ON HUMAN RIGHTS, JUSTICE AND PEACE ISSUES, LABOUR RIGHTS, MIGRANT RIGHTS, FOR THE ABOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY, TOWARDS AN END OF TORTURE, POLICE ABUSES, DISCRIMINATION...
Tommy Thomas, Attorney General/Public Prosecutor of Malaysia, should really not be acting in this contempt proceedings in my opinion. Even the title of one of the two articles mentions 'Tommy Thomas'
WHY?
The alleged contempt, allegedly arises in 2 articles written by Arun Kasi, which were entitled:-
“How a dissenting
judgment sparked a major judicial crisis” dated Feb 16, 2019, and
“Tommy Thomas must look into arbitration centre that sparked judicial
crisis” dated Feb 22, 2019.
Arun, who is an advocate and solicitor, had authored two articles which
were published on the Aliran website under the heading “How a dissenting
judgment sparked a major judicial crisis” dated Feb 16, 2019, and
“Tommy Thomas must look into arbitration centre that sparked judicial
crisis” dated Feb 22, 2019.
At the ex-parte stage, Senior Federal Counsel Datuk Amarjeet Singh seem to have represented the Attorney General.
But, at the contempt proceedings, it seems that AG Tommy Thomas also acted for AG. This, I do not think is proper or right - in my opinion, some other Senior Federal Counsel should have acted.
I have yet to read the 2 articles, but based on the media reports, it seems to be about
The
articles in question had criticised the apex court’s Nov 7, 2018
decision to expunge Court of Appeal judge Hamid Sultan Abu Backer’s
dissenting judgement in the case of Leap Modulation Sdn Bhd vs PCP
Construction Sdn Bhd.
In both Arun’s original statement and the published articles, Thomas (photo)
argued that he had “crossed the line” and committed contempt of court
when he suggested that the Federal Court’s decision to expunge Hamid’s
dissenting judgement warranted an investigation by the MACC.
I may later discuss more about this issue - but I am concerned that this seems to be a question of freedom of expression and opinion. I believe that anyone should have the right to express their opinions about even court judgments. To say, that judgments of courts are unquestionable is just not right. Well, many have said in the past that the judgments made in Anwar Ibrahim's case was wrong - would they also be subjected to contempt proceedings by the Attorney General.
Judges are human beings, and as as such they are fallible - they can make mistakes, and everyone should have the right to highlight what they see as wrong, don't they?
Is the new government and/or the new Attorney General now saying that judges and judgments should just be accepted and not questioned or criticized?
Judges themselves can initiate contempt proceedings, but here the Judges did not but the Attorney General did. Or did the judiciary ask the AG to initiate contempt proceedings? A lot of questions and we really must look at it in more detail...
Judges make their judgments, and in the Court of Appeal, where usually it is a coram of 3 judges, all of them are expected to give their own judgment. Should the Federal Court later have the power to 'edit out'(expunge) part of the judgment of any of the Court of Appeal judges? Remember, a dissenting judgment also have value as it can be relied on in other cases...
A lot of questions ...something we need to study more and understand better...
In any case, I am of the opinion, that Tommy Thomas should not have acted on behalf of the Attorney General in this particular case..Maybe, it should have been the Solicitor General or maybe some other Senior Federal Counsel..
Testifying in contempt
proceedings against him before the Federal Court in Putrajaya today,
lawyer Arun Kasi maintained that he had not scandalised the courts in
two articles of his published on an NGO’s website.
Though being
significantly edited versions of his original statements, he said that
in substance, the pieces showed that he had written them in good faith
and in public interest with no intent to attack the judiciary.
The
articles in question had criticised the apex court’s Nov 7, 2018
decision to expunge Court of Appeal judge Hamid Sultan Abu Backer’s
dissenting judgement in the case of Leap Modulation Sdn Bhd vs PCP
Construction Sdn Bhd.
In response, Attorney-General Tommy Thomas,
who initiated the contempt proceedings against Arun, contended that it
would be an insult to any reader of the articles to have understood it
to be anything other than an attack on the judiciary.
Arun booted from witness stand
Today’s
court proceedings was heard by a five-member bench, which was led by
Justice Ramly Ali and comprised judges Rohana Yusof, Azahar Mohamed,
Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat and P Nallini.
Proceedings were interrupted by a total of four breaks following several charged exchanges.
