1 May 2009 : Workers must defend all workers' rights - FWFO is so wrong...

1st May 2009 - Remembering that this is a day for all workers - and the importance for workers to come together in defence of all worker's rights, be they local or migrant workers, be they permanent or short-termed contract workers, ...all workers.

Media Statement – 14/3/ 2009

MALAYSIA’S ‘FOREIGN WORKERS FIRST OUT’ POLICY IS UNJUST, DISCRIMINATORY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL

We, the undersigned organizations, groups and networks, concerned about migrant and worker rights, are appalled at Malaysia’s unjust, discriminatory and unconstitutional anti-worker policy, known as ‘Foreign Workers First Out’ (FWFO) policy when it comes to retrenchment.

A recent Malaysian newspaper report read,“…Employers must retrench their foreign workers ahead of their Malaysian staff as they seek to weather the current economic slowdown, said Deputy Human Resource Minister Datuk Noraini Ahmad. She reiterated that employers should adopt the Government’s foreign worker first out (FWFO) principle…”(Star, 28/2/2009 - Retrench foreign workers first, employers told)

Whilst appreciating Malaysia’s concern for its own citizens’ employment, this should never excuse employers from fulfilling their contractual obligations to workers.

It is very wrong for the Malaysian government to compel/encourage employers in Malaysia to retrench their foreign workers first, before the expiration of the agreed duration of employment. Employers should have been fully aware of risks of economic crisis and other business risks, and as such there is no justification whatsoever of their breaching their employment agreements now.

It must also be appreciated that foreign workers do expend lots of monies, incur debts and make great sacrifices when they do decide to come over to Malaysia to work. These workers rely heavily on the representations of the employers and/or their agents especially with regards to wages and the length of period that they will be employed, before deciding to enter into employment agreements and coming over to Malaysia to work.

Employment agreements with migrant workers are usually for a period of 3 to 5 years, and it would be a great injustice if Malaysian employers are now encouraged and permitted to prematurely terminate this employment agreement, and send these foreign workers back to their home country.

Early termination of employment agreements for many a migrant worker means ending up in a far worse condition than when they first entered into employment agreements to come and work in Malaysia. This is a great injustice, and it is inhumane.

If there is going to be early termination of employment agreements which are for a minimum fixed period of employment, then the worker must be paid adequate compensation, at the very least basic wages for the remaining duration of their employment agreement. Usual termination and lay-off benefits paid to local workers will definitely not be just for a foreign migrant worker who is sent back to her country.

We also wish to state that this ‘Foreign Workers First Out’ (FWFO) policy and practice is unconstitutional, as it goes against Article 8 of the Malaysian Federal Constitution, whereby Article 8(1) clearly provides that 'All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law...', and there is nothing in the Constitution that permits discrimination against non-citizens, in favour of citizens, with regard to employment. Therefore, section 60N of the Employment Act 1955, which some use as the basis of FWFO practice is ultra vires the Federal Constitution, and as such is invalid.

We believe that it is better that migrant workers who are now in Malaysia who are or will be prematurely terminated be first used to fill up existing manpower needs, rather that bringing in new migrants.

We call on the Malaysian government to immediately stop this unjust, discriminatory and unconstitutional policy and practice, known as ‘Foreign Workers First Out’ (FWFO) principle.

We call on Malaysia to demand that all employers fulfill their contractual agreements with regard to all workers, including foreign workers. We hope that mechanisms are put in place to ensure that employers pay workers adequate and just compensation for any early termination of employment agreement.

Charles Hector

Pranom Somwong

for and on behalf of the following 59 organisations

ALIRAN, Malaysia

All Nepal Women's Association (ANWA) (Nepal)

Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)

Asia Pacific Mission for Migrants (APMM)

Asia Pacific Forum on Women Law and Development (APWLD)

Association of Indonesian Migrant Workers in Hong Kong

Association of Indonesian Migrant Workers in Jakarta

Bahrain Center for Human Rights

Building and Wood Workers International, Asia Pacific Region (BWI)

BOMSA Women Migrant's Association of Bangladesh

BRAC Advocacy and Human Rights Unit, Bangladesh

CARAM Cambodia

Citizens' Watch Network Sri Lanka

Civil Rights Committee - Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall

(CRC-KLSCAH), Malaysia

Committee for Asian Women (CAW)

Community Development Services (CDS), Colombo, Sri Lanka

Coordination Of Action Research on Aids &Mobility (CARAM-ASIA)

COVA (Confederation of Voluntary Associations), India

Empower Foundation, Thailand

Federation of Trade Unions – Burma (FTUB )

Global Alliance against Traffic in Women (GAATW)

Hope Workers’ Center, Taiwan

IMA Research Foundation Bangladesh

Institute for Migrant Workers (IWORK), Indonesia

International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development (INFID)

Kav LaOved (Worker's Hotline), Israel

Lawyers for Human Rights and Legal Aid (LHRLA) Pakistan

Legal Support for Children and Women (LSCW), Cambodia

MADPET (Malaysians against Death Penalty and Torture)

MAP Foundation for the Health and Knowledge Of Ethnics Labour, Thailand

Messrs Charles Hector, Malaysia

Mindanao Migrants Center for Empowering Actions, Inc. (MMCEAI), Philippines

Migrant CARE (Perhimpunan Indonesia untuk Buruh Migran Berdaulat)

Migrant Services Centre – NWC, Sri Lanka

Multi National Women's Organization of Burma ( MNWOB)

Myanmar Refugee Volunteer Group (MRVG)

National Alliance of Women Human Rights Defenders (NAWHRD), Nepal

Nepal Institute of Development Studies (NIDS)

Network of Action for Migrants in Malaysia (NAMM)

Nijera Kori, Bangaladesh

Ovibashi Karmi Unnayan Program( OKUP), Bangaladesh

Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM)

Persatuan Masyarakat Selangor & Wilayah Persekutuan (PERMAS), Malaysia

Pusat Khidmat Pekerja Tanjung (PKPT), Malaysia

Raks Thai Foundation, Thailand

Safe Migration Facilitation Center Advocacy & Human Rights Unit, Bangladesh

Solidaritas Perempuan, Indonesia

St. John's Cathedral HIV Education Centre, Hong Kong

Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)

The Action Network for Migrant Workers (ACTFORM), Sri Lanka

The Development Action for Women Network (DAWN), Philippines

The Prevention of HIV/AIDS among Migrant Workers in Thailand

Project (PHAMIT)

Transient Workers Count Too, Singapore

United for Foreign Domestic Workers Rights (UFDWRs)

United Indonesians against Overcharging (PILAR-HK), Hong Kong

WARBE Development Foundation, Bangladesh

Writer Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI), Malaysia

Women's Rehabilitation Centre (WOREC), Nepal

Workers Hub 4 Change (WH4C)

* Updated with additional signatories (as at 23/3/2009)

If you earn more than 'RM157-00' per month, you are not poor in Malaysia?

They cheat...to paint a better picture of Malaysia - a prosperous Malaysia where wealth is equitably distributed and there are no more poor and suffering...

One trick of reducing poverty - is to either bring down the Poverty Income Line - or to keep at at unrealistic low. In Semenanjung, a family of 4.6, earning a monthly income of more than RM720-00 is not poor - hence in 2007, Malaysia's poverty rate is only 3.6%.

'..if a PLI of RM1,000 were to be employed, then 8.6 percent of households would be poor instead of the 3.6 percent as claimed by the authorities. If a PLI of RM1,500 is used, then one-fifth of Malaysians are mired in poverty, or a total of 1.2 million households...' - 20%.

Who is poor and what is considered poor? Jayanath Appudurai writing for the Centre for Policy Initiatives quoted government statistics that in 2007, Malaysia’s poverty rate was 3.6 percent – an admirably low figure.

Jaya writes that this Poverty Line Income [PLI] is determined by the government itself. Malaysia’s PLI stipulates that a household – comprising 4.6 people – in the Peninsula earning more than RM720 a month is not deemed impoverished.

However if a PLI of RM1,000 were to be employed, then 8.6 percent of households would be poor instead of the 3.6 percent as claimed by the authorities. If a PLI of RM1,500 is used, then one-fifth of Malaysians are mired in poverty, or a total of 1.2 million households.

Is the government baseline of RM720 a realistic figure to sustain a family of four-and-a-half persons, Jaya questions?

(To sidetrack slightly, the roughly RM157 – as stated by Malaysia for each individual to minimally survive a month on – is not enough to pay for a Children one-day entry ticket to Paris Disneyland which costs RM182.) - Malaysiakini, 9/4/2009, Placating Kugan's ghost - Helen Ang

Well, an interesting New Straits Times report highlighted that with an income of RM800, it is very difficult for a family of 5 to survive. Note that these were stories from Penang, where rental is definitely so much low compared to KL and the Klang Valley (Where now, the lowest rental for small flat is already more than RM720.

From Gombak to PJ only by LRT cost you RM2-50 one way - so if you work beside the LRT station, i.e. not taking any other mode of ppublic transport, you need RM100-00 to go to and come baclk from work.

Life's a struggle for these two families

- Adie Suri Zulkefli

Siti Joyah Mohamed (left) finds it hard to support her two school children Mohd Norshahidan and Siti Syamini as she has lost her job as a helper at a foodcourt.

KEPALA BATAS: Can a family of five survive on RM800 a month?

Zaini Majurat is supporting her three younger daughters’ studies with help from her eldest daughter, who works as a clerk.

Zaini Majurat, 45, from Kampung Permatang Keriang and her four children have been doing so since January.

The housewife, whose husband Jamil Din died in a traffic accident in 1996, gets RM200 from the Welfare Services Department monthly.

With this and the RM600 a month that her eldest daughter Juriah, 22, earns as a clerk, Zaini has been supporting her two schoolgoing children Juita, 18, and Siti Zubaidah, 16.

She also has to finance her second daughter Juliani, who is studying at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia in Johor Baru.

Zaini resigned from her job as a production operator three years ago after undergoing heart surgery.

"Juriah has been sacrificing a lot to support her younger siblings," she said.

Their dilapidated village home is, however, looking better after a makeover last year by the Federal Government through the Penang Regional Development Authority (Perda).

The story of Siti Joyah Mohamed, 49, and her five children from Kampung Bakar Kapor is similar to Zaini's.

Siti Joyah's family lives on a monthly allowance of RM250 from the state Pusat Urus Zakat (PUZ). Her third daughter Siti Rohaida, 19, who is studying for a diploma at Kolej Professional Mara in Malacca, gets a RM260 monthly allowance from Mara.

Siti Joyah's problems began began two years ago after her husband, Zahimi Saud, a satay seller, died from hypertension and diabetes at the age of 45.

Two of her older children had married since then.

It is a struggle every day for Siti Joyah to feed and pay the schooling costs of Mohd Norshahidan, 15, and Siti Syamini, 8.

"The money is hardly enough. To survive, Siti Rohaida sometimes has to depend on sympathy from her friends for meals," said a tearful Siti Joyah yesterday.

To further complicate matters, she lost her job as a helper at a foodcourt in Bertam as the employer could no longer afford to pay the staff.

There are also her mounting debts, including her house rent of RM170 which was not paid since October.

The Federal Government recently donated a freezer to Siti Joyah so that she could re-start her late husband's business. But Siti Joyah failed to raise adequate capital to keep the business afloat.

With the help of Penaga assemblyman Datuk Azhar Ibrahim, she filed an application with the state Welfare Services Department for aid but had not heard from them ever since.

"They came two months ago and took down some details, but I have not heard anything from them," she said.- New Straits Times, 1/4/2009, Life's a struggle for these two families

A more reasonable and logical poverty line income must be fixed, and Malaysia have to acknowlwedge reality as it is, and go about overcoming poverty.

Preoccupied is Malaysia, in the equitable share between the different ethnic communities - that we forget the poor in Malaysia.

It is so bad that Malaysia has the distinction of being the country with the worst income disparity in Southeast Asia.

According to United Nations Human Development Report 2004, the richest 10 percent in Malaysia earn 22 times more than the poorest 10 percent, resulting in the country having one of the worst income disparity in Asia.

The 9th Malaysia Plan report released today said that the country’s Gini coefficient - a measurement for income disparity - has worsened from 0.452 in 1999 to 0.462 in 2004.

“The income share of the bottom 40 percent of households decreased from 14 percent in 1999 to 13.5 percent in 2004 while the top 20 percent of households increased from 50.5 percent to 51.2 percent.” - Malaysiakini, 31/3/2006 - ‘Worrisome’ gap between rich and poor

Malaysia’s top 10 percent of the population is 22.1 times richer than the poorest 10 percent. The country’s income gap is higher than Singapore (17.7 times), the Philippines (16.5), Thailand (13.4), Vietnam (8.4) and Indonesia (7.8). - Malaysiakini, 2/2/2005, M’sia has worst income disparity in SEA, gov’t flayed

What is important for me is that there be equitable distribution of wealth (and benefits) between all human persons in Malaysia..

Do not talk to me about how the wealth is shared between the various ethnic groupings - I want to know whether the wealth of the nation is shared equitably amongst Malaysian families and individuals...


** see also earlier posts, including Using Concepts, Policy and Race/Religion to distract questioning of the inequity an injustices in Malaysia.

Open Independent Inquiry into all deaths in custody ...allegation of Bangladeshi 'tortured to death' by detaining authorities.

As a matter of recent Malaysian policy, deaths of persons whilst in the custody of the police brings about an inquiry into the death (inquests) - and similarly, we must also start inquests for all deaths in custody.

Deaths may have been caused by physical torture, misadventure or by sheer negligence on the part of the authority (them public servants or the volunteers in RELA). Not providing adequate healthcare, so as to result in suffering and death is also very wrong - and we remember 1,300 died foreigners died in detention in the past 6 years for this very reason. The Malaysian government is responsible - and, I believe, can be sued.

