Who fought for the independence of Malaya...and who worked with the colonial powers preserving their powers until 1957? Who were the heroes? traitors?

Who fought for independence of Malaya from the British Colonialist?

Who fought for independence from the Japanese Occupiers?

Who fought for independence from the British Colonialist?

It is important to realize that when Malaysia was ruled by foreign powers - British, Japanese and then British again, there were those who collaborated with these foreign powers - and worked with them and for them. There were also those that would never work for the colonial masters or occupying forces.

There were those who chose the path of negotiations...and diplomacy in their quest for independence.

There were those who chose armed struggle as a means towards achieving independence...

Different means ....same objective...and all should be acknowledged as people who struggled for the independence of this nation...Malaya...Malaysia

There were those who just 'sucked-up' to whoever rules the day...allowing themselves to be bred to take over the reins of power one day (of course with the guarantee that British influence and benefits will always be protected ...)

Let us look back at history...and see who were those who did always fight the colonial masters to achieve independence...

And who worked for and with the colonial masters....

The time has come for us to look critically at the history of Malaysia...

Time to declare commitment to end torture in Malaysia -Ratify Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

It is time that Malaysia say no to all forms of torture - and a strong position that it will act against all those that do torture people.

This would a clear declaration of the government that will no longer tolerate torture perpetrated by the police, MACC officers, RELA,...

Malaysia's Human Rights Commission have been asking the Malaysian government to ratify the Convention Against Torture, as a first step of it taking a public stance that it will no longer tolerate torture in Malaysia...

And, whipping is certainly a cruel, inhumane and degrading form of punishment that must be abolished...

The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) has urged the Government and the relevant authorities to review the convention against torture and other cruel or degrading treatment of people.

It viewed whipping as cruel, inhumane, degrading and contrary to the human rights principle.

“It is unfortunate that the Government has not ratified the convention even though Suhakam had repeatedly urged it to do so,” it said in a statement yesterday. - Star, 30/8/2009, Do away with degrading punishment, says Suhakam

Islamic Declaration of Human Rights also have a provision with regard to torture...

VII Right to Protection Against Torture

No person shall be subjected to torture in mind or body, or degraded, or threatened with injury either to himself or to anyone related to or held dear by him, or forcibly made to confess to the commission of a crime, or forced to consent to an act which is injurious to his interests.

Malaysia has yet to ratify the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 39/46
of 10 December 1984

entry into force 26 June 1987, in accordance with article 27 (1)

The States Parties to this Convention,

Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,

Considering the obligation of States under the Charter, in particular Article 55, to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,

Having regard also to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1975,

Desiring to make more effective the struggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the world,

Have agreed as follows:

PART I

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 3

1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

Article 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture. 2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

Article 5

1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:

(a) When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;

(b) When the alleged offender is a national of that State;

(c) When the victim is a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.

2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in paragraph I of this article.

3. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.

Article 6

1. Upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available to it, that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is present shall take him into custody or take other legal measures to ensure his presence. The custody and other legal measures shall be as provided in the law of that State but may be continued only for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted.

2. Such State shall immediately make a preliminary inquiry into the facts.

3. Any person in custody pursuant to paragraph I of this article shall be assisted in communicating immediately with the nearest appropriate representative of the State of which he is a national, or, if he is a stateless person, with the representative of the State where he usually resides.

4. When a State, pursuant to this article, has taken a person into custody, it shall immediately notify the States referred to in article 5, paragraph 1, of the fact that such person is in custody and of the circumstances which warrant his detention. The State which makes the preliminary inquiry contemplated in paragraph 2 of this article shall promptly report its findings to the said States and shall indicate whether it intends to exercise jurisdiction.

Article 7

1. The State Party in the territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.

2. These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 1.

3. Any person regarding whom proceedings are brought in connection with any of the offences referred to in article 4 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings.

Article 8

1. The offences referred to in article 4 shall be deemed to be included as extraditable offences in any extradition treaty existing between States Parties. States Parties undertake to include such offences as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them.

2. If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of such offences. Extradition shall be subject to the other conditions provided by the law of the requested State.

3. States Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize such offences as extraditable offences between themselves subject to the conditions provided by the law of the requested State.

4. Such offences shall be treated, for the purpose of extradition between States Parties, as if they had been committed not only in the place in which they occurred but also in the territories of the States required to establish their jurisdiction in accordance with article 5, paragraph 1.

Article 9

1. States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal proceedings brought in respect of any of the offences referred to in article 4, including the supply of all evidence at their disposal necessary for the proceedings.

2. States Parties shall carry out their obligations under paragraph I of this article in conformity with any treaties on mutual judicial assistance that may exist between them.

Article 10

1. Each State Party shall ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment.

2. Each State Party shall include this prohibition in the rules or instructions issued in regard to the duties and functions of any such person.

Article 11

Each State Party shall keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of torture.

Article 12

Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Article 13

Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to, and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by, its competent authorities. Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given.

Article 14

1. Each State Party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his dependants shall be entitled to compensation.

2. Nothing in this article shall affect any right of the victim or other persons to compensation which may exist under national law.

Article 15

Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.

Article 16

1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

2. The provisions of this Convention are without prejudice to the provisions of any other international instrument or national law which prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or which relates to extradition or expulsion.

PART II

Article 17

1. There shall be established a Committee against Torture (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) which shall carry out the functions hereinafter provided. The Committee shall consist of ten experts of high moral standing and recognized competence in the field of human rights, who shall serve in their personal capacity. The experts shall be elected by the States Parties, consideration being given to equitable geographical distribution and to the usefulness of the participation of some persons having legal experience.

2. The members of the Committee shall be elected by secret ballot from a list of persons nominated by States Parties. Each State Party may nominate one person from among its own nationals. States Parties shall bear in mind the usefulness of nominating persons who are also members of the Human Rights Committee established under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and who are willing to serve on the Committee against Torture.