The hearing began with Arun’s (photo)
lead counsel V Bastian asking for an adjournment on grounds that his
client needed to tend to his daughter who had been admitted to hospital.
The
judges dismissed the application after a short break but were again
asked to call for another recess by Bastian, explaining that he needed
more time to prepare Arun for his oral evidence submission.
When
the court resumed, Arun was cautioned by the judges to speak only on
relevant points not already mentioned in his affidavit.
After Arun
repeatedly mentioned that his articles were in the public interest and
meant to seek reform of the Asian International Arbitration Centre
(AIAC), the judges again cautioned him to stay on course.
Justice Ramly eventually instructed Arun to “step down now” from the witness stand and called for a lunch break.
Defense counsel told to 'cool down'
When
the hearing resumed, Thomas submitted that Arun had never asked the NGO
to correct his articles, despite claiming they were different from his
original statements.
In both Arun’s original statement and the published articles, Thomas (photo)
argued that he had “crossed the line” and committed contempt of court
when he suggested that the Federal Court’s decision to expunge Hamid’s
dissenting judgement warranted an investigation by the MACC.
The
proceedings came to yet another halt after Bastian responded to this by
saying the Federal Court had indeed erred in their Nov 7 decision. This
caused several of the judges to ask Bastian if he was aware of the
seriousness of his allegation.
“I call for a stand down and will give you 10 minutes to cool down,” Justice Ramly told Bastian.
When
the session reconvened, Bastian submitted that Arun, in his articles,
was not calling for the MACC to probe the three Federal Court judges who
made the Nov 7 decision but had called attention to the intervention by
the AIAC into the case.
Even if Arun’s comments were considered scandalous, Bastian argued that the allegations, which arose from Hamid’s affidavit for another case, had already been reported by other news outlets before his client’s articles were published.
“So
it is okay to undermine public confidence in the judiciary because
public confidence had already been undermined? Is that Arun Kasi’s
position?” asked Justice Nallini.
'Don't get personal,' AG told
Thomas then stressed that Arun’s criticism had been directed at the courts and no other body.
“It
is insulting the intelligence of the readers of the article and the
press release (to believe) that the attack was on the MACC (or the
AIAC). It was an attack on the judiciary,” the attorney-general, who
appeared visibly upset, said when pointing out to the bench where Arun
had criticised the courts.
This prompted lawyer Mohamed Haniff
Khatri Abdulla, a member of Arun’s legal team, to urge the
attorney-general to not “get personal” with his submissions.
Thomas responded by saying officers of the courts ought to administer the truth when carrying out their jobs.
He
also argued that even if other news articles had commented on
allegations contained in Hamid’s “notorious” affidavit, Arun could not
be allowed to scandalise the courts in his articles on the NGO’s
website.
After hearing submissions from both sides, the five-member bench set April 23 to deliver their decision.- Malaysiakini, 28/3/2019
Contempt proceedings against lawyer Arun Kasi over Hamid affidavit articles in Aliran (updated) Nation
Wednesday, 27 Feb 2019 1:22 PM MYT
PUTRAJAYA (Bernama): The Federal Court has granted an ex-parte application for leave by Attorney General Tommy Thomas (pic) to initiate contempt proceedings against a lawyer who had allegedly criticised the proceedings and decision of a court case.
Justice Ramly Ali, who chaired a three-man bench, allowed Thomas to go ahead with the proceedings against Arunachalam Kasi who had, in two articles published on the Aliran online portal, made the alleged criticism in reference to an affidavit of Court of Appeal Judge Dr Abdul Hamid Abu Backer on alleged judicial misconduct.
The court fixed March 13 for a substantive inter-partes hearing for both parties to submit.
"The case before us is an ex-parte application. This is on scandalising judges of the Federal Court. The act complained of relates to two articles by the respondent (Arunachalam Kasi, also known as Arun Kasi) published on Feb 16 and Feb 22, 2019, on the Aliran website.
"Having considered the submissions and all the court papers, we are satisfied that all procedures required for leave have been fulfilled.
"We, therefore, grant the order sought by the applicant," said Justice Ramly, who heard the matter with Justices Rohana Yusuf and Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat.
Earlier, the court heard submissions by Senior Federal Counsel Datuk Amarjeet Singh who represented the Attorney General.
