and are stakeholders in its future.

Yet the language and rhetoric used by the Far Right and the level of political expediency in mainstream European politics is mind boggling. The hate mongers are apparently succeeding in swapping a racist agenda for an Islamophobic one. The lacklustre response from European leaders has paved the way for anti-Muslim bigotry to move closer to the mainstream.

It took a cold-blooded massacre of 77 Norwegian youths by a far-right “Christian” extremist, Anders Behring Breivik last summer, to shake the conscience of Europe’s political class. It was a horrendous wake-up call to home-grown far-right violence and ideology, inspired by the rhetoric of vote-chasing politicians, pseudo academics, media analysts and hate groups like the English Defence League (EDL) in Britain. Breivik, in his recent trial, has made vitriolic attack on European leaders for their “impotence” to stand up against Muslim “conquest” of Europe. In this, he is propounding the “Eurabia” fantasy that is central to the so-called “counter jihadist” movement propelled by ideologues in the USA.Elsewhere, in France, the shockwave of the far-right National Front polling nearly one fifth of French voters in the first round of the presidential elections is still reverberating. Both the socialist candidate and the incumbent president are nowwooing the supporters of Marine le Pen.

In Britain the recent news that the EDL has joined hands with the British Freedom Party (BFP) is going to have political implications. The BFP was formed in 2010 by disaffected members of the BNP and whatever its stated objectives, its main target is the Muslim community. It wants to ban theniqab, stop the building of new mosques and Islamic schools and outlaw Sharia (as if it runs Britain!) including Islamic finance. The news that EDL head Tommy Robinson is to be appointed Deputy Leader of the British Freedom Party has alarmed anti-racist groups like HOPE Not Hate, and others.

The alliance of EDL and BFP would be more dangerous than the BNP: the current EDL head “Tommy Robinson” (real name: Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, a tanning salon manager from Luton) has a better media presence than the Holocaust-denying Nick Griffin. In focusing on Islam and the threat of “Islamist extremists” they can have a bigger appeal than the simple racist agenda of the BNP. With political trust at an all-time low, this far right alliance may take advantage of voter apathy in national and local politics to advance their cause.

Be that as it may, we must stand firm and not let our country and continent slip into the intolerant past. We must join hands to slay the dragon of Islamophobia and help build Europe again with everyone’s help, Muslim and non-Muslim, alike. It is time we listen to the voices of sanity, not hate.

What’s clear is that in this new round of the New Great Game, the last thing the “democratic” West wants is to encourage some Arab Spring winds to hit the Silk Road

Now for the real ‘international community’

The New Great Game was in full swing when the presidents of China, Russia and four “stans” (minus idiosyncratic Turkmenistan)for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit.

Crucially, the presidents of Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia, plus India’s foreign minister, were also there. No better setting for the SCO to propose – via Moscow and Beijing – a completely different worldview from the West’s.

So this, in a nutshell, is what a substantial section of the real “international community” – not that fiction brandished by Washington, London and Paris – thinks about key episodes of the New Great Game.

The SCO is totally against the US and NATO’s missile shield scheme. As for Central Asian “stans”, they better stay away from NATO: if there is any regional crisis, it should be solved regionally. The SCO wants an “independent, neutral and peaceful” Afghanistan (now promoted to the status of SCO observer); this is code for Russia and China doing everything they can to erase US influence over Kabul.

The SCO condemns Libya-style “humanitarian” interventions and unilateral sanctions. It privileges the old-school UN charter and international law – and also, by the way, a future reform of the UN Security Council. On Syria, the only solution is political dialogue – which for Moscow, sensibly, must also include Iran.

The SCO considers a possible strike on Iran “unacceptable”. At the same time, crucially, neither Beijing nor Moscow would want to see a hypothetical Iranian nuclear bomb.

There will be increased economic co-operation among SCO member states. Future steps include an SCO Development Bank. Moscow remains the top trade partner of the Central Asian “stans”.

And a very intriguing development: NATO member Turkey – part of the US missile shield network – was admitted as a SCO “dialogue partner”. No admission, at least not yet, for both India and Pakistan. Inevitably, in the near future, they will become full-time members, alongside Iran.