ABOUT 1,300 illegal foreigners have died during detention in the past six years, Malaysia Nanban quoted Malaysian Human Rights (Suhakam) commissioner Datuk N. Siva Subramaniam as saying.

He said many of them died in immigration detention centres, prisons and police lockups because they were denied medical treatment at the right time.

He proposed that a doctor and a medical assistant be appointed in each detention camp and prison which should have the necessary facilities to transfer sick prisoners to hospitals during an emergency.

He said detention camps now have appointed doctors who make regular visits.

He also said that Suhakam had submitted a memorandum to the Government proposing the appointment of a doctor to visit police stations to monitor the health of suspects held in lockups. - Star, 18/12/2008 - 1,300 foreign detainees died due to neglect

Healthcare must be made a priority and a mandatory obligation for all. See earlier post :-SUHAKAM: "...denial of medical attention.. a serious violation of that person’s right to life..."

In the event of a death - there must always be an independent inquiry - an inquest (that is open to the public)

SUHAKAM has the authority to conduct 'spot checks' at detention centres - and it must start doing this more often, and coming out with reports. We just do not beliekve the detaining authority's reasons for deaths of detainees anymore. Independent and open inquiry...please.

Everyone likes to highlight matters - but little is done when it comes to follow-ups.

A reason statement by 15 organisations again highlights deaths in custody....poor detention conditions...

Joint Press Statement

Deaths and Conditions of Detention of Migrants and Refugees

24 April 2009

On 19 April 2009, a Bangladeshi newspaper reported that a Bangladeshi migrant worker, Ikhtiar, died in Lenggeng Immigration Detention Centre days after being tortured by the Malaysian police[1]. Three days later, on 22 April 2009, The New Straits Times reported that a 25-year-old Liberian detainee was found dead in the same detention centre.

This year, (then Home Minister) Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar reported to Parliament a total of 2,571 deaths of detainees in prisons, rehabilitation centres and immigration detention centres between 1999 and 2008. He attributed these deaths to illnesses (including HIV/AIDS, septicaemia, tuberculosis, cancer, heart and blood diseases, and asthma) as well as fights and suicides.

We, the undersigned organizations, are deeply concerned by these deaths in detention.

We have highlighted repeatedly the poor conditions of detention in immigration detention centres, which include overcrowding, poor sanitation, insufficient provision of food and water, and inadequate access to necessary medical and health services (including emergency care, treatment for chronic medical conditions, infectious diseases such as tuberculosis and HIV, and maternal health services).

We have lodged reports to SUHAKAM about other specific cases of physical abuse, torture and beatings that occur in detention. A year ago, for example, the Bar Council Human Rights Committee, Tenaganita and SUARAM submitted a joint memorandum to SUHAKAM concerning the severe beating of nine detainees by Immigration officers on 20 April 2008 at Lenggeng Immigration Detention Centre, which prompted riots by fellow detainees. Witnesses testified that a detainee was beaten so badly that he was frothing at the mouth and could not walk.

We remain deeply concerned that particularly vulnerable individuals are not provided adequate protection and care in detention, specifically that:

a) Unaccompanied minors are not separated from adults, which increases significantly their vulnerabilty to abuse;

b) Refugees and stateless persons not yet documented by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) at the point of arrest are not allowed access to UNHCR officials. Due to lack of intervention, a number have been whipped and deported, putting them in danger of refoulement;

c) Detainees in need of medical attention – including pregnant women, the physically and mentally ill, those with chronic medical conditions and/or infectious diseases, as well as trafficked persons – are not provided with adequate, timely care

Malaysia’s Obligations

As a member of the United Nations, the Human Rights Council and ASEAN, Malaysia is responsible for promoting and protecting the human rights of all peoples in its territory, including non-citizens.

Malaysia is prohibited by peremptory norms of international law from:

(i) subjecting an individual to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and

(ii) refouling an individual to a place where s/he would be at risk of such mistreatment or other mistreatment which would qualify the individual as a refugee.

Recommendations

In line with these concerns, we call for SUHAKAM to:

1. Conduct a comprehensive and independent inquiry into all deaths in detention, with full public disclosure of the names, nationalities and causes of death of the detainees by the government.

2. Increase vigilance in fulfilling its mandate to monitor detention conditions, safeguarding, in particular, the rights of women and children in detention in accordance with recommendations by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW Committee) and the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC Committee) in their concluding observations on Malaysia dated 31 May 2006 and 2 February 2007 respectively

We call for the Malaysian Government to:

3. Review immigration policies and practices concerning migrants and refugees to eliminate unnecessary and unjust detention, which contributes to overcrowding and concomitant strain in resources. These include the detention of: documented migrant workers, migrant workers awaiting the outcome of court judgments, asylum seekers and refugees, infants, children, pregnant women, trafficked persons, the physically and mentally ill, and other vulnerable migrants.

4. Comply with recommendations of CRC Committee who urge the government to: “Take urgent measures not to detain children in connection with immigration proceedings, unless it is necessary to protect their best interests and for the shortest time possible, and establish a screening process to ensure that groups with special needs, such as refugees and asylum-seekers, including their children, are rapidly identified…”

5. Note the concern of the CEDAW Committee that “asylum-seekers and refugees, including women, are prosecuted for immigration- related offences and may be indefinitely detained at immigration detention centres or deported” and comply with their recommendation to: “adopt laws and regulations relating to the status of asylum-seekers and refugees in Malaysia, in line with international standards, in order to ensure protection for asylum seekers and refugee women and their children.”

6. Ensure that detention complies with international standards and guidelines, including the:

· 1955 UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (UN Economic and Social Council Resolution 2076)

· 1985 UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (‘The Beijing Rules’, UN General Assembly Resolution 40/33, of 29 November 1985)

· 1988 Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment (UN General Assembly Resolution 43/173, of December 9, 1988)

· 1990 Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners (UN General Assembly Resolution 45/111, of 14 December 1990)

· 1990 UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (‘The Havana Rules’, UN General Assembly Resolution 45/113, of 14 December 1990)

7. Ratify international conventions, as recommended by the CEDAW and CRC Committees and the Human Rights Council through the Universal Periodic Review Process held on 11 February 2009, in particular the:

· 1984 International Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane and Degrading Treatment or Punishment

· 1990 International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families

· 1951 Convention Related to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol

Endorsed by the following members of the Migration Working Group (MWG) and the Northern Network for Migrants and Refugees (Jaringan Utara Migrasi dan Pelarian, JUMP):

1. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)

2. Persatuan Kebangsaan Hak Asasi Manusia (HAKAM)

3. Amnesty International Malaysia (AIM)

4. Tenaganita (Women’s Force)

5. Coordination of Action Research on AIDS and Mobility, Asia (CARAM Asia)

6. Malaysian Bar Council Human Rights Committee

7. Legal Aid Centre, Kuala Lumpur

8. Malaysian Social Research Institute (MSRI)

9. Malaysian Trade Union Congress (MTUC)

10. Health Equity Initiatives (HEI)

11. Justice, Peace and Solidarity in Mission, The Good Shepherd Sisters

12. Nepali Sangati Penang

13. IMA Research Foundation, Bangladesh

14. Penang Office for Human Development (POHD)

15. Women’s Aid Organisation

---

[1]The Daily Star, ‘Bangladeshi tortured to death in Malaysia’, 19 April 2009.

US Senate beat Malaysia in acting on the 'corruption and refugee' allegations

There are many refugees and asylum seekers in Malaysia today - FACT.

These refugees come mainly from Burma (Myanmar), Southern Thailand, Southern Philippines,...

Refugees normally just run for their life and liberty, and this means that many would have not left their country 'legally' or entered Malaysia "legally". Most will not even have passports.

How many refugees are there? Between 100,000 to 400,000...we really do not know.

Malaysia treats many of these refugees as undocumented migrant workers - but really they are not. They are refugees and asylum seekers, and they should be seen as such.

Remember Malaysia has 2.4 million documented migrant workers [and maybe another 3-5 million undocumented migrants]

The problem today is the UNHCR - who only registers refugees, and let them go. Where would they get money for food and board? Where would they stay? With the Vietnamese refugees in the 70s and 80s, there were UNHCR Refugee Camps where the refugees stay until they are sent to a third country...(or until they were sent back to Vietnam...)

UNHCR controls the branding of persons who are refugees - but alas, they too have their prejudices and politics.

I believe that the Malaysian Government should take on the role of giving recognition as refugees/asylum seekers. In fact, State Governments can also do so - maybe Pakatan Rakyat should start...

Of late, over and above the hardships that these migrants suffer - there was news about Malaysian officials involved in asking for money, and if not they will be 'sold' like slaves...Allegations have been made sometime ago - but alas, Malaysia have been slow to act, to investigate, to act against those errant officers, and put a stop to it.

Shame - shame Malaysia - for some US Senate Committee have looked into it before us - and have released a damning report...

It should have been SUHAKAM, some Parliamentary Select Committee, some Commission of Inquiry in Malaysia ....

Malaysia must now look into this and act against the perpetrators ...(but we may be hoping for too much, for Najib just appointed person/s found guilty for 'corruption' or corrupt practice into the UMNO Supreme Council. So serious was the wrong that the Disciplinary Committee did not stop at a stern warning but barred him from contesting for the No.2 post in UMNO.)

Appointed Supreme Council members:

- Datuk Kamilia Ibrahim (Wanita)

- Datuk Razali Ibrahim (Youth)

- Dr Wan Norashikin Wan Nordin (Puteri)

- Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim

- Datuk Seri Nazri Abd Aziz

- Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom

- Raja Nong Chik Raja Zainal Abidin

- Datuk Seri Mohd Ali Rustam

- Tan Sri Rafidah Aziz

- Datuk Abdul Ghani Othman

- Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim - Star, 24/4/2009, Umno to hold special assembly to amend constitution

So, is Malaysia capable of doing anything with regard to this issue...

WASHINGTON, Apr 23 (IPS) - The mistreatment of Burmese migrants, asylum seekers and refugees in Malaysia is the focus of a report released Thursday by the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

After receiving disturbing reports of trafficking in 2007, committee staff conducted a year-long review of the allegations. The report, "Trafficking and Extortion of Burmese Migrants in Malaysia and Southern Thailand," is based on first person accounts of extortion and trafficking in Malaysia and along the Malaysia-Thailand border. Committee information comes from experiences of Burmese refugees resettled in the United States and other countries.

Many Burmese migrants, escaping extensive human rights abuses perpetrated by the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) and the Burmese military junta, travel to Malaysia to register with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), for resettlement to a third country, according to the report.

Once in Malaysia, Burmese migrants are often arrested by Malaysian authorities, whether or not they have registered with the UNHCR and have identification papers. Burmese migrants are reportedly taken by Malaysian government personnel from detention facilities to the Malaysia-Thailand border for deportation.

Upon arrival at the Malaysia-Thailand border, human traffickers reportedly take possession of the migrants and issue ransom demands on an individual basis. Migrants state that freedom is possible only once money demands are met. Specific payment procedures are outlined, which reportedly include bank accounts in Kuala Lumpur to which money should be transferred.

It has become commonplace for the authorities to use the vigilante RELA force to periodically arrest and "deport" Rohingyas, a Muslim minority, but since Burma does not recognise them as citizens, the practise is to take them to the Bukit Kayu Hitam area on the Thai-Malaysia border and force them to cross over into Thailand.

Migrants state that those unable to pay are turned over to human peddlers in Thailand, representing a variety of business interests from fishing boats to brothels.

Human rights activists have long charged that immigration, police and other enforcement officials, have been "trading" Rohingyas to human traffickers in Thailand who then pass them on to deep sea fishing trawler operators in the South China Sea.

"People seeking refuge from oppression in Burma are being abused by Malaysian government officials and human traffickers," said Elaine Pearson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch.

The committee has received numerous reports of sexual assaults against Burmese women by human traffickers along the border. One non-profit organisation official states that "Most young women deported to the Thai border are sexually abused, even in front of their husbands, by the syndicates, since no one dares to intervene as they would be shot or stabbed to death in the jungle." Women are generally sold into the sex industry.

"(The Burmese refugees) are treated as a commodity and frequently bought and sold and we have been condemning this practise for a long time," Irene Fernandez, executive director of Tenaganita, a non-profit group that protects migrant workers, told IPS in January. "Our demands have always fallen on deaf ears despite the accumulating evidence of the involvement of uniformed officials in the trade."

The report, the first of three, states that Malaysia does not officially recognise refugees, due in part to concern by the government that official recognition of refugees would encourage more people to enter Malaysia, primarily for economic reasons. Also, Malaysian officials view migrants as a threat to Malaysia’s national security.

"Malaysia does not recognise key international agreements on the protection of refugees and foreign nationals. Nor does it apply to foreign migrants the same rights and legal protections given to Malaysian citizens," Fernandez said.

Foreign labor is an integral building block of Malaysia’s upward economic mobility. While Malaysia’s total workforce is 11.3 million, there are approximately 2.1 million legal foreign workers and an additional one million illegal workers, though no accurate information is available.

While Malaysia accepts the presence of Burmese and others from outside of the country for the purpose of contributing to the work force, persons identified as refugees and asylum seekers on their way to a third country are viewed as threats to national security.

In an interview with The New York Times, RELA’s director-general, Zaidon Asmuni, said, "We have no more Communists at the moment, but we are now facing illegal immigrants. As you know, in Malaysia, illegal immigrants are enemy No. 2."

Many of the approximately 40,000 Burmese refugees who have resettled in the United States since 1995 have come via Malaysia.

In August 2008, committee staff met separately with officials in Malaysia’s immigration department and the prime minister’s office, to convey the committee’s concern regarding the extortion and trafficking allegations. Immigration Director-General Datuk Mahmood Bin Adam and long-time immigration enforcement official Datuk Ishak Haji Mohammed denied the allegations of mistreatment against Burmese migrants at the hands of immigration and other Malaysian officials.