Amarjeet submitted that Arun, who is an advocate and solicitor, had authored two articles which were published on the Aliran website under the heading “How a dissenting judgment sparked a major judicial crisis” dated Feb 16, 2019, and “Tommy Thomas must look into arbitration centre that sparked judicial crisis” dated Feb 22, 2019.
He said that in both articles, he had criticised the conduct of the proceedings by the Federal Court and the decision that was delivered on Nov 11, 2018, in the case of PCP Construction vs Leap Modulation (the Leap Modulation case).
“The statements in the articles impute impropriety in carrying out judicial functions and lack of integrity by the judges who had decided the Leap Modulation case.
“The conduct and the irregularities committed in the case were said to warrant an investigation by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).
“The respondent had, on Feb 9, 2019, made such a complaint against the irregularities committed in the case,” he said.
Amarjeet said the contempt committed in the case was “scandalising contempt” for interfering with the administration of justice.
He said such interference would occur when there are acts and statements undermining public confidence in the administration of justice.
“The authority of the law rests on public confidence, and it is important to the stability of society that the confidence of the public should not be shaken by baseless attacks on the integrity or impartiality of the judges,” he said.
He further submitted that the Attorney General had identified the offensive statements in the articles, which was possible when one read each article in its entirety.
He said Arun, in his second article, had questioned why the Federal Court had expunged Justice Abdul Hamid's remarks about the Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC) in the Leap Modulation judgment.
Amarjeet said the statement in the second article had scandalised the judges, which, among others, meant that expunging parts of the dissenting judgment without an appeal was unprecedented and making the order of expungement when the right parties were not heard in opposition.
He also said that the two articles had insinuated that the Federal Court judges who heard and decided the Leap Modulation case were guilty of misconduct and impropriety in carrying out their judicial functions, involved in corrupt activity and had compromised their integrity, which warranted an investigation by the MACC.
He said Arun had made untrue statements and this was borne out by the Court of Transcript of the Proceedings dated Nov 11, 2018, in the Leap Modulation case.
“The statements set out in the articles, when read as a whole or individually, gave rise to the perception and conveyed imputation which are not only demeaning, insulting and offensive to the dignity, integrity and impartiality of the Federal Court but which will have or might have a tendency to undermine public confidence in the Judiciary,” he said. – Bernama
On 23/3/2019(Sunday), Malaysians exercised their right to peaceful assembly in response to the mass killing of about 50 Muslims attending Friday prayers at 2 mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand on 15/3/2019(Friday), about 8 days before. The protest was attended by Malaysians from different ethnic and religious backgrounds.
If the draconian Peaceful Assembly Act was to be followed, which required the giving of a 10-day notice, was to be followed, then we could only protest maybe 1 week later...absurd, is it not? People should have the right to exercise their right to Peaceful Assembly as soon as possible...without any such 'notice' or the requirement for any application for 'permits'...
The police said today it will allow tomorrow’s
Peace, Solidarity Rally in Kuala Lumpur, despite not meeting the 10-day
notice requirement.
It certainly is wrong if the Police has the power to decide whether we can exercise our right of peaceful assembly or NOT - where and when and HOW? For the International Women's Day march, they are being investigated for amongst others 'not giving the 10-day notice' but in the recent rally, the all-powerful police says no problem if the required notice not given? Does it depend on who the organisers are...or what the issue is?
SPEEDY RESPONSE is needed by the people for most issues - and most time, there may even be no 'organisers' just word moving around that people will be gathering at this time and place to protest this and that ...
Many Malaysians would have wanted to come out fast to express anger at about the mass killing of Muslims in a Mosque ...but this draconian Freedom of Assembly Act makes it impossible...
Many also would have wanted to maybe protest in front of the US Embassy the pronouncement by US that it recognizes that it recognizes Israel's sovereignty with regard to Golan Heights, the Syrian territory illegally occupied by Israel after the war, is now Israel's - it goes against UN Resolutions that have always being urging Israeel to return Golan Height to Syria... UN member states, including current members of the UN Security Council, and even Malaysia has spoken out against this US actions. Many in Malaysia would have also wanted to have their voices heard - which could have happeneded maybe at a lunch time protest in front of the US embassy or elsewhere maybe during the wrong long lunch break this Friday or over the weekend...but alas our draconian laws on Freedom of Assembly does not allow this...