So this is not yet an Eastern NATO. Chinese news agency Xinhua, with deceptive understatement, stressed the SCO is a “partnership”, not an “alliance”.

a seem to share the same ills: dictatorships, widespread corruption, poverty, high youth unemployment, total media control and very limited political space for any opposition.

No wonder the initial thrust of the Arab Spring in North Africa – a popular struggle for democracy – scared the hell out of most governments along the Silk Road. More than democracy, what they saw was the spectre of Islamisation. Thus the blocking of Facebook and Twitter, the set-up of made-in-China internet filters – coupled with the absence of a pan-Central Asian broadcaster in the Al Jazeera model to spread the word.

Central Asian strongmen have reasons to look back in anger – and dread – to what’s happening in Egypt and Syria. Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan and Nursultan Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan have each been in power for 21 years now. Emomalii Rakhmon in Tajikistan has been president since the country’s bloody civil war during the 1990s.

Propagation of ignorant fears the Republican proponents of Islamophobic views

Bachmann letter, is that it is useless to make fine distinctions among Islamists, whether one is speaking of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, or al-Qaeda itself. All share the same aggressive world-view and the same aims; the only distinction among them is the relative degree to which they are willing to employ violence to achieve their ends.It is tempting to some to dismiss as some sort of lunatic fringe those who believe, as Bachmann and company apparently do, that “civilisation jihad” poses a clear, present and insidiously critical danger to American values and the American way of life itself. Their ideas may well seem ludicrous to some, but they are decidedly not on the fringe. As someone who speaks frequently on counter-terrorism and national security issues, this writer frequently encounters the champions of these views.

Hearing into ‘radicalisation’ of US Muslims raises questions

As a Republican, I am all the more inclined to deplore the Know-Nothings who seem to have traditionally and consistently found a welcome home in the right-wing of my party, whether they be the old anti-Communist extremists of the John Birch Society, former opponents of civil rights for blacks, those who demagogue popular prejudices against gay people and undocumented immigrants today, or those who exploit fear of terrorism and popular ignorance of Islam to tar those, such as some in the Obama administration, who are willing to take a thoughtful and nuanced approach to the national security challenges posed by Islamic extremism. Moral obtuseness about the human effect of blind prejudice and political opportunism may be one of the uglier aspects of what Bachmann and company are up to. But it is incidental to their aims, and arguably not the most harmful result of their bigoted and paranoid views. The central enemy in the mind of those who inspire, inform, and/or share the views espoused in the Bachmann letters is not any particular person or group, but Islam itself.The sly innuendo employed against Huma Abedin may have been particularly outrageous. But Huma Abedin is not the main preoccupation of Bachmann’s congressional clique, or of the many others who share their views – any more than Joseph Welch’s young protégé was a particular concern of Joe McCarthy’s.

No less a conservative Republican stalwart than the late William F Buckley, Jr was known to excoriate the excesses of what he referred to as “the fever-swamps of the American Right”. What is most troubling about the Islamophobia that has gained such traction in the Republican Party, however, is precisely that it is not confined to the fever-swamps – or, perhaps, the swamps are simply spreading.Character assassination

The letter-writers fear the conspiracy is enjoying considerable success. According to Bachmann et alia, “The State Department and, in several cases the specific direction of the Secretary of State have taken actions recently that have been enormously favourable to the Muslim Brotherhood and its interests.” Among these, it cites “… assorted efforts undertaken in the name of ‘engaging’ the Muslim Brotherhood both in Egypt and the United States. Lately, these have amounted to… assisting the realisation of the Brotherhood’s goals”.