As reported recently in the Malaysia Star, "Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar also denied claims that thousands of illegal foreigners held at detention centres were 'being sold off' to human trafficking syndicates. ‘I take offence with the allegation because neither the Malaysian Government nor its officials make money by selling people.’"

However, according to the report, on Apr. 1, 2009, Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan stated that an investigation has been launched.

The flow of refugees from Burma to Thailand, Malaysia and other countries has cost Burma’s neighbours millions of dollars in food and humanitarian assistance. The committee calls on officials of impacted ASEAN countries to measure the financial cost of hosting refugees displaced from Burma, and to request financial compensation from Burma’s military junta for costs incurred in caring for the refugees.

It asks the government of Malaysia to address the trafficking, selling and slavery of Burmese and other migrants within Malaysia and across its border with Thailand. As a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), Malaysia is urged to consider alternatives to detention for refugees and asylum seekers, especially for women and children.

"Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak should act on this U.S. Senate report to protect the rights of refugees and victims of human trafficking," said HRW’s Pearson.

The report advises the U.S., in coordination with other donor countries, to continue providing funds to facilitate sharing of information on human trafficking among authorities of Thailand and Malaysia; and to provide technical and other assistance to the governments of Malaysia and Thailand so that the trafficking of Burmese and other migrants may be more actively pursued and prosecuted. - IPS, 23/4/2009, MALAYSIA: Burmese Refugees "Treated Like a Commodity"

Back home, Malaysiakini reported that pressure is again on Najib to do the right thing..

There is mounting pressure for newly-minted Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to take action in the wake of a damning United States Senate report on human trafficking in Malaysia.

MCPX

New York-based Human Rights Watch has called on Najib “to protect the rights of refugees and victims of human trafficking.”

Meanwhile, veteran parliamentarian Lim Kit Siang urged the government to respond to allegations that Malaysian officials are complicit in the human trafficking of refugees.

“This is not only most damaging to Malaysia’s international image but raises also grave questions about Malaysia’s human rights commitment in Asean,” said Lim.

Two days ago, the US Senate released a report which once again put Malaysia under the spotlight on its long-standing problem of human trafficking.

The report was the result of investigations prompted by allegations of the trafficking of thousands of Burmese refugees in Malaysia who were held in detention centres around the country.

They were deported to the Thailand-Malaysia border, where they were extorted for up to RM2,000 each in return for safe journey back to Malaysia.

According to the report, as many as 10 percent of these refugees never made it back to Malaysia because of their inability to pay their ransom and were sold to human peddlers.

The male refugees were mainly sold as slaves into fishing industries, factories, plantations, while the female refugees were either sold as sex or domestic workers. There was no documentation on the fate of children.

‘Most young women deported to the Thai border are sexually abused, even in front of their husbands, by the syndicates, since no one dares to intervene as they would be shot or stabbed to death in the jungle,’’ an NGO worker was quoted by the report.

The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations which produced the report, titled ‘Trafficking and Extortion of Burmese Migrants in Malaysia and Southern Thailand’, comprised 18 senators led by former Democrat US presidential candidate John Kerry.

Gov’t officials in cohort with traffickers

In addition, the report cited troubling allegations of Malaysian officials - including Immigration Department officials, police and Ikatan Relawan Rakyat (Rela) officials - colluding with human traffickers for personal gain.

“Burmese migrants are reportedly taken by Malaysian government personnel from detention facilities to the Malaysia-Thailand border for deportation. Upon arrival at the Malaysia-Thailand border, human traffickers reportedly take possession of the migrants and issue ransom demands on an individual basis,” said the report.

“Migrants state that freedom is possible only once money demands are met. Specific payment procedures are outlined, which reportedly include bank accounts in Kuala Lumpur to which money should be transferred.

“The committee was informed that on some occasions, the ‘attendance’ list reviewed by traffickers along the border was identical to the attendance list read prior to departure from the Malaysian detention facilities.”

The matter was of interest to the US because the approximately 40,000 Burmese refugees that have resettled in Malaysia since 1995 came mainly from Malaysia.

Currently, Malaysia has not acceded to both the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol on Refugee, and does not officially recognise refugees, although the government allows the United Nations High Commissioner (UNHCR) to carry out registration and resettlement of refugees.

The report also criticised Rela for possessing too much power and noted allegations of their aggressive treatment towards refugees, including arresting and detaining refugees regardless of UNHCR documentation.

Under the 2005 Malaysian Securities Regulation, the volunteer corps allows members to arrest and detain suspected illegal immigrants, enter premises without a search warrant, bear firearms and demand documents.

First-hand accounts of extortion

The report also quoted first-hand accounts of trafficking and extortion.

One victim recounted how he received threats that he would be beaten, shot and killed if he was unable to pay up his ransom.

Another victim described that he was taken to Thailand-Malaysia border twice by Malaysian immigration officials and forced to pay RM3,000 for his release on both occasions.

“When we arrived at the Thai border, it was already dark. The Thai agents were already there when we arrived at the border river bank. The agents took us to Thailand by boat. The city we arrived in was [deleted]. We were there for about a week. The Thai agent gave us very bad meals, they fed us twice a day.

“They asked us to contact our friends and family who live in Kuala Lumpur. My friend sent RM1,500 to Hat Yai from Kuala Lumpur by [deleted] Bank. After they received the money, I was sent back to Kuala Lumpur. After a week, I was arrested again and sent to the Thai border again.’’

One was told that inability to pay ransom would result in him being sold to Thai agents to work in the sea as a fisherman without pay.

Many others noted that they were returned to Malaysia after their friends in Kuala Lumpur paid up their ransom.

Nevertheless, the committee credited the Malaysian government for allowing UNHCR to carry out refugee protection and assistance activities since 1975.

The report also revealed that on April 1, police chief Musa Hassan announced that the police has started investigations on allegations of extortion and human trafficking of Burmese refugees.

Recommendations for Malaysia

In its list of recommendations, the report suggested that relevant governments and organisations request for financial compensation from Burma’s military junta for costs incurred in caring for refugees.

Government, police and anti-corruption officials were also implored to address the trafficking selling and slavery of refugees, assist victims of trafficking within the country.

In addition, they were encouraged to consider alternatives to detention for refugees and asylum seekers, especially women and children.

Lastly, the report appealed for unhindered access for UNHCR officials to all facilities within the country where refugees are detained so that they may carry out registration work, and for the abolishment of Rela.

As of now, there are approximately 87,000 Burmese refugees in Malaysia who fled Burma because of ethnic and political persecution by the military junta.

Of these, only 57,000 are registered, with the majority being Chins (25,000) and Rohingya Muslims (16,000), and the remainders including ethnic Arakanese, Kachin, Karen, Shan and Mon.

However, despite the release of the scathing report, the authorities have not let up on their effort to round up refugees.

“The Malaysian authorities rounded up and detained some 300 migrants, including small children, during raids in the Imbi neighborhood of Kuala Lumpur late Wednesday night,” lamented advocacy officer Amy Alexander from California-based Chin Human Rights Organization.

Kennedy Lal Ram Lian, coordinator of the Chin Refugee Centre in Kuala Lumpur, said: “No one has been released - not even UNHCR card holders. More than 10 Chin detainees are UNHCR-recognised refugees awaiting resettlement to a third country. If they are deported to the border, they are at risk of being sold to traffickers.”

Government in denial

Meanwhile, opposition parliamentarian Lim has sought a meeting with government leaders to discuss the controversy.

“The Malaysian Parliamentary Caucus on Myanmar will convene a meeting on the (US Senate) report and seek a meeting with Najib and the new foreign minister, Anifah Aman.”

However, his parliamentary colleague Charles Santiago (right) is pessimistic that action would be taken.

“Instead of acting on these recommendations ... ministers would categorically deny the report, rubbishing it as an attempt to discredit the government,” predicted the Klang MP from DAP.

After all, former home minister Syed Hamid Albar had denied such claims before.

“I take offence with the allegation because neither the Malaysian government nor its officials make money by selling people,” he was quoted to have said.

Santiago said he had repeatedly raised the issue in Parliament.

“They would sing the same rhetoric of having carried out an investigation on the immigration officers and found them to be squeaky clean.”

The MP nevertheless called on new Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein to open a new investigation on the matter. - Malaysiakini, 25/4/2009, Najib told to act on damning trafficking report

PRM has declared their decision to contest in the Penanti by-elections

Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM) may be last of the truly opposition parties...as PAS, DAP and PKR can more claim that as they are government in 4 (maybe 5 States).

PRM has declared its intention to contest in the Penanti By-Elections....and maybe they will be make a better opposition to the Pakatan Rakyat government of Penang, compared to the BN. What do you think?

Parti Rakyat Malaysia

21B(F) Jalan SJ 6

Taman Selayang Jaya

68100 Batu Caves

Selangor

Kenyataan Media: 24-04-09

PRM akan bertanding pilihanraya kecil Penanti

Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM) telah memutuskan untuk bertanding dalam pilihan raya kecil Penanti nanti.

Biro Politik Parti Rakyat Malaysia dalam mesyuarat baru-baru ini telah meneliti perkembagan politik tanahair selepas PRU ke-12 dan muktahir, organisasi parti serta calon yang akan dikemukakan dalam PRK Penanti.

PRM berkesimpulan bahawa PRK Penanti adalah satu pilihan raya kecil biasa, penyertaan PRM dalam PRK Penanti kali ini akan memanfaatkan rakyat dan menurut lunas kewujudan PRM sebagai sebuah pertubuhan berdaftar yang ditubuhkan sejak 1955 oleh pejuang-pejuang kemerdekaan iaitu Ahmad Boestamam, Dr. Burhanuddin dan Haji Ishak Mohamad (Pak Sako) di negara ini.

Keputusan Biro Politik PRM ini selaras dengan ketetapan Jawatankuasa Pusat PRM yang dibuat sebaik sahaja pimpinan baru mengambil-alih kepimpinan PRM setelah pucuk pimpinan lama beramai-ramai meninggalkan PRM dan memasuki parti lain.

Ketetapan PRM ialah PRM akan menyertai semua bahagian pilihan raya umum dan mana-mana pilihan raya kecil akan datang.

Yang benar,

(Koh Swe Yong)

Setiausaha Agung

Should the courts be deciding as to who can call God "Allah"?

Well, the court has granted leave - and this means that the courts will now decide who can use the word 'Allah'...

The Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur was given leave by the High Court today to quash the Home Ministry's decision prohibiting the use of the word "Allah" in the Herald Catholic Weekly.

MCPX

Archbishop Murphy Nicholas Xavier Pakiam was also granted leave to apply for nine declarations, including to declare that the decision of Home Ministry and the government of Malaysia was illegal and ultra vires the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984.

According to Bernama, his counsel, S Selvarajah, told reporters that Justice Lau Bee Lan granted the leave under Order 53 of the Rules of the High Court in chambers.

Senior federal counsel Suzana Atan, for the ministry and government, did not object to the application.

Lau also fixed May 28 to hear the application for a stay of the Home Ministry's decision.

On Feb 16, this year, Murphy, as publisher of the Herald, filed for a judicial review to quash the decision of the respondents dated Jan 7, 2009 that the applicant's publication permit for the period Jan 1, 2009 until Dec 31, 2009, is subject to the condition that he be prohibited from using the word "Allah" in the Herald.

Seven declarations

The other seven declarations sought are:

1. That the applicant has the constitutional right to use the word "Allah" in the Herald in the exercise of his right that other religions other than Islam may be practised in peace.

2. That Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution does not empower the respondents to prohibit the applicant from using the word "Allah" in the Herald.

3. That the applicant has the constitutional right to use the word "Allah" in the weekly in the exercise of his right to freedom of speech and expression.

4. That the applicant has the constitutional right to use the word "Allah" in the Herald in the exercise of his freedom of religion which includes the right to manage its own religious affairs.

5. That the applicant has the constitutional right to use the word "Allah" in the Herald in the exercise his right in respect of education of the Catholic congregation in the Christian religion.

6. That the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 does not authorise the respondents to prohibit the applicant from using the word "Allah" in the Herald and

7. That the word "Allah" is not exclusive to the religion of Islam. - Malaysiakini, 24/4/2009, Court grants leave to review word 'Allah' in Herald

Malaysia wants death sentence to be commuted to life imprisonment..

We need to abolish the Death Penalty in Malaysia.

We need to immediately commute all executions in Malaysia - in compliance with the UN General Assembly Resolutions of 2007, and 2008..

On 18 December 2007, the UN General Assembly endorsed a resolution calling for "a moratorium on executions" by an overwhelming majority: 104 votes in favour, 54 against and 29 abstentions. - RESOLUTION 62/149

On 18 December 2008, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a second resolution calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty.- see earlier post :- Malaysia executes - hours after passing of 2nd UN Resolution asking for stop of all executions

All death sentences should be commuted to life imprisonment in Malaysia...just like what the Malaysian government is now asking for China to do for a Malaysian.

The Malay-sian Government has sent an appeal to its Chinese counterpart for Ong Kim Fatt, who is on death row in China, to be granted clemency, Deputy Foreign Minister Datuk Lee Chee Leong said.

“We have sent a letter to the Chinese government appealing for Ong’s death sentence to be commuted to life imprisonment,” Lee told a press conference at Wisma MCA yesterday.

He said the Malaysian Embassy there had also been appealing to the Chinese court to reconsider Ong’s death sentence, the first such sentence for a drug offence in China since World War Two.

“We want to remind all Malaysians to respect and abide by the laws of the countries they are travelling to,” he said.

Ong, 44, was found guilty of trafficking 13 packets of heroin weighing 1,480gm at the Xiamen Gao Qi International Airport on Sept 19, 2007.

