Tian Chua or Prabakharan for Batu in GE15? People choose their MPs not political parties

Tian Chua(or Chua Tian Chang) was a victim of injustice when on nomination day of GE14, the Election Commission officer disqualified him, and prevented him from contesting. Later, the High Court decided that what the EC Officer did was WRONG - and Tian Chua ought to have been allowed to contest, and would have likely won and should have been serving as a MP for Batu until recent dissolution of Parliament. A negligence or mistake made Tian Chua a victim of miscarriage of justice.

When disqualified, Tian Chua did consider the other independent candidates contesting for Batu, and finally one P Prabakaran, a young person of 22 running as an Independent was the 'lucky' one, who Tian Chua and PH chose to support for the purpose of winning Batu, thus ensuring the PH Plus the majority to take over Federal Government. Possibly a condition, so Prabakaran joined PKR. When Prabakaran won, he made history as being the youngest person elected as MP in Malaysia.

How did Prabakaran fare as an MP? Did he stand out in Parliament and outside Parliament raising significant issues - well not much until his last months as MP in 2022 when he was reported speaking out...

Batu MP P Prabakaran today called on Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob to reshuffle the cabinet in an effort to stabilise the economy.

Prabakaran (above) questioned the capabilities of the current ministers who were only implementing task forces to deal with the rising cost of goods, adding that the positions should be made available for more qualified ministers.

“If all these ministers are only establishing task forces as a solution, only wanting to do research, what are the actual duties of these ministers and their deputies?

“It’s better for them to resign (from their positions) or for the prime minister to fire or reshuffle the cabinet to allow for more capable ministers and deputies to manage their respective ministries. -Malaysiakini, 9/7/2022

Batu MP P Prabakaran has condemned the use of race by the country's players and is urging Malaysians to move away from racism as a whole.

In a statement today, Prabakaran claimed that despite Pasir Puteh Bersatu vice-chief Borhanudin Che Rahim’s apology for using a racial slur to refer to national shutter S Kisona, the issue remains rampant among some political parties to gain political points.

“The party in government today does not respect the concept of the Malaysian Family touted by Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob,” said Prabakaran.- 4/10/2021

Better than MPs that was reported speaking out on national issues, Prabakaran did once, whilst the other seems ethnic-linked but needed. Prabakaran was in the news for violating the MCO, and when his car was pelted with eggs. He could have done more, maybe Tian Chua would have spoken out more on justice and human rights issues. Remember an MP should not focus attention doing welfare work for his constituency, and we have the relevant Ministry/Department to do that, but an MP must be active in pushing for matters concerning national policy and laws that affect all Malaysians, not just his/her constituency. That really in Batu comes under the Local Government. Maybe, Prabakaran should make known what he did as an MP - did he report and have regular discussions with his constituents(not just his party members). Did he raise issues in Parliament and ask relevant questions? Was he happy with the performance of PH Plus, when they were in government? Did he push for democratic elections in the communities in Batu, or was he simply happy with political appointee system? Looking at media reports, Prabakaran's performance as MP was lack luster, but obviously in 'political work' in the party seems good as he ousted Tian Chua in the last election - ' Tian Chua lost to Prabakaran in the fight for the Batu PKR division chief’s post during the party elections this year.' 

Prabakaran, after enjoying the monies and power that came with being a MP then seem to have turned his back on once 'mentor', Tian Chua. 

Prabakaran should have elected to contest in another constituency, possibly currently held by a PH-party hopper, rather that deny TIAN CHUA, the Batu seat, which was so wrongly denied him in GE14 by reason of wrongdoings of an EC officer.

TIAN CHUA is a human rights defender since the 1990s. He was believed to be one of the key organisers successfuly behind the REFORMASI movement that organized the consequtive street protests in Kuala Lumpur that saw 10,000 plus coming out Saturday after Saturday in Kuala Lumpur. He was with SUARAM, the human rights organisation, and later was close to Parti Rakyat Malaysia, before a faction of PRM merged with Keadilan to form PKR. Tian Chua was the Chinese Malaysian of PKR, until the leadership choose Chau Jui Meng and later Chang Lih Kang. {Whenever persons not of the Anwar household achieves prominence in the party and nationally, it seems that PKR leadership 'diminishes' their influence by replacing with another. For the Indian Malaysians, it was first Sivarasa, then changed to N. Surendran, then later Xavier Jeyakumar. Same to with the Malay in PKR...this seems to be a trend with Anwar and PKR, which at the end of the day may not be good for PKR). As an MP, Tian Chua continued to be committed to human rights and justice, and did speak out and act inside and outside Parliament)

Tian Chua was no silent loyal follower, but did speak out against matters that were against his fundamental values/principles on democracy, justice and human rights. Alas, some political party leaders do not like this, preferring instead total loyalty with no dissent. They do not respect and practice freedom of opinion or expression. Either way, Tian Chua's future in PKR would have been ended sooner or later...

Tian Chua, was rightly or wrongly associated with Azmin and the gang of PKR MPs that left PKR BUT the difference was that Tian Chua did not elect to leave PKR, possibly realizing that in a democratic party, there will always be difference of opinions/views and holding a minority view today may end up being the majority view tomorrow. Tian Chua, of the past, I believe will not support the removal of party members from the party simply because they had a different view from Anwar or the party leadership.

So, if one is faced with a choice between Prabakaran(running under the PKR/PH ticket) and Tian Chua(running as an independent or some other party), remembering also his past struggle for the squatters(urban settlers) of Batu, I would most likely vote for Tian Chua. Prabakaran raised issues, but too late and seems to be ethnically inclined rather than being for all people.

I really hope that young Prabakaran withdraw from contesting for Batu, take a break and come back again. Or contest in some other seat.

Recent news about PKR's candidacy for GE15, shows that PKR has dropped many MPs with a strong human rights/justice background in favour of 'new unknowns' with apparently no history of struggle for justice.

One of those dropped was Maria Chin Abdullah, the former chairman of electoral reform group Bersih. She won the Petaling Jaya parliamentary seat in 2018 with a 57,137 majority against candidates from Barisan Nasional (BN) and PAS.

R Sivarasa, who was Sungai Buloh MP, was also dropped from the PKR candidates list, as was incumbent Gopeng MP and former deputy health minister Dr Lee Boon Chye.

Other former PKR MPs who will not be defending their seats include Tan Yee Kew (Wangsa Maju), June Leow (Hulu Selangor), Johari Abdul (Sungai Petani) and Chan Ming Kai (Alor Setar). -FMT, 29/10/2022

Lee Boon Chye - well, he was a former member University Malaya Student Union. Since then, till today, he has been a man of principle, committed to human rights and justice. There is no suggestion of any abuse or corruption on his part. We all remember reading his public comments especially on matters of health and public health. He was a good MP and an asset as a MP > so why did Anwar and PKR drop him?

Maria Chin Abdullah - she was the BERSIH Chairperson fighting for free and fair elections who choose to stand as MP to be able to bring up such issues in Parliament. Remember BERSIH did have a lot of popular support and even managed to get hundreds of thousands of persons to be involved in peaceful assemblies - a movement that definitely had an impact in the defeat of BN in the last GE14. Why was she dropped? A victim of 'use and dispose' policy of Anwar and PKR?