3. Elections of the members of the Committee shall be held at biennial meetings of States Parties convened by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. At those meetings, for which two thirds of the States Parties shall constitute a quorum, the persons elected to the Committee shall be those who obtain the largest number of votes and an absolute majority of the votes of the representatives of States Parties present and voting.

4. The initial election shall be held no later than six months after the date of the entry into force of this Convention. At. Ieast four months before the date of each election, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall address a letter to the States Parties inviting them to submit their nominations within three months. The Secretary-General shall prepare a list in alphabetical order of all persons thus nominated, indicating the States Parties which have nominated them, and shall submit it to the States Parties.

5. The members of the Committee shall be elected for a term of four years. They shall be eligible for re-election if renominated. However, the term of five of the members elected at the first election shall expire at the end of two years; immediately after the first election the names of these five members shall be chosen by lot by the chairman of the meeting referred to in paragraph 3 of this article.

6. If a member of the Committee dies or resigns or for any other cause can no longer perform his Committee duties, the State Party which nominated him shall appoint another expert from among its nationals to serve for the remainder of his term, subject to the approval of the majority of the States Parties. The approval shall be considered given unless half or more of the States Parties respond negatively within six weeks after having been informed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the proposed appointment.

7. States Parties shall be responsible for the expenses of the members of the Committee while they are in performance of Committee duties.

Article 18

1. The Committee shall elect its officers for a term of two years. They may be re-elected.

2. The Committee shall establish its own rules of procedure, but these rules shall provide, inter alia, that:

(a) Six members shall constitute a quorum;

(b) Decisions of the Committee shall be made by a majority vote of the members present.

3. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall provide the necessary staff and facilities for the effective performance of the functions of the Committee under this Convention.

4. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall convene the initial meeting of the Committee. After its initial meeting, the Committee shall meet at such times as shall be provided in its rules of procedure.

5. The States Parties shall be responsible for expenses incurred in connection with the holding of meetings of the States Parties and of the Committee, including reimbursement to the United Nations for any expenses, such as the cost of staff and facilities, incurred by the United Nations pursuant to paragraph 3 of this article.

Article 19

1. The States Parties shall submit to the Committee, through the Secretary-General of the United Nations, reports on the measures they have taken to give effect to their undertakings under this Convention, within one year after the entry into force of the Convention for the State Party concerned. Thereafter the States Parties shall submit supplementary reports every four years on any new measures taken and such other reports as the Committee may request.

2. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall transmit the reports to all States Parties.

3. Each report shall be considered by the Committee which may make such general comments on the report as it may consider appropriate and shall forward these to the State Party concerned. That State Party may respond with any observations it chooses to the Committee.

4. The Committee may, at its discretion, decide to include any comments made by it in accordance with paragraph 3 of this article, together with the observations thereon received from the State Party concerned, in its annual report made in accordance with article 24. If so requested by the State Party concerned, the Committee may also include a copy of the report submitted under paragraph I of this article.

Article 20

1. If the Committee receives reliable information which appears to it to contain well-founded indications that torture is being systematically practised in the territory of a State Party, the Committee shall invite that State Party to co-operate in the examination of the information and to this end to submit observations with regard to the information concerned.

2. Taking into account any observations which may have been submitted by the State Party concerned, as well as any other relevant information available to it, the Committee may, if it decides that this is warranted, designate one or more of its members to make a confidential inquiry and to report to the Committee urgently.

3. If an inquiry is made in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article, the Committee shall seek the co-operation of the State Party concerned. In agreement with that State Party, such an inquiry may include a visit to its territory.

4. After examining the findings of its member or members submitted in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article, the Commission shall transmit these findings to the State Party concerned together with any comments or suggestions which seem appropriate in view of the situation.

5. All the proceedings of the Committee referred to in paragraphs I to 4 of th is article s hall be con fidential , and at all stages of the proceedings the co-operation of the State Party shall be sought. After such proceedings have been completed with regard to an inquiry made in accordance with paragraph 2, the Committee may, after consultations with the State Party concerned, decide to include a summary account of the results of the proceedings in its annual report made in accordance with article 24.

Article 21

1. A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare under this article that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. Such communications may be received and considered according to the procedures laid down in this article only if submitted by a State Party which has made a declaration recognizing in regard to itself the competence of the Committee. No communication shall be dealt with by the Committee under this article if it concerns a State Party which has not made such a declaration. Communications received under this article shall be dealt with in accordance with the following procedure;

(a) If a State Party considers that another State Party is not giving effect to the provisions ofthis Convention, it may, by written communication, bring the matter to the attention of that State Party. Within three months afler the receipt of the communication the receiving State shall afford the State which sent the communication an explanation or any other statement in writing clarifying the matter, which should include, to the extent possible and pertinent, reference to domestic procedures and remedies taken, pending or available in the matter;

(b) If the matter is not adjusted to the satisfaction of both States Parties concerned within six months after the receipt by the receiving State of the initial communication, either State shall have the right to refer the matter to the Committee, by notice given to the Committee and to the other State;

(c) The Committee shall deal with a matter referred to it under this article only after it has ascertained that all domestic remedies have been invoked and exhausted in the matter, in conformity with the generally recognized principles of international law. This shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to bring effective relief to the person who is the victim of the violation of this Convention;

(d) The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications under this article; (e) Subject to the provisions of subparagraph

(c), the Committee shall make available its good offices to the States Parties concerned with a view to a friendly solution of the matter on the basis of respect for the obligations provided for in this Convention. For this purpose, the Committee may, when appropriate, set up an ad hoc conciliation commission;

(f) In any matter referred to it under this article, the Committee may call upon the States Parties concerned, referred to in subparagraph (b), to supply any relevant information;

(g) The States Parties concerned, referred to in subparagraph (b), shall have the right to be represented when the matter is being considered by the Committee and to make submissions orally and/or in writing;

(h) The Committee shall, within twelve months after the date of receipt of notice under subparagraph (b), submit a report:

(i) If a solution within the terms of subparagraph (e) is reached, the Committee shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached;

(ii) If a solution within the terms of subparagraph (e) is not reached, the Committee shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts; the written submissions and record of the oral submissions made by the States Parties concerned shall be attached to the report.