Earlier last week, MCA Public Services and Complaints Department head Datuk Michael Chong sought the Foreign Ministry’s help to obtain clemency for Ong, who was supposed to face the firing squad in February.

However, the execution was postponed to April 29 to allow him to fulfil his last wish of meeting his siblings.

MCA Bukit Bintang chairman Datuk Dr Lee Chong Meng, who was also at the press conference, said he would accompany Ong’s brothers, Hock Hooi, 38, and Hock Kiang, 41, to China on April 27 to meet Ong and hopefully get his clemency appeal approved.

“I hope that Ong will be given some leniency as I believe that he was used by a drug syndicate. He is not a smart man, and he can be very naive,” Dr Lee said.

He added that it was unlikely Ong had enough money to buy the heroin himself.

Meanwhile, Chong said he had spoken to Interpol’s National Centre Bureau assistant director Supt Gan Tack Guan, who infor-med him that Interpol was still investigating the case.

“Investigations will carry on until they find out who the real culprits are.

“We want the drug syndicate exposed,” he said. - Star, 24/4/2009, Govt asks that death row man be given life sentence instead

I applaud the actions of the Malaysian government in this case, and hope that similarly all death sentences in Malaysia is also commuted to life imprisonment (or even imprisonment for the duration of natural life).

Let us stop KILLING persons ...

Wages banked in - but alas boss not allow me to go to bank to withdraw money - Plight of the Foreign Domestic Worker

Wages must be paid monthly (or weekly ...or daily...or fortnightly) by the employer to the worker. It can be paid directly to the worker in cash...

What a worker does with the money is the worker's choice.

The worker also should be allowed to determine whether the wages should be banked into the worker's bank account or not.

It is thus ODD that the Malaysian government is trying to make it mandatory that wages of foreign domestic workers be banked in .... and the rationale for this 'new law' is because "....At present the wages were kept by the employers and this had led to abuse where the maids were not paid their dues,...the move was necessary to ensure that the maids were not victimized and deprived of their remunerations..."

What reforms are needed with regard to wages of domestic workers? There are many, and some of it are as follows

a) Wages should be paid every month by the employer to the domestic worker. [Make the failure to do so an offence with a stiff penalty]. There must also be no deductions from wages save for those that are explicitly permitted by law, and there should be a requirement for a pay slip.

b) Domestic Workers must be accorded with freedom of movement - including the ability to go to banks to open accounts, deposit and withdraw money. It is this inability that forces many maids to ask their employer to hold on to their wages for 'safekeeping' - and this is done because of lack of choice brought about by the lack of this freedom of movement. [Hence, one day off per week, plus number of working hours per day, and freedom to go out to the bank. etc must be made law for domestic workers...]

c) All foreign workers be allowed to open on their own regular saving (and fixed deposit) accounts in Malaysian banks just like any other Malaysian. No need for special accounts anymore. They should be permitted to open as many accounts as they want - and they should be allowed to use phone-banking and internet-banking facilities as well. [Maybe Banks may not want to give foreigners credit cards or loans - but really there is no rationale for the current restrictions [difficulties and conditions] to foreigners opening regular saving accounts, fixed deposit accounts, current accounts, etc...]

"My money has in the bank account - but alas since my employer does not allow me freedom of movement, I cannot go to the bank and hence I have no pocket money - hence more dependent on my employer - more a slave..." - Is this what is going to happen?

Focus, on real worker rights for domestic workers - similar rights as provided by law for all other workers in Malaysia.

Employers will soon have to credit the wages of their maids into banks or other financial institutions, outgoing Human Resources Ministry secretary general Datuk Thomas George said.

He said this would be effective with the amendments to the Employment Act 1955 which were in the pipeline.

At present the wages were kept by the employers and this had led to abuse where the maids were not paid their dues, he said yesterday.

In his keynote address at the National Consultation on ILO decent work agenda for domestic workers, he said the move was necessary to ensure that the maids were not victimised and deprived of their remunerations.

His speech was delivered by Industrial Relations Department director-general Mohd Yunus Razzaly.

George has been transferred to the Works Ministry as its secretary general effective yesterday.

He acknowleged that there were gaps in the present procedures for hiring maids but said the ministry was working to overcome them.

George added that the ministry had established a technical committee comprising members from all the relevant departments and agencies to address outstanding issues on the legal aspects, welfare and protection of foreign workers, including maids.

On the ILO’s intention to draw up a convention on domestic workers, George said Malaysia welcomed it, provided that it met national needs and did not turn out to be liability to both the workers and the employers.— Bernama :- Star, 24/4/2009, Bosses will soon have to bank in maids’ pay

Removal of 30% Bumi quota - Why? Opening the door to foreign control of Malaysian businesses..?

What really happened?

Removal of the 30% Bumiputra quota... WHY?

A radical move by a new Prime Minister to bring about much needed reforms of a system that really benefited only the rich 'bumiputras' rather than fulfilling one of the 2 original objective of the NEP, i.e. the eradication of poverty

OR - was it an just an act that Malaysia was forced into doing to comply with its obligations as stated in the various World Trade Organization Agreements [WTO Agreements] and maybe even some of them Free Trade Agreements?

I believe it is the later - because when the UMNO led-BN signed those agreements, I am of the opinion, that they also did sign away the special privileges of the Malay, natives of Sarawak and Sabah that existed in Malaysia since independence. [Maybe, it is time that the Malaysian government come and explain the consequences of their signing the WTO Agreements, and its benefits - and their evaluation of benefit and cost to Malaysians today]. Who is the traitor to the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak? Is it not the UMNO-led BN?

In a sweeping move towards liberalising the economy, the government yesterday removed the 30 per cent Bumiputera quota on equity ownership in 27 service sub-sectors (see list at right). Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak will take the move a step further next week with a major announcement involving the financial sector.

The sub-sectors affected with immediate effect are health and social services, tourism services, transport, business and the computer industry and related services.

He also announced that the legal profession had also been liberalised to allow up to five top international law firms with expertise in international Islamic finance to practise here.

Najib, who is also finance minister, said the move would attract more investment and bring in more professionals and technology, besides strengthening competitiveness in the sectors.

"The services sector is an important component of the national economy, contributing 55 per cent to the gross domestic product last year. Of this, 47.6 per cent was contributed by non-government services."

He said the sector accounted for 57 per cent of total employment in the country.

The government, he added, would intensify the tapping of the full potential of the services sector as a new growth area in the economy to raise its contribution to 60 per cent of GDP as targeted in the Third Industrial Masterplan.

Najib said the government would be progressively undertaking liberalisation of other services sub-sectors on an ongoing basis.

"The liberalisation of the services sector is being pursued with the view of creating a conducive environment to attract investments, technology and create higher-value employment opportunities.

"The initiatives will not adversely affect the domestic services industry as the government will continue to support the industry in capacity-building and in the opening up of export markets.

"In fact, this move was decided based on response and acceptance of the sector," he said.

It was also part of Kuala Lumpur's commitment towards an Asean agreement in liberalising the sector.

Najib said a services sector capacity development fund of RM100 million had been established under the first economic stimulus package.

The fund is being managed by the Malaysian Industrial Development Authority to strengthen the industry in facing the more liberalised services environment.

Najib also announced the formation of a national committee for approval of investments in the services sector under the Malaysian Industrial Development Authority.

The committee will act as a focal point to receive and process investment applications in the services sector but will not touch on investments in financial services, air travel, utilities, economic development corridors, Multimedia Super Corridor, Bionexus status companies and distributive trade.

"With this, we expect a greater inflow of investments," he added.

Approved investments in the services sector totalled RM50.1 billion last year, exceeding the investment target of RM45.8 billion per annum, with the share of foreign investments at 11 per cent.

In terms of exports, the sector contributed RM102.1 billion while imports totalled RM99.8 billion last year.

Najib said the World Trade Organisation had placed Malaysia among the 30 leading global exporters of services.

"With the focus on services, our promotional efforts in manufactured goods will be complemented by greater intensity given to export of services.

"The Malaysia External Trade Development Corporation has been tasked with coordinating and spearheading all export promotion initiatives."

Najib added that the liberalisation of the legal profession was part of measures to develop Malaysia into an international Islamic financial hub.

Successful law firms will be determined based on credentials and their business plans in respect of offices to be set up in Malaysia.

"These firms will only be allowed to offer legal services in international Islamic finance," he added. - New Straits Times, 23/4/2009, Move to liberalise economy: Services sub-sectors to soar with bold revamp

Najib - please be honest - and tell us the real reason why this 'liberalization' took place? Tell us also about the other impacts of signing these WTO Agreements?

Removal of 30% Bumiputra Equity - in favour of Malaysian ownership or foreigners... Will there be any requirement of Malaysian equity ownership of these companies. I think NOT...and that will not be good for Malaysians, will it now?

Not at all - now anyone can own these companies. There is also no quota requirement that will ensure that ownership is still Malaysian. The door seem to be OPENED to everyone - and nothing is stopping 100% foreign owned foreign companies coming in and competing with local companies, is there now.

Najib's announcement opens the door for further foreign colonisation of Malaysian companies - it is not a move that will protect Malaysians....[As I mentioned earlier, the UMNO-led BN sold us out manly years ago when they signed the various WTO (and also FTA Agreements)].

This move will not affect the rich much (and in fact may benefit many of the rich) - but for the poor, it will certainly be BAD....

Was this policy/practice of ' 30 per cent Bumiputera quota on equity ownership in 27 service sub-sectors' permissible by the Malaysian Federal Constitution in the first place? I think not - because our Federal Constitution is very clear about the permissible areas of special preferences for Malays, native of Sabah and Sarawak...Art. 153 of the Federal Constitution also do not provide for any magical '30%", and does it really cover these that are being liberalized now... [See also earlier posting:- Constitution can be discussed...can be changed - it is not sacred or infallible]

There is provision for reservation of certain proportion of permiits and licences for Malays and natives - but there really is nothing about any '30% share' in the equity ownership of a company..., is there.

Is there a Rule, Regulation, Order ...Gazzette Notification of sorts that talk about this '30%' ...and what it applies to? Or is it an arbitrary figure that is thrown around from time to time? Openness...transparency...that is what we need. We need to know...we need to be educated - based on 'facts' and the truth.

153. Reservation of quotas in respect of services, permits, etc., for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak.

(1) It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, but subject to the provisions of Article 40 and of this Article, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall exercise his functions under this Constitution and federal law in such manner as may be necessary to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of such proportion as he may deem reasonable of positions in the public service (other than the public service of a State) and of scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities given or accorded by the Federal Government and, when any permit or licence for the operation of any trade or business is required by federal law, then, subject to the provisions of that law and this Article, of such permits and licences.

(3) The Yang di-Pertuan Agong may, in order to ensure in accordance with Clause (2) the reservation to Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of positions in the public service and of scholarships, exhibitions and other educational or training privileges or special facilities, give such general directions as may be required for that purpose to any Commission to which Part X applies or to any authority charged with responsibility for the grant of such scholarships, exhibitions or other educational or training privileges or special facilities; and the Commission or authority shall duly comply with the directions.

(4) In exercising his functions under this Constitution and federal law in accordance with Clauses (1) to (3) the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall not deprive any person of any public office held by him or of the continuance of any scholarship, exhibition or other educational or training privileges or special facilities enjoyed by him.

(5) This Article does not derogate from the provisions of Article 136.

(6) Where by existing federal law a permit or licence is required for the operation of any trade or business the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may exercise his functions under that law in such manner, or give such general directions to any authority charged under that law with the grant of such permits or licences, as may be required to ensure the reservation of such proportion of such permits or licences for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may deem reasonable; and the authority shall duly comply with the directions.

(7) Nothing in this Article shall operate to deprive or authorise the deprivation of any person of any right, privilege, permit or licence accrued to or enjoyed or held by him or to authorise a refusal to renew to any person any such permit or licence or a refusal to grant to the heirs, successors or assigns of a person any permit or licence when the renewal or grant might reasonably be expected in the ordinary course of events.

(8) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, where by any federal law any permit or licence is required for the operation of any trade or business, that law may provide for the reservation of a proportion of such permits or licences for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak; but no such law shall for the purpose of ensuring such a reservation -

(a) deprive or authorise the deprivation of any person of any right, privilege, permit or licence accrued to or enjoyed or held by him; or

(b) authorise a refusal to renew to any person any such permit or licence or a refusal to grant to the heirs, successors or assigns of any person any permit or licence when the renewal or grant might in accordance with the other provisions of the law reasonably be expected in the ordinary course of events, or prevent any person from transferring together with his business any transferable licence to operate that business; or

(c) where no permit or licence was previously required for the operation of the trade or business, authorise a refusal to grant a permit or licence to any person for the operation of any trade or business which immediately before the coming into force of the law he had been bona fide carrying on, or authorise a refusal subsequently to renew to any such person any permit or licence, or a refusal to grant to the heirs, successors or assigns of any such person any such permit or licence when the renewal or grant might in accordance with the other provisions of that law reasonably be expected in the ordinary course of events.

(8A) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, where in any University, College and other educational institution providing education after Malaysian Certificate of Education or its equivalent, the number of places offered by the authority responsible for the management of the University, College or such educational institution to candidates for any course of study is less than the number of candidates qualified for such places, it shall be lawful for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by virtue of this Article to give such directions to the authority as may be required to ensure the reservation of such proportion of such places for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may deem reasonable; and the authority shall duly comply with the directions.

(9) Nothing in this Article shall empower Parliament to restrict business or trade solely for the purpose of reservations for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak.

(9A) In this Article the expression "natives" in relation to the State of Sabah or Sarawak shall have the meaning assigned to it in Article 161A.

(10) The Constitution of the State of any Ruler may make provision corresponding (with the necessary modifications) to the provisions of this Article.