R.Sivarasa - another human rights activist and lawyer. His background starts with OPs Lallang, then SUARAM. He was from PRM when a faction merged with Keadilan to become PKR. As a lawyer, he has been in the forefront advising and representing many PKR leaders. Why was he dropped? A victim of 'use and dispose' policy of Anwar and PKR?

And, Anwar's response was 

No discrimination based on GENDER and improved rights for Foreign Spouses - vote for parties/candidates who agree with this come GE15

Malaysia finally in about September 2001 amended the Federal Constitution to ensure that Article 8(2) is amended to specifically provide that no more discrimination based GENDER 

(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.

(2) Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.

However, this provision seems to clearly place anti-gender discrimination on government/s, but it is still not very clear whether this anti-discriminatory obligations also applies to every one in Malaysia, including businesses and the private sector. Maybe an amendment to make this most clear. 

However, as of late, we discovered that there still exists DISCRIMINATION on the basis of GENDER. A Malaysian FATHER has better rights than a Malaysian MOTHER - i.e. who is married to a foreigner and have children overseas.  There is no justification why a Malaysian MOTHER is not accorded the same rights as a Malaysian Father, with regards to citizenship rights of a child. This is GENDER DISCRIMINATION.

If there is NO GENDER DISCRIMINATION, then both parent, MOTHER or FATHER who are Malaysians must be treated equally...

One problematic area, as an example, was the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution, Part II. The wordings are ODD - for 1(a) and 1(d) is gender discriminatory as it considers "parents', with a requirement that at least one(father or mother) was a citizen or permanent citizen.

However, 1(b) and 1(c) is where Gender Discrimination exist - it accords the FATHER not the MOTHER the right to enable the child citizenship...WHY? Are we in Malaysia still practicing discrimination by reason of Gender? Shameful.

When the issue or the problem was HIGHLIGHTED, the government and Parliament failed to deal with it immediately - they could have just amended the Federal Constitution. So, the PN-BN Plus government advocates discrimination based on Gender. But some of their MPs took a different stand from the Cabinet.

What about the Opposition MPs in Parliament - did they at the very least table a MOTION(Usul) calling for amendment that will treat the Mother and Father equally - remember Hadi Awang tabled a USUL to increase the punitive capacity of Syariah offences. If the Opposition did not at the very least table a MOTION and campaign for reform, then the Opposition MPs and their political party is also GUILTY for not taking steps to end GENDER DISCRIMINATION> What about the other political parties, not then in Parliament - did they speak out on this very fundamental issue of Gender Equality? YES, there were MOTIONS tabled but the Speaker did not allow it > and the PN-BN Plus could have allowed the said motions to be debated in Parliament, but it seems that they did not do it.

A lot of Malaysians go overseas for studies and work, and we cannot control LOVE, and rightly marriages happen and children come into being. The children of these Malaysian mother or father, married to a foreigner must still be entitled to Malaysian citizenship.

After all, Malaysia has been giving out citizenship to foreigners, not just those married to Malaysians. Malaysia have been handing out Permanent Residency to foreigners, and all their children thereafter are Malaysian citizens.

So, why this DISCRIMINATION against a Malaysian women who marries a foreigner...note Najib's daughter also married a foreigner from Khazakstan.

The government, and maybe even the Opposition, strategy was simply to leave it to the Courts > hoping the blame then will be shifted to the Courts. BUT, courts have to base their decisions on the existing written laws(including Constitution) - and here was a bad Gender Discriminatory provision in the Federal Constitution, and the ONLY SOLUTION is an amendment of the Federal Constitution to remove the word 'father' to be replaced with the word 'parent' - hence removing the still existing gender discrimination.

SECOND SCHEDULE

 PART II

 [Article 39]
CITIZENSHIP BY OPERATION OF LAW OF PERSONS BORN BEFORE MALAYSIA DAY

[Article 14 (1) (b)]

CITIZENSHIP BY OPERATION OF LAW OF PERSONS BORN ON OR AFTER MALAYSIA DAY

1. Subject to the provisions of Part III of this Constitution, the following persons born on or after Malaysia Day are citizens by operation of law, that is to say:

(a) every person born within the Federation of whose parents one at least is at time of the birth either a citizen or permanently resident in the Federation; and

(b) every person born outside the Federation whose father is at the time of the birth a citizen and either was born in the Federation or is at the time of the birth in the service of the Federation or of a State; and

(c) every person born outside the Federation whose father is at the time of the birth a citizen and whose birth is, within one year of its occurrence or within such longer period as the Federal Government may in any particular case allow, registered at a consulate of the Federation or, if it occurs in Brunei or in a territory prescribed for this purpose by order of the Yang di- Pertuan Agong, registered with the Federal Government; and

(d) every person born in Singapore of whose parents one at least is at the time of the birth a citizen and who is not born a citizen otherwise than by virtue of this paragraph; and

(e) every person born within the Federation who is not born a citizen of any country otherwise than by virtue of this paragraph.

So, now when you go out to VOTE in GE15, vote candidates who are against GENDER DISCRIMINATION - who will do the necessary amendment to amend the Federal Constitution provisions, and provisions in other Malaysian laws that is still gender discriminatory.

If NOT, you will end up voting someone who believe that MEN should enjoy better rights than women.

Position on fundamental issues like this are what matters - Hope that this issue is CLEARLY addressed in the party/candidates manifesto or promises before you vote for him.

Many parents send their daughters overseas to study/work, and they may end up marrying a foreigner, and have children. If the marriage ends, most likely, the daughter/mother will end up with the children...

Of course, a law barring DOUBLE CITIZENSHIP may be OK - but at least for children of Malaysian mothers, they should also have the right to Malaysian citizenship.

A small issue, affecting not a large number, but it is an issue of PRINCIPLE and VALUES, so a clear stance against GENDER DISCRIMINATION is needed - the constitution must be amended forthwith. Even if such a Constitutional Amendment is tabled, I believe that NO reasonable MP will vote against it..

FOREIGN SPOUSES of Malaysians -  Reasonably on the registration of marriages in Malaysia, foreign spouses should be immediately accorded 'permanent residency status', which may be revoked if the marriage is terminated and there are NO children of the marriage who are Malaysian citizen, and the foreign spouse has no desire to remain in Malaysia...Currently, foreign spouses are given yearly spouse visa, which can continue for decades. To insist that the foreign spouse remain in Malaysia is out-dated, and many partners in marriage do work in different towns/countries.

FOREIGN SPOUSES of Malaysians should also be accorded the right to work legally, without the requirement to apply and get any work permits from the Immigration.

There are other issues concerning women and children that must be DEALT with, and the issue of FOREIGN SPOUSES is one such important issue. 

SPOUSES Malaysian or foreign in Malaysia reasonably have to earn income to support their families, and so there should not be any impediment to them legally staying and/or working in Malaysia.