In every matter, the report shall be communicated to the States Parties concerned.

2. The provisions of this article shall come into force when five States Parties to this Convention have made declarations under paragraph 1 of this article. Such declarations shall be deposited by the States Parties with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the other States Parties. A declaration may be withdrawn at any time by notification to the Secretary-General. Such a withdrawal shall not prejudice the consideration of any matter which is the subject of a communication already transmitted under this article; no further communication by any State Party shall be received under this article after the notification of withdrawal of the declaration has been received by the Secretary-General, unless the State Party concerned has made a new declaration.

Article 22

1. A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare under this article that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention. No communication shall be received by the Committee if it concerns a State Party which has not made such a declaration.

2. The Committee shall consider inadmissible any communication under this article which is anonymous or which it considers to be an abuse of the right of submission of such communications or to be incompatible with the provisions of this Convention.

3. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2, the Committee shall bring any communications submitted to it under this article to the attention of the State Party to this Convention which has made a declaration under paragraph I and is alleged to be violating any provisions of the Convention. Within six months, the receiving State shall submit to the Committee written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by that State.

4. The Committee shall consider communications received under this article in the light of all information made available to it by or on behalf of the individual and by the State Party concerned. 5. The Committee shall not consider any communications from an individual under this article unless it has ascertained that:

(a) The same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement;

(b) The individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies; this shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to bring effective reliefto the person who is the victim of the violation of this Convention.

6. The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications under this article.

7. The Committee shall forward its views to the State Party concerned and to the individual.

8. The provisions of this article shall come into force when five States Parties to this Convention have made declarations under paragraph 1 of this article. Such declarations shall be deposited by the States Parties with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the other States Parties. A declaration may be withdrawn at any time by notification to the Secretary-General. Such a withdrawal shall not prejudice the consideration of any matter which is the subject of a communication already transmitted under this article; no further communication by or on behalf of an individual shall be received under this article after the notification of withdrawal of the declaration has been received by the SecretaryGeneral, unless the State Party has made a new declaration.

Article 23

The members of the Committee and of the ad hoc conciliation commissions which may be appointed under article 21, paragraph I (e), shall be entitled to the facilities, privileges and immunities of experts on mission for the United Nations as laid down in the relevant sections of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.

Article 24

The Committee shall submit an annual report on its activities under this Convention to the States Parties and to the General Assembly of the United Nations.

PART III

Article 25

1. This Convention is open for signature by all States. 2. This Convention is subject to ratification. Instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 26

This Convention is open to accession by all States. Accession shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument of accession with the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations.

Article 27

1. This Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date of the deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession.

2. For each State ratifying this Convention or acceding to it after the deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession, the Convention shall enter into force onthe thirtieth day after the date of the deposit of its own instrument of ratification or accession.

Article 28

1. Each State may, at the time of signature or ratification of this Convention or accession thereto, declare that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in article 20.

2. Any State Party having made a reservation in accordance with paragraph I of this article may, at any time, withdraw this reservation by notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 29

1 . Any State Party to this Convention may propose an amendment and file it with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The SecretaryGeneral shall thereupon communicate the proposed amendment to the States Parties with a request that they notify him whether they favour a conference of States Parties for the purpose of considering an d voting upon the proposal. In the event that within four months from the date of such communication at least one third of the States Parties favours such a conference, the SecretaryGeneral shall convene the conference under the auspices of the United Nations. Any amendment adopted by a majority of the States Parties present and voting at the conference shall be submitted by the Secretary-General to all the States Parties for acceptance.

2. An amendment adopted in accordance with paragraph I of this article shall enter into force when two thirds of the States Parties to this Convention have notified the Secretary-General of the United Nations that they have accepted it in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

3. When amendments enter into force, they shall be binding on those States Parties which have accepted them, other States Parties still being bound by the provisions of this Convention and any earlier amendments which they have accepted.

Article 30

1. Any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which cannot be settled through negotiation shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration. If within six months from thc date of the request for arbitration the Parties are unable to agree on the organization of the arbitration, any one of those Parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice by request in conformity with the Statute of the Court.

2. Each State may, at the time of signature or ratification of this Con vention or accession thereto, declare that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph I of this article. The other States Parties shall not be bound by paragraph I of this article with respect to any State Party having made such a reservation.

3. Any State Party having made a reservation in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article may at any time withdraw this reservation by notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 31

1. A State Party may denounce this Convention by written notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Denunciation becomes effective one year after the date of receipt of- the notification by the Secretary-General .

2. Such a denunciation shall not have the effect of releasing the State Party from its obligations under this Convention in regard to any act or omission which occurs prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective, nor shall denunciation prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which is already under consideration by the Committee prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective.

3. Following the date at which the denunciation of a State Party becomes effective, the Committee shall not commence consideration of any new matter regarding that State.

Article 32

The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all States Members of the United Nations and all States which have signed this Convention or acceded to it of the following:

(a) Signatures, ratifications and accessions under articles 25 and 26;

(b) The date of entry into force of this Convention under article 27 and the date of the entry into force of any amendments under article 29;

(c) Denunciations under article 31.

Article 33

1. This Convention, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

2. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall transmit certified copies of this Convention to all States.

Solicitor-client privilege should be safeguarded in the interest of justice - Leonard Teoh case. Court of Appeal is wrong

It is very sad and distressing that the Court of Appeal has upheld the arrest and detention of lawyer Leonard Teoh who refused to breach solicitor-client privilege...

Solicitor-client privilege or legal professional privilege protects all communications between a professional legal adviser, i.e. a lawyer, and his or her clients from being disclosed without the permission of the client. The privilege is that of the client and not that of the lawyer.