Elections, please. Let there be no more 'appointments' of people's leaders and reps

The people elected their leaders - their village leaders, and now the 'disputed' BN-government of Perak wants to sack them all...817 of them.

Hello - they were ELECTED - i.e. they are the people's choice - not some 'political appointee', and it is certainly wrong to even try to sack them.

What the 'disputed' BN-government of Perak, and all other BN or PKR governments should do is to learn from Perak and restore democracy at all levels of government. There must be ELECTIONS at all levels - no more appointments by the 'government' - the people are capable of choosing their own leaders...

Perak village chiefs who were elected during the previous government are giving Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abd Kadir 48 hours to reverse his decision to sack them.

They have threatened to sue the government if their demand is not met.

Speaking on their behalf, former exco member Nga Kor Ming said the Barisan government could be sued for breach of contract for removing the 817 village chiefs before the expiry of their term of service in 2010.

“Although their term of service had only just begun, they received letters from their respective district officers last Thursday telling them that they no longer needed to turn up for work,” he said yesterday.

The letters, he said, stated that the village chiefs and their respective village development and security committees (JKKKs) were officially dismissed beginning April 16.

“Barisan Nasional has no legal right to dissolve the JKKK just like that, for the JKKK is a government machinery that is enshrined in the Perak Constitution,” he said after meeting more than 40 village chiefs who turned up at the Perak DAP headquarters here yesterday to protest against the dismissal.

“Unless they had committed some sort of offence, they cannot be removed from their posts without proper reason.”

The village chiefs also claimed that the Barisan government had failed to pay their allowances of RM400 each for February, March and April.

Dr Zambry and State Secretary Datuk Dr Abdul Rahman Hashim could not be reached for comment. - Star, 22/4/2009, Elected village chiefs may sue Perak govt over dismissal

When will we be having elections for Village heads and their committees for Selangor, Penang,...the other PR and BN States?

When will we be having Local Council Elections?

When will the people be able to elect their own Senators - surely, it is time for Senatorial Elections by the rakyat(the people) themselves....

An Independent Malaysian Judiciary? ..Rule of Law according to UMNO-led BN...is that what we have in Malaysia?

The Malaysian Judiciary had the opportunities to show Malaysians (and the rest of world) that it was ...'Independent, ..... BUT alas the recent Federal Court decision which favored the UMNO-led BN seems the fact that the Malaysian Judiciary is still in the 'gutters'...

The appointment of a person so-closely previously linked to UMNO as the head of the Malaysian Judiciary certainly did not help the cause of improving the image and the reputation of the Malaysian Judiciary. The public 'confession' by the head of the Judiciary of being involved in bribery when he was a lawyer...the subsequent public denial of this fact...and the subsequent allegation (which, by the way, was not retracted by the newspaper or the reporter)...and the later revelation of an audio recording that showed that he, the head of the Malaysian Judiciary, had indeed 'lied' - and of course the fact that no action was taken by the UMNO-led BN government of the day against the head of the Judiciary speaks a lot of the state of the nation today..

Rule of Law - what rule of law? Today, we seem to just have a 'Rule of Law' as defined by the BN (or rather UMNO) - or that favours the UMNO-led BN. The differential treatment of them who are pro-UMNO (and pro BN) and the others by the Police, the AG, the Election Commission, etc... of late tells us all of the state of the nation today. With the appointment of Najib as new PM - one wonders and worries about the future of the nation...

Will all those who were found guilty of 'money politics'/corruption in UMNO be ever investigated...charged...tried, etc..

A recent article by a former Court of Appeal Judge concerning the recent UNANIMOUS decision of the Federal Court (the highest court of the land) - which he says was '...a perverse judgment of the Federal Court...'.

The front page of The Star newspaper yesterday carries this startlingly outrageous decision of the Federal Court. The headline proclaims “Court: Siva does not have right to suspend seven”. The report reads:

PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has unanimously ruled that Perak Assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar does not have the power to suspend Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Abd Kadir and six state executive council members from attending the assembly.

It granted a declaration that the seven assemblymen were entitled to take part in all the assembly sittings and to carry out their duties.

Court of Appeal president Justice Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, who chaired a five-man panel yesterday, said the Speaker’s decision to suspend the seven applicants was ultra vires (outside the law) and invalid.

… The other judges were Chief Judge of Malaya Arifin Zakaria and Federal Court Judges Nik Hashim Nik Ab. Rahman, S. Augustine Paul and Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin.

This is a perverse judgment of the Federal Court. It is perverse because it is a decision that was made in blatant defiance of Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution which says, “The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”. The judges of the Federal Court have failed the people and the Government of this country when they chose to ignore the law of the Constitution of Malaysia. In other words the judges have refused to do justice according to law.

Incidentally, ultra vires does not mean “outside the law”. It means “outside one’s jurisdiction, beyond the scope of one’s power or authority”. And we may ask, who is the Federal Court to say what is beyond the jurisdiction of the Speaker when the supreme law of the country says that “the validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”.

Don’t these judges realise that they have actually done a disservice to the Government of the day? Perhaps they have never heard of the Taff Vale case.

In 1900 the English House of Lords, which as you know is the highest court in the land just as our Federal Court is the highest court in this country, handed down an outrageous decision which was unpopular to the common people of England. The judges of the House of Lords by their judgment had unwittingly done a great disservice to the Conservative Government of the day because in the general election of 1906 it was toppled by a landslide. The case which was the cause of the fall of the Conservative Government by a landslide was Taff Vale Rly Co v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants [1901] 1 QB 170, [1901] AC 426, HL.

It is best that I let Lord Denning take up the story from his book “Landmarks in the Law”, Butterworths, London, 1984, pp 119-121:

"There was the great Taff Vale case. To understand it, you must know that the trade unions were virtually friendly societies. The members paid their subscriptions into a fund out of which benefits could be paid to members if they were ill or out of employment. Now in the Taff Vale case the railwaymen’s union called a strike at the railway station at Cardiff. The men left work and set up peaceful pickets so as to persuade others not to go to work. The trains could not run, and the company lost money. The railway were advised to bring an action against the union itself, seeking an injunction and damages. The Court of Appeal threw out the action. But the House of Lords, in a startling judgment, overruled the Court of Appeal. They issued an interlocutory injunction against the trade union itself, restraining it from setting up the pickets, and said that the railway company could recover damages which could be enforced against trade union funds. Later, at the trial itself, the damages were assessed at ?23,000 and that sum was paid out of the funds of the trade union. ?23,000 in 1900. What would that be now?

"In the eyes of trade unions, that was an outrageous decision. It meant that the railway company could take all the funds subscribed by the members so as to meet the damages. It meant that, in future, a trade union could never call a strike, else it would be in peril of losing all its funds. It meant virtually the end of trade unions. As G.M. Trevelyan says in his History: “It struck at the very heart of trade union action.”

That case had immense political consequences. At the general election of 1906 there came into being a new political party. It was the Labour party. They ran a host of candidates themselves. They pledged complete immunity for trade unions. Many of the Liberal candidates gave the same pledge. The result of the general election was like an earthquake. Liberals had 397 seats. The new Labour party had 50 seats. The Conservatives only 157. It was a sweeping victory for the trade unions.

Parliament immediately passed the Trade Disputes Act 1906. It is probably the most important Act ever put into the Statute Book. It reversed all the judicial decisions against trade unions. The Taff Vale case was overruled. No trade union could thereafter be sued for damages for any wrongs done by its members. Its funds were unassailable.

I think the message of the Taff Vale case to our judges of the Federal Court should be clear enough. The electorate may decide, just as the voters did in 1906 England to the Conservative Government, to use the power of their vote to unseat the BN Government in the next by-election or general election because they do not trust the judges. Poor Najib our new Prime Minister, it is the judges who have let him down. Unfortunately it would be the Prime Minister who has to carry the baby, but not the irresponsible judges who did all the damage by not administering justice according to law.

To all those judges who think they are above the law, I would suggest that they pay careful attention to the warning by Lord Denning M.R. in Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers [1977] 1 Q.B. 729, 761-762:

"To every subject in this land, no matter how powerful, I would use Thomas Fuller’s words over 300 years ago: “Be you never so high, the law is above you.”

And the law, in the present context, is the Federal Constitution, in particular, Article 72 which states:

72. (1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.

(2) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof.

(3) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything published by or under the authority of the Legislative Assembly of any State.

Suppose the Speaker Sivakumar were to ignore the declarative decree of the Federal Court, what then? Clause (2) of Article 72 of the Federal Constitution says that “No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof”.

The Federal Court can say anything they like but the Speaker is not liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly.

The order of the Federal Court seems to me to be a brutum fulmen which in Latin means “ineffectual thunderbolt; (action which is) loud but ineffective”. It reminds me of the words of Horace: Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus, which in Latin means “Mountains will be in labour, the birth will be a single laughable mouse”.

The errant judges of the Federal Court should heed the warning of the late Lord Denning, “What Next in the Law”, Butterworths, London, 1982, p 330:

May not the judges themselves sometimes abuse or misuse their power? It is their duty to administer and apply the law of the land. If they should divert it or depart from it — and do so knowingly — they themselves would be guilty of a misuse of power.

And he posed this question:

Suppose a future Prime Minister should seek to pack the Bench with judges of his own extreme political colour. Would they be tools in his hand. — loyarburok.com

Justice N.H. Chan is a retired judge from the Court of Appeals. - Malaysian Insider, 19/4/2009, When the highest court in the land could bring down the government of the day — N.H. Chan

To keep roti canai prices down - let employers deduct levy they pay from workers wages?

When Malaysian employers wanted to hire foreign migrant workers - the government of Malaysia requires employers to pay a levy for each migrant worker that the employer employs. The reason was to encourage employers to employ LOCAL Malaysian workers....

But, suddenly we are hearing that we, Malaysians, especially Malaysian Workers have all the while been cheated...deceived...

WHY? Because apparently the government had allowed the employer to recover these 'levy' from the wages of their migrant workers - and this means that it was CHEAPER for the employer to employ foreign migrant workers. Maybe, all the other expenses expended in hiring and employing migrant workers was also recovered by deductions from their employee's wages...

Well, the law was clear about WAGES and permissible deductions in law - but alas the UMNO-led BN government hid this fact that they allowed employers of migrant workers to deduct 'levy'...and what else from the wages of migrant workers.

I have been looking for information about who should be paying levies - workers or employers, and if you go to the Labour Department/Ministries and Immigration Department/Ministries wevbsite - you find no information.

There are 2.4 million migrant workers in the country and this very important information of who pays for what with regard to migrant workers is missing...or not available. Employers have been known to pay workers 'zero' wages for months - stating that they are allowed to do so to recover levy, agents fees, airfare, etc...etc and migrant workers (not at fluent in our Malaysian languages and law) have 'no choice' but to go along with it. Complaints will result in sometimes 'sudden termination' ...and deportation --- or maybe arrest, detention, deportation..

This is so very wrong and definitely an injustice to workers.

Employers are now allowed, again, to deduct the cost of the levy from the wages of the their foreign workers until the expiry of their present visas, Labour Director-General Datuk Ismail Abdul Rahim said Thursday.

Employers had been stopped from making that deduction from April 1. Making them bear the cost made them unhappy as it upset their budget.

The directive was, therefore, reversed by the Human Resources Minister Datuk S. Subramaniam Thursday following numerous appeals by employers, Ismail told Bernama.

However, Ismail explained that no deduction would be allowed for new employees registered after April 1 in line with the government's policy requiring employers from all sectors to bear the full cost of the levy from that cutoff date.

The rationale behind getting employers to bear the levy was to discourage them from employing foreigners, he said.

Nevertheless, Ismail hoped the new decision would lessen the burden of employers during this economic downturn.

Meanwhile, the Immigration Department has yet to implement the new levy rates for foreign workers in the manufacturing and services sectors because it had not been gazetted by the Home Ministry.

The new levy was doubled for workers in these two sectors from RM1,800 to RM3,600 a year.

Immigration Director-General Datuk Mahmood Adam told Bernama that the department expected to implement the new rates by May 1.

However, Bernama understands that the delay in gazetting the new rates was due to the numerous protests and appeals by employers from the affected sectors.

In fact the Indian Muslim Restaurant Owners Association had threatened to increase the price of Malaysian favourites, roti canai and teh tarik, if the new rates were implemented.

Meanwhile, the Malaysian Employers Federation executive director Shamsuddin Bardan welcomed the Human Resources Ministry's decision to allow employers to deduct the levy from the workers wages, saying this was a step in the right direction.

“This decision would greatly benefit employers who had thousands of foreign workers on their payroll.”

He hoped the government would review the proposed new levy rate and maintain the existing one at least until the economy improved.

"This will give some breathing space for employers and help them to put back their businesses on a stronger footing," he said. - Bernama, - Star, 16/4/2009 - Employers can deduct levy from wages, again

It is a great injustice when already lowly-paid migrant workers are forced to have levy (that ought to be paid by employers) deducted from their wages.

It is really unjust that they now have even more deducted from their wages - increased levies (taking note that save for one or 2 sectors, levies have just been doubled...). Surely, the workers that are already here cannot be suddenly burdened with additional 'deductions' to their wages.

Why do we allow these migrant workers to suffer MORE during this financial crisis - ....because we do not want the cost of 'roti canai' to go up...this is unacceptable.

We may all be going through tough times - but this unjust treatment of migrant workers...is unacceptable..

Employers who want to employ foreign migrant workers must PAY the levy, the agency fees, the cost of medical tests, and all payments imposed by the government....(and NOT be allowed to make deductions from worker's wages to recover them...)

Workers should be paid full wages - and deductions should only be for contributions towards some Social Security Fund (like SOCSO), or some pension/old-age scheme (like the EPF or KWSP), or for the payment of taxes.... nothing else.