And just in case there were any ambiguities on that count, the letter helpfully spells out the mission of the MB in the United States, which is nothing less than “destroying the Western civilisation from within” through “civilisation jihad”. Mercy: No wonder the preternaturally earnest Bachmann is upset. The Department of State is in the hands of persons so naïve, or so bamboozled by Muslim conspirators and sympathisers, that it is willing actually to talk to persons, presumably including the recently elected Egyptian president, allegedly bent on the sinister destruction of the American way of life

Whether you love him or hate him, it would be hard to characterise Newt Gingrich as a fringe element in the Republican Party. A former Speaker of the House of Representatives, he mounted a credible campaign this year for the Republican presidential nomination, running for a time as a strong second to Mitt Romney. He is a very talented generator of ideas, whose greatest weakness is a bewildering inability to distinguish the good ones from the daft ones. But he is highly influential. Here is what he has to say about Islam: “I believe Sharia is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it. I think it is that straightforward and that real.” The former Speaker takes little comfort in the fact that violent extremists have not been able to successfully target the US since 9/11, for he is alive to the threat from “stealth jihad”. “Stealth jihadis use political, cultural, societal, religious, intellectual tools; violent jihadis use violence,” he has said. “But in fact they’re both engaged in jihad, and they’re both seeking to impose the same end state, which is to replace Western civilisation with a radical imposition of Sharia.”

Fortunately, most in the US, and indeed the vast majority of Republicans, are far more concerned with the state of the US economy than they are with fear of the Talibanisation of the United States. But there is no end of harm that can come to the United States’ reputation and to US interests in the Islamic world, to say nothing of the personal and social harm being done to loyal Muslim Americans, when propagation of such ignorant fears is not contested. It is good that Senator McCain has risen to the defence of a Muslim-American public servant. But his work, and that of other right-thinking Republicans, is hardly done

Prime Minister Najib Razak spent a staggering RM44 million on overseas trips in the 5-year period since coming into office. This was revealed by Taiping MP Nga Kor Ming. According to Kor Ming, this breaks down to RM8.8 million a year or RM734,516-67 a month.

The DAP MP demanded an explanation from the 60-year Premier for this “excessive” expenditure.

“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality“.Anyone who wants UMNO to change tack and progress..recognizes that the best we have is Muhyiddin . Of course,he is not perfect. No mortal is. But he is the best we have got.. I am convinced that no one else in UMNO has what it takes to bring about the change that Malay needs.That is the only way the rest of us (fighting for systemic reform and change) will survive. And if we don’t win this battle, I am not sure we will be around for the”Long War” We need to therefore re-group and consolidate around an alternative that appears to have the best chance of winning. We need to align around Muhyiddin . and offer support (which could be conditional), while maintaining our independence.Only time will tell whether we were right or wrong. But there is only one man today who has a fighting chance of making UMNO history. And I think it is time to give this man a chance. It is time to support this man. Time to say Muhyiddin for PM! hidup UMNO hidup Muhyiddin

Najib is the joker in the pack. He is a UMNO party guy but really he is the party-destroyer. He is the spoiler in the nice little game that the Mahathir is playing with the leaders ofUMNO. They want him to come and spoil the game as much as they want a hole in their heads. In other words, Mahathirhasan interest in colluding to torpedo Najib.

“..times of great moral crisis“. I believe we are suffering the worst government Malaysia has ever had since 1957. I believe a UMNO would be untold disaster forMalays. A disaster for each of us who believes in freedoms, liberty and equality of opportunities. A disaster for everyone who opposes socialism and the politics of entitlements, built on narratives of victim-hood. A disaster which might push the Malays to a point of no-return.

The biggest portion of sex offenders, sex miscreants, drug addicts, juvenile crimes is made up of Malay Muslims. What does this mean? It means the programs proselytizing Islam made-for-the- media does not work.

What does Umno do in the name of the Malays and what does Umno actually do for the Malays? In the name of the Malays, Umno secures political power in order to use that power entrusted to exploit the wealth of the country and distribute it largely among the elite. It’s the underlying feudal mentality at play here. Accumulate and concentrate political power and then redistribute the fruits of victory as part of their beneficence. Hence Umno sees nothing contradictory and hypocritical in practicing direct negotiations that have now morphed into selected or close tenders. The same elite is selected, and the tender closes out the non-compliant players.

For instance I find the giving out of BR1M objectionable not because I oppose the giving of cash to poor and needy, but the manner it was given. It’s not Umno’s or BN’s money- its money extracted from tax payers. The giving out should have been apolitical. Bank Negara proposed the distribution of cash directly into recipients’ accounts. The distributing banks were ready and willing to do it- but Umno leaders wanted the cash given through them.