The purpose behind this legal principle is to protect an individual's ability to access the justice system by encouraging complete disclosure to legal advisers without the fear that any disclosure of those communications may prejudice the client in the future.

A client can bravely tell his lawyer that he killed someone, and by reason of this Solicitor-client privilege or legal professional privilege, the lawyer cannot disclose this fact to anyone. A client should and does have the ability to tell his lawyer everything without fear that the lawyer will rat on him/her. Hence, when the police approached Leonard Teoh to tell them where his client was, he did not...in fact, he could not, for that would have been a breach of the solicitor client privilege.

"The foundation of this rule is not difficult to discover. It is not (as has sometimes been said) on account of any particular importance which the law attributes to the business of legal professors, or any particular disposition to afford them protection ... But it is out of regard to the interests of justice, which cannot be upholden, and to the administration of justice, which cannot go on without the aid of men skilled in jurisprudence, in the practice of the courts, and in those matters affecting rights and obligations which form the subject of all judicial proceedings. If the privilege did not exist at all, every one would be thrown upon his own legal resources, deprived of professional assistance, a man would not venture to consult any skilful person, or would only dare tell his counsellor half his case". - Greenough v. Gaskell [1833], 1 M & K 98

"In order to promote freedom of consultation of legal advisers by clients, the apprehension of compelled disclosure by the legal advisers must be removed; hence the law must prohibit such disclosure except on the client's consent." - Berd v. Lovelace, Cary 88, 21 Eng. Rep. 33 (Ch. 1577)

A lawyer not disclosing what a client has told the lawyer should certainly not lead to a situation whereby the lawyer is arrested and detained by the police for days...

The Court of Appeal has upheld the detention of a lawyer by police 11 years ago to obtain information on the whereabouts of his client.

Judge Datuk Md Raus Sharif, in dismissing the appeal by Leonard Teoh Hooi Leong, said the magistrate who issued the remand order was correct in law.

"The High Court judge was also right in the exercise of his revisionary powers," Raus said in the unanimous ruling. Sitting with him were Datuk Sulong Matjeraie and Datuk Ahmad Maarop.

In an immediate reaction, Bar Council chairman Ragunath Kesavan said the decision was a serious dilution of the client-solicitor privilege and raised the question whether lawyers could mount a valid defence in a criminal case.

"It is implicit that lawyers can be arrested by police to obtain information," he said, adding that the ruling was regressive in the criminal justice system.

Lawyer G. Ragumaren held a watching brief for the council as the legal fraternity had awaited this decision following the High Court decision 11 years ago.

Teoh, in an affidavit, said he acted as lawyer for former Citibank executive Nor Aishah Bokhari who converted to Christianity in November 1997.

He was arrested on Jan 13, 1998, when he refused to reveal the whereabouts of Nor Aishah who went missing from her parents' home in Pontian, Johor, on Dec 30, 1997.

The police had told Teoh that he was arrested for aiding and abetting the kidnapping of Nor Aishah.

The Pontian magistrate's court, on Jan 14, 1998, ordered Teoh to be remanded for seven days following an application by the police. The remand was later extended another three days.

Teoh then applied to the Johor Baru High Court to revise the decision of the magistrate but it was dismissed on Jan 19, 1998.

At the Court of Appeal yesterday, Teoh's counsel Karpal Singh submitted that the information was a client-solicitor communication and the withholding of such information was not contrary to the Evidence Act.

"How could any information between a client and solicitor be in furtherance of a crime in which the client (Nor Aishah) was the victim," he asked.

Karpal said Teoh was only a witness but was made to look like a suspect although he had nothing to do with the kidnapping.

He said Teoh was held for 10 days under police custody and as a professional, his client wanted to clear his name as the matter was reported in law journals.

Deputy public prosecutor Ahmad Bache said the appeal should be dismissed as the subject matter was a remand order.

"It is academic because he had been released," he said.

Raus then asked Ahmad what remedy Teoh could resort to for unlawful detention.

Ahmad replied that Teoh could resort to civil action and this was not a forum to vindicate himself.

"The Court of Appeal will open the floodgates if the appeal is allowed. It will also amount to an abuse of court process," he said.

Ahmad said the magistrate had acted judiciously in issuing the remand order after having heard the investigating officer who had also produced his investigation diary. - NST, 27/8/2009, Court upholds detention of missing client's lawyer

CIJ & WAMI Media Statement:- Problematic licensing laws hampers distribution of new cartoon [ Magazine entitled ' Gedung Kartun' ]

Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ)
27C Jalan Sarikei, off Jalan Pahang
53000 Kuala Lumpur
Tel: 03 4023 0772
Fax: 03 4023 0769

Press Statement
25 August 2009

Problematic licensing laws hampers distribution of new cartoon

The Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) and Writers Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI) are concerned about the confiscation of hundreds of copies of a cartoon magazines on current issues edited by prominent cartoonist, Zunar. The confiscation smacks of harassment and censorship of discussion of current issues.

On 25 August, officials from the Control of Publication Department of the Ministry of Home Affairs seized copies of the inaugural issues of Gedung Kartun (Cartoon Store) from the publisher's office in Kuala Lumpur.

According to the magazine Chief Editor Zulkiflee Anwar Haque, better known as Zunar, more than 400 copies were seized. When contacted by CIJ, the Department's Assistant Secretary Abdul Razak Abdul Latif said the magazine was confiscated "primarily" due to the lack of a publication permit as well as for content "checking". He was unable to confirm the amount seized.

However, Zunar disputed the lack of permit as the reason and claimed that he had obtained the permit's serial number verbally. He said the officers insisted on confiscating the magazines despite informing them of the verbal permission. Zunar said he was then told to ask for an official letter regarding the status of the permit.

The permit requirement for publications is legislated under the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, and failing to meet the requirement can result in imprisonment for up to three years or a fine of up to RM20 000 (USD5700).