 

Court of Appeal rules no citizenship for overseas born children of Malaysian mothers married to foreigners

By Sharanjit Singh - August 5, 2022 @ 1:21pm

The Court of Appeal (COA) has allowed the government's bid to overturn a landmark ruling which said that children born overseas to Malaysian mothers with foreign spouses were entitled to Malaysian citizenship. - NSTP file pic, for illustration purposes only

PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal (COA) has allowed the government's bid to overturn a landmark ruling which said that children born overseas to Malaysian mothers with foreign spouses were entitled to Malaysian citizenship.

The highly anticipated decision was delivered by a three-men bench chaired by Datuk Kamaludin Md Said, much to the dismay of Malaysian women impacted by the issue of their children's citizenship status just because of their foreign spouses.

The other judges on the bench were justices Datuk S Nantha Balan and Datuk Azizah Nawawi.

Kamaluddin and Azizah were in the majority, while Nantha dissented.

The two judges ruled that the word "father" in the Second Schedule of Part 11 of the Federal Constitution meant the biological father and cannot be extended to include the mother or parents.- NST, 5/8/2022

Speaker rejects 17 private member’s bills on overseas-born children

Published:  Oct 5, 2022 11:43 AM

⋅

Updated: 1:37 PM

Dewan Rakyat speaker Azhar Azizan Harun has rejected 17 MPs in each of their bids to file a private member’s bill to Parliament for a constitutional amendment allowing citizenship to children born overseas to Malaysian mothers.

In a media statement today, Pengerang MP Azalina Othman Said, who is also chair of the Parliamentary Special Select Committee for Women and Children Affairs and Social Development, said the committee was willing to bring this matter to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

She explained that she was among the 17 MPs who were rejected.

Azalina explained that her proposal was to include the word “mother” in Section 1(b) of Part 2 Schedule 2 of the Federal Constitution but was rejected on grounds that amendments to provisions under Part III of the Federal Constitution cannot be passed without the consent of the Conference of Rulers.

“It is my sincere hope that the government of the day prioritises measures that can be taken to allow citizenship for children born overseas to Malaysian mothers as is their birthright,” she stated.

Pengerang MP Azalina Othman Said

‘Morally untenable’

Azalina said she and each of the 16 MPs received a response from Azhar notifying rejection of their proposals and they include Permatang Pauh MP Nurul Izzah Anwar, Bagan MP Lim Guan Eng, Muar MP Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman, Hulu Langat MP Hasanuddin Yunus and Bandar Kuching MP Dr Kelvin Yii.

“It was morally untenable to leave thousands of children born to Malaysian mothers stateless.

“It is outright discriminatory to women and we must act in the best interest of our children and the rights of Malaysian mothers, and we must act now.

Other MPs whose bids were rejected are Lanang MP Alice Lau, Pandan MP Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, Segambut MP Hannah Yeoh, Kuantan MP Fuziah Salleh, Lembah Pantai MP Fahmi Fadzil, Petaling Jaya MP Maria Chin Abdullah, Lumut MP Mohd Hatta Ramli, Ipoh Barat MP M Kulasegaran, Cheras MP Tan Kok Wai, Bukit Mertajam MP Sim Chee Keong and Wangsa Maju MP Tan Yee Kew. - Malaysiakini, 5/10/2022

Amend constitution to allow citizenship through mothers, say MCA, DAP

FMT Reporters

-

August 5, 2022 8:52 PM

116 Shares

86

20

Chan Quin Er of MCA and Loke Siew Fook of DAP say a court ruling today violates the principle of gender equality.

PETALING JAYA: Two parties have called for a constitutional amendment to provide citizenship to overseas-born children through their Malaysian mothers.

MCA spokesman Chan Quin Er said the Dewan Rakyat should consider amending the constitution so that overseas-born children could obtain citizenship from “either parent” or “either mother or father” or “both mother and father”.

She called for bipartisan support for such constitutional amendments so that Malaysian women would have equal rights with men in passing on citizenship to their children.

DAP secretary-general Loke Siew Fook urged Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob to table an amendment bill at the next parliamentary session.

“Forty-two DAP MPs will back this amendment and I am also confident that our friends in Pakatan Harapan will, too,” he said.

The statements from the MCA and DAP leaders came in the wake of an appeal court ruling today upholding the current law that children derive citizenship from their Malaysian fathers.

The court overturned a High Court ruling in September in which judge Akhtar Tahir had held that mothers were entitled to confer citizenship by operation of law in all processes, just like fathers. He said the word “father” in the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution must mean and include mothers.

However, the Court of Appeal ruled by a 2-1 majority today that the word “father” is “clear and unambiguous” and could not be construed to include “mother”. It held that children born overseas to Malaysian mothers can be denied citizenship.

Chan and Loke both described the decision as an injustice to Malaysian women, violating the principle of gender equality enshrined in the constitution.

The constitution should be amended to remove all doubt and end any further discriminatory practices against Malaysian mothers, Chan said in a statement.

Today’s court decision came in an appeal by the government, the home minister and the director-general of the national registration department against the High Court ruling in September. - 5/8/2022, FMT

Explainer: How the High Court decided Malaysian mothers’ overseas-born children can be citizens too

Members of Family Frontiers hold up placards demanding equal citizenship rights for Malaysians outside the Kuala Lumpur High Court September 13, 2021. — Picture courtesy of Family Frontiers

By IDA LIM

Wednesday, 20 Oct 2021 5:07 AM MYT

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 20 — The High Court had on September 9 made a historic decision to recognise that Malaysian women should have the same right as Malaysian men, under the Federal Constitution, to pass on citizenship automatically to their children born overseas.

So why did the judge make this decision? And what does it mean for children born abroad to Malaysian women who are married to non-Malaysian men?

Here’s a summary by Malay Mail, based on the High Court’s written judgment and other court documents:

What led to the court case: Automatic right vs application

For decades now, Malaysian women married to foreigners have found that their children born overseas are not automatically allowed to become Malaysian citizens, due to provisions in the Federal Constitution. 

By comparison, Malaysian men who are married to foreigners whose children are born abroad automatically become Malaysian citizens, once the child’s birth is registered with a Malaysian consulate or the Malaysian government within the required period.

Malaysian women who would like their overseas-born children to have the same nationality as them, have to apply under Article 15(2) of the Federal Constitution.

Under Article 15(2), the Malaysian government “may” register anyone aged below 21 as a Malaysian citizen, if this person has at least one parent who is Malaysian and if this person’s parent or guardian had applied for the citizenship registration.

While it sounds simple, the pathway for these Malaysian mothers’ overseas-born children to be recognised as Malaysians actually tends to be a difficult one that could take years and years of waiting and trying, and with no guarantee of success. 

Family Frontiers president Suriani Kempe had in court documents said that the Article 15(2) application process — which is the only option such Malaysian mothers can resort to — is “discretionary, tedious, takes an inordinately prolonged period for processing and the application is often rejected.”

This led to six affected Malaysian mothers together with Family Frontiers filing a lawsuit through an originating summons on December 18, 2020 in the High Court in Kuala Lumpur against the Malaysian government.

Members of Family Frontiers hold up placards demanding equal citizenship rights for Malaysians at the Kuala Lumpur High Court April 27, 2021. — Picture by Hari Anggara

The six mothers are Myra Eliza Mohd Danil, Adlyn Adam Teoh, a mother who wishes to be identified only as Devi, Choong Wai Li, Ng Mei Mei and Rekha Sen Mei-Mei.