Why? Because then, they will be able to tell the story that it’s out of Umno’s beneficence, that you the wretched of the earth, you the voiceless, you the downtrodden, get to enjoy this cash. So if you want more, keep us in power- we give you RM500, allow us to wallop the billions. We who fight in your name, deserves to be rewarded as how we see fit.

I must admit that I haven’t a clue what the antonym of shopaholic is. I tried looking up the word or a similar expression on Google and in the dictionary, but couldn’t find anything even remotely suitable. And to be honest, while ‘shopaphobe’ comes close to capturing what I intend to say and mean, it’s not quite there. You see, it’s not that I have a fear of shopping. It’s just that I find it a complete and utter waste of time.

And so, perhaps you will understand why I say that my wife and I have continued to approach the onerous task of shopping in completely different ways ever since we were married and today, have only barely reached a satisfactory compromise. It’s not that she’s a shopaholic or falls back on retail therapy at each and every opportunity. In fact, in many ways, she’s quite the opposite. Over the past decade and a half, I have often urged her to buy things that I feel are more becoming of her or indulge in a flight of fancy. Most of the time, these are things that cost a tad short of an arm and a leg; but then, I do believe these things complement her, and so…

Let me explain. To me, shopping is much like one of those painful necessities that each one of us would love to do without, but can’t really do: much like taking your vaccination shots as a child, studying differential calculus in high-school when you have no intention of becoming an engineer, or the need to take a housing loan when you want to buy the apartment that’s just beyond your means. And, so, I approach this task with the clinical precision of a surgeon or a lawyer: I carefully draw up a list that identifies what I need, the quantities I need, the fabric I need, the colours/stripes I need, the shop/s that I need to visit, and the order in which I need to visit them. Then I go about the task quickly and efficiently. What helps, is knowing very clearly what I do not want to buy.

Compare this to my wife, who tends to approach things far more organically – despite her taking to lists and bringing a certain degree of planning into her shopping forays ever since we were married. But then, her plans are more lateral than linear and involve her going to multiple outlets to identify that ‘one perfect piece’ that is embedded in her mind. Naturally, she achieves this in much the same time that I would have finished the entire onerous outing!

The unstable equilibrium that we have reached has been facilitated – no, not by the magical pieces of plastic that we all carry in our wallets nowadays – but by the fact that she has come to appreciate and accept my deep disregard for this form of entertainment and mode of spending quality time together. She knows that, I would much rather spend time with her on the beach, walking through the hills, enjoying a lovely meal at a fine-dining restaurant, watching a play or musical performance or visiting friends of our choice.

And in doing so, she is happy to take care of most leisurely shopping experiences on her own or accompanied by our sprightly 12-year old daughter. She knows that I will look forward to seeing the fruits of her labour and I will not hesitate to share my candid feedback and appreciation of her choice - much better than being accompanied by an ill-tempered man who is bored out of his mind and does not hesitate to show it, isn’t it?!

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule and there are occasions, like this weekend, when we spent most of our time travelling from one retail store to another as we collected things for our forthcoming holiday. But then, this trip was preceded by careful planning and had a series of specific metrics built in along the way. Even then, at the end of a two-hour process of sifting through, trying out and shortlisting the finest cotton-wear, I was – try as I might – at my intolerant best:

“Can you please consider setting up a series of stools for spouses such as me who come shopping with their better halves?” I asked the owner of the store even as I paid for a couple of dresses beyond what my wife was keen to buy.

Yet another Najib ‘foot in the mouth’ minister

Abdul Rahman Dahlan has accused that Christians have wrongly printed the Alkitab, thus has to be burned by Muslims. What an insulting statement.’Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Abdul Rahman Dahlan, please remember Ramadan is a holy month for all Muslims. ‘Pahala’ (heavenly reward) is magnified whereas sins such as maligning and lying are severely frowned upon.

We all know that the bibles were not misprints. We all know what Ibrahim actually said and we all know you all are in it together as Umno is Perkasa and Perkasa is Umno. Your paramount leader Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who is Perkasa patron, has decreed it as such,really offended theChristian. The minister has accused that we Christians have wrongly printed our Alkitab (the Bible), thus has to be burned by Muslims. What an insulting statement.