Likewise, next week Parliament may table a Bill that many may be not be happy about. Media chooses which media statement to report - so the real way how many can be heard is through a peaceful assembly held quickly to show government that many are unhappy...or maybe even happy with all that is being proposed(or just some). Remember a peaceful assembly is also meant to lobby more people to support a view and position, just like worker pickets..
The ability to do these speedily is very important, as we have seen how in the past BN government, Bills can be rushed through and passed speedily within a few days - and any peaceful assembly after 10-days really is ineffective and meaningless...
POLICE should only be responsible to ensure that peaceful assemblies are conducted peacefully...They will ensure that others will not disrupt this right...so, if there are opposing groups, then the police will make sure that they are kept apart..and both will be free to express themselves...
If someone in any of groups utilizing their right to peaceful assembly breaks the law...like starts throwing stones damaging property, then police may immediately arrest such individuals...that is all...We all know that there maybe 'rogue elements' who may simply join peaceful assemblies to disrupt this right of the people. Blame should never be on organizers..or other protesters who peacefully demonstrate...
As mentioned, there may really be no single organiser - sometimes people come together to protest because they heard that there would be a peaceful assembly protesting a particular issue...
Take for instance, the 1998 REFORMASI protests that happened on several Saturdays along Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman, involving thousands - there were no organisers - people heard about it and just turned up and joined the protest...and some came to support from the sidelines...
To require a specific organiser to identify themselves in advance really maybe simply denying the denying the right of peaceful assembly in Malaysia. To date, we still have no idea who were the organisers of the REFORMASI protests...
So, Malaysia should speedily repeal the Peaceful Assembly Act and ensure that we in Malaysia enjoy the right to PEACEFUL assembly...Police or government must have no right to approve or disapprove the exercising of this right...Pending abolition, there must a moratorium on the use of this Act, and all other draconian laws that PH said would be repealed...
In Malaysia, many march at #Solidarity4Peace rally to condemn Christchurch mosque shootings
Published 5 days ago on 23 March 2019
By Jerry Choong
Minister in the Prime Minister’s
Department, Datuk Seri Mujahid Yusof Rawa, and other religious leaders
march to Dataran Mardeka during the Solidarity 4 Peace Rally in Kuala
Lumpur March 23, 2019. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa
KUALA LUMPUR, March 23 — Ministers, MPs and religious leaders of all
faiths came together in support of peace, following the Christchurch
mosque shootings in New Zealand last week.
Organised by the Prime Minister’s Department and the Department of
National Unity and Integrity, the #Solidarity4Peace began in front of
the SOGO Shopping Centre at Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman, from 7am onwards.
A crowd of 500 gathered, calling out slogans including ‘Reject
Extremism’ and ‘Love Peace’, before heading to Dataran Merdeka at
7.35am.
By the time they reached Dataran Merdeka, the crowd had swelled to
almost 1,000. Parents with their little children could be seen, as well
as others from all walks of life.
Many held up placards, mostly in Bahasa but also in other languages,
saying ‘Respect’, ‘World Without Terrorism’, ‘Peace, No Wars’, ‘Reject
Hatred’, ‘Reject Racism’, among others.
As the leaders of the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism,
Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism spoke and appealed to the
audience to always uphold peace and harmony in the country, three
helicopters flew above the Dataran bearing three flags, with the Jalur
Gemilang at the forefront.
Several political leaders also spoke, including Kuantan MP Fuziah
Salleh, Primary Industries Minister Teresa Kok, and Federal Territories
Minister Khalid Abdul Samad, who called upon the crowd to not let
Muslims become spreaders of hate in response to the shootings.
“Let Malaysia be a beacon of peace and harmony. He (the shooter)
wanted us to war against one another, let us deny him this,” he said to
loud applause.
National Unity Minister Senator P. Waytha Moorthy said the mosque
shootings show how one incident can destroy peace in a country like New
Zealand.
“We are all committed to the path of peace, all faiths teach us to
love our fellow human beings. May it always prevail in our country,” he
said.
The aunt of teenager Mohd Haziq Mohd Tarmizi who perished in one of
the mosque shootings, Zarina Shuib, 53, also thanked the audience for
supporting her family during this difficult time.
“We are greatly touched by everyone’s kindness towards us. Though
this is a great test to bear by God, it shows that Malaysians all love
peace and harmony,” she said tearfully.