All six had first tried to apply for their children to be registered as citizens under Article 15(2), but these applications were rejected — with no reasons given. 

By the time they finally filed this court case, some of them had been waiting for more than four years without any reply from the government (and still none to this day) on their latest attempts.

The earliest time these mothers had made the first citizenship application for their children was in 2011 or even 2013, which means the journey for some of them had started 10 years ago.

Meanwhile, the clock keeps ticking, as the Article 15(2) pathway has an age limit of 21 years. In the process of waiting, some of the six mothers’ children are already in their early teens or having reached half of the age limit. Some may also have siblings who are Malaysian, just because they were born in Malaysia.

Here’s a chart showing how lengthy the process can be, based on the six mothers’ experience listed in court documents sighted by Malay Mail:

What happened before the case could be heard 

The Malaysian government in January 2021 applied to have the entire court case struck out without being heard, but the High Court on May 6, 2021 rejected the government’s striking out application.

The High Court judge Datuk Akhtar Tahir instead decided that the lawsuit should be heard on its merits and held that it was not a frivolous case. The judge also allowed the home minister and the National Registration Department’s director-general to be added as defendants.

The judge had said the Malaysian government must give reasons to justify the apparent discrimination or distinction in the Federal Constitution’s provisions, namely where it states a child born in Malaysia can automatically be a Malaysian if either parent is Malaysian, while mentioning that a child born outside of Malaysia can automatically be a Malaysia if the “father” is Malaysian. 

The Malaysian government failed in its second attempt to have the case struck out when the Court of Appeal dismissed its appeal on August 20, and the High Court on August 24 then proceeded to hear the mothers’ lawsuit in full on its actual merits.

Members of Family Frontiers hold up placards demanding equal citizenship rights for Malaysians at the Kuala Lumpur High Court April 27, 2021. — Picture by Hari Anggara

What the judge decided

On September 9, High Court judge Akhtar delivered his landmark judgment which held that Malaysia’s citizenship laws in the Federal Constitution should not be interpreted in a way that discriminates against Malaysian women.

But before looking at the judgment, let’s have a quick look at the laws that are the focus of this lawsuit:

Under the Federal Constitution’s Article 14(1)(b), every person who fulfills the conditions in the Federal Constitution’s Second Schedule’s Part II “are citizens by operation of law.” This means they are entitled or have the right to be Malaysian citizens because of the law, and do not have to apply for citizenship.

In this case, the Malaysian mothers are saying that two of the conditions in Part II of the Second Schedule — Section 1(b) and Section 1(c) — currently discriminate against women, as these provisions now only mention Malaysian fathers as being able to pass on their citizenship to their children who are born overseas.

Section 1(b) provides for every person born outside Malaysia to be a citizen automatically if their “father” is a Malaysian citizen at the time of the person’s birth.

Section 1(c) is similarly worded with specific mention of the requirement for the “father” to be a Malaysian citizen at the time of the person’s birth, but with the added condition that the person’s birth abroad is registered at a Malaysian consulate (or with the federal government if born in Brunei) within one year of birth or within any longer period that the Malaysian government may allow.

The six Malaysian mothers and Family Frontiers had asked for six court orders, including declarations that these two citizenship provisions were discriminatory and violates the Federal Constitution’s Article 8 (which protects Malaysians from gender discrimination), and a declaration that the two provisions should be read harmoniously with Article 8 for the word “father” to also include the “mother” of children born overseas.

One of the court orders that the Malaysian mothers had asked for was for the Malaysian government to issue citizenship documents to children born overseas to Malaysian mothers.

Judge recognises Malaysian mothers and their children’s hardships

Here’s a summary of the judge’s 24-page full written judgment dated September 27:

High Court judge Akhtar recognised how the same family could have both non-Malaysian and Malaysian children because of the government’s rejection of citizenship applications to the child born overseas, which caused the child born abroad to face mental suffering, being deprived of privileges for education, healthcare and travel and with further difficulties due to Covid-19 pandemic travel restrictions.

The judge noted for example that one of the six Malaysian mothers is separated from her foreigner husband and fears losing custody of her child to the husband, while another of these six mothers had been constantly detained and questioned by immigration authorities due to the different nationalities between herself as a Malaysian and her children whom Malaysia does not recognise as citizens.

The High Court narrowed down the case to three main issues, namely whether the Malaysian mothers had locus or legal standing to be able to bring the lawsuit to court, whether the High Court could decide on the issues in this lawsuit and whether these issues could be decided by the courts in the first place, and the proper application of the Constitutional provisions.

1. ‘Locus’ — the right to file the lawsuit

The judge noted that the government had argued that the Malaysian mothers cannot make a claim to citizenship for their children as Malaysian citizenship is a privilege rather than a right.

But the judge said that the government’s argument does not address the issue of discrimination, noting that citizenship “must be offered without discrimination” even if the granting of citizenship is a privilege.

The government had also argued that the six Malaysian mothers did not have legal standing as they could allegedly only file the lawsuit on behalf of their children instead of for the mothers themselves, as those who are aggrieved were allegedly the children and not the mothers.

But the judge said the mothers themselves had in court affidavits spoken of their grievances such as having to spend more on education and healthcare for their children due to citizenship not being granted to them, and that the government had essentially accepted the mothers’ grievances to be “real and not mere conjecture” as it had not disputed or challenged what they said. 

“So it is illogical to argue that only the children are aggrieved, not the mothers,” the judge said.

The judge also dismissed the government’s third argument where it had claimed that the Malaysian mothers are abusing the process of law by coming to the courts only after their children’s citizenship applications had been rejected.

Brushing away this argument by the government, the judge pointed out that Malaysian mothers had to resort to court after their children were denied citizenship, saying: “There is no abuse and in fact filing this originating summons is the proper and legal procedure.”

Ultimately, the judge said the Malaysian mothers had the locus or the right to file this lawsuit in court, noting that these mothers’ undisputed grievances are “real and not imaginary” and that they have a direct interest in the decision of the issues in the lawsuit.

Merdeka babies sleep in their cribs in Hospital Kuala Lumpur August 31, 2018. — Picture by Razak Ghazali

2. Does the court have the power to hear this citizenship lawsuit?

The Malaysian government had argued that the court has no jurisdiction or power to decide on citizenship matters, asserting that the granting of citizenship is a policy matter solely for the government to decide.

The government had also argued that certain provisions in the Federal Constitution — such as Section 2 of the Second Schedule which states the government’s decision of citizenship matters “shall not be subject to appeal or review in any court” — expressly ousts or removes the courts’ powers to decide on citizenship issues.

The judge, however, said that such an ouster clause only applies to situations where the home minister has the discretionary power to grant or reject citizenship applications such as under Article 15, and that in those situations the minister’s exercise of discretion would not be subject to the court’s review.

The judge indicated that the court would still have the power to decide on citizenship matters when it involves Article 14, where Malaysian citizenship is given as a right or by operation of law, and is not given at the home minister’s discretion.