The confiscation is a form of harassment against those who publish alternative interpretations of current events. Zunar is a long time contributor to online news site Malaysiakini and is well-known for his political cartoons. Gedung Kartun, a bi-weekly slated for the market in September, features drawings that discuss the controversial death of the political assistant from opposition Democratic Action Party (DAP) at the Selangor Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) office as well as one involving the Prime Minister Najib Razak. Zunar said the magazine is about alternative humour.

The action once again shows how the licensing regime is used arbitrarily to control expression. The employment of such law does not inspire confidence with the Home Minister Hishamuddin Hussien's announcement that the law will be reviewed to keep up with the demands of the people. To show that the Minister appreciates the people's criticism of the law, he should stop any further practices of harsh measures such as the arbitrary confiscation of publications.

CIJ and WAMI urge the Ministry to return copies of Gedung Kartun to its publisher so that it can be made available to the public. We also urge the Ministry to reveal what it's plan is for the supposed review of the PPPA and to include civil society in its consultations.

Ends

Issued by

Gayathry Venkiteswaran
Executive Director, CIJ

and Wong Chin Huat
Chairman, WAMI

For more information please contact Wai Fong at 03 4023 0772

CIJ & WAMI Media Statement: Pleased with the High Court's decision to allow a judicial review over the ban of a book published by Sisters-in-Islam

Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ)
27C Jalan Sarikei, off Jalan Pahang
53000 Kuala Lumpur
Tel: 03 4023 0772
Fax: 03 4023 0769

26 August 2009

The Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) and the Writers Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI) are pleased with the High Court's decision to allow a judicial review over the ban of a book published by Sisters-in-Islam (SIS).

CIJ and WAMI believe that the court's decision is an important step in upholding the constitutional guarantee for freedom of expression. According to a Bernama report, in making the decision, Judicial Commissioner Mohamad Ariff Md Yusof said he was satisfied that SIS's application raised important issues related to fundamental liberties, state jurisdiction and Malaysia's obligation to international human rights standards.

SIS's book Muslim Women and the Challenge of Islamic Extremism was banned by the Home Ministry on 31 July 2008, under Section 7(1) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (PPPA), on the basis that the book was "prejudicial to public order". SIS was neither informed before nor after the gazetting of the ban and its members knew about it from the media.

CIJ and SIS's attempts to get a better picture of the process of book banning, including meetings with the Ministry, have so far been largely futile. It seems that the Ministry is either reluctant to reveal or unable to explain its interpretations of the broad guidelines for publications, as well as to be open about who is enforcing the bans.

While the new Home Minister, Hishamuddin Hussein promises to review laws deemed "obsolete", including the PPPA, there is no accompanying measures to halt the non-transparent practices enabled by the law. According to news reports, the ministry has banned 22 books this year, making the total of banned books to 397 in the past nine years. Some of the titles published by the media include potentially pornographic materials as well as interfaith and Islamic titles.

Banning books is a restriction of ideas and expression. The government must stop disallowing Malaysians to decide for themselves whether a book is good for them. The current practice of arbitrary banning, where publishers and writers are not consulted, aggravates the violation of free speech and paints an authoritarian image on the government's side. CIJ, which highlighted this in its recent submission to SUHAKAM, calls for the practice of book banning to be stopped.

Issued by Gayathry Venkiteswaran
Executive Director,
CIJ

and

Wong Chin Huat,
Chairman,
WAMI

For more information please contact Wai Fong at 03 4023 0772.

The odd occassion when a victim of wrong-doings of a RELA member gets some compensation. And the government is vicariously liable and pays RM100,000.

RELA - that volunteer corp that many in Malaysia wants to be abolished, has again embarrassed Malaysia, and now has cost the rakyat's money [people's money] to be unnecessarily expended.

RM100,000-00 - why because a RELA member took a picture of women relieving herself in a lorry.

All these new media reports trying to improve the image of the RELA will not work. Just abolish this RELA. See Malaysian Bar Resolution calling for the abolition of the Rela. See also all earlier posts on RELA, and RELA raid - 1 Dead...1 seriously injured. Abolish RELA.

In the case of this women, she filed a case....but alas many others who have been victimized, injured and killed by wrong actions of RELA never will get any compensation...let alone justice.

The government has to pay RM100,000 in damages to a former guest relations officer as it was vicariously liable for the act of a Rela member who took a picture of her relieving herself in a lorry.

In allowing the appeal by Maslinda Ishak, the Court of Appeal yesterday said the respondents -- the director-general of Rela, the Federal Territories Islamic Religious Department's (Jawi) enforcement officers and the government -- were jointly and severally liable.

On Sept 11 last year, the High Court ordered Mohamad Tahir Osman to pay Maslinda RM100,000 for his conduct in taking the picture six years ago.

Judge Datuk Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat said what Tahir did was outside the scope of his duty and he did it purely on his own accord.

Therefore, he was wholly responsible for his action on Maslinda, 32, now a dental nurse, which had injured her emotionally.

The incident happened after Maslinda and several colleagues were arrested by Jawi enforcement officers and Rela members during a raid at Kelab De Vegas, Jalan Imbi, here about 11.30pm on March 21, 2003.

After the arrest, they were led into a lorry. At 12.50am, when the vehicle was in Jalan Jejaka 5, Taman Maluri, Cheras, Maslinda asked to go to the toilet but her request was denied.

Instead, Maslinda was told to relieve herself inside the lorry.

She did exactly that, shielded by a scarf held by her friends, but Tahir then came, pushed her friends away and took her photograph with his camera.

Maslinda brought a RM5 million suit in damages against Tahir, the Rela director-general, Jawi and government.

Tengku Maimun ruled that the Rela director-general, Jawi and the Federal Government could not be associated with Tahir's action.

Maslinda appealed on ground that the other three were also equally liable to pay damages.