New Zealand’s High Commissioner-Designate to Malaysia and Brunei
Darussalam Hunter Nottage also spoke, occasionally breaking into Bahasa
as he extended his condolences to the Malaysian people over this
tragedy.
“This has been very moving for everyone, and is a time of great reflection for us.
“We were deeply saddened by this terrorist attack, and our thoughts
are very much with the victims, who sadly included Malaysians,” he said.
Australian High Commissioner Andrew Goledzinowski spoke after
Nottage, saying that the shooter Brenton Tarrant has ‘failed
spectacularly’ in trying to spread terror and discord in society.
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mujahid Yusof
Rawa said Malaysia chooses the path of peace, and will show it to the
world.
“To New Zealand and its prime minister, we thank you from the bottom of our hearts.
“We are above and beyond those who hate among human beings. Our message is peace to everyone,” he said.
Ministers Datuk Seri Mujahid Yusof
Rawa (left) and P. Waytha Moorthy at the launch of the Solidarity4pPace
rally in Kuala Lumpur March 23, 2019.
Mujahid also read out the KL Peace Declaration 2019, with affirmed five points.
“Condemning any discrimination, violence and killing in the name or
religion or ethnicity, total rejection of acts and culture based on
hatred.
“Supporting all efforts to foster peace and promote harmony among all
religions and ethnicities, defending Malaysia’s sovereignty from being
destroyed by agents of racial and religious hatred, and to be in
solidarity with the world’s citizens to develop an environment of peace
and prosperity,” he said. - Malay Mail, 23/3/2019
Police to allow Saturday’s peace gathering over Christchurch attack, but only in the AM
KUALA
LUMPUR, March 22 — The police said today it will allow tomorrow’s
Peace, Solidarity Rally in Kuala Lumpur, despite not meeting the 10-day
notice requirement.
Inspector-General
of Police Tan Sri Mohamad Fuzi Harun said organisers can proceed with
the “peace rally” at Dataran Merdeka, but only from 7.30am to 11am.
Minister
in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mujahid Yusof Rawa had
proposed for the rally back on Monday, which was too short for the
10-day notice required under the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012.
The
rally is aimed at condemning last Friday’s shootings in Christchurch,
New Zealand by an accused white supremacist. A Malaysian teenager was
among the 50 killed.
The
minister is currently in New Zealand for an official visit, planned
hours after Malaysian Muhammad Haziq Mohd Tarmizi, 17, was pronounced
dead by New Zealand authorities early Thursday morning.
Muhammad
Haziq was among the 50 people killed in the March 15 attack on the
mosques by an alleged white supremacist gunman. Muhammad Haziq’s father,
Mohd Tarmizi Shuib, 42, and two other Malaysians, Muhammad Nazril
Hisham Omar and Rahimi Ahmad, were also injured in the massacre.
Mujahid
was there to personally thank the New Zealand government, which
received worldwide praise for how it responded to the shooting.
Bernama
reported that the minister met several Malaysians based in Christchurch
and officials from Wellington. Accompanying him was the Malaysian High
Commissioner to New Zealand, Nur Izzah Wong Mee Choo.
Tomorrow’s
rally is meant to bring people from all walks of life together in a
show of solidarity with the victims of the massacre. - Malay Mail, 22/3/2019
Malaysia’s Mahathir dubs Israel ‘a state of robbers’
Malaysian premier says his country enjoys friendly relations with every country except for Israel
Aamir Latif |22.03.2019
Prime Minister of Malaysia Mahathir Mohamad
KARACHI, Pakistan
Dubbing
Israel as “a state of robbers”, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir
Mohamad on Friday said his country enjoys friendly relations with every
country in the world except for Israel.
“We are not against Jews
but we cannot recognize Israel because of (its) occupation of
Palestinian land,” Mahathir said in his remarks, aired by local
broadcasters, during his three-day visit to Pakistan on Friday.
“You cannot seize others’ lands, and form a state. It’s like a state of robbers”, he went on to say.
His
remarks came a day after U.S. President Donald Trump said it was time
for the U.S. to recognize Israel's control of the occupied Golan
Heights.
Israel has long pushed Washington to recognize its claim over the territory it seized from Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War.
Israel
occupies roughly two-thirds of the wider Golan Heights as a de facto
result of the conflict. It moved to formally annex the territory in 1981
-- an action unanimously rejected at the time by the UN Security
Council.... AA, 23/3/2019
Can Malaysian government revoke the citizenship of a Malaysian?