The judge also said it was “ironical” that the government was seeking to remove the courts’ jurisdiction in deciding this lawsuit by using the concept of separation of powers, pointing out that the ousting of the courts’ jurisdiction in this case would achieve the opposite and concentrate the powers of making, executing and judging on laws in the hands of one single branch of the government — the executive.

The judge had highlighted that the courts are empowered to interpret and apply the law in a way that will uphold justice and uphold the spirit of the Federal Constitution, which is Malaysia’s supreme law.

“In summing up on this issue, the court reiterates that it is not seeking to change the federal government’s policy of granting citizenship,” the judge said, pointing out that Parliament’s Hansard records show that the Malaysian government had long decided — during the tenure of the country’s second prime minister Tun Abdul Razak Hussein — to adopt the policy of granting citizenship to children born outside of Malaysia through the jus sanguinis principle (citizenship based on lineage or parents’ nationality). 

“This court further reiterates that it is not seeking to change the policy or rewrite the law which has already been enacted by the federal government. What the court is endeavouring to do is applying the existing law and policy already in force in a manner which will find a remedy to the grievance of the Plaintiffs. The courts are surely empowered to do this,” the judge said.

Having already stated that there is apparent or obvious discrimination against the Malaysian mothers, the judge stressed that the mothers’ grievances are real and that the government “must not bury their head in the sand like an ostrich and state that there is no grievance or discrimination.”

3. Interpreting and applying the Constitutional provisions

The judge noted that the government had argued that the Constitutional provisions should be interpreted in a literal way, but said such an approach would downgrade the courts’ role to “rubber stamping” the provision without actually applying it in a “fair and just manner” and without considering the actual purpose of the provision’s enactment.

The judge said that all Federal Constitution provisions should instead be interpreted harmoniously and purposively to avoid any provisions from becoming pointless, adding that the citizenship provisions must reflect the Article 8(1) provision that provides for equality before the law.

As for the government’s arguments that the Constitutional provisions on citizenship are not discriminatory and do not violate Article 8, the judge disagreed.

The judge recognised that Article 8 does not give an absolute protection to Malaysians against discrimination on matters such as gender, as Article 8(2) — which starts with the phrase “Except as expressly authorised by the Constitution” —- allows for discrimination in certain situations.

However, the judge said that the law must expressly state a situation as being an exception where gender discrimination would be allowed, and that such exceptions cannot be implied.

For example, the judge said that just because the Constitutional provisions on citizenship for those born outside of Malaysia use the word “father”, it did not mean that there is an implied exception to allow gender discrimination. 

In order to expressly state an exception that would allow discrimination, the judge said a law should start with a phrase like “Notwithstanding Article 8.”

The judge further highlighted that Parliament’s Hansard records do not show a conscious effort to discriminate between mothers and fathers in granting citizenship to their children, and that Parliament’s debates were instead focused on whether citizenship should be given to children born outside of Malaysia and that the sentiment in Parliament was “to give citizenship based on loyalty, allegiance and attachment to the country.”

The judge also said that the government’s failure to provide any justification for the gender discrimination in the Constitutional provisions on citizenship meant that it can safely be assumed that there is no justification.

Children from Kampung Orang Asli Chadak, Ulu Kinta in Perak run with the Jalur Gemilang, September 15, 2021. — Picture by Farhan Najib

The government had argued that Malaysia’s accession or agreement to be bound by the international treaties Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) does not give the Malaysian mothers the legitimate expectation that the Malaysian government would interpret citizenship laws in line with such international obligations.

Among other things, the government had argued that this was because it had expressly made reservations or expressly stated that it would not follow CRC provisions on the right to acquire a nationality, and Cedaw provisions on equal rights of women with men when it comes to their children’s nationality.

However, the judge said legitimate expectation is not derived from international treaties, but said the Malaysian mothers’ legitimate expectation in this case is derived from their “natural instinct to give the best to the child.”

“It is only natural that a parent desires that everything of value be inherited by their children be it material or otherwise. In this case, the plaintiffs as mothers, value the Malaysian citizenship and are loyal to the country and this has motivated them to file this originating summons. Given a choice, these mothers would have avoided the courts at all cost.”

The judge pointed out that the Constitutional provisions that granted citizenship to those born outside of Malaysia were intended to “reward loyalty” as shown by the Malaysian mothers’ loyalty to Malaysia.

The judge also said the Federal Constitution should be interpreted to meet the needs of current time, suggesting that the way the citizenship provisions were worded could be due to historical reasons in the past.

“It could be the word father is used as at that point of time it was difficult to travel and usually it was the fathers who had to travel out of the Federation. Now anyone can travel easily,” the judge said.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the word “father” in the Constitutional provisions —- on citizenship for children born outside of Malaysia — must be interpreted to include the “mother” of children born outside of Malaysia.

The judge’s three orders in favour of Malaysian mothers

The High Court ultimately gave three brief declarations or court orders, including a declaration that the word “father” in the related Constitutional provisions includes the mother, and that therefore the children — of the six mothers and all other Malaysian women facing the similar situation — “are entitled to citizenship by operation of law” if all the necessary procedures are followed. These procedures would be similar to those that Malaysian fathers follow for their overseas-born children to be entitled to Malaysian citizenship.

The second order that the judge gave was for the government to extend the time for the mothers to comply with the necessary procedures, while the remaining order was that “all the authorities are directed to issue the relevant documentation” to give effect to the court’s declaration.

Family Frontiers president Suriani Kempe hands the #TarikBalikRayuan petition to Foreign Minister Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah outside the Parliament building in Kuala Lumpur September 23, 2021. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa

What’s next in the courts

The Malaysian government, home minister and the NRD director-general had on September 13 filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal against the High Court decision.

These three had also on September 14 filed an application at the High Court to stay or temporarily suspend part of the High Court’s decision until the Court of Appeal decides on the appeal. 

The part that they are seeking for a stay of is where the judge had ordered all the authorities to issue the relevant documentation such as identity cards and passports if citizenship is granted to the overseas-born children of Malaysian mothers. 

The High Court will be hearing the stay application on November 15, while the actual appeal is scheduled for case management on November 10.

Home Minister Datuk Seri Hamzah Zainudin speaks during a press conference in Putrajaya September 1, 2021. ― Picture by Miera Zulyana

How long more to wait?

After the government filed its appeal, Family Frontiers launched an online petition on Change.org to urge the Malaysian government to drop the appeal, arguing that justice is essentially being delayed and denied to the Malaysian mothers and their children.

Home Minister Datuk Seri Hamzah Zainudin had on September 22 told the Dewan Rakyat that his ministry had filed the appeal and also applied for a stay of the High Court decision, in order to prevent contempt of court and to not breach the Federal Constitution while the government pursues a proposed amendment of the Federal Constitution.

The minister said that the Home Ministry plans to seek for a new government policy to amend the Federal Constitution to make things easier for Malaysian mothers married to foreigners and who give birth overseas, while saying that such Constitutional amendment on citizenship matters requires consent from the Conference of Rulers in line with the Federal Constitution’s Article 159(5).