Lawyer Karpal Singh, who was assisted by Sangeet Kaur Deo, told the Court of Appeal that Tahir's act was done in the course of employment and the three respondents were equally liable.

He said Tahir did not appeal against the High Court order, that he was "a man of straw" and Maslinda could not get any compensation from him.

"Tahir had also pleaded guilty for invasion of privacy and was sentenced to four months' jail in a magistrate's court," he said.

Federal Counsel Amarjeet Singh said what was done by Tahir was a frolic of his own.

"He was not authorised by the three respondents. So the government cannot be held liable," he said.

Judges Datuk Suriyadi Halim Omar, Datuk Feffey Tan Kok Hwa and Datuk Sulaiman Daud heard the appeal and made the unanimous ruling.

Karpal later said he would enforce the judgment on the government since the respondents were all from federal agencies. - New Strait Times, 25/8/2009, Ex-GRO gets RM100,000 for Rela man's frolic

JOINT ACTION GROUP FOR GENDER EQUALITY (JAG) Press Statement (24/8/2009) :- JUSTICE FOR WOMEN

JOINT ACTION GROUP FOR GENDER EQUALITY (JAG)

Press Statement

JUSTICE FOR WOMEN

The Joint Action Group for Gender Equality (JAG) welcomes the celebration of the national Women’s Day on 25 August 2009, and Independence Day on 31 August 2009.

The celebrations this year is bittersweet. JAG was galvanized over the past few weeks in dealing with a seemingly intractable issue: violence against women. In this instance, it was the state sanctioned violence against Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno. Kartika pleaded guilty to a charge of drinking alcohol – an offence under the Syariah law in Pahang. In an effort to deter other Muslims from drinking, the Syariah Court ordered the maximum sentences to be meted out: RM5,000 fine and 6 lashes of the whip. However, on 24 August 2009, Kartika’s sentence was stayed for reasons which are still not clear.

JAG does not support whipping for women or men. It violates a person’s human rights to be free from cruel, inhumane, degrading treatment or punishment, and it has not worked as deterrent.

JAG is especially concerned that it is not apparent that general principles of sentencing were applied in Kartika’s case: she was a first time offender, she showed remorse and pleaded guilty, and there was no violence in the commission of the offence. Her sentences were completely disproportionate to the offence committed.

Kartika’s case also illustrates how Muslim women are discriminated, contrary to the constitutional guarantee in Article 8(2) of the Federal Constitution against discrimination on the grounds of religion and gender. Whipping of women is allowed under Syariah criminal offences but is disallowed by civil law under Section 289 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

JAG has repeatedly lobbied the Government to legislate against discrimination and to make the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which it ratified in 1995, into domestic law. However, the Government has failed women on both counts.

JAG urges the Government to ‘Kotakan Kata’ – to fulfill their elections promises and legal obligations under CEDAW. The Government must legislate against discrimination: justice for Malaysian women requires nothing less.

24 August 2009.

Maria Chin Abdullah

Executive Director

Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (Empower)

for and on behalf of the Joint Action Group for Gender Equality which comprise:

1. Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (Empower)

2. Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO)

3. Sisters In Islam (SIS)

4. All Women Action Society (AWAM)

5. Women’s Centre for Change, Penang (WCC)

An end of some discrimination againt the Sabah & Sarawak by the UMNO-led BN government after almost 40+ years..

Oh how Sabah and Sarawak have been discriminated for so long...by the UMNO-led BN government.

Najib has ended this discrimination with regard to now providing for Federal Grants to be given to Local Councils in Sabah and Sarawak..

How else have the people of Sabah and Sarawak been discriminated by Kuala Lumpur? Tell us..

And, now when the UMNO-led BN is shaky, and may lose to the Pakatan Rakyat come next election, there suddenly is a rush to 'buy' Sabah and Sarawak. A rush to remedy the wrongs done to them all these years by an UMNO-led BN government. Recently, I also saw that finally there is push to get roads build in Sabah and Sarawak. Maybe, they also deserve to have a rail link from Kuching to Kota Kinabalu...

And another question that comes to mind, is how much have been given to the Local Councils in Semenanjung Malaysia. Which local councils got the money and how much did they get? Did all local councils in Semenanjung get equal treatment or not? A MP can maybe ask these questions in Parliament and get us the answers.

Local authorities in Sabah and Sarawak will be given grants beginning next year to help them boost their services to the people.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said the move would cost the Government an additional RM62.8mil annually.

He added that prior to this, only local authorities in the peninsular were given federal government grants.

Local authorities in Sabah and Sarawak receives financial assistance from their respective state governments.

“We hope this will enhance services provided by local authorities in Sabah and Sarawak and the people can enjoy better facilities and services,” he said after chairing the National Finance Council meeting on Tuesday - Star, 25/8/2009, Grants for local authorities in Sabah and Sarawak

I also wonder why Federal Government is giving grants directly to Local Authorities? Should not the money be given directly to the State governments, for them to hand over to the Local Councils?

Malaysian Bar Press Release: Abolish whipping for any offence

The Malaysian Bar is heartened to note that the authorities have apparently decided not to proceed with the sentence of whipping in Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno’s case.

As recently as at its 61st Annual General Meeting held on 17 March 2007, the Malaysian Bar resolved to denounce and reject whipping as a punishment for any offence as it is anachronistic and inconsistent with a compassionate society. Our position echoes international human rights norms that condemn whipping and other forms of corporal punishment as cruel, inhuman or degrading and call for its abolition. Moreover, there is empirical evidence to support the fact that whipping has failed as a retributory and deterrent sentence.

In Kartika’s specific case, there are additional compelling reasons to overturn the sentence, as there is serious doubt over the legality and propriety of the Kuantan Syariah High Court’s imposition of a supplementary sentence of imprisonment simply for the punishment of whipping to be carried out.