Najib's Cabinet - UMNO dominated and indicative of where other component parties stand

When it comes to the naming of the Cabinet - it is all up to the Prime Minister of the Day. The PM picks his "TEAM" to govern the country.

There are certain conventions in Malaysia -
- i.e. that the Deputy President of UMNO is made the DPM,
- that the Presidents of the 'main' component parties of the BN are appointed Ministers,
- that the VPs of UMNO (including the heads of the 3 wings - Wanita, Pemuda...) are given a cabinet position..

But, these are all conventions.... at the end of the day, the PM names his team.

It is a Barisan Nasional government - but alas the distribution of Ministerial positions amongst the various component parties again highlights the 'OVER-DOMINANCE' of UMNO within this coalition

1 Prime Minister, 1 Deputy Prime Minister,19 Ministers (out of the 29 Ministers) are from UMNO.
4 Ministers from MCA
1 Minister from MIC
Gerakan (1),
PBB (1),
Supp (1),
PBS (1)
Upko (1).

In a country where the population of Malays is only about 50.4%, and the number of Muslims are 57% - it makes no sense at all for UMNO to have so many Ministerial positions.

It is also sad that the proposal of the 2nd DPM was not taken up (this was raised again by the MCA).

But then, we have seen calls of BN component parties, to even release HINDRAF 5 not even receive a response from the BN ...or the PM. Maybe, it may be time for some of the BN component parties to re-evaluate things - to wonder again whether they should remain in the BN. To re-evaluate the decision making process in BN. In BN - No. 1, No, 2 and Secretary's post are all held by UMNO, if I am not wrong.

Note that the number of Malays (according to CIA Factbook, in 2004) is 50.4%. The number of Muslims in 2000 according to the same source is 60%. A recent Malaysian government census in 2005 revealed that there are 57% Muslims. [Remembering that to be a Malay, one needs to be a Muslim]. - UMNO supremacy...the UMNO invention "Malay supremacy' should be rejected by all Malaysians

FULL LIST

Prime Minister

Najib Abdul Razak (Umno)

Deputy Prime Minister

Muhyiddin Yassin (Umno)

Ministers in the Prime Minister's Department

Koh Tsu Koon - Unity Affairs & Performance Management (Gerakan)
Nazri Abdul Aziz - Minister in charge of Law and Parliament (Umno)
Nor Mohamed Yaakop - Economic Planning Unit (Umno)
Major Gen Jamil Khir Baharom - Islamic Affairs (Umno)

Deputies
Liew Vui Keong (LDP)
Mashitah Ibrahim (senator, Umno)
SK Devamany (MIC)
Ahmad Maslan (Umno)
T Murugiah (senator, PPP)

Finance Ministry

Najib Abdul Razak (1) (Umno)
Ahmad Husni Hanadzlan (2) (Umno)

Deputies
Chor Chee Heong (MCA)
Awang Adek Hussien (senator, Umno)

Education Ministry

Muhyiddin Yassin (Umno)

Deputies
Wee Ka Siong (MCA)
Puad Zarkashi (Umno)

Transport Ministry

Ong Tee Keat (MCA)

Deputies
Abdul Rahim Bakri (Umno)
Robert Lau Hoi Chew (Supp-Sarawak)

Agricultural Development and Commodities

Bernard Dompok (Upko-Sabah)

Deputy
Hamzah Zainuddin (Umno)

Home Affairs

Hishammuddin Hussien (Umno)

Deputies
Abu Seman Yusop (Umno)
Jelaing Mersat (SPDP-Sarawak)

Information, Communication, Arts and Culture

Rais Yatim (Umno)

Deputies
Joseph Salang Gandum (PRS-Sarawak)
Heng Seai Kie (senator, MCA)

Energy, Green Technology and Water

Peter Chin Fah Kui (Supp-Sarawak)

Deputy
Noriah Kasnon (Umno)

Rural Development and Territories

Shafie Apdal (Umno)

Deputies
Hassan Malek (Umno)
Joseph Entulu Belaun (PRS-Sarawak)

Higher Education

Khaled Nordin (Umno)

Deputies
Hou Kok Chung (MCA)
Saifuddin Abdullah (Umno)

International Trade and Industry

Mustapa Mohamad (Umno)

Deputies
Mukhriz Mahathir (Umno)
Jacob Dungau Sagan (SPDP-Sarawak)

Science, Technology and Innovation

Dr Maximus Ongkili (PBS-Sabah)

Deputy
Fadillah Yusof (PPB-Sarawak)

Natural Resources and Environment

Douglas Uggah Embas (PPB-Sarawak)

Deputy
Joseph Kurup (PBRS-Sabah)

Tourism

Ng Yen Yen (MCA)

Deputy
Sulaiman Abdul Rahman Abdul Taib (PBB-Sarawak)

Agriculture

Noh Omar (Umno)

Deputies
Johari Baharom (Umno)
Rohani Abdul Karim (PBB-Sarawak)

Defence

Ahmad Zahid Hamidi (Umno)

Deputy
Abdul Latif Ahmad (Umno)

Works

Shaziman Abu Mansor (Umno)

Deputy
Yong Khoon Seng (Supp-Sarawak)

Health

Liow Tiong Lai (MCA)

Deputy
Rosnah Rashid Shilin (Umno)

Youth and Sports

Ahmad Shabery Cheek (Umno)

Deputies
Razali Ibrahim (Umno)
Wee Jeck Seng (MCA)

Human Resource

Dr S Subramaniam (MIC)

Deputy
Maznah Mazlan (Umno)

Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs

Ismail Sabri Yaakob (Umno)

Deputy
Tan Lian Hoe (Gerakan)

Housing and Local Government

Kong Cho Ha (MCA)

Deputy
Lajim Ukin (Umno)

Women, Family and Society Development

Sharizat Abdul Jalil (senator, Umno)

Deputy
Chew Mei Fun (senator, MCA)

Foreign

Anifah Aman (Umno)

Deputies
A Kohilan Pillay (senator, Gerakan), Lee Chee Leong (senator, MCA)

Federal Territories

Raja Nong Chik Raja Zainal Abidin (Umno)

Deputy
M Saravanan (MIC)

So, Federal body decides whether there is a vacancy in the State Legislative Assembly

So, the 'independent' Federal Court has decided that it is the 'Federal-Election Commission' that will decide whether a seat in a State Legislative Assembly is vacant or not - NOT the Speaker of the State Assembly.

Sovereignity of the State and its Sultan- powers of the State - etc is now in question...

I believe an Election Commission should only be tasked with the duty of carrying out elections...Full Stop.

Whether there is a vacancy...or whether an election is to be carried out to fill that vacancy really should not be within the powers of the Election Commission...

The three independent Perak assemblypersons will remain state representatives after the Federal Court ruled today that the Election Commission was the rightful body to declare vacancies in the state seat.

MCPX

Perak speaker V Sivakumar had earlier said the three had resigned from their seats but this was questioned by the assemblypersons. - Malaysiakini Report

Bukit Gantang matters & Batang Ai's PKR's defeat may be a rejection of a Semenanjung based party.

Pakatan Rakyat certainly cannot afford a defeat in Bukit Gantang - for after all it was a PAS seat

2008 Elections
Roslan Shaharum (PAS)– 20,015
Azim Zabidi (Umno) – 18,449
M Morgan (Independent) - 872
Majority - 1,566

All Pakatan Rakyat's candidate needs to do is to win by 1,566...and that will be good enough.

If they manage to get a higher majority, then it will be very very bad for BN .... and the new premiership of Mohd Najib Razak...

And, the Malaysiakini unofficial report says that PR Menteri Besar of Perak is still leading

7.36pm Bukit Gantang Unofficial results PAS 13,571, BN 11,191, Independent 31. Majority 2,380.

7.40pm Bukit Gantang Unofficial results PAS 14,720, BN 12,142, Independent 32. Majority 2,577.

More than half of the votes cast have been tallied.

PAS deputy president Nasharuddin Mat Isa said, "As for now, we're heading towards a landslide victory."

The Islamic party has won Kuala Sepetang, the fishing village which is 97 percent Chinese. This is the area where BN stirred a controversy over a team of go-go girls performing at its campaign dinner.

8.50pm UNOFFICIAL PAS wins Bukit Gantang PAS 20,021, BN 17,076, Independent 56. Majority 2,945.

PAS Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin leaves the party’s operation centre in Air Kuning in an open hatch SUV, and waves to supporters as if he has just won the US presidential race.

What about Batang Ai -

In the 2006 Sarawak State Elections, BN won with a majority of 206, but today BN wins by a majority of 2,053 - and that is a bigger majority.

2006 State election
Dublin Unting (PRS) -3 ,295
Nicholas Bawin (Snap) - 2,489

7.39pm Batang Air Unofficial results - the final unofficial tally:

BN 3,450, PKR 1,790. Majority 1,660.

7.50pm Batang Ai OFFICIAL RESULTS

BN's Malcolm Mussem Lamoh (3,907 votes) has beaten PKR's Jawah Gerang (1,854). The majority is 2,053.

In 2006, it was one Sarawak BN party against an opposition Sarawak-based party - but in 2009, it is still the same Sarawak BN party versus PKR (which may be seen as a Semenanjung based Opposition party).

One thing about Sabah and Sarawak - the question of whether it is a State based party or a Semenanjung based party matters.

Maybe, Pakatan should really get into its team a Sarawak based party for the coming State elections.

For Sabah and Sarawak - the State is still very important, more important that the Federation. In the Penionsular, by reason of an almost 50 year rule by UMNO-led BN of both the States and Federal government - State loyalty matters very little. In fact, laws have been put in place that makes States weaker and more dependent on Federal Government...Pakatan Rakyat is feeling this 'weakness' today...

Should be promote State...isms and increase State control of State Resources, and how it can use State Resources...or should we continue with the BN plan to weaken States in the Peninsular - making them more and more dependent on the Federal Government..

Time for MPs to be provided with MORE paid support staff,....

We want to be a First World Parliament - but the problem is with what we provide to our individual Members of Parliament...only salary and some allowance...for attendance, etc..

There must be allocations for each and every Member of Parliament to have a Personal Assistant (to be able to do the needful when our MP is in Parliament or some meetings), a Research Assistant or 2 (who will be responsible for doing the research necessary for the MP to raise good questions, and good comments. Remember the MP has to peruse all kinds of Bills - and be able to raise relevant questions and clarifications, and this is not really possible because not all MPs have the requisite legal skill/knowledge and exposure or time to do this on his/her own research- hence the need for Research Assistant/s to assist the MP) , a Stenographer/Clerk (someone to take down notes and minutes, etc.) , a Secretary to man the MP's office in the Parliament House. Yes - each and every MP must have an office in the Parliament Building.

There must also be provision for rentals for service centres in the Constituency - plus for 1 or 2 staff per service centre.

How many service centres should an MP have - maybe he should be having 1 for every 15,000 registered voters in his constituency. So, for a constituency that has 60,000 registered voters, the MP is entitled to have and maintain 4 service centres - with 8 staff.

We need to create laws that provide for these things for each and every MP. We cannot expect MPs to use their salaries and allowances to hire basic support staff, -

Look at the US Congress - every Congressman has a pool of support staff. Salaries be paid by Congress.

Likewise, the salaries of the staff of MPs should be paid by the government. If an MP needs more staff, then he/she will have to find the money to pay for the extras.

We are talking about minimums here - and sadly today after more than 50 years of independence, we do not provisions in law that will assist the MP to be a better people's representative - a more inteligent one as well - who will have 'inteligence' flowing from his mouth rather than some stupid derrogatory remarks or unnecessary comments. WHY? Because now he has his team of research assistants/support staff who will be able to brief the MP (or educate the MP on major concerns about this Bill and that Bill) - Result:- Better MPs, Better Questions, Better Debates, Better Parliament ....

The Minisiters, Deputy Ministers,....have their support staff in their relevant Ministries - but alas, they too will need separate and different support staff when they have to discuss debate matters that concern not their relevant Ministrys.

We must not stop at MPs - but similar provisions must also be provided to ADUNs....

{Oh yes - the other things that may need is Driver, etc - }

Yesterday in PR,...today in BN... Why? Election Gimmick or Real..

It is so easy to get 500 members to join a political party - with the plan to 'quit' at the opportune moment for some gain.

One of these opportune moments is just before the election day in by-elections...and general elections.

Why do they quit now ....well, it is to influence the voters. Many voters prefer to vote the potential victors - they choose to follow the crowd. [In a hall, when many stand up and clap - you will find the others in the hall also getting up and giving a 'standing ovation' - and guess what many may not even know why they did that ---- it was just following the crowd..]

It is that kind of effect that these stunts of quitting political parties at the eve of an election hopes to achieve...

I recently attended the Pahang Bar Annual Dinner, whereby Mohd Najib Razak (then the DPM and PM in waiting) was the invited guest - and when he entered the hall, almost all stood up and clapped. Why did they do so? Why did they do so when even earlier that day the then committee was reprimanded strongly by members for inviting Najib and/or politicians for Bar Dinners as guest of honours. The anger was because many were of the opinion that the Bar must be independent, and seen to be independent.

But, that very night - when Najib walked in - they stood and clapped. They gave him a standing ovation. Why? ....I am sure that many will not be able to answer that question.

This is what the 'mass party hoppings' just before elections hope to achieve... sadly today, this is not just done by the BN...but also the Pakatan Rakyat.

But...the rakyat is smarter...and they are less likely to be taken in by such political stunts and games..

Oh...but tell me ...how many were there? 1,000 or 500 or really just a handful....political gimmicks or real?

And guess what, both BN and PR also 'rewards' those who jump over. Oh, they give them MP and ADUN seats to contest... (Some even will want these 'party hoppers' to become the new leaders ....mmm. Example, some want Zaid Ibrahim to be made the 'DPM' when Pakatan Rakyat takes over the Federal Government... )

From the Pakatan Rakyat to the BN

Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) was dealt another blow when 1,000 members from its Merbok division here walked out on it yesterday.