WATCH:

GAY AND BISEXUAL MEN’S PREFERENCES ABOUT THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A FUTURE RECTAL MICROBICIDE FOR ANAL INTERCOURSE

Still waiting for Datuk Zulkifli Noordin to be charged with sedition or some law for uttering insulting words against Hindus? No Further Action.

Still waiting for Datuk Ibrahim Ali to be charged with threatening to burn Malay-language bibles? No Further Action.

Still waiting for Home Minister Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi to be charged with causing grievous hurt? No Further Action.

Still waiting for Malaysia’s Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail (picture) to take action against the rich and powerful implicated in the judicial fixing appointments laid bare by the Royal Commission of Inquiry? Do Not Bother.

In the past 48 hours, the mercury has been rising over the sledgehammer and swift treatment meted out to publicity-seeking duo, Alvin Tan and Vivian Lee, for their mocking Facebook posts on Ramadan and conspicuous inaction against politically-aligned individuals.

Much of the blame has landed in the lap of the Royal Malaysian Police, historically a major player in nothing happening when the accused lives in a tony neighbourhood or has a few political cables.

But a picture is emerging that the biggest obstacle to fair play and justice being part of the country’s legal landscape is the man who has sworn to protect the integrity of Malaysia’s legal system: Attorney-General Gani.

At a press conference last night, Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar deflected blame on the inaction against Perkasa vice-president Zulkifli for his cutting comments about Indians and the Hindu religion.

He said that the police completed their probe on BN’s stellar candidate for Shah Alam but were told by the AG that there was no evidence to charge him with anything. So the case involving the man who has enjoyed favourable ties with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak since he left Pakatan Rakyat has been classified as No Further Action.

No evidence? Maybe Gani and his investigators could have got away with that throwaway line in the pre-Internet days. Maybe.

But multitudes of Malaysians have seen Zulkifli insulting and demeaning Indians in a video clip that has gone viral. We have seen the evidence and it is damning, in the same way that thousands of Malaysians have seen that rubbish posted by Alvivi and have been mortified at the stupidity and crass insensitivity of the duo.

In the case of Alvivi, the AG charged them within a week of their Facebook post becoming public knowledge. Great, Malaysians are all for speedy action.

So please explain what has happened to Ibrahim’s file?

On January 18, in Permatang Pauh, this is what he said: “Muslims must unite to protect their religion. They must seize those bibles, including the Malay editions, which contained the word Allah and other Arabic terms, and burn them.

“This is the way to show anger against the disrespect to our sensitivity.”

This incendiary statement is seditious every day of the week. And yet, seven months later, still no action. Or No Further Action.

Of course, Ibrahim’s defenders such as Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and greenhorn minister Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan said that it was not the Perkasa chief’s intention to insult the Bible.

He was merely articulating a common way to destroy an illegal publication. But here is where that ridiculous argument falls flat: it is not an illegal publication. Under the 10-point plan put forward by the Najib administration, it is permissible for Malay-language bibles to be imported into the country.

In any case, save the arguments about Ibrahim’s intention or motive for mitigation or the plea bargaining stage of the trial.

As former minister and noted lawyer Datuk Zaid Ibrahim wrote in 2011 that Malaysian AG’s assume two roles: legal adviser to the government and Public Prosecutor.

As Public Prosecutor, the AG has to ensure that the criminal justice system functions well and with integrity. As a Public Prosecutor, the AG works for the rakyat, not Najib or the BN government.

“He is the barometer by which we measure our success as a country governed by the Rule of Law,” said Zaid, who while he was the de facto Law Minister tried to persuade the then PM Tun Abdullah Badawi to make the AG answerable to Parliament.

Surprise, surprise but the Umno ministers and Abdullah were loath to consider changing the reporting structure of the Attorney General or alter anything to do with that office.

Why would they? Why change something when it ain’t broken, right?