Hamzah on September 23 reiterated on Facebook that the rulers’ consent is needed before the government makes any resolutions to amend Constitutional provisions on citizenship, and on September 24 said the Cabinet had discussed the citizenship matter and had directed the attorney-general to raise it to the deputy Yang di-Pertuan Agong in the nearest time.

The Malaysian mothers had on September 23 delivered their petition to the government, and said the government should show its commitment to addressing their plight by immediately dropping the appeal and start implementing the High Court decision without further delay. At the time of writing, the online petition has garnered 32,606 signatures.

Family Frontiers on September 25 said the home minister’s reason for continuing to appeal the court’s decision was baffling, asking if the minister had sought commitment of MPs for a two-third majority support to amend the Federal Constitution and also highlighting the lack of timeframe given for the amendment with no remedy being given in the meantime. - Malay Mail, 21/10/2021

 

Vote Parties/Candidates in GE15 that are committed to abolishing Detention Without Trial(DWT) laws, thus restoring the Right To Fair Trial, and the ability of Judiciary to check abuses of Executive

 

Media Statement – 27/10/2022

Vote Parties/Candidates in GE15 that are committed to abolishing Detention Without Trial(DWT) laws, thus restoring the Right To Fair Trial, and the ability of Judiciary to check abuses of Executive

27^th October is Malaysia’s Abolish Detention Without Trial Day, commemorates the draconian Operation Lallang crackdown on 27^th October 1987 that saw about 106 persons arrested and detained under the detention without trial law, then being the Internal Security Act 1960.  Of the 106, there were human rights defenders including women rights defenders, politicians, academics and others. The Home Ministry also then withdrew the printing and publishing licenses of the Star, Sin Chew Jit Poh and Watan, which was restored almost 5 months later on about 22/3/1988.

The victims then included politicians like Lim Kit Siang(DAP), Lim Guan Eng(DAP), Muhamad Sabu(Amanah) , Ibrahim Ali(PUTRA), Khaled Abu Samad(Amanah), the late P. Patto,  the late Karpal Singh  and others. Anwar Ibrahim, the leader of PKR was also twice a victim of the ISA, in 1974 and again in 1998. What is disappointing is that many of these, who today are still party leaders, seems to have abandoned their and their party’s commitment to abolish DWT laws. How many Malaysian political parties are for the abolition of DWT laws? This must be made clear in GE15 Manifestos of the various parties/coalitions.

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) reiterates the call for the abolition of ALL detention without trial laws, and state that all persons who are suspected of committing  a crime shall be accorded the right to a fair trial, the ability to defend themselves and most importantly be subject to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty must always apply.

Vote Those Who Will Abolish DWT Laws and restore Right to a Fair Trial

All political parties and other independent candidates contesting in the upcoming General Elections(GE15) must make clear a CLEAR commitment to abolish DWT laws, and MADPET calls on Malaysian voters to not vote parties or candidates that want to retain DWT laws, which is a violation of the right to a Fair Trial, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

DWT Laws – Removes Right of Redress of victims for Government Wrongdoing, and BARs Judiciary’s check and balance function

One draconian feature of Malaysia’s DWT laws, is that persons arrested, detained or restricted under this laws have no right in law to challenge the reasons used by the police and the executive. The Malaysian Courts also do not have the right to review the reasons used, and this is unacceptable.

Section 15(1) of the amendment Prevention of Crimes Act 1949 (POCA) states that ‘There shall be no judicial review in any court of, and no court shall have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of, any act done or decision made by the Board in the exercise of its discretionary power in accordance with this Act, except in regard to any question on compliance with any procedural requirement in this Act governing such act or decision.’ Hence, no right to question the REASON the law used, just whether procedure was complied with.

The meaning of judicial review included ‘    (a) an application for any of the prerogative orders of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari; (b) an application for a declaration or an injunction;  (ba) a writ of habeas corpus; and (c) any other suit, action or other legal proceedings relating to or arising out of any act done or decision made by the Board in accordance with this Act. This means that even an innocent person arrested, detained or restricted cannot even later sue to be compensated for wrongful arrest, detention and/or restrictions to his freedoms.

This is also a violation of the Article 5(2) of the Federal Constitution, ‘Where complaint is made to a High Court or any judge thereof that a person is being unlawfully detained the court shall inquire into the complaint and, unless satisfied that the detention is lawful, shall order him to be produced before the court and release him.’. DWT laws deny people this constitutional right, when we cannot ask the court to review the reasons used for detention and/or restrictions.

Similar provisions appear in other DWT laws – which means that the Administration (the Executive), without fear of Judicial oversight and/or intervention, can do as it pleases against any persons in Malaysia, and that is what makes such laws draconian and ought to be abolished.

Remember detentions can be for a period of 2 years maximum, with the ability to extend indefinitely 2 years at a time. Same too is with DWT law ‘restrictions’ after release from detention which could include even meeting certain people, leaving home after some time, not being able to leave certain area and maybe also not being able to contest in elections.

Whilst at present, we may not have prominent personalities under these DWT laws, but many in Malaysia may have been victimized by these laws, or are still being victim of these laws, be it under detention of restrictions.

Sad if Political Parties React if only members/friends become victims

It is a sad state of affairs that even political parties seems not concerned about the victims of these draconian DWT laws, unless one of their leaders or members become victim of these DWT  law. They should really be concerned about all victims, who also are denied the right to fair trial, and more so even the right to be compensated for wrongdoings of the authorities.

Possible Abuse of DWT laws for self-interest or wrong reasons.

Now the police, the administration (including the Minister/Board) and/or the Executive can simply arrest, detain and restrict anyone even for some ‘FAKE’ reason. Without Judicial Review, the Courts are BARRED to even determine whether the reason is justified, true or totally false – hence the much-needed check and balance in a democracy is excluded when it comes to DWT laws. It means the police, Minister and executive can do as it pleases, and there will be no remedy for the victim of these government wrong-doings.

The police, Minister or the government can even arrest, detained and restrict a person, he believes may be suspected of having an affair with his wife or for some other ‘personal reasons’ using existing DWT laws, using some possibly fake reason, that cannot be exposed or challenged in court.

Person/s who commit murder or other crimes, where the law provides sentences on conviction, can also escape conviction and sentencing under the law. They can now be arrested under DWT laws, and be walking free a few years later – and, it makes people angry to see such criminals ‘escape’ the punishment provided by law. A murderer, if tried and convicted will be sentenced to death, and one wonders how many were not investigated, charged, tried and sentenced, when the police/State decided to opt to use DWT laws instead.

There is also the possibility of use of DWT laws to protect criminals from prosecution, trials, conviction and sentences provided by law. DWT laws could also be used against potential witnesses of crimes committed by politicians and others.

After ISA’s repeal, the scope of crimes where DWT laws can be used expanded beyond ‘national security’

Malaysia, under the then Barisan Nasional government, repealed the Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA) and the Emergency (Public Order And Prevention. Of Crime) Ordinance 1969, but thereafter brought in a wider scope of detention without trial by the amendment Prevention of Crimes Act 1949 (POCA) and a new detention without trial law - Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 (POTA).