Under Malaysian civil law, the whipping of women is prohibited. The whipping of men in certain categories of age and health is also prohibited. The Government has committed itself to prevent the whipping of children under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. These are positive first steps in the journey towards a total prohibition against whipping as a form of punishment for all persons, regardless of age or gender, and whether under civil or Syariah law.

We call on the authorities to overturn the sentence of whipping handed down in Kartika’s case and the cases of those who were arrested with her. We strongly urge the Government to reject whipping as a form of sentencing for any offence, and to abolish it altogether.

Ragunath Kesavan
President
Malaysian Bar

24 August 2009

Is Chua Jui Meng still caught up with his fight with Ong Tee Keat for the leadership of MCA?

Chua Jui Meng - I read with amusement that one media report described this man as now being a 'PKR leader'...

PKR leader Chua Jui Meng is baffled by Umno's by-stander attitude in not rising to the defence of embattled Transport Minister Ong Tee Keat.- Malaysiakini, 24/8/2009, Chua: It's baffling Umno not defending Ong

And, slightly more than a month ago, he was reported saying that he had no intention of leaving MCA...

When asked about joining PKR, he said he had been linked with such rumours for several years and claimed he was once approached by an opposition party.

However, he said he had no intention of leaving the MCA and would continue to fight for reforms within the party as stated in his election manifesto when he contested the MCA presidency in the party polls last year. - Star, 16/7/2009, Chua Jui Meng quits as Bakri MCA chief

And a day or so after that, he did join the PKR...let's now talk about honesty, integrity, etc...Or maybe not, for the important thing is that he has come over to PKR and the Pakatan Rakyat....

What about his people? Did they also follow him, quit MCA and join PKR? I have come across no such reports...[Remeber, this man stood for the Presidency of MCA in 2008, and lost "President: Ong Tee Keat won 1,429 votes vs Chua Jui Meng 917 votes"] Did his followers come over to PKR with him?

Anyway, looking at the recent Malaysiakini report, I believe that Chua Jui Meng has gotten over the fact that he is no more in MCA and the BN. He still seems to be hitting out at the person of Ong Tee Keat, the man who beat him at the last MCA elections... Remember, that the political battle that rages on in our country is a battle between MCA included BN and the Pakatan Rakyat. Thus, whether other BN leaders are supporting an embattled BN leader should not be an issue. The failure is BN's failure...full stop - not just the person named Ong Tee Keat, for if that is the case, then a resignation of Ong Tee Keat is all that is needed to resolve BN of its failing in the PKFZ issue ...I do not think so. The blame lies on the BN government ...past and present...and the call must be for the resignation of the BN government.

PKR leader Chua Jui Meng is baffled by Umno's by-stander attitude in not rising to the defence of embattled Transport Minister Ong Tee Keat.

Ong is facing attacks from within and outside his party MCA over the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) issue.

Chua, the former health minister, finds Umno's absolute silence over the crisis rather strange, which he described as un-Barisan Nasional like.

'Umno dominates and controls BN'.

"All these years, Umno leaders have come out in the open to defend their under-attack colleagues from component parties.

"But Umno's silence in Ong's case is deafening," he said, adding that scandal had cause public anxiety because it involved enormous sums of public funds.

This is the reason why, he said Umno leaders, who form the core of federal government leadership, cannot be so quiet about it.

"The prime minister (Najib Abdul Razak) did not defend his minister neither did the deputy premier (Muhyiddin Yassin).

"Did any other Umno minister defend Ong?

"The answer is no . . . not at all," Chua (left) said to newsmen after speaking at a dinner attended by some 2,000 people in Bukit Mertajam last night.

He said it was unprecedented for Umno leaders to just stand by and watch a defenceles Ong being subject to mounting attacks and pressure by his detractors over his handling of the Port Klang Free Zone scandal .

Punished for exposing truth

"Ong is the president of the second largest BN component party and no one from Umno is protecting him.

"I find it strange," said Chua, who lost is challenge for the MCA presidency to Ong in the party elections last October.

MCA president Ong is already facing a suit by Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd's (KDSB) chief executive officer and Bintulu parliamentarian Tiong King Sing over his outspoken and transparent handling of the PKFZ issue.

The suit, filed on Friday at the Kuala Lumpur High Court, claimed that Ong, the Port Klang Authority and its chairman, Lee Hwa Beng, had overstepped their authority by publishing the PriceWaterhouseCoopers report on PKFZ.

Ong (right) said despite Tiong's wild claims against him, the probe into the PKFZ scandal would continue.

The minister has also said that MCA central committee had unanimously supported his decision to sue Tiong, who claimed he had given RM10 million to Ong last year for party activities.

The MCA boss is expected to file the law suit against Tiong, the BN Nasional Backbenchers Club Chairperson, today.

Ong is also under attack from his deputy Dr Chua Soi Lek, who criticised his president for "dragging the party into a legal battle over his personal problem."

PKFZ, an integrated 400ha free commercial and industrial zone adjacent to Port Klang housing various facilities such as a warehouse, an office block and a four-star hotel, became embroiled in the controversy after it was revealed that the development cost had shot up from RM2.5 billion to RM4.6 billion.

The Port Klang Authority (PKA) had lodged a police report after a task force set up to investigate the controversy found billing discrepancies of between RM500 million and RM1 billion submitted by Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd, project turnkey contractor, and development contractor BTA Architects.

Chua complimented Ong for having the courage and determination to probe into PKFZ scandal despite being under pressure from various quarters.

"At least Ong is unafraid to expose the truth," he said.- Malaysiakini, 24/8/2009, Chua: It's baffling Umno not defending Ong

Now, tomorrow if Ong Tee Keat comes over and join the PKR...the day after, we will be calling him 'PKR leader'...or 'Pakatan Rakyat leader'.

I wonder if Ong Tee Keat were to quit as MCA President by reason of this PKFZ scandal or that other allegation about RM10 million, and there are calls within MCA for the return of Chua Jui Meng to take up the reigns of MCA...will Chua Jui Meng return to MCA...and the BN?