The AG betrayed himself when he passed the baby on to Solicitor-General (SG) II Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden,

If Anwar is innocent then why is Saiful still free and there is no action taken against him by the autorities even the religious one? What a shame for Adat Melayu and Islam. There seems to be no justice for the innocent here The AG has to appeal. Otherwise, how can he respond to the judgment that the DNA evidence could not be upheld because the judge was of the opinion that the authenticity of the DNA could not be ascertained thus suggesting a planted job ! That would require an automatic investigation into the conduct of the police investigators. We all know from Sodomy 1 where this will finally point to Don’t waste tghe Rakyats money and the courts’ time. Move on, to the next world.wondering when a High Court judge says evidence was not corroborated at the full hearing of so many witnesses, how will at Appeal Court 3 judges could corroborate the testimony without directly hearing the witnesses? A real mockery and abuse of the legal system and a waste of public funds

People get murdered, C4′d, raped, kidnapped etc. And our AG is so concern about one arse which the court had already found not guilty. is this what we call caring for society or abuse of power?The AG should be brought to court instead for wasting Taxpayer’s money and the court’s time. How could a Pulic Office file an appeal without revealing the grounds?

AG is abusing his power by utilizing the national resources to help Saiful on his personal lawsuit on DSAI! The AG final goal is to help UMNO BARU leadership to run down their political rival DSAI! AG is a traitor to the country! He should be hung! UMNO BARU should use their own resources to back Saiful if they want, but cannot abusing the national resources! The grounds of appeal everybody also know….’to make Anwar busy at the order of najis because GE13 is just round the corner’. So Zaki (ex cheap justice), if the judiciary is fair lets see they throw out the appeal at the onset.This further confirmed that the MALAY person and only Malaysian Mahathir, Najib, UMNO and the BN are all AFRAID of is ANWAR IBRAHIM! Anwar has gone through the baptism of fire after his frolic with UMNO/BN. No Malay/Islamic leader/Malaysian has ever tested hell from Mahathir and Najib like Anwar who was physically assaulted, detained under ISA and publicly humiliated with false charges and fabricated evidence in sodomy I and II. Mahathir, Najib, UMNO and the BN are desperately trying at ALL costs to put Anwar in prison to stop him from exposing their misdeeds and evil plan to plunder Malaysia! Malaysians, if we don’t support PR and Anwar, no Malaysians will dare to stand up for us in future!

One need not be a die-hard Anwar fan to know that AG Abdul Gani Patail is – after Mahathir

the man who lives in greatest fear of Pakatan taking over the Federal Government. The list of his abuses of power is uncountably long. The moment the UMNO-BN regime falls, Gani Patail must be seized and held to account. AG… have you nothing else to focus on? How about taking your head out of PM’s behind and pursue more pertinent matters? Have you not wasted enough of tax payers money?. haven’t you forgotten that you want to fight for justice when you are studying for the law degree? Covering the murder case of Altantunya equates you as a murderer too. Head of the Trial and Appeals division Kamaluddin Md Said, which is more important – appealing to higher court for a review in a sex trial or a murder trial? Stop wasting our taxpayers’ money. Why appeal against Anwar’s sex trial verdict when the judge had made a clear-cut judgement that the crucial DNA sample/evidence had been ‘illegally’ tampered with by a senior police officer.Compare this with the no appeal to the higher court against the acquittal of Razak Baginda in Altantuya murder case. There were many inconsistencies and the main witnessess were not called in the trial. Razak is the only person, and not the two PM’s bodyguards who were sentenced to be hanged, has a link to Altantuya to provide a motive for the murder. DPP Kamaluddin, is it because one is an opposition leader and the other a friend of PM Najib?commend the AG’s Chambers on their efficiency. In Anwar’s acquittal AG file appeal so quickly but in Razak Baginda’s case (which was an accusation of MURDER) no appeal was filed at all. In a murder acquittal, an appeal would be filed as a matter of course but none was. There is clearly a case of double standards here but more imporatantly in Razak Baginda’s case a traversty of the rule of law and a failure of the Malaysian justice system Kamaluddin, when it concerns the Oppositions Leader you are super efficient in appealing against judgements But when it concerns Cronies of Najib Razak YOU closed both your bloody eyes, what sort of Trial and Appeal Division Head are YOU, are you a Balls Licker of sort or Arse Licker either way you are shame and disgrace to the Law profession. Be careful as Allah may reward you with disabled children.