Can Malaysia revoke a citizenship of a citizen without even according a right to be heard, or a fair trial?
Can Malaysia simply revoke the citizenship of a mother, despite the fact that there are young children who are Malaysians involved?
Can Malaysia prevent citizens from returning to Malaysia?
These are important questions that we all need to think about now, as this has been happening in other countries, and may happen again in Malaysia and in other countries.
Shamima Begum case is of relevance to all, even us in Malaysia today? In brief, it is as follows
It
was reported that the Home Office sent Begum’s family in UK a letter informing
her that Home Secretary Sajid Javid had made an ‘…order “removing her British
citizenship” on Tuesday [19/2/2019]. The document, addressed to Begum’s mother,
said the decision was taken “in light of the circumstances of your daughter…” (Independent,
20/2/2019)...
Fifteen-year-old
Begum, with a couple of friends, allegedly left the UK and travelled to Syria.
She then allegedly got married to a man from Holland. They allegedly had
children, and this is now her third child. Her other children apparently are also
no longer alive. Her ‘husband’ was allegedly involved in ISIS and/or a
terrorist group. There are allegations that Begum herself may have supported
terrorist agendas, beliefs, ideology and may even have participated in their
activities.
There
can be many allegations, but allegations are irrelevant when it comes to the
administration of justice, especially when the end result is the possible
deprivation of liberty, or worse, the loss of nationality.Allegations need to be proven beyond
reasonable doubt especially when it comes to cancelling one’s birth right.
Begum was a citizen at birth. She was not granted her nationality by any
subsequent act of government.
What
we have heard and seen in the media may have influenced the government of the
day. There is always the possibility of bias, selective ‘quotes’ and/or
selective reporting that may invite wrong conclusions....
QUESTION:- Should any government have the right to revoke a CITIZENSHIP? The answer must be 'NO' especially if it was a birthright ...OR, do you think it is OK for the Malaysian government to revoke your citizenship when you are not even in the country,....If a citizen commits a crime, he/she should be arrested, charged, tried and sentenced...Full stop? [Someone said, that would be a good way of reducing crime - we could just revoke the citizenship of all convicted murderers, rapist, kleptocrats...and send them away from Malaysia...after all, did not the British do the same - sending all those 'bad people' to Australia...?] Well, you decide ...but decide thinking you and/or a relative may be the person who may lose his/her citizenship this way....
QUESTION :- Even if a person's citizenship can be taken away, then should it justly not be a decision of the Minister BUT the court after according the affected person the right to be heard and/or a open trial. It is absurd, to make a person no more a citizen, and then say...no problem, you can still appeal...when one is still in some refugee camp overseas..
QUESTION:- 15 year old girl - well, legally she cannot even enter into a contract/agreement?
QUESTION:-In Shamima's case, she had a new born baby - a UK citizen automatically( In Malaysia too, a child of a citizen or even a PR holder is automatically a Malaysian citizen). If the UK government immediately brought back the mother and child from the refugee camp, the baby may still be alive ...but UK failed to act fast...rather simply just chose to revoke the mother's citizenship - a 19 year old girl?
QUESTION:-Was it discriminatory ...because she was a Muslim? because her parents or heritage was Bangladeshi? The current situation is that UK will not revoke anybody's citizenship if the end result is that it will make someone stateless - yes, people who are kids of foreigners maybe could get citizenship in the country of origin of parents ...or maybe be a citizen in the country where the spouse comes for???..
QUESTION:- Is getting involved in some other conflict wrong? Should people who donate, contribute time and assistance in conflicts not in one own's country doing wrong? Is actually fighting - taking up arms a wrong? Well many Malaysians have been donating for the Palestinian issue and even the Sri Lankan Tamil conflicts? In fact, there may be even Malaysians who went and fought for the Palestinians...and even during World War II, many citizens from not the countries in the conflict joined the war...
That is OK as long as they are not TERRORIST - well, who really defines a 'terrorist' - usually the enemy in a conflict. Terrorist - one who uses 'terror' as a threat and a means of resolving a conflict ...is that the definition? Well, then maybe even many countries are terrorists? In a lot of independence struggles, the people who fought for independence were terrorists, were they not? Must TERRORISTS have a certain ideology they are pushing for? Even in Malaysia, there is no transparency as to who Malaysia considers terrorists? I wondered whether HAMAS is also terrorist...the PLO? Post 9-11, things have become even worse, coupled with growing 'Islamophobia', who are terrorist and who is not is confusing...