I wonder...we wonder...Has Chua Jui Meng really changed? Or is he just wearing a different uniform?

Why do they jump? Because there is little or no political future in MCA (or UMNO) anymore if they stay put in that party...and after all, if they jump to a party like PKR...they are instantaneously elevated to 'party leader'...and will most likely be getting a 'safe' seat to contest in the next elections...

This is the problem with politicians..., and we wonder who we can trust... Would just changing parties transform a person... suddenly make him a 'reformasi' person? Once you jump...it makes it all the more easier to jump again...and again...

GE's 'No Public Holiday' decision for people of Permatang Pasir to go out and vote...exercise their democratic rights is not very good.

Well, according to the Star report, there will be no public holiday for voters to go out and vote. That is why the Election Commission need to ensure that polling days fall on weekends or holidays.

I am a bit dissapointed with Guan Eng and the Pakatan Rakyat government with this decision - as it would definitely cause problem for many workers, who may want to go out an vote (or maybe even volunteer to be polling agents...counting agents...help in the transportation and other work for their candidates...). They may also need time to get their elderly parents to the polls..

During the economic crisis, when jobs are 'shaky' , many workers just do not want to do anything that may jeopardize their continuous employment in their company. Employers may be looking to retrench 10% and many just will not go vote to show that they are dedicated employees and should not be even considered by their employers in that group that may be retrenched... That is why a public holiday would have been good at this time.

What can Guan Eng and the Penang Government do if the employers do not allow their worker/s to go out and vote? What will Guan Eng and the Penang government do if the employer sacks the worker because he absents himself/herself as he went to vote? How are you going to encourage employers? The handling of the Kg Buah Pala issue clearly shows that the Penang Government does not even have much influence with their own state workers' cooperative (the 'alleged' owners)..or the Developer. That's why the only way one could have facilitated the full exercise of people's democratic rights come election day was by the declaration of a State public holiday.

There may be (or may be not) provisions in the law for the State Government to just declare it a public holiday for the registered voters in Permatang Pasir...

Maybe, absence from work for the purposes of exercising one's right to cast a vote...or to register oneself as a voter should be clearly stated as a justified reason for being absent from work, and this is something that the employer shall not use against the employee. It should be considered as paid leave (Proposals for the future).

Penang has decided not to declare tomorrow as a public holiday despite the fact it is polling for the Permatang Pasir state by-election.

Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng without specifying the reasons, said the state would encourage all employers to allow workers, who are registered in the Permatang Pasir constituency, to take the necessary time off to vote.

“Factory managements in the area, are also advised to change their production hours to allow their workers time to vote,” he said after accompanying Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to campaign in Kampung Paya. - Star, 24/8/2009, Tomorrow not a holiday, says Lim

Another 'shoot to kill' incident - 4 killed. Yahoo has this question now that need answers: Do you agree that Malaysian police tends to shoot to kill?

Another case of 'shoot to kill' - and 4 persons are shot dead...

Four Indonesian robbers were killed in a shoot out with police outside a quarry in Labu near here at 5.30am Monday.

All four aged between 25 and 40 had opened fire at police when a patrol car intercepted their vehicle forcing police to return fire. - Star, 24/8/2009, Four Indonesian robbers killed by police

See earlier post: Did the police try to arrest them...or did they just shoot to kill them? Extrajudicial killing must be condemned..

Note that what I am picking up are possibly just some of these incidents that get reported in media that caught my eye ... and the question that should be asked is how many people have been shot dead by the Malaysian police?

24/8/2009 - Star, 24/8/2009, Four Indonesian robbers killed by police

21/8/2009 - Star, 21/8/2009, Two robbers shot dead in Klang

11/8/2009 - - Star, 11/8/2009, Four wanted Indonesians killed by police

These are just some of the media reported 'extrajudicial killing' by the Malaysian police. How many people were really shot dead by the Malaysian police? Maybe some MP can ask these question in Parliament - as that seems the only way we can get answers in Malaysia.

It is really odd that we do not read many stories of people being shot and arrested...

The latest incident where 4 shot dead by what .... 2 police man in a patrol car...What was the patrol car doing there in the quarry? Was it really a police ambush? Questions...questions...

Guess what YAHOO has this question now, that people can give their opinion...

Do you agree that Malaysian police tends to shoot to kill?

PKR is the weakest link in the Pakatan Rakyat - now 1 PKR ADUN in Kedah has quit the party.

This is the problem with former BN people..... they just do not seem to be driven by principles and values...

For them, it is all about themselves....social mobility upwards...money...avoidance of criminal charges...etc.

PAS, DAP, PRM, PSM ....they are stronger in character...although DAP also lost 1 in Perak fight ...that Hee person.

Najib...the UMNO and the BN do not just use elections to win seats and political power ...all means are employed. They threaten people with criminal charges... They may even offer money...etc. But the blame lies with the Pakatan Rakyat ADUN or MP that 'crumbles' under these pressures.. Better for them just to resign ....and let the Rakyat choose another.

PKR is also doing the same as UMNO (and BN)...maybe even worse... They woo ex-BN people to jump over and straight away put them into the Supreme Council and project them as 'leaders' of PKR...PR...Reformasi... Zaid Ibrahim, Chua,... (Remember that UMNO ADUN in Perak that jumped over to PKR...and then in a few days jumped back to UMNO...taking along 2 PKR ADUNs and 1 DAP ADUN ...)

Lunas state assemblyman Mohd Radzhi Salleh who is also Kedah executive council member quit PKR citing loss of confidence in the party’s leadership.

He announced himself as an independent state assemblyman.

He, will however retain his Lunas seat as well as the state executive council post.-- Bernama - Star, 23/8/2009, Lunas rep quits as PKR member

Note that this ADUN has only left PKR...and not yet the Pakatan Rakyat. Maybe, he may join PAS or DAP...and just stay as an independent supporting PR...

We shall see...we shall see