Led by one of its committee members, Kamal Nasser Taufik, they cited a loss of confidence in the party's de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim for their decision.

Kamal said they were turned off by Anwar's failure to fight for the people, and that he was merely fighting for his own interest.

"Enough is enough. There is no struggle for the members or the people," Kamal said here on Sunday night.

Besides leaving PKR, Kamal also resigned as a councillor in the Kuala Muda Municipal Council, and head of the Indian community for the Bukit Selambau state seat.

Like Jerai PKR division chairman Kalai Vanar who quit the party with 500 members last Monday, Kamal said Anwar never appreciated the sacrifice made by party members. - New Straits Times, 7/4/2009, PKR's Merbok members quit

And from BN to the Pakatan Rakyat...

The much-awaited 'big announcement' by PKR leader Anwar Ibrahim tonight turned out to be mass defections from Kedah PPP to the opposition party.

Leading the defection was People's Progressive Party (PPP) vice-president V Nagarajan, along with six of the 11 of the party's divisions in the state.

The defections, which involved 62 branches in the state, meant that PPP lost the bulk of its membership in Kedah, where a crucial by-election will be held in three days.

Nagarajan (left) has tonight submitted membership forms for 300 ex-PPP members.

He promised that a total of 6,000 would be jumping ship from the Barisan Nasional component party to PKR after April 7 by-election.- Malaysiakini, 4/4/2009, PKR: Mass defections from Kedah PPP

What will the results of these by-elections prove? Nothing really...

What really would the results of these 3 by-elections prove...

Bukit Gantang - well, was it not an Opposition seat - so the question is really whether the people still support the Pakatan Rakyat.

Bukit Selambau - they voted for an independent in GE2008 - and this independent joined PKR. So, these are people that will vote a people's representative irrespective of party affliations. The already know that Pakatan Rakyat governs the State - so maybe they may vote for a 'check and balance' - maybe also to benefit from the goodies that they may enjoy from the Federal Government...

Batang Ai - well the State is controlled by BN. So, maybe they may vote BN again for this by-election. Saving their 'oust the BN vote' for the Sarawak Elections coming soon. The driving force is reap whatever benefits from those in power now...

At the end of the day - really no conclusions can be drawn from the outcome of these 3 by-elections.

Maybe Bukit Gantang - but it very much depends on how BIG the win was compared to GE2008. It may be an indicator of what the people of Perak want - i.e. to be governed by Pakatan Rakyat or the BN - but surely it is but one constituency, and this cannot really be an indicatioon of all in PERAK..

A pre-occupation with RIGHTS is better than with coloured 'i-Kad'..

When you get stopped by the police and Immigration enforcement officers, do they accept these 'i-Kad', or do they still want to see the original passport and/or the NRIC (myKad).

When you go to the government hospitals, is this i-Kad recognized.

Has the law been amended that states that you can use the i-Kad in place of the passports? No, it has not - and until that is done, the migrant workers will have to take along their original passports - if not, they may end up being arrested, detained...and even maybe deported.

Our police, immigration officers, RELA, court .... can arrest and keep detain for months a Malaysian woman - who finally gets released with a child. , what about the poor migrant worker - what will be his/her fate? (see earlier post:-Pregnant Malaysian mum wrongfully detained in Migrant Detention Centre for 11+ months)

Why this 'i-Kad'? The Immigration Deputy DG, says it for convenience.... "...so that they can move around easier without having to carry passports all the time...". The foreign worker is not complaining about the size of the passport - their complaint is that their employer is wrongly keeping their passports. This is where the Immigration Department must be acting on - take these employers to court and charge them. Make it clearly known that it is against the law to keep someone else's pasport.

Employers should bring their domestic maids to the Immigration Department for them to be issued the i-Kad.

Department deputy director-general (control) Sulaiman Keling said some employers were unaware of the need to get i-Kad for their maids.

“But this is for the maid’s welfare so that they can move around easier without having to carry passports all the time,” he said. - Star, 6/4/2009, Immigration: Bring maids along for i-Kad application

So, why 'i-Kad'?....I believe it was to give an opportunity for some people to make some money... after all with 2.1 (or 2.4 million) documented migrants - this is a lots of money. How much do they charge for that i-Kad anyway? Who got the contract?

Well, there is so much pre-occupation and effort with regard this 'i-Kad' for migrant domestic workers - but really should the authorities not be wasting time with this stupid card - and focus on getting some rights for migrant domestic workers.

He said registration for the i-Kad could be done anytime at the nearest state Immigration Department.

“The maid must be present, however, for the registration as we will need to get her thumbprint for the i-Kad. The employer should also bring along two passport-size photos of the maid and her passport,” he said.

Sulaiman said many employers did not bother to register their maids for the i-Kad with the department, saying that they had no time or that it would disturb the maids’ schedule.

“We would love for employers to come forward with their maids,” he said, adding that there was no penalty for not having an i-Kad at present. Star, 6/4/2009, Immigration: Bring maids along for i-Kad application

1 day off per week. Maximum 8-9 hours work per day ( not this 24-hours a day work). Freedom of movement. Freedom to use one's own phones. Proper and separate accomodations to ensure privacy. Respect for one's religious belief and obligations. [Today, whilst the employment law recognizes the domestic worker, many of minimum standards, protections and conditions of work that protects other workers does not apply to the domestic worker, but today with over 300,000 domestic workers in Malaysia, this must be looked into in a serious way]

And what is this nonsense about the different coloured cards for migrant workers - based on their sectors of work. So, if the employer fumbles or the immigration department fumbles and the worker gets a wrong-coloured card, he may again risk arrest,m detention, deportation... If there is to be i-Kads for Migrant Workers - just give them the same cards, and whatever information about the name of employer, etc could very well be in that card...soon, the Malaysian government may require migrant workers to walk around wearing a big 'YELLOW STAR' on their clothes just like what happened to the Jews during WW II.

The colour-coded i-Kad, introduced last year, is a sophisticated travel document for foreign workers, foreign students and expatriates.

Students were the first to receive their green-coloured cards in 2007.

Domestic maids will be given purple cards, plantation workers red cards with yellow stripes and those in other sectors red cards.

Expatriates get gold-coloured cards and their spouses gold-coloured cards with red stripes. The social visit pass for participants of the “My Second Home” programme is silver in colour. - Star, 6/4/2009, Immigration: Bring maids along for i-Kad application

I really want to know who pays for this i-Kad? The employer? Will the emplooyers be permitted to wrongly deduct the workers wages to recover the cost of this i-Kad, the cost of travel involved, etc...

Already, there is really so little enforcement against employers who deduct almost all expenses involved in getting and employing a foreign migrant worker from the wages of the workers - and this makes it so much cheaper to get a foreign worker compared to a local worker.

The recent for the levy, etc was to compel employers to employ locals rather than foreigners - but alas, the government fails to action on the many employers who just turn around and deduct all their expenses (and maybe more) from the wages of the workers.

The law is clear - You can only deduct from a worker's wages things that are clearly permitted in law - like SOCSO(PERKESO) , EPF(KWSP) , ... you certainly cannot deduct levy paid, other expenses in bringing in a migrant worker..

The law is clear - Every month the worker has to be paid wages. Yes, every single month wages need to be paid.

The law is clear - The maximum amount of deductions is 50% of the workers monthly wages . That means at the very least the worker must receive 50% of his wages. (see earlier post:- Levy, Air Fare,...cannot be deducted from Migrant Worker's wages..it is LAW. )

Again we be distracted by by-elections...3 of them

Alas, yet again we are distracted by 3 by-elections, and only one is to elect a new Member of Parliament. The other 2 are just to elect a person to the State Assembly.

It is not only the BN ...but also the Pakatan Rakyat that distracts us by focusing our attention on these by-elections. [Look at Malaysiakini - almost all reports are concerning the by-elections...]

We should maybe be focussing on other more important REFORMS that should be happening in Malaysia, and in its States - particularly the Pakatan Rakyat governed states..

Again, like an old record, I ask as to when will we be having Local Council Elections ...when will there be elections at the kampung levels, the Taman levels, ...

When will be electing Penghulus...and SENATORS..

What about the financial crisis...and the loss of employment. What about adequate damages and compensation for workers on fixed-term employment contracts who get retrenched. Certainly the current formula used to calculate lay-off and retrenchment benefits will do no justice to these workers on short-term contracts, and this would also include migrant workers.

What about education for all children - irrespective of the citizenship status..

What about adequate and free healthcare for all...

What about payments by governments to all individual Malaysians to help cope with this economic countries. It happens even in neighbouring Thailand - but alas in Malaysia all monies go to companies...

What about a government policy that compels Banks/Financial Institutions/Etc to allow some lee way for borrowers when it comes to the monthly loan repayments for houses, cars, household items and appliances. It is not right that defaulters during this economic crisis are also dragged to court - have their cars re-possessed, their homes auctioned off, their appliances re-possessed....Why is the government helping individual Malaysians during this 'tough' times...

Penang...oh Penang - let the people choose their Senators...

Senators should be elected...by the rakyat of the States (not just chosen by the State Legislative Assembly) or appointed..

Even if you do not want a election now ....at the very least conduct a referendum to get the peoples' views on who should be a Senator..

Pakatan Rakyat must not be like the BN - appointing Senators...

Return power to the people - let them have a right to choose who should be their Senators...

Shame on you Penang...

News Flash by Penang State Government in Georgetown on Thursday, 2^nd April 2009:

Tunku Abdul Aziz dicalonkan sebagai Ahli Dewan Negara

Kerajaan Pulau Pinang akan mengemukakan Naib Pengerusi Kebangsaan Parti DAP Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim dan bekas Pengerusi Pulau Pinang Parti Keadilan Rakyat Dr Mansor Othman dilantik sebagai Ahli Dewan Negara pada sesi Dewan Undangan Negeri yang akan datang.

Kekosongan ini timbul dari tempoh tamat perkhidmatan Dato' Omar bin Hj Faudzar dan Dato' Gooi Hoe Hin pada 30 Mei 2009.

Tunku Abdul Aziz merupakan bekas naib presiden organisasi antarabangsa terkenal Transparency International (TI). Beliau seorang tokoh aktivis Melayu berprofil tinggi dalam bidang kempen ketelusan dan integriti. Beliau dilantik sebagai naib pengerusi parti DAP pada Ogos 2008.

---

* Penang State Government- DAP Malaysia Website

UMNO supremacy...the UMNO invention "Malay supremacy' should be rejected by all Malaysians

Propagating the myth that UMNO represents the Malays in Malaysia, the myth that MCA represents the Chinese, and that MIC represents the Indians is necessary for the continued survival of ethnic-politics, and ethnic based political parties.

But reality is that there are other parties that now represent the interest of Malaysians (including Malays, Chinese, Indians, Kadazans, Ibans, Kenyah, Melanaus, Penan, Muruts, etc...).

In fact the the party that represents the majority of Malays may today be the Pakatan Rakyat parties (PKR, PAS, DAP...) - and no more UMNO.

In fact the the party that represents the majority of Chinese may today be the Pakatan Rakyat parties (PKR, PAS, DAP...) - and no more MCA.

In fact the the party that represents the majority of Indians may today be the Pakatan Rakyat parties (PKR, PAS, DAP...) - and no more MIC.

Membership numbers may not be the basis of assessing a party'e stregth. The important question is now many paying members (i.e. members who actively take their money and pay their own subscription) are there in a political party. The minimum act of conscious payment of subscription will be some indication that they still do support the said political party.

In Malaysia, many became members on record because some person wanted to be a branch chairman. Notice how difficult it is to join jcertain political parties and be the member of the branch in your area. Some leaders just do not want 'new' members, who may be potential threats.

Propagating the myth that there is a big Malay majority in Malaysia is another means of continuing to stay in power, and suppressing reforms in the political arena. Note that the number of Malays (according to CIA Factbook, in 2004) is 50.4%. The number of Muslims in 2000 according to the same source is 60%. A recent Malaysian government census in 2005 revealed that there are 57% Muslims. [Remembering that to be a Malay, one needs to be a Muslim]. See earlier post: - Why so bothered about UMNO? It may no longer be the party of the majority of Malays in Malaysia.

Hence, the truth about the composition of Malaysia means that UMNO is really not at all that big - and today may really be representing a very small percentage of Malaysians.

This illumination also justifies MCA's call for the Deputy Chairperson of BN to come from another political party - MCA, maybe. Why should UMNO be allowed to hold on to the No. 1 and No. 2 position in BN, and also the position of the Secretary.

The MCA, an influential partner in Barisan Nasional, today called upon Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to create a post for a Chinese deputy prime minister and a Chinese deputy chairperson of BN.

And the party's deputy secretary-general Loke Yuen Yow said these two posts should be given to the MCA president.

At present both the posts are reserved to the deputy president of Umno, currently Muhyiddin Yassin.

"The creation of a Chinese deputy prime minister's position will not only help to realise the true ideology of a power-sharing administration...

"It will also denote that the government gives importance to the role and contributions made by the Chinese towards the process of nation building," he said in a statement today. Malaysiakini, 3/4/2009, MCA tells Najib to create a 2nd DPM post

I do not support MCA's call. I believe that maybe there must be elections within the BN, and that as a policy, different parties must preferably hold the post of Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson and Secretary of the BN. With regard to who is to be the Deputy Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet - that should be left to the Prime Minister to decide.

This principle should also be adopted by the Pakatan Rakyat as well.

We must also move away from looking at ethnicity and religion as the main consideration in chosing leaders, and should start looking at capacity and capabilities.

Malaysians have to face the facts - and hence new PM's thrust is on Malaysia and Malaysians, it seems.

Why release 13 from ISA? Mistake..or belief that they have been 'sufficiently punished' - Tell us, Mr PM

In the first no one should be subjected to Detention Without Trial, i.e. arrest and detention under the ISA and other laws that allow for Detention Without Trial. Today, there maybe over thousand persons detained without trial, and under the ISA there were 46 as at December 2008. In fact, as of June 2008 there were 62 - meaning that old PM released 16 during that period, so what is the big deal about Najib releasing only 13. (see Aliran's ISA Watch page)

In his first address to the nation as prime minister, Najib Abdul Razak said the government has freed 13 Internal Security Act (ISA) detainees and lifted the ban on two opposition publications.

MCPX

"I would like to announce that the government has decided with immediate effect to remove the temporary ban on two news publications, release 13 detainees from ISA detention, and conduct a comprehensive review of the Internal Security Act," he said in his first act after taking office today.

"These decisions are timely as we move to enhance the confidence of our citizens in those entrusted with maintaining peace, law and order," he said. - Malaysiakini, 3/4/2008, 13 ISA freed, ban lifted on party organs

So, ALL ISA and Detention Without Trial persons need to be immediately released.. and like Guantanamo Bay, Kamunting Detention Centre and other Detention Without Trial Centres need to be closed down immediately.

REVOKE THE SUSPENSION of Harakah and Suara Keadilan --- mmm...this looks staged. Just a few weeks before for no apparent reason, the suspension is invoked. Was it done so that Najib could revoke it like a 'good guy' new Prime Minister...

There is no need to have any 'comprehensive review of the Internal Security Act' - just repeal the Act, and all other Acts that allow for Detention Without Trial. There are sufficient laws in Malaysia already. Remember that 'planning' or 'even preparing' for the commission of any offence is already a criminal offence in Malaysian law.

Today, the ISA and other Detention Without Trial laws DO NOT allow the questioning of the validity of the reasons for the Detention Order, and that is so very wrong. It means that good Minister can give any 'cock and bull' reason - and it cannot even be reviewed by the court.

Released from ISA - will there be any compensation given to them and their families? Nothing at all, and that is the evil of these Detention Without Trial Laws of Malaysia.

Will the names of those wrongly detained under the ISA and other Detention Without Trial be cleared? Can they now sue the Minister...the Government of Malaysia for defamation...to clear their name? Maybe they should try ...and maybe even seek a Declaration that their detention was wrong...

I take it that the release of persons under Detention Without Trial laws is an ADMISSION by the Government that they were never 'guilty' and their entire Detention was wrong. If not, they would have been charged, tried and found guilty.

I believe that many of these Detention of persons allegedly being a member of JI (Jemaah Islam), KMM, or Darul Islam is all 'bullshit' - more likely these innocent persons were just incarcerated because Malaysia wanted to show the world (not the world but maybe the US under Bush..) that Malaysia was also strong against 'terrorism' - even Islamic terrorist. If it is not so, then charge all those persons in court and prove that they were guilty of some wrong.

If Najib wants to do something good - then release them all immediately and go for the repeal of the ISA and all Detention Without Trial Laws. No need to review...

Why are you releasing 2 from the HINDRAF 5? Did you make a mistake in the 1st place? Do you now feel that the 2 have been 'sufficiently punished' for their wrongs but not the other 3? Explain Mr Home Minister the reasons for your release? Mistake...or because they have been punished enough..tell us. Is this not discrimination against the remaining 3 - unless the release was an admission of a mistake.

It was also very wrong to delay the release - for it seems the decision to release was made earlier, and it was delayed so that it could be announced by new PM when he made his speech. When Mr Home Minister did you decide to release them? Were you ordered by new PM to release them? Tell us....be open and honest..

Immediately after Najib's address, Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar announced the names of the 13 ISA detainees to be freed.

They include two of the Hindraf 5 - V Ganabatirau and R Kenghadharan - both of whom have been incarcerated for 15 months.

The others released are eight members of the Darul Islam movement and three foreigners.

The Home Ministry, as of December last year, said it was holding 46 people under the ISA, the majority of whom belong to militant groups like the Jemaah Islamiah and the Darul Islam movement. - Malaysiakini, 3/4/2008, 13 ISA freed, ban lifted on party organs

Najib is PM ...but does he have the support of the majority of MPs? We will never know...

Well, the people do not matter... and the MPs do not matter - for I do not think that there was even a check with the individual MPs of BN to see if they support the appointment of Mohd Najib Razak as the latest Prime Minister of Malaysia.

It was possibly assumed that all BN MPs want this latest UMNO President to be the new Prime Minister...and that is very wrong. Motions of no confidence with this 'new' Prime Minister which may be tabled later would most likely not see the light of day for one reason or another...and so Malaysia has a new PM today 3/4/2009.

But wait, there are 3 by-elections, in Perak, Kedah and Sarawak - and maybe the results would be the indicator of whether the people of Malaysia (oops...just the voters, I am afraid...) are happy that Mohd Najib Razak is the new PM. [But then, with the amount of 'money politics' going around which even saw 1 of 3 UMNO Deputy Presidential barred from contesting, one wonders about the extend of 'money politics' that will be there in these by-elections...maybe not just 'money politics' but threats, etc...]

The outcome of GE2008 brought fresh life to the hopes of people for change - but alas, the Perak debacle and now the manner of appointment of Mohd Najib Razak may have just 'killed' some of that hope.

The victory of the Pakatan Rakyat in 5 States also opened eyes again with regard to the true nature of Federal-State relationship especially here in the Peninsular. The ability of the Federal Government to control the flow of monies and resources to the individual States is shocking, .....not just the individual States but also the constituencies. But alas, we also saw this in Trengganu when Petronas allegedly withheld full payments to the State government when it was under PAS.

Mohd Najib Razak - he is perceived as being 'above the law'. There may be police reports filed, evidence unearthed, etc - but alas the police and/or the AG do not even want to act on these reports, let alone commence investigations. Altantuya and allegations of corruptions in some arms deals, are just some examples. We recall Bala, who alleged in his 1st SD (that was subsequently revoked by a 2nd SD) that references to Najib were deleted from his statement, and that the prosecution just did not raise any questions that connects Najib to the deceased Mongolian. When someone writes something about Najib and/or his wife, the State commences a criminal action against him/her. Normally, the 'defamed' will take a civil suit based on defamation...The fact that police have clearly 'banned' persons raising the 'Altantuya' matter during election campaigns is also indicative of the problems that we have now in the person of Mohd Najib Razak, new PM of Malaysia.

Mohd Najib Razak is the 1st tainted Prime Minister of Malaysia. The impression propagated is that nobody can do anything against him, even when he was just the Deputy Prime Minister. We are thus heading for some interesting times...and we shall see what happens.

The people who can vote in these 3 by-elections, if they have the courage and principles, can send a message to this new Prime Minister...

Najib Abdul Razak takes the oath as Malaysia's sixth prime minister before the king this morning.

MCPX

Dressed in black baju Melayu, he read his declaration of taking office and oath of secrecy before King Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin at 10.10am in Istana Negara.

"I, Najib Razak, who has been chosen to hold the post of prime minister, swear that I will carry out the responsibilities which I have been entrusted with to the best of my ability," the 55-year-old leader said in front of the king.

"I will be true to Malaysia and will defend and uphold the constitution." - Malaysiakini, 3/4/2009, Najib sworn in as PM

It saddens me that even the Pakatan Rakyat are behaving like the BN, in that the 3 leaders signed the petition on behalf of the 81 MPs from their parties. It should have been a petition signed by all 81 MPs personally - the handing over could have been done by the 3 leaders. Now, we are not 100% sure whether all 81 do support the petition....

Likewise, to prove that he has the support of the majority, Mohd Najib Razak should have been required to show that he had the support of the majority - and this should have been done through personal face-to-face meeting with the Yang Di-Pertuan Agung (or even signed letters from the relevant MPs) - but better still or more properly through a vote in the Dewan Rakyat.

Sadly, also the call for the delay of appointment was not to ensure that Najib had the support of the majority. Why was this not raised?

All 81 Pakatan Rakyat members of parliament have submitted a petition to King Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin to appeal for the postponement of Najib Abdul Razak's appointment as the prime minister.

The petition, which was submitted to the palace yesterday, was signed by Anwar Ibrahim on behalf of PKR, Abdul Hadi Awang for PAS and Lim Kit Siang for DAP.

The Pakatan MPs said the appointment should be put off until an independent commission cleared Najib of any wrongdoings.

The MPs said that Najib should be investigated on claims linking him to the Altantuya murder case.

"Of late, there have been too many scandals associated with the deputy prime minister. For example, he has been linked to a scandal involving commissions in the purchase of Scorpene submarines.

"Even worse, he has been linked with the murder of a Mongolian woman, and the case has been reported in newspapers and magazines around the world.

"Hence, we urge the king to postpone his appointment as prime minister until all these allegations have been cleared by an independent commission," said the MPs in the petition.

They added that the position of the prime minister was the most important in the country and as such, it must be given to someone with unquestionable integrity.- Malaysiakini, 2/4/2009, 81 MPs ask king to put off Najib's appointment

Elderly should be those over 55, not 60. Maybe 3 million elderly in Malaysia...??

Finally, the government is shifting its attention to the elderly Malaysians. 1.45 million in 2000, and in 2010, expected to be 2.1 million. If we include those above 55, then the numbers will be even higher, and really the elderly should be defined as those above 55 years of age..not only those above 60, given the fact also that retirement age is still 55 for most Malaysians.

With its ageing population surpassing the two million mark by 2020, Malaysia will have to pay more attention to the needs of this group, says Sabah Chief Minister Datuk Seri Musa Aman.

The number of Malaysians above the age of 60 is widely expected to reach 2.1 million in 11 years, he said, adding the aged population in 2000 was just over 1.45 million.

He said the government was committed to looking after the welfare and to improve the quality of life of its senior citizens.

“This change in demographic will pose challenges to governments in providing them (senior citizens) with suitable health care and social services,” he said when opening the Sabah Senior Citizens Association building in Tanjung Lipat near here yesterday. - Star, 1/4/2009, Population shift poses challenge

For a long time the government's concern seem to be towards the pensioners (pesara) only, who were former public servants (also known as 'government servants' - a term used to, possibly, 'brainwash' public servants into believing that they must be pro UMNO led-BN, that was the government of the day. Now, after Pakatan Rakyat is also beginning to be government in many states - there may be a tendency to just use the correct term being 'public servants' - which also conveys clearly that first loyalty is to the people(rakyat)...not some political party/coalition which wins elections)

What kind of care should be accorded to the elderly :-

* Healthcare - thie should preferably free, and also easily available. [Maybe even need to have mobile medical units, with doctors, who will be able to go to homes of the very elderly (or the elderly who have difficulty moving around) to treat them, or even just give them a medical check-up]

* Food & Board allowances - maybe they should also be given a fixed monthly sum generally, especially those that are not under any pension scheme.

* There must be special travel rates for the elderly - air, sea, road, rail (for taxis too - and the government could subsidize the rest)

Assistance for the elderly must be through a government Ministry - not through the BN political parties.

Recently, I heard that MIC was collecting the data (and/or photocopy of NRIC) of the elderly Indians, apparently because 'they' were going to give the elderly some 'benefits'/allowances - but alas, not all Indian elderly will get recorded, especialloy those that are not in MIC (or have no MIC friend). They may probably be giving the elderly some monies that the government has decided is for them. Maybe, MIC just wants this data for some other reason - maybe Samy Velu wants to share his monies with the elderly to celebrate his recent victory...

But, if it government monies intended for the elderly, will all that is entitled to receive it get it? NO.

Will those who are entitled get ALL that they are entitled to? MAYBE, some may be siphoned into the pockets of the party...

Disbursing any assistance through political parties or 'elected political reps' causes problems. There is that problem of 'corruption', the problem of 'discrimination', the problem that not all intended beneficiaries of what is really a government allocation will recieve what is due. Like the fuel subsidy, moneys/benefits for the people should be disbursed to the people through the relevant government departments & ensure that there are sufficient public announcements on the TV, Radio and print media about these.

Nizar vs Zambry: Has it not now become a case of getting a pro-BN judge?

Many will be thinking that the change of Judges was because the UMNO-led BN wanted to get a Judge that would be more favourable to them - i.e. a judge that will not decide that Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin is still legally the Menteri Besar of Perak.

After all, the number one in the Judiciary, is a former UMNO man- not just an ordinary member but someone that fraternized and/or was known by the top leadership of UMNO. So, anything is possible. The new CJ has also been accused of bribery (based on his own public confession), and also of lying (based on an audio recording that rebuts his denial of saying that he was involved of bribing).

Something is very fishy here ... and I am of the opinion that is best that the matter be transferred back to the court it was, and be heard by Judge Lau Bee Lan. The perception of 'judge choosing/fixing' must be avoided at all cost, especially in this 'highly contreversial' case.

The suit by ousted Perak Menteri Besar Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin against BN's Zambry Abd Kadir will be heard before a new judge tomorrow.

High Court judge Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim will be hearing the matter - starting with a leave application for the proper suit to follow - tomorrow afternoon at 2.30pm in Kuala Lumpur.

The matter was previously before justice Lau Bee Lan. No reasons have been given for the sudden transfer of the case, which was informed to the parties this morning.

Mohd Nizar' suit against Zambry is to determine the legitimate Perak menteri besar.

In the suit filed on Feb 13, Nizar, among others, is seeking a declaration that he is the rightful Perak menteri besar. - Malaysiakini, 1/4/2009, New judge to hear Nizar vs Zambry

He is also seeking an interpretation of Article 16(6) of the Perak constitution on when can the menteri besar's post be vacated.

In his application, Nizar said Zambry should cite the authority that allowed him to legitimately become the menteri besar.

Nizar is also seeking a declaration that Zambry has no right to be menteri besar at any material time plus an injunction to prevent him or his agents from continuing his task and role as the menteri besar.