Anyway, the issue on point is Shamima Begum - can government remove our citizenship?
And now, there are some in Malaysia that is opposing the bringing back of Malaysians in Syrian Refugee camps...because they may have 'supported' or were involved in some fighting...What do you think?
Citizenship/Nationality can sometime mean just a document ...or is it more than that? Rohingyas...the 'stateless' in Malaysia???
Just Google about 'Shamima Begum' and read the many articles on this very current issue in UK...Below is but one such article..
Shamima Begum: Dutch husband wants to take teenager to Netherlands
Detained Isis fighter Yago Riedijk says it was her ‘own choice’ to marry him aged 15
Shamima Begum is living in a refugee camp in Syria.
Photograph: BBC News
The Dutch husband of Shamima Begum, the teenager who fled the UK to join Isis, has said he wants to return to the Netherlands with his wife and newborn son.
Speaking to the BBC, Yago Riedijk, 27, said he rejected Islamic State, who reportedly tortured him on suspicion of being a Dutch spy.
He admitted to fighting for Isis and may face a six-year jail sentence if he returns to the Netherlands.
Riedijk is being held in a Kurdish-run detention centre in northern Syria. Begum and Riedijk are said to have fled Baghuz, Isis’s last foothold in eastern Syria as it lost territory in recent months.
Begum, 19, who until recently was in al-Hawl refugee camp in northern Syria, is reported to have gone elsewhere.
Riedijk married Begum days after she arrived in Syria, when he was 23
and she was 15. They have since had three children, two of whom have
died. Their daughter, Sarayah, died aged one year and nine months and a son, Jerah, died aged eight months.
Their third child, born in February, could be entitled to Dutch
nationality, but the underage union between Riedijk and Begum may not be
recognised by Dutch authorities.
Riedijk, who is said to have rejected Isis, was found in the detention centre by the BBC.
Asked if he thought marrying a 15-year-old girl was
acceptable, he said: “To be honest, when my friend came and said there
was a girl who was interested in marriage, I wasn’t that interested
because of her age, but I accepted the offer anyway.
“We sat down and she seemed in a good state of mind. It was her own
choice; she was the one who asked to look for a partner for her.
“Then I was invited and, yeah, she was very young and it might have
been better for her to wait a bit, but she didn’t – she chose to get
married and I chose to marry her.”
It is unclear whether the family could move anywhere at present. The UK home secretary, Sajid Javid, caused controversy when he ordered that Begum’s British citizenship be revoked
on 19 February, despite her having no other nationality. It is illegal
for any country to make its citizens stateless under UN law.
The foreign ministry in Bangladesh – where Begum’s parents were born
but where she has never been herself – later confirmed Begum would not
be entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship.
A spokesperson for the Dutch Immigration and Naturalisation Service
(IND) said it cannot comment on individual cases, but added that to live
in the Netherlands with a Dutch national a spouse or partner would need
a resident permit – which would require a valid passport or other
travel document.
The spokesperson added: “To be clear, the Netherlands don’t offer any
help to Dutchmen in Syria willing to return. If someone reports at a
Dutch embassy or consulate, that person will be transported to the
Netherlands, arrested and prosecuted. Foreign fighters with two (or
more) nationalities, who are deemed a threat to our national security,
can have their Dutch citizenship/passport revoked.”
Riedijk left the city of Arnhem, home to a number of Isis recruits,
in 2014. There are thought to be 300 Dutch jihadists in Syria and Iraq.
The Dutch immigration and naturalisation service confirmed that the
Netherlands had withdrawn Dutch nationality from 15 jihadists, or
announced an intention to do so.
One other Isis fighter, 37-year old Outhmane B, who travelled to
Syria in the same year as Riedijk, was stripped of his Dutch nationality
last week.
B lost his citizenship because he “has joined an organisation that
participates in a national or international armed conflict and poses a
threat to national security”, according to the Dutch newspaper De
Gelderlander.
Riedijk is separated from Begum, who is thought to be living in a refugee camp near the Iraqi border.
She and her son were reportedly moved from al-Hawl camp following
death threats after she made statements to the media that she wanted to
return to the UK. - The Guardian, 3/3/2019