Previously DWT laws was generally confined to matters of national security, and arms related gang activities – but today, it has expanded, for example for POCA today, one new stated category is ‘2. Persons who belong to or consort with any group, body, gang or association of two or more persons who associate for purposes which include the commission of offences under the Penal Code.’. So if any crime committed by 2 or more persons, including corruption, murder, theft, rape, kidnaping, or abuse of powers, a DWT law can be used.

The government must disclose the number of persons under DWT laws, under detention and under restriction, and for what government suspected reason. How many persons suspected of criminal conspiracy, corruption, murder, sexual offences, theft and the other offences are under DWT laws?

Suspicion or belief in guilt by the police, Minister or the different DWT law Boards is IRRELEVANT as far as criminal offences are concerned, as what is important at the end of the day is that the Courts are convinced of the alleged guilt of any criminal.

Hence, the continued use of DWT laws to avoid the Rule of Law requirements and the right to a  fair trial indicates a bad government.

How many are now under detention? How many are under restriction orders? Is it justified, or is it simply an abuse of power where the innocent may end up victims with no right of redress?

MADPET calls on the Malaysian voter to reject candidates and political parties during GE15 that do not commit to the abolition of Detention Without Trial (DWT) laws, in favour of restoring the Rule of Law, the right to a fair trial to all, and adhering to presumption of innocence until tried and convicted in a court.

MADPET calls on political parties/coalitions and candidates contesting in the upcoming GE15 to clearly state their position on DWT laws, which will also be a declaration of the principles and values they are committed to.

MADPET reiterates our call for the immediate repeal of all DWT laws, including the Prevention of Crimes Act 1949 (POCA), Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 (POTA) and Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985. If they are truly guilty, then they will be found guilty, convicted and sentenced by the Malaysian Courts according to law.

MADPET also calls for the immediate and unconditional release of all persons currently detained and/or restricted under DWT laws in Malaysia.

Charles Hector

For and on behalf of MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

Peoples' rights violated when do not know in advance who is contesting? A party leadership strategy to 'control' future MPs?

Months ago, the political parties should have named the candidates who will contest in GE15, this will also give time for the candidates to make themselves known to the electorate, and more importantly time for the people to investigate and evaluate the said candidate...

Parliament has been dissolved, election dates fixed > we still do not know the names of the party candidates who will be contesting in a particular constituency. DAP allegedly has still not yet confirmed whether incumbent Charles Santiago will be running in the same seat or a different seat. Likewise, the case for all political parties..

If the candidates know in advance, the said candidates can start working on the ground to enable the people to better know them. It gives also the people time to investigate and evaluate individual candidates - simply voting a person becomes he is this party or that party candidate is FOOLISH. 

The short 14-day campaign period makes it near impossible for any candidate to even shake hands with all the constituents..

So, end of the day, people end up voting the PARTY and not the MP candidate... Worse, in most party, it is the national leadership that decides on the candidate > not the members of the party or members in the State or members in the particular constituency...PARTY HOPPING, well at the end of the day, the FAULT lies with the party leaders who made a wrong choice...does it not?

Should not Party Presidents immediately RESIGN when one of their chosen MPs resign? If the party members chose the candidate, then the fault is with membership..

Change of system in political parties >> Maybe a year before upcoming elections, there should be a POLL(or vote or REFERENDUM) amongst party members or even people of the constituency who are interested, as to their choice of the person they want to be their future MP candidate > something like this happens in the US Presidency > first party elections to chose the party candidate, then the election of the candidates from different parties and other independents. Such a process will be more DEMOCRATIC within any political party - the members(or supporters) will have a say. As it is, most political parties are more 'feudalistic' than democratic?

If an incumbent will not be contesting in the upcoming GE, if his/her replacement was known earlier - it would have allowed the incumbent time to introduce his/her replacement to the people of the constituents..

All I know that for Temerloh, PH candidate will be from Amanah - that is not enough, as we do not know who the person is...

The DELAY in informing the people the name of the candidate by the political parties, or other independents who want to contest, is a VIOLATION OF THE PEOPLES' RIGHTS.

This, and a short campaign period, results in people basically choosing based on Party or ETHNICITY or RELIGION - End result, our Parliament gets low quality MPs >> how many MPs stood out after GE14...how many MPs actively lobbied issues...how many MPs really were reported in MEDIA for their stance on issues, for highlighting NEW matters, for suggesting needed REFORMS... sadly so few...

PARTY WHIP - they 'order' and tell their MPs how to VOTE in any particular issue. Party policy seems to be that you can only express party position and not any other different position...

For a more democratic Malaysia, such systems that STIFLE the individuality of MPs need to go...

END RESULT - the people know the "WORTHLESSNESS' of MPs when it comes to advancing issues, positions, voting in Parliament - so, in Malaysia, many simply do not even bother to LOBBY MPs of issues of importance in Malaysia > WHY? Because many MPs are simply perceived as 'puppets' of the Party President/leaders - with NO GUTS to advance or promote a different opinion - well, some Parties also will kick out MPs and Members with a different position/view from their President/leadership - how undemocratic.

So, at the end of the day, MPs are mere 'welfare officers' - place to get monies/allocations, etc... 

I wonder how many MPs in Parliament research and look thoroughly the issues to be debated in Parliament - What is the use, when you are BARRED from expressing a view different from the party leader's view, when you have no choice but to vote as directed by the Party... 

BETTER still, Parliament does not keep records of how each individual MP actually voted --- that means, if confronted by people, a MP could simply lie and says he/she abstained or voted in opposition. No one would know, as there is NO OFFICIAL RECORD OF HOW AN INDIVIDUAL MP VOTED. I wonder whether those that choose to be absent really maybe those who did not want to as their party leaders wanted...

REFORMS need to start with Political Parties > they must be more democratic, and return the power of even choosing MP candidates back to their members, or better still to the people(supporters, etc..) How many of the members of PH want Anwar Ibrahim to become the Tambun MP after GE15? Do the people of TAMBUN have another choice for a candidate..

REFORMS - People need to change, and vote the individuals who are standing as candidate. The party they come from should just be a consideration. {Remember, PKR's leadership choice for MPs were 'bad' when 12 party-hopped...???)

REFORMS - remove party whip, save for maybe Financial Bills, and allow MPs freedom of expression and opinion even in Parliamentary debates..

REFORM - Every vote in Parliament must be transparent > People need to know how their MP really VOTED in the different issues. If they voted different from the views of the majority in his constituency, then he/she must explain to the people...

FEUDALISM went out of the window, to be replaced by DEMOCRACY

But, when we look at the reality, we may be back to a kind of FEUDALISM, now where the political party leaders have become the 'new King', and all members are simply expected to be blindly LOYAL 

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS - Wonder how may political parties/politicians will guarantee this, so that we can once again choose our Local Councillors? Local government is VERY IMPORTANT as it controls fundamental issues  of our towns - it decides on Business approvals/licences, Tax payable to local government/authority, bus stops/bus services, >>> it is really the MOST important of governments as far as day to day living is concerned.

In Mentakab, it has allowed so many temporary stalls for Deepavali - but the problem is location, as each one takes away usage of 3-5 parking lots, in a town where there is already insufficient parking lots. Local government is responsible...?? But the current local councillors do not bother to listen to the people as they are all appointed by the State Government.

Kampung/Taman Elections > Now, they are all appointed by the State. So approvals of the people are given by this political appointees, without even the people knowing. When LYNAS was being built, the people should have been consulted - maybe they were and they approved - nay, maybe their politically appointed heads of kampung/taman and Local Council approved  >>> Maybe, if we checked, this will what will be disclosed.

QUESTION TO MALAYSIANS - What kind of democracy do you want? What kind of democratic practices do you want? CLAIM IT THEN - It will not happen if you simply choose to accept things as they are..

 

 

 

 

 

PH should best not name a PM candidate > after GE15, then elected MPs should the best to be PM?

Opposition parties had never before formally named their candidate for Prime Minister before elections, but it started in GE14 with Dr.M being said to be the PM if PH wins - was it an official announcement, or not? 

Come GE15, Pakatan Harapan may make the mistake of naming Anwar Ibrahim as their PM candidate - this may be a mistake.

What if the named PM candidate loses?

It may be best that PH may have names of potential persons who could be the Prime Minister - but there is no need to announce it now...best to leave it open.

The era of BN or any other coalitions managing to get simple majority in the Parliamentary elections may be over - even in 2018, PH failed to get majority on its own. Only with the formation of post election coalition with others including Warisan, GPS and others did that majority arise..

Of the Pakatan Harapan parties currently, the party with the 'worst' track record is Anwar's PKR... but, it is most likely that PKR will end up contesting the majority of PH seats..

We recall that 

- About 12 PKR MPs, including the PKR No. 2, left PKR and that led to the Sheraton Move, and the fall of the PH Plus government. Of course, there was also BERSATU save a few, ...

- PKR decided to stand with its own Logo in the Johor elections contesting in 20 seats, and the outcome demonstrated how much support PKR on their own really have...

DAP under PH won 10 seats, Amanah under PH banner won 1, and PKR under its own PKR banner won 1.

Apart from that, seven Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) candidates in the Sri Medan, Semarang, Tenggeroh, Pasir Raja, Johor Lama, Tanjung Surat and Benut constituencies also lost their deposits after failing to garner one-eighth or 12.5 per cent of the total votes counted..as well as four from Pakatan Harapan (PH) who were fielded in Endau, Panti, Sedeli and Penawar also lost their deposits. Star,13/3/202

Hence, can we not say that Pakatan Harapan support comes from DAP and Amanah - not PKR. So, it is best not to name Anwar as PM, maybe one of the PM candidates. Anwar apparently decided to contest in Tambun - what if he lost? 

See also:

Anwar, PKR - Dying or still relevant? PH or 'new' political parties - choices for better Malaysia?

- What about support for Anwar himself? Sadly, there was NO contest for PKR Presidency, so we are not able to evaluate how many PKR members support Anwar? Even in the Port Dickson elections, with no significant opponents, the former MP did better than Anwar.

- Anwar's support after expulsion from UMNO was strong because many saw him as a victim but after his release from the 1st corruption charge, the support significantly dropped. Was this support for Anwar a support for a politician, or simply a support for a victim of perceived injustice? 

Anwar should have gone again for a nationwide tour to determine the amount of grassroot support he really has, but he did not. Media and international community may mistakenly believe that Anwar enjoys a lot of support, but the reality at the grassroot may be different...

Now, another problem with Pakatan Harapan is that its failure to build the number of parties in the PH coalition - Why? There are many existing Opposition parties, some new and some old, who could have been invited to become part of PH - which would have made PH much stronger - will this failing matter come GE15?

BUT THEN, CONSIDERING THE CHOICES MALAYSIANS HAVE THIS GE15 - PH MAY STILL BE THE BEST OF THE LOT.

BN - Well, it is this still led by a member of the so-called 'court cluster' - and, as we know, his defenses in court suggest that the monies were received - and his defence seem to be that it was not for himself personally - but for HIS political party, HIS charity, etc... 

PAS - Well, its Muafakat Nasional with UMNO, is its major problem. Note that PAS's biggest enemy come elections have been UMNO/BN in the Malay heartlands for many decades > and, so its sudden 'good relations' with UMNO will be difficult to accept by many of its older grassroots supporters. 

It's becoming part of the PN-BN government is not so much of a problem, as people can accept coalition government may lead to being together with 'enemies' for a short time to affect or implement certain government policies.

Forming coalitions for the purpose of GEs even with DAP or others would never jeopardise PAS's grassroot support.

PAS supporters also now has very real option in Amanah - formed before GE14 by former PAS leaders. Remember PAS too was formed by those who broke away from UMNO.

BERSATU - This party may be 'punished' by the electorate, as their betrayal of PH after GE14 may haunt them come GE15. The party-hoppers from PKR may also be 'punished' this GE15. Muhyiddin may survive as he maintained the position that those who are corrupt must be investigated,charged and tried. Remember, he spoke out against Najib on the 1MDB issue, and did not seem to interfere in the criminal administration of justice involving former Ministers or sitting MPs.. so, he may still be accepted by his constituents this GE15.

PSM - Kumar Devaraj ousted Samy Velu in Sungai Siput, and was seen as a pro-people MP. If PH and other Opposition blocks allows Kumar to contest the Sungei Siput seat, then he may win.

The biggest problem with many Opposition parties is that the people do not know the candidates fielded - their history, their values and principles,... and with a short 14-day campaign period, and the fact that parties do not state their intended candidates in advance gives little time for the electorate to evaluate the candidates, and they are forced to decide based on which party the candidate is from...

PH to date has still not put out the names of their candidates for the different seats ...They should have done so months ago, as this talk of dissolution of Parliament and GE15 started long time ago...

Anwar to contest in Tambun in GE15

Danial Azhar and Shaq Ismail

-

October 20, 2022 10:41 PM

PKR president Anwar Ibrahim said previously that he had received offers to contest in three states.

IPOH: PKR president Anwar Ibrahim will contest the Tambun parliamentary seat in the coming general election (GE15).

Anwar, who is also Pakatan Harapan (PH) chairman, was the Port Dickson MP prior to Parliament being dissolved. He had been MP for Permatang Pauh in Penang for five terms between 1982 and 2015.

Anwar previously said he had received offers to contest in three states – Negeri Sembilan, Johor and Perak – and hinted that he would give way in Port Dickson to other prospective candidates, including state PKR leader Aminuddin Harun.

Anwar went on to explain that his decision to contest in Tambun was inspired by DAP stalwart Lim Kit Siang.

“I don’t want to contest a seat in which I can win with a large majority.

“I’m the (opposition) leader. I’m brave and I’m prepared to contest in Tambun in this election,” he said at a PH convention here tonight.

Last month, Anwar hinted that he would not seek re-election in Port Dickson and might contest a parliamentary seat against “traitors” from PKR and PH.

Bersatu deputy president Ahmad Faizal Azumu was Tambun MP before Parliament’s dissolution. He won the seat in the last general election in 2018 under a PH ticket, when Bersatu was still part of the coalition.

The nationwide polls will be held on Nov 19, with nominations on Nov 5 and early voting on Nov 15 - FMT, 20/10/2022