It is the right of the AG’s chambers to appeal though it is obviously very clear that it is a personal vengeance of Gani Patail and Najib against Anwar. And in Najib’s case, it is for his political survival that when Anwar is put behind bars, then Najib stands a better chance to win the GE.Attorney-General, why was the verdict involving Abdul Razak Baginda not appealed? How much did Najib pay to bailout Baginda?

Murder case not being appealed, but clear fabricated evidence case is being appealed. AG clearly bias action makes more people like me to vote for PR. But in the case of the acquittal of Razak Baginda in the Altantuya murder, it was a mockery of justice that the AG blatantly refused to appeal the acquittal of Razak Baginda. This was a personal favour that Gani Patail did for Najib who has to rescue his partner in ‘sex and crime’ . You can get away with murder in Malaysia as long as Gani Patail is the AG Justice must not only be served but must be seen to be served. Was it right that a former UMNO member and UMNO lawyer was fast tracked in his promotions after joining the bench and then made a CJ – Tun Zaki Azmi ? Was it right that Zaki’s wife was awarded a negotiated Billion ringgit project for the elevated Kidex highway, with no experience and no expertise. Isn’t this, payback to the CJ for favours rendered to UMNO and the government ? Was it right for the judge to accept that there was no motive for the murder of Altantuya ? So what is Ariffin Zakaria talking about ? This is corruption, injustice, manipulation and dirt right from the top hierarchy of the judiciary. Fix it first, then talk later.

When someone has an opinion, his/her opinion may be right or wrong. But it is just an opinion. Does he/she produce proof for his/her opinion? If a judge made a wrong or biased judgment and someone voiced out against the judge, there is nothing to prove because it is an opinion of that person. It would be a clash of opinion (and interpretation of facts) between the judge and that person. The CJ has just insinuated that people can be prosecuted for voicing their opinions. Where is the freedom of speech then when people are threatened with prosecution every time they voiced out their opinions?

Wan Junaidi:IPCMC treating our police like a criminal? but certain politician treating police like dog

Three idiots the art of bullshit, “Shit stirrers” ,cold murder and a scam that won’t die

Why this Kolaveri – Hindraf Wyatha Moorthy Version

Time to turn the knob on Home Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi

Najib and his gangs are not above the rule of law but in Malaysia Law and disorder

The law is an ass, and all that

Woman dropped your clothes its time for me rape you

Mahathir: Rowena or Ravana the grooming for an UMNO election Najib style

Untouchability, police encounter cases Home minister a ‘protected criminal’ in Malaysia

Judicial manipulation have encouraged the criminalization of politics Dr Mahathir Mohamad style

Justice Denied the law is an ass

What is the answer to our political discontent

Challenges to peace and justice in Malaysia

Our dear politicians more prone to womanising, can we ask for a little more sensitivity please?

R. Nadeswaran and Police Psychologists nexus Waiting for inspiration

UMNO under Mahathir-Najib will hurtle towards failure

Khairy’s prejudiced mindset: Lame duck PM.

Judge gets a dose of retributive justice the need for judicial restraint

Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat Khairy was right Kuala Besut will decide Najib’s fate

Why pornstar Soi Lek was not charged why pornstar Alvin Tan and Vivian Lee charged for insulting Islam

Policy aggression replaces policy paralysis….

History forcefully made?

Arrogantly yours… Soi Lek, Alvin Tan and Vivian Lee

Rafizi warnning to DAP no more Malay bashing Don’t be anti-Islam

DO WE WANT FEAR OR HOPE IN THESE EYES!

Unmade in UMNO Confessions of a ‘shopaphobe’ husband and wife

Who Cares? Yet another Najibs ‘foot in the mouth’ minister and Attorney-General Gani.

GAY AND BISEXUAL MEN’S PREFERENCES ABOUT THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A FUTURE RECTAL MICROBICIDE FOR ANAL INTERCOURSE

The AG betrayed himself when he passed the baby on to Solicitor-General (SG) II Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden,