Selangor MB/ADUNs/MPs should not be getting Director's allowances from State-owned companies

Selangor Menteri Besar/ADUNs/MPs who get appointed as Directors to State owned companies should not be getting additional money in the form of Director's allowances. This will be wrong. They should receive just their salary/allowances for being the Menteri Besar, State Exco, ADUNs and/or MPs. [In Thailand, when a former Prime Minister received money for doing a cooking show, it was wrong and the court kicked out that PM. Likewise, when one is a Menteri Besar and State Exco - they must not have any other source of income. Same goes for ADUNs/MPs. The exception would be maybe income that they have been earning from certain sources even before they came into that position - but this must be declared]

At the same time, when it comes to State-owned companies, CEOs, Directors and/or company management should not be paid more than the salary that the Menteri Besar and/or State Exco receives.

Workers in State-owned companies should also not be paid more than workers of the State government. They should be in the same scale as State government employees. There should be no additional bonuses, etc. State owned company workers should also be given the same benefits as other State government employees, or they should be receiving some reasonable payment in lieu of the said benefits. 

After all, they are working for the State government - and they should not be benefiting more than any other person working for the State.

If the State government feels that ADUNs and MPs of the State, MBs and State Excos are not being paid enough, then make sure that their salaries/allowances are increased by way of amendment of the relevant State enactments, and in the interim additional funds could be given to ADUNs/MPs,.... but it must be the same for all the ADUNs/MPs irrespective of which party they come from. [UMNO-led BN discriminates by giving special allocations to their MPs/ADUNs, and this is wrong - so Pakatan Rakyat must not follow suit, but set the example of how there must be no discrimination]

Kumpulan Semesta Sdn Bhd(KSSB) - I am shocked that there is no transparency, and we are not even informed about who the Directors are, or who the main management are. You can find these information at most private company websites. There is also no statement of accounts, income and expenditure, profit and loss statements - these are information that one can obtain by doing a carian/search at the Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia - so really it is no big deal to have this information in KSSB and all other Selangor government (and other government) owned companies and entities. The annual report should also be there. What we want is openness, transparency, accountability, information.

I ask Anwar, Kit Siang and Hadi for a response, and hope that they will not be the same as the UMNO-led BN leaders who just will ignore it, or...... at the end of the day just not respond.

Malaysian Bar: 50 years is more than enough: Abolish the ISA and other detention without trial and outdated security laws

Press Release: 50 years is more than enough: Abolish the ISA and other detention without trial and outdated security laws

Monday, 26 July 2010 12:41pm

1 August 2010 marks the 50th Anniversary of the coming into force of the Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA).  ISA allows for power to detain a person without trial and contravenes the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. On 19 July 2010 the Bar Council submitted a memorandum to the Ministry of Home Affairs calling for the abolition of ISA and other laws that allow for detention without trial, namely the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 and the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985.  The memorandum also calls for the Malaysian Government to abolish the Restricted Residence Act 1933, Prevention of Crime Act 1959 and Banishment Act 1959. The Bar Council’s memorandum draws attention to the archaic nature of these laws.  It highlights how laws that allow for detention without trial offend the fundamental principles of human rights provided for within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and subsequent international conventions.  It further draws comparisons with anti-terrorism legislation in other jurisdictions such as Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and USA, all of which provide for comprehensive protection of the security of their respective nations without foregoing safeguards to individual liberties and protection of basic human rights.  This has been achieved through a combination of automatic sunset clauses, strict judicial oversight and supervision with secrecy provisions and right to counsel.  Malaysian laws must provide no less protection and safeguards. The Bar Council memorandum points out that Malaysia’s own enhanced counter-terrorism provisions within the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, couple with present immigration and anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism financing legislation, provide our law enforcement agencies with sufficient powers to confront the challenges posed by such criminal activity, and to subject a person so suspected to prosecution within the due process of the law.  The power to detain without trial and to restrict free movement is wholly unnecessary and only leads to lackadaisical investigations, and misuse and abuse of the law. The memorandum can be downloaded from here. The Malaysian Bar calls on the Malaysian Government to respect and uphold the human rights of its people.  As a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council from 2010-2013, Malaysia has committed herself to maintaining the highest standards of human rights.  This can only be achieved by removing all laws contravening basic human rights principles, such as ISA and other legislation that provide for detention without trial and restrictions in the free movement of peoples within our borders.  50 years of living under ISA (and longer under some of the other legislation) is more than enough.  The time to free Malaysians from such unjust and unfair laws is now. Ragunath Kesavan President Malaysian Bar 26 July 2010

Deaths in Immigration Centres seem to be dropping... 78(2005-2009) or is it?

Well, according to the Malaysian government, between 2005 and 2009, 78 persons died while in Immigration Detention Centres, and 32 of them were from Burma.

Sadly, the causes of death was not revealed - and,  we also do not know the number who died when the RELA and/or Immigration officers were trying to arrest them.

We do not know exact numbers of those that died in police lock-ups, prisons, and other places of detention. We recall that 1,300 foreigners were said to have died in the past 6 years.

We recall that it was reported in the media in December 2008, that "About 1,300 illegal foreigners have died during detention in the past six years, Malaysia Nanban quoted Malaysian Human Rights (Suhakam) commissioner Datuk N. Siva Subramaniam as saying. He said many of them died in immigration detention centres, prisons and police lockups because they were denied medical treatment at the right time.” [Star, 18/12/2008, ‘1,300 foreign detainees died due to neglect’] This was again reiterated ABC News(28/5/2009) Malaysia detention centres 'violating rights' .The Bar Council tells us that, "...The Dewan Rakyat figure would mean that an average of one migrant dies in custody almost every day!" - Bar Council: Deaths of migrants in prisons, rehabilitation and detention centres - Another Burmese migrant dies in Alor Star Detention Centre

In July 2009, the Dewan Rakyat was told that some 2,029 persons died in prisons, rehabilitation centres and immigration detention centres between 2002 and 1 June 2009.  More recently SUHAKAM Commissioner Datuk Siva Subramaniam was quoted as saying that 1,300 foreigners died in detention within the past six years.  The Dewan Rakyat figure would mean that an average of one migrant dies in custody almost every day! - Malaysian Bar [Bar Council: Deaths of migrants in prisons, rehabilitation and detention centres]

And now, we are told....

JAWAPAN LISAN DEWAN NEGARA YBM TUNKU ABDUL AZIZ BIN TUNKU IBRAHIM PADA 26 JULAI 2010 [Written Answers in respond to question raised by a Senator]

SOALAN:

Tunku Abdul Aziz bin Tunku Ibrahim minta MENTERI DALAM NEGERI menyatakan bilangan kematian tahanan imigresen yang berlaku di depot tahanan imigresen dan hospital mengikut kategori negara asal, jantina dan umur dalam masa lima tahun yang lepas dan bilangannya bagi setiap tahun.

JAWAPAN:

Tuan Yang Di-Pertua,

Terima kasih diucapkan kepada Yang Berhormat Senator yang mengemukakan pertanyaan.

Untuk makluman Ahli-ahli Yang Berhormat, sejumlah 78 tahanan telah mati di dalam Depot Imigresen untuk tahun-tahun 2005 hinga 2009, dengan pecahan bilangan seperti berikut:

i.                    Bagi tahun 2005 sebanyak 1 kematian;

ii.                  Bagi tahun 2006 sebanyak 5 kematian;

iii.                Bagi tahun 2007 seanyak 27 kematian;

iv.                Bagi tahun 2008 sebanyak 14 kematian; dan

v.                  Bagi tahun 2009 sebanyak 31 kematian.

Dari jumlah ini, didapati bilangan tertinggi terdiri dari:

i.                    32 tahanan warganegara Myanmar yang kesemuanya merupakan lelaki;

ii.                  12 tahanan warganegara Indonesia yang mana 8 adalah lelaki, 2 adalah wanita dan 2 kanak-kanak;

iii.                11 tahanan warganegara India yang amna 10 adalah lelaki dan 1 wanita;

iv.                11 tahanan warganegara Bangladesh yang kesemuanya merupakan lelaki.

v.                  4 tahanan warganegara Kemboja yang kesemuanya merupakan lelaki;

vi.                2 tahanan warganegara Vietnam yang kesemuanya merupakan lelaki;

vii.              Dan

viii.            Masing-masing 1 tahanan lelaki dari Thailand, Nigeria, Togo, Pakistan, Liberia dan Filipina.

See also earlier post Death in Custody: Could be more than 3,000 since 1990...

REVOKE EMERGENCY DECLARATION & RESTORE HUMAN RIGHTS AND RULE OF LAW IN THAILAND - Media Statement by 30 Groups

Media Statement  26/7/2010

REVOKE EMERGENCY DECLARATION & RESTORE HUMAN RIGHTS AND RULE OF LAW IN THAILAND

We, the undersigned 30 organizations, groups and networks, are extremely perturbed about the deterioration of human rights and universally recognized freedoms in Thailand.

In response to people’s exercise of their freedom of expression, opinion and peaceful protest, the government of Thailand had responded with force and violence, that to date has resulted in about 88 deaths, majority of whom were civilians, and injured some 1,800 people.

On 7/4/2010, the Thai government invoked Thailand's Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situation, B.E. 2548 (2005), and placed Bangkok and 23 other provinces under a State of Emergency, allegedly to deal with the anti-government peaceful protests led by the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship(UDD). The ‘red-shirt’ protest was crushed by the Thai government using the military on 19/5/2010. On 6/7/2010, the Thai government has unreasonably extended the state of emergency in 19 provinces, including Bangkok citing, the reason for doing so was "to prevent possible violent or unlawful activities."

On 13/7/2010, the Thai government announced that the emergency decree in the three southern border provinces of Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat for another three months, from July 20 to Oct 19. These regions have been under a state of emergency for the last 5 years.

Thailand's Emergency Decree On Public Administration In Emergency Situation

The declaration of a state of emergency allows the Prime Minister and his Council of Minister wide powers that include prohibition of movement, assembly, peaceful protest,  freedom of expression, flow of information, restriction on press freedom, arrest and detention without trial for up to 30 days, power to summon persons to go to the authorities and/or to produce documents, power to violate privacy of personal communications and to suspend any contact or  communications.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee that considered Thailand’s Emergency Decree, and in their report [CCPR/CO/84/THA/2005] did say that it , “….does not explicitly specify, or place sufficient limits, on the derogations from the rights protected by the Covenant [International Covenant on Civil and Political rights] that may be made in emergencies and does not guarantee full implementation of article 4 of the Covenant.  It is especially concerned that the Decree provides for officials enforcing the state of emergency to be exempt from legal and disciplinary actions, thus exacerbating the problem of impunity.  Detention without external safeguards beyond 48 hours should be prohibited (art. 4)….” As the Emergency Decree has not been amended, these observations are still valid today.

On 18/7/2006, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions,  issued a press release calling on Thailand "to repeal emergency regulations that violate human rights law". The Special Rapporteur also noted that the government had "failed to act on previous calls to bring its emergency regulations into compliance with human rights law" and that, "The emergency decree makes it possible for soldiers and police officers get away with murder… Impunity for violence committed by the security forces has been an ongoing problem in Thailand, but the emergency decree has gone even further and makes impunity look like the official policy."

Arrest & Detention

The government, using the powers it has under the Emergency Decree, have arrested and detained over 400 persons without charge for up to 30 days in unofficial places of detention. The Emergency Decree removes the right to challenge a detention before a court (habeas corpus). Moreover, the Emergency Decree fails to provide sufficient protection to prevent abuse and mistreatment. Unlike Thailand's Criminal Procedure Code, the Emergency Decree provides no assurance of prompt access to legal counsel and family members, or effective judicial and administrative safeguards against the mistreatment of detainees, as required by international law.

What is most disturbing is that these arrests are still continuing, and it has now extended to persons who were not even directly involved in the unrest but also persons who have expressed some opinion on the situation in Thailand. Human Rights Watch recently also stated that they have “…received disturbing reports that journalists, photographers, and medical volunteers have also been ordered to report to the authorities after they publicly stated that they witnessed abuses committed by the security forces.”

The numbers of persons that have been arrested by reason of a violation of a Regulation, Notification or Order under the Emergency Decree, which is an offence that, if convicted, carries a penalty of ‘…imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not more than forty- thousand baht, or to both…’.  is also not known.

Press Freedom & Freedom Of Expression

The right to freedom of expression is essential for the functioning of democracy and guaranteeing other fundamental human rights. However, section 9(3) of the Emergency Decree allows censorship for extremely vague reasons such as "causing misunderstanding of the emergency or affecting the public morals of the people", which can easily be used to limit legitimate political expression. We are troubled by the fact that the government’s Center for the Resolution of Emergency Situations (CRES) has applied restrictions on free expression rights both in the area where an emergency situation has been declared and throughout the entire country. There are reports that more than 1,000 websites, a satellite television station(PTV), online television channels, newspapers, magazines, and community radio stations have been closed down.

PTV (also known as People Channel), a satellite TV station, has been closed under the state of emergency.

The government had also blocked at least 36 websites under the state or emergency  including Prachatai (www.prachatai.com), Sameskybooks (www.sameskybooks.org), Norporchorusa (www.norporchorusa.com) and Weareallhuman (www.weareallhuman.net). It is said that the order came from the Ministry of Information and Communication Technologies (MICT). Any attempt to access the affected sites from within Thailand yields the message “This website has been blocked by ICT & TOT.”

The recent violence has also resulted in the deaths of 2 foreign journalists, Hiroyuki Muramoto and Fabio Polenghi and injuries to at least 8 other journalist. The recent Investigation Report issued by Reporters Without Borders in July 2010 entitled ‘Thailand License to Kill’ raises much unanswered questions about actions of the Thai military and other unidentified persons during the recent unrest. It is disturbing to note that to note that autopsies are still not available, and investigations into these incidents have yet to be completed.

On 13/7/2010, Prachatai said that as the government was hunting for people making comments online, it had decided to close the web board for the safety of users. This is yet another example of the killing freedom of expression and violation of privacy in Thailand using the Emergency Decree. 

Transparency requires that the Thai government reveals in detail the list of websites, blogs, e-mail accounts and other internet services that they have invaded, hacked and/or tampered with in its exercise of the powers it has under the Emergency Decree.

Independent Inquiry

There is a need that there be an independent inquiry into all the deaths, injuries and damages to property caused during the recent unrest. It is not proper and will be unsatisfactory for the Thai government to have their own internal investigations, given also the fact that many of the accusation of wrong doing seem to be levied against the current government and its military. It may be best that the United Nations or the ASEAN, be called to conduct an open public inquiry into the unrest, which must definitely include separate inquiries into each of the deaths and serious injury cases. Alternatively, an international panel of reputed persons could be tasked to do this.

This inquiry must also try to identify the alleged armed persons, who the Thai government claims are part of the red shirt protesters, and is the justification for the use of live bullets in the crackdown on the protesters. The inquiry must also identify those responsible for the actions of damaging public and private property. The possibility that ‘agent provocateurs’ were involved must be considered.   

In the interim, Thailand must assure that the evidence is not tampered with and/or destroyed. Proper autopsies need to be conducted. It was disturbing to note that in the case of  Fabio Polenghi, the Italian photographer, his body was cremated even before the family members were supplied with a thorough autopsy – thus, depriving them the right to request/conduct a second autopsy.

Adequate Compensation For Victims

Whilst the Emergency Decree states the officials protects from ‘civil, criminal or disciplinary liabilities’, it  ‘…does not preclude the right of a victim to seek compensation from a government agency under the law on liability for wrongful act of officials…’ A closer reading states that these persons are not protected if their actions/omissions were not done in good faith or was discriminatory or excessive or unreasonable. There should be no protection certainly for those who shot unarmed persons, and in some cases more than once. There should be no justification for the shooting of medical personnel and members of the press.

As such, we the undersigned  organizations, groups and networks called upon the government of Thailand to :-

*          Immediately revoke the declaration of emergencies in Thailand;

*          Immediately and unconditionally release all persons detained under the Emergency Decrees;

*          Restore full press freedom and freedom of expression by allowing all television/radio stations, publications, media portals, blogs, etc, especially those that were shut down by reason of the Emergency Decree and/or the recent fiasco in Thailand, to immediately function normally without any conditions and/or restrictions.

*          Reveal in detail the list of websites, blogs, e-mail accounts and other internet services that they have invaded, hacked and/or tampered with in its exercise of the powers it has under the Emergency Decree, and  provide adequate compensation.

*          Constitute an independent international panel of inquiry to conduct an open public inquiry into the unrest, which must definitely include separate inquiries into each of the deaths and serious injury cases.

*          Pay adequate compensation for the loss of life and injury to victims and/or their families/dependents during this fiasco,

*          Pay adequate compensation for the deprivation of liberty under the Emergency Decree, 

*          Pay adequate compensation for loss and damage of property, including also loss of business and/or income which was caused by reason of actions and/or omissions of the government and its officials during this fiasco and/or during the period of Emergency,

*          Repeal immediately the Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situation, B.E. 2548 (2005)

Charles Hector

For and on behalf of the following 30 organisations

ALIRAN, Malaysia

Asia Pacific Mission For Migrants

Asia Pacific Research Network

Asian Regional Exchange for New Alternatives (ARENA)

Association Of Indonesian Migrant Workers In Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Burma Campaign Malaysia

Center for Orang Asli Concerns (COAC), Malaysia

Clean Clothes Campaign - International Secretariat

Community Development Centre (CDC), Malaysia

Friends of Asia, South Korea

IMA Research Foundation, Bangladesh

JERIT (Jaringan Rakyat Tertindas), Malaysia

Labour behind the Label

Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET)

Migrants Center in Gyeonsan, South Korea

Migrant Forum in Asia (MFA)

Migrants Trade Union( MTU), South Korea

Network of Action for Migrants in Malaysia (NAMM)

Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM)

Persatuan Masyarakat Selangor & Wilayah Persekutuan (PERMAS), Malaysia

Persatuan Sahabat Wanita Selangor, Malaysia

Pusat KOMAS, Malaysia

Shan Refugee Organization (SRO) Malaysia

Solidarity with Migrants, South Korea

Tenaganita, Malaysia

The Filipino Women's Organization in Quebec

UCCP CO-mission worker with PRRK, Philippines

Writer Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI), Malaysia

Workers Hub For Change (WH4C)

Working People Association, Indonesia

Why some got citizenship? some PR status? and others still on 'social visit visa'? Was there discrimination when dealing with foreign spouses?

There are apparently about 100,000 foreign spouses in Malaysia, and sadly most of them still do not have a 'permanent resident status'. Between 2001 - 2008, only 8,622 were issued with entry permit, which means that they have permanent resident status, and another 3,524 were awarded citizenship.

Foreign spouses must be given entry permits, i.e. permanent resident status upon registration of the marriage in Malaysia. [See also earlier post: PR status to foreigners who marry Malaysians upon registration of marriage in Malaysia - Best Solution] 

Now, presently for the 1st 5 years, foreign spouses are given 6-month or 1-year social visit passes, and later on 3-year social visit passes - but the problem is that application need to be done by the Malaysian spouse. Problem arises when there is a sudden death of the Malaysian spouse, which means that the foreign spouse will be forced to leave the country abandoning behind children, dependents of the marriage (i.e. elderly parents of the Malaysian spouse, matrimonial property, inherited property, etc - and this is so wrong. Even in the event of a divorce, the inability of the foreign spouse, usually women, to remain in Malaysia possibly with the children, in the matrimonial home/property is also wrong. There really must be a policy that parent of Malaysian children should be automatically given an entry permit - a permanent resident status. 

Now, with regard to those who have got their entry permit...and citizenship, one needs to check and see when they were given this. Why did some get it so fast? Why did some get full citizenship, whilst others got only entry permits (PR status)..and why did the majority still have not even been given permanent residence status? Was there any discrimination? Was there discrimination based on religion? Was there discrimination based on the country of origin of the foreign spouse? Was there discrimination based on the political party the Malaysian spouse belonged to? Was there discrimination based on the socio-economic status of the Malaysian spouse? Was there discrimination based on the religion/ethnicity of the Malaysian spouse?

It is estimated that there are at least 100,000 foreign spouses in the country today. However, according to the Home Ministry, from 2001 to 2008, only 8,622 entry permits were issued to foreign spouses of Malaysians.

The largest groups of applicants were from Thailand (2,439), Indonesia (1,955), India (1,785), Singapore (864) and the Philippines (578). Vietnamese applicants were included in the “Others” category, which added up to 1,019.

Many are unaccounted for or in the process of applying for Permanent Residence status or Citizenship.

A total of 3,524 were awarded citizenship in the same period mentioned, out of which 253 were in the “Others” category but it is unspecified how many were Vietnamese. - Star, 25/7/2010, From Vietnam with love

Malaysia's intention of depriving developing nations of their best human resources is not right

PR Status: Categories Need Be Expanded, Minister's decision should be reviewable by court...

PR status to foreigners who marry Malaysians upon registration of marriage in Malaysia - Best Solution

Rights of foreeign spouses of MALAYSIANS being highlighted again

Are foreign spouses now being discriminated based on their nationality?

Maybe 100,000 foreign spouses - but only 8,600 given Entry Permits in last 7 years

Foreign spouses should get PR status on registration of marriage

 

 

Will Pakaran Rakyat help Coalfied and other ex-plantation workers get homes and justice?

Coalfield estate is in Selangor, and Selangor is under the Pakatan Rakyat rule, and when it comes to land matters, the power vests in the Selangor Government.

Permits to allow development - building is all under the power of the State authority - and it is so simple to ensure that displaced ex-plantation workers to be provided adequate land and houses. With preference being to normally stay at the same place, where they had been staying - all that need be done is to give this land to the workers. And usually we are talking of about 5-10 acres only. 

It has been the promise of both the Federal Government ...and the Selangor government (of course, then under the UMNO-led BN government) that these workers would be provided housing.

But, that was UMNO-led BN, and many a times many of these 'promises', assurances, etc ...were not fulfilled. But, now the people have chosen Pakatan Rakyat as government of Selangor - will they be different and resolve the housing and other woes of ex-plantation workers in Selangor? They have the requisite powers to ensure justice but the question is whether they have the requisite political will to do it...and to do it fast.

What could be done?

Where the workers are still in their old homes, fighting moves to evict them or re-locate them to some other locality after all these years, use the State powers to acquire the land where the houses are - and give land titles to each of the workers. 1-2 acres per family would be the best, as that will also give them land to grow vegetables, rear cows/goat/chicken, etc. - and that can be a condition imposed whereby state consent is required for any sale of the land. This is to prevent quick sale for profits, that may be detrimental to the ex-workers future housing needs and welfare.

For other ex-workers, especially the elderly, the State could give them land and house. 

Remember that these workers are the ones that slogged in plantations, and has helped Malaysia come to where it is. It was rubber and oil palm, especially, that Malaysia depended on before it started discovering petroleum and gas.  

The Selangor Government may acquire plantations if estate management fail to embark on house ownership  programmes for their workers. State Executive councillor S. Rajagopal said that the state introduced a policy on Aug 27, 1991 to undertake such a task but had not used its powers yet. He said that they will use their powers if the 156 estates declined to provide adequate housing for sale to their workers....“The State Exco decided last week that plantation owners must provide housing for their workers before their properties were developed for industrial use. We will not allow plantation owners to move their workers to temporary houses while developing their land for other purposes.”...“Estate workers can approach us directly if they are sure that their managements are not building houses for them...We will use our powers to obtain the land at nominal price and ask private developers to build houses for the workers,: said Rajagopal. - Star, 6/12/1993

About 150 estates in Selangor have been ordered to implement the house ownership scheme for their workers...State Executive Councillor S. Rajagopal said if the estates failed to do so then their land would be acquired by the state government to build the houses for the workers.

            Rajagopal said yesterday the state government was unhappy because only 11 plantations had introduced the scheme so far.

            He said estates had to build the houses and sell them to their workers. He added that the policy was introduced on Aug 27 1991

            We have the powers to take part of their land to build houses for workers if the estate management fail to do so, “  Rajagopal said - Metro, 20/1/1995

Estates earmarked for development should strictly abide by the rules and regulations stipulated by the State Government so that retrenched workers do not suffer in terms of housing and jobs, Menteri Besar Tan Sri Muhammad Muhammad Taib said today. He said that there were problems faced by many plantation workers in Selangor especially in getting houses and jobs when the estate they were working in were acquired for development....“The State government has stipulated that when an estate is earmarked for development, low-cost houses must be built and priority given to the workers.”...“The State government welcomes development but estate managements and owners must abide by the rules and regulations. - New Straits Times, 7/8/1996

The state government may make it compulsory for plantation owners in Selangor to provide permanent homes for workers. The move will be introduced as a final resort if the managements do not voluntarily provide housing....

            “The owners have a moral obligation to provide permanent homes for their workers who for generations have slogged hard for them, “ he[State housing and estate workers committee chairman K. Sivalingam] said after meeting at his office with representatives of the Bukit Jelutong Estate workersd and the developers of a new high-tech industrial and commercial park there. Sivalingam said that an increasing number of estate workers are becoming victims of greedy employers who sell off their plantations for a tidy profit. He said many are left homeless when they are forced to vacate their shabby estate houses, previously provided by the management, for new development projects. He said the state also wants to ensure that estate workers are not victimized by the management and developers.....“Estate workers in Selangor, who were displaced in their hundreds and left homeless by the sale of plantation for commercial development, received a strong assurance from Menteri Besar Datuk Abu Hassan Omar today that such callous treatment will no longer be allowed. Abu Hassan said that future applications to convert plantation land for housing or industrial development will be rejected unless the developers come up with plans to re-house the displaced estate workers. Speaking to reporters after attending the MIC Selangor convention, he said it has been the state’s policy to require developers to provide alternative housing for such estate workers. “The problem was implementation. So we will be stricter in enforcing the policy,” he said. “I am serious about this and will not entertain any application without housing proposals for estate workers.”....He said Selangor’s quantum leap from agricultural to industrial development had left estate workers far behind as they have no industrial skills for re-employment. He said the problem had existed for 20 years and many former estate workers had become jobless and destitute, with only an handful being promised low cost houses.- The Sun 4/7/97

And, today again the plight of Coalfield estate was in the news.

KUALA LUMPUR: A 15-year dispute between workers and palm oil estate owners over their residence and job has yet to be solved, although numerous promises.

The 30 families of Coalfield estate are hoping for terrace houses and better facilities where they are now, instead of forcing them to a new housing area – located across the road from the estate.

Yesterday, when Datuk G. Pala­nivel visited the estate, they told the Plantations, Industries and Commo­dities deputy minister that they were tired of the empty promises made to them since 1995.

“We were living without water and electricity supply since December,” said Coalfield estate action committee chairman Lobat Rajoo.

“But yesterday (Thursday), the utilities were restored.”

He said their woes began after a change in ownership of the estate in 1995.

Lobat said that in 2009, the previous owner, claiming to be their current employer, had told them to vacate their quarters at Coalfield Estate by June 30, last year.

“They wanted us to move to Desa Coalfield by purchasing houses there but not all of us can afford a RM35,000 house with our RM21 pay a day,” he said after handing a booklet documenting their plight to Palanivel.

The minister, who met the estate management, said: “I have told them not to be harsh on the workers but adopt a give-and-take attitude.

“Their (the workers) requests are simple and they are poor.” - Star, 24/7/2010, Estate workers fed up with empty promises

FMT FEATURE SUNGAI BULOH: Kuala Lumpur-Kepong Berhad was taken to task for neglecting the plight of its workers and 24 families living at the Coalfield oil palm estate. 

The Malaysia Consumer Advisory Association (MCAA), which has taken the case to the authorities, said the the workers were only asking for their just dues.

“All they ask for is to be properly compensated and be allowed to own an affordable house for their families,” said MCAA president Varatharajoo Murugan.

Varatharajoo said the workers had demanded for houses at a 50 percent discount, lay-off benefits, yearly service benefits and pay for the months they have been been without a job.

The workers were sacked in December in 2009, and in a bid to forcefully evict the families, water supply was cut off by the management and they were allowed only conditional access to the outside world.

Despite the hardships, the workers remained in the estate because they had nowhere to go, and they could not afford to buy into a housing scheme developed by the estate owners.

“The developer offered them housing for RM35,000. They must understand that most of these workers are about 50-years-old. Which bank will offer them a housing loan?“KL-Kepong must pay them for the months they were jobless. It is not that they did not want to work (in a sister estate), but Tuan Mee estate did not provide them jobs as promised.”

“This has definitely put the workers in a fix. Even if they manage to get a housing loan, how are they expected to service the loan as they are out of jobs?” asked Varatharajoo.

He added that the developer also promised to relocate their school and temple but to date have not shown the workers the proposed site for the relocation.

Little help from the NUPW

Varatharajoo took a swipe at the National Union of Plantation Workers (NUPW) for neglecting the workers as it should have been the one empowering the workers to fight for their rights.

“There were (originally) 64 families living in Coalfield estate and the developer built 92 houses for the workers on the advise of NUPW Selangor branch chief S Balakrishnan.

“Balakrishnan, who is also the Coalfield estate MIC branch chairman, had allocated 28 of the 92 units for his family members,” Varatharajoo alleged.

A resident Lobat Raju said the dispute between the workers and KL-Kepong Berhad started in 1991 when the company served the workers termination notices, saying that it had sold and transferred ownership of the estate to KL-Kepong Country Homes Sdn Bhd.

“The new owners agreed to continue to employ us in the estate without break in service. We consulted the NUPW and were assured that we can continue to work and live there. So we agreed to the deal,” said Lobat.

But the situation suddenly changed in May 2007 and once again KL-Kepong Bhd became their employer and this time, they issued the workers a notice of transfer.

“We were told to vacate our quarters by June 30, 2007. The developer the offered us the townhouses which they had built in a nearby residential area for RM42,000 each.

“After much pleading, they brought the price down to RM35,000. I'm earning RM20 a day as a palm oil harvester. How am I going to get a housing loan for a RM35,000 house?” asked Lobat, whose family has lived at Coalfield estate for four generations.

Varatharajoo, meanwhile, also revealed that the MCAA and the affected Coalfield Estate workers plan to hold a peaceful protest in the front of the Selangor MB's office before the end of month. - Free Malaysia Today, 8/7/2010, Coalfield estate management slammed for neglecting workers

 By G Vinod and B Nantha Kumar
FMT FEATURE SUNGAI BULOH: Life is sheer “torture” for some 24 families staying in the Coalfield oil palm estate near here.
Comprising about 70 people, they are struggling without jobs, water and with only conditional access to the outside world.

They say they are being “tortured” because they cannot afford to buy into a housing scheme developed by the estate owners. And they refused to move out.

“We have lived and worked here for four generations and this is how we are being treated for our blood, sweat and tears...” said a tearful 42-year-old harvester Lobat Raju.

Lobat and the others are jobless after their services were terminated six months ago when they defied orders to immediately vacate their homes.

They were asked to leave because the management, Kuala Lumpur-Kepong Bhd, wanted to continue with its property development plans.

Lobat said the trouble started way back in 1991 when the company served the workers termination notices, saying that it had sold and transferred its ownership to KL-Kepong Country Homes Sdn Bhd.

“At the time, both parties agreed to continue to employ us in the estate without break in service.

“We consulted the National Union of Plantation Workers (NUPW) and it assured us that we can continue to work and live there. So we agreed to the deal,” said Lobat.

Then suddenly the equation changed in May 2007 and once again KL-Kepong Bhd became their employer and this time, they issued to the workers a notice of transfer.

“We were told to vacate our quarters by June 30, 2007.

“The developer then told us to buy townhouses which they had built in a nearby residential area for RM42,000 each. After much pleading, they offered the houses to us at RM35,000.

“I am earning RM20 a day in the estate as a palm oil harvester. How am I going to get a housing loan for a RM35,000 house? Some of the other workers also shared my concern.

“They (the developer) told us if we disagreed, we would be moved to work in another one of their estates, Tuan Mee, located five kilometres away. There was no indication of housing for us.

“We did not agree to the deal… but went to Tuan Mee as directed by the management. The Tuan Mee management did not provide us transport; we went on our own.

“But when we got there, Tuan Mee management told us there was no work. It also meant that we had no housing,” said Lobat. They continued to live in misery in Coalfield but they are determined not to quit.

No drinking water

Since December 2009, the families have been seemingly penalised. Their employment has been terminated without compensation, and they have no basic amenities like clean water.

“Two months ago, we dug a well and now use the water from here. It’s dirty and many of us fall sick often... before, we used to channel drinking water from a neighbouring kampung.

“We use to pay them RM1,000 to RM2,000 a month but we cannot afford it now,” said Lobat, adding that the developer had cut their water supply in the hope that they will vacate.

“When the developer found out that Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor (Syabas) had been supplying us with clean water via its mobile service, the management told them (Syabas) off and barred them from entering,” he said.

To make matters worse, the developer discovered that some of them were doing odd jobs outside the estate, like selling flowers, and earning some meagre income for their daily survival.

“They found out that we were working outside and closed off the only road in the estate linking us to the outside world. After 7pm we had no access into the estate and our homes.

“The estate has no hospital and if there is an emergency, we cannot get out and if we do manage to run out, we have to wait for public transport to go to hospital.

“They are torturing us…," said Lobat, who is also the chairman of the estate action committee.

Lies and more lies

Asked if they had sought help from the government, Lobat retorted bitterly: “Yes... and they are all the same.

“Twenty years ago, the Barisan Nasional government lied to us... now Pakatan Rakyat is cheating us…”

He said the estate workers had sought the help of Selangor state executive councillor Dr Xavier Jayakumar.

“In June 2008, we approached Xavier and explained our situation.

“He spoke to KL-Kepong Bhd and later told us that the developer had agreed to set aside 10 acres of land for us to build our own homes.

“The Tamil paper Nanban carried the story quoting him. I still have the report. We believed him and were very happy.

“Then in May 2009, the estate management told us to get out… we went back to Xavier. He arranged for us to meet with the developer at a nearby hall in December 2009.

“While we were waiting for the meeting, Xavier came out of another meeting with the NUPW and told us he had already met the developer.

“He scolded us and said he had never promised us any land.

“He told us to buy the houses proposed by the developer,” said Lobat, daring Xavier to deny his words and reminding him that the “next general election is very soon”. - Free Malaysia Today, 7/7/2010, Abandoned by BN, Pakatan and plantation owner

Death in Custody: Could be more than 3,000 since 1990...

In response to Rocky Bru's querries in his post, Doing a number with numbers: 1,805 died in custody in Malaysia, 2003-2009?, I have looked again at the numbers that I know. I do hope that MPs and Senators do ask questions (and then make public the answers, for some of them may just keep it to themselves) about death in custody on a regular basis.

How many deaths in custody in Malaysia?

From 1990 - September 2004 - there were 1,583 + 150 =  deaths in custody [covered prisons & police lock-ups only - not the other places of detentions like Detention Without Trial Detention Centres, Immigration Detention Centres, Drug..MACC...]

How many deaths in police custody specifically?
From 1990 - September 2004 - 150 deaths in police custody.
Between 2000 - 2006 - 108 died in police custody
Between 2003 - 2007 - 85 deaths in police lock-ups
From 2000 - 2009 - 147 died in police lock-ups (the word 'police custody' was not used.
* SUARAM 2009 Report - In 2009, until 5/12/2009 - 7 deaths in police custody 1 in MACC custody

In December 2008, it was revealed that in the last 6 years (2002-2008) about 1,300 foreigners died in custody in Malaysia

The problem is that the government does not give clear statistics, i.e. yearly figures and where they died? and how did they die. Even when they do reveal, they give figures for different periods, 1990 - 2004, 2000-2006, 2003-2007... why can't they always give say from 1990 - ...then, we can do the math ourselves.

Sometimes they use the word police custody...and sometimes, they use the word 'police-lockups'. We are interested in the number that died in police custody...for that will cover deaths in interrogation rooms, whilst persons are being transported to the police station, witnesses not arrested who came in and died, etc...

All these information should naturally be on the Police Website...or the Home Ministry Website - but they are not. Died by reason of AIDS - this may happen in prisons, detention centres...but most likely not in police custody. Even then, the deaths should have happened in hospitals surely...whilst they were still in custody - we need information about this too.

A total of 279 suspects have been shot dead by the police between 2000 and 2009, while 147 died in police lockup during the same period, revealed Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein today.  Malaysiakini, 28/6/2010, 426 deaths at hands of the police since 2000

 

Relying merely on data provided by the government, it has been disclosed that there have been 150 deaths from 1990 until 2004 (10.7 per year), 108 deaths between 2000 and 2006 (18 per year), and, 85 deaths between 2003 and 2007 (21.25 per year).

In Malaysia "...from 1990 till September last year [2004], a total of 1,583 deaths among prisoners were recorded in 28 prisons nationwide, with the highest number in 2003 when 279 inmates died. During the same period, 150 detainees died in police lock-ups or custody…" - Malaysiakini, 7/2/2005

‘…Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi today revealed that 108 deaths occurred during police custody between 2000 and 2006…’ – Malaysiakini, 23/4/2007
‘…There were 85 deaths recorded in police lock-ups during the 2003-2007…’ -Bernama, 8/7/2008.  - About 3,000 deaths in custody in Malaysia in the last 20 years...Deaths in police custody have been on the rise

"1,535 Deaths in Custody in Malaysia between 2003 and last year" (Bernama News, 8/7/08) - this was what was revealed at the Dewan Rakyat(Parliment) on Tuesday(8/7/2008). - 1,535 Deaths in Custody in Malaysia between 2003 and last year

We recall that it was reported in the media in December 2008, that "About 1,300 illegal foreigners have died during detention in the past six years, Malaysia Nanban quoted Malaysian Human Rights (Suhakam) commissioner Datuk N. Siva Subramaniam as saying. He said many of them died in immigration detention centres, prisons and police lockups because they were denied medical treatment at the right time.” [Star, 18/12/2008, ‘1,300 foreign detainees died due to neglect’] This was again reiterated ABC News(28/5/2009) Malaysia detention centres 'violating rights' .The Bar Council tells us that, "...The Dewan Rakyat figure would mean that an average of one migrant dies in custody almost every day!" - Bar Council: Deaths of migrants in prisons, rehabilitation and detention centres - Another Burmese migrant dies in Alor Star Detention Centre

 Go and see most post marked 'Death in Custody' in my site and the MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) site

 

History: Of Local Council Elections, PRM, Labour Party of Malaya and the Socialist Front(SF)

Of Local Council Elections, PRM, Labour Party of Malaya and the Socialist Front(SF)

This is an article from ALIRAN  that reminds us not only about what happened to Local Council elections, but also about significant role played by Parti Rakyat Malaysia(PRM) as a political party, and as part of the Socialist Front together with the Labour Party of Malaya. Let us not forget history...and let history renew our commitment in our struggle for a better Malaysia...

Restoring the Third Vote, reclaiming our democracy

Friday, 09 July 2010 18:31

If the Local Government Act stands in the way of local government elections, then it must go. It is not because we are lawless but because we value democracy, writes Tan Pek Leng. The fate of local elections in Malaysia is a sad reflection of the state of democracy in the country. Never having had the chance to be firmly rooted, it was rudely trampled upon when it attempted to grow, leaving it mangled, hidup segan mati tak mahu. A testimony of our failed state is how our democratic rights are reversed rather than advanced. The third vote, our constitutional birth right as a nation, was forcibly taken away - no, not in the interest of the citizenry, but as a political expediency by the ruling coalition to cripple the legitimate Opposition. More than half a century after Independence, we are battling to get back to square one – to get back this third vote. Much of the recent discourse on how to restore local elections revolves around what the law allows and what it doesn’t. “Does Section 15 of the Local Government Act 1976 (LGA) override the Local Government Election Act 1960 (LGEA) and thus prohibit all local elections?” “Does Section 1 of the LGA exempt the State Governments from the restrictions imposed by Section 15 of the same act and thus allow them to invoke the LGEA to restore local elections?” This legal conundrum appears to have got the Pakatan Rakyat State Governments tangled in knots for a while. The Perak and Selangor state governments attempted to cut the Gordian Knot by asking the Elections Commission (EC) to conduct local elections in their respective states, only to be told by the EC that this would be against the law. The question is: why are we allowing ourselves to be dictated by a piece of legislation of such questionable legitimacy? A look at the process that culminated in the promulgation of the LGA will lay bare the many anti-democratic acts that abetted it. Thirteen years of local elections It is the height of irony that the Umno-MCA coalition (the precursor to the Umno-MCA-MIC Alliance and subsequently the Barisan Nasional) first laid claim to fame in the 1952 Kuala Lumpur municipal elections, when it won nine of the 11 seats. The Alliance continued to perform well for the next few years because the opposition parties had yet to consolidate themselves. The tide began to turn by the end of 1956, however, when the Alliance suffered unexpected defeats in local elections in Penang and Melaka. The Penang debacle, in which the Alliance failed to win a single of the eight seats contested, was attributed primarily to the harsh action taken to crush the Chung Ling High School students’ protest against the conversion of their school into a national-type school. The downward slide continued and by the December 1957 local polls, the Socialist Front (SF) – a coalition of the Labour Party of Malaya (LPM) and the Party Rakyat Malaya (PRM) – had gained enough seats to take over the Penang City Council. In this series of local elections, the Alliance garnered 18 seats, less than half of the 37 contested. A year later, the trend was reversed, with the Alliance doing better than they themselves expected, clinching victory in four of the five contested seats in Penang. But how credible were these wins? The names of so many previously registered voters were missing from the electoral rolls in George Town, Butterworth and Bukit Mertajam that the EC contemplated postponing the elections for these councils. To be fair, though, the raising of assessment rates by the SF-controlled Penang City Council and the splitting of opposition votes by the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) contributed to the Alliance success. The Alliance achieved a similar apparent triumph in the Kuala Lumpur local elections of 1958, winning three out of four wards. However, the total opposition votes in the four wards were greater than the Alliance votes. Once again, dissipation of votes among the opposition parties had handed the victory to the ruling coalition. Overall, the Alliance took 43 of the 57 contested seats as well as 19 unopposed ones in the 1958 series of local elections. On the face of it, this ostensible Alliance dominance continued through to the 1960s – with them winning 430 seats to the Opposition’s 148 in the 1961 local elections and 449 seats to the Opposition’s 184 in 1963. Examining the popular vote garnered, though, tells an entirely different story. In 1961, the Alliance obtained 218,428 of the votes cast compared to 227,104 for the Opposition; in 1963, it was 251,970 votes for the Alliance versus 263,000 votes for the Opposition. In both cases, the Alliance had won less than half the popular vote but more than double the number of seats. Gerrymandering was already well entrenched within a few years of Independence. Having the upper hand in the numbers game did not satisfy the Alliance; it irked them that the choice urban councils were out of their grasp. First, the Penang City Council in 1958; then, the Melaka Municipal Council in 1961; followed by the Seremban, Kluang and Bentong Municipal Councils in 1963 came under the control of the SF. The PPP had also taken a firm grip on Ipoh by 1961. Under the pretext of the volatile political climate engendered by the Confrontation with Indonesia, the Alliance Government suspended local elections on 1 March 1965. The Speaker refused to allow a motion by the SF Members of Parliament calling for a debate on the issue. But this supposedly precarious political situation had not prevented the government from holding state and parliamentary elections in 1964. The Alliance realised that the Opposition was better able to win control of local councils than state or parliamentary constituencies and was certainly not keen to allow them free play on these platforms. War of attrition The foul means adopted by the Alliance to stem the challenge of the Opposition was not limited to electoral sleight of hand. Detention without trial put many experienced cadres of the SF (then the strongest opposition party) out of action, threw the party organisation into disarray and weakened its capacity to play a meaningful part in the electoral process. The first mass arrest of political opponents took place only a little more than a year after Merdeka, on 1 October 1958, with the detention of 109 persons. The situation did not improve after the end of the Emergency in 1960 as the Internal Security Act (ISA) was introduced to allow the government to continue the practice of detention without trial. SF leaders and members were frequent victims of the ISA throughout the 1960s, in big operations or small. Among the instances of mass arrests that targeted large numbers of SF, in particular LPM, members were those executed: •    between November 1960 and February 1961, with a total of 60 persons arrested, including SF leaders and local councillors; •    in December 1962, when more than 50 persons were arrested throughout Malaya as a prelude to the formation of Malaysia and the Operation Cold Store, which decimated the Left in Singapore with the arrest of more than 120 political leaders and trade unionists; •    in March and June 1964, at the height of the Confrontation with Indonesia, when Malay leaders from the SF and Pas were the main targets, but many LPM state and branch level leaders were also nabbed; •    in the early months of 1966 when about 50 LPM and PRM cadres were arrested (SF had split up in December 1965); •    on 25 October 1966, when about 100 members of LPM and PRM were arrested following demonstrations organised by the two parties against US President Lyndon Johnson during his visit to Malaysia. Between 1966 and 1968, an estimated 250 protests and demonstrations were held in various parts of the country, each to be met with repression and arrests; •    on 9-14 November 1968, when some 140 LPM, PRM and trade union cadres were detained following the confessions of former LPM National Chairman Koh Kay Cham and Assistant Secretary-General Loh Yuen Wah upon their release from ISA detention. As in 1967, not a month passed in 1968 without the detention of dissidents. •    in the aftermath of the May 13 riots of 1969, when the government once again found the excuse to decimate the LPM and PRM further through arrests of their leaders and members. The arrests were systematically and strategically deployed to deprive the SF of its leaders and more experienced cadres at the national, state and branch levels. This was combined with the banning of certain divisions and branches of the Front. The continuous lopping off of the leadership echelons left the organisational structure of the LPM, in particular, in shambles and a combination of bans on political grounds and deregi-strations on administrative technicalities reduced the number of LPM branches from 224 in 1967 to 24 by 1972. The party was finally deregistered by order of the Registrar of Societies on 6 September 1972. Eleven years of suspension Suspending local elections may have prevented the Opposition from making further inroads into the local councils, but it did not return the “lost” councils to the Alliance. How more efficiently can they wrest back these councils than by Executive decree? Whether it was legitimate did not enter into the discussion. The case of Penang was instructive. D S Ramanathan, former Chairman of LPM and the first Mayor of Penang, peeved with the party by 1963, accused the SF-controlled City Council of corruption and malpractices. The Alliance government could not move against the council yet as it was still firmly in the grip of the SF. The opportunity arose in January 1966 when the SF lost control of the council after another of its former stalwarts and Penang Mayor, Ooi Thiam Siew, quit the party and the PRM councillor chose to align with him. It was a godsend for Chief Minister, Wong Pow Nee, who immediately constituted a commission to inquire into the allegations brought forth by Ramanathan, although he had professed that he could offer no evidence for them. On 1 July 1966, three days before the commission was to commence its probe, Wong Pow Nee announced that the State Government would take over the functions of the City Council. The commission completed its inquiry in November 1967 and found that “although there were irregularities and inefficiencies in the council’s administration, there was no hard evidence of outright bribery”. When calls were made for the City Council to be reconvened as the reasons for its temporary suspension no longer existed, the State Government announced that they had no intention to relinquish control of the Council until fresh elections were held. And how was that to happen when local elections had been suspended indefinitely? Another trick deployed by the Alliance is one we are now very familiar with – enticing defections. It worked its magic in Melaka. On 24 March 1965, three SF members of the Melaka Municipal Council declared they were turning Independents; six days later, one of them was installed as the Deputy President. This was a very significant appointment as the President, Hasnul Hadi of the SF, was then in detention. But the defections were not sufficient to deprive the SF of their control over the council. The final coup took place in September 1966 with the takeover of the council by the Melaka State Government. The respective State Governments similarly imposed their illegitimate hold over the Seremban, Johore Bharu and Bentong Municipal Councils – the takeover of the Melaka and Bentong Councils occurring after the official termination of Confrontation in August 1966. Further, the end of the Confrontation did not mean the end of the suspension of local elections although the conflict was the sole reason cited for putting them on hold. The clamour in Parliament and State Assemblies for the reinstitution of local elections fell on deaf ears. The Athi Nahappan Commission The Federal Government had other plans in mind. In June 1965, three months after the suspension of local elections, they appointed the Athi Nahappan Commission to look into the functioning and administration of the local councils, purportedly with a view to improving and streamlining them. To the chagrin of the Alliance Government, the Commission’s report, completed in December 1968, strongly supported local elections. Instead of implementing the recommendations of the Commission, the Federal Government appointed a Cabinet Committee to study the implications of the Athi Nahappan Report. The Committee was also a disappointment to the Government because it endorsed most of the recommendations of the Commission, including the one on local elections. The Alliance Government went for a third strike: instructing the Development Administration Unit (DAU) of the Prime Minister’s Department to undertake a further study. The pliant DAU, in 1971, advocated setting aside the recommendations of the Athi Nahappan Commission. With this spurious justification, the LGA was drafted and passed into law in 1976. By that time, most of the opposition parties had been co-opted into the Barisan Nasional (BN), formed in 1973, and there was no effective voice left to raise objections against the passage of the Act. 34 years of ban Throughout the three decades and more since the LGA denied us our fundamental right to the third vote, the issue has not died away. Unfortunately, with the BN’s overwhelming dominance in the Parliament, the demands for the restoration of local elections have been treated as mere irritants, undeserving of attention. It was only with the tsunami of 8 March 2008 turning the tide that the issue has received a new lease of life. Hence, the momentum must not slack. Why must we keep the issue alive? Because the chronicle of the abolition of the third vote is reflective of the larger narrative of the steady subversion of democratic institutions in the country. The underhand tactics deployed by the ruling coalition to dismantle popularly elected local governments are similarly used to undermine democracy at the state and national levels: •    The consistent use of the ISA to emasculate the Opposition; •    The tampering of electoral rolls, be it to make registered voters vanish or phantom voters appear; •    Gerrymandering to ensure that they get more seats than they deserve based on the number of votes garnered; •    The use of their strength of numbers to bulldoze through legislative and constitutional amendments which are to their advantage, no matter how undemocratic; •    The resort to Executive decree when the popular will cannot be bent to their favour. Not to continue campaigning against the illegitimate deprivation of the third vote is therefore risking similar subversion of the first and second. ... still counting The campaign is only just picking up momentum, the project is very much a work in progress. There is no telling how much longer it will take to restore local elections. But one thing is for sure, if we do not keep the pressure on, we will have many more years to count before the ban is lifted – or worse yet, have all hopes snuffed out.                                                Another thing is for sure: the LGA has no business obstructing us from reclaiming full democracy. If this law stands in the way, this law must go. It is not because we are lawless but because we value democracy. Tan Pek Leng is an Aliran member