Peaceful March for Burma
In protest aganist ongoing human rights crisis in Burma. Meet at Ampang Park （Putra) LRT Station 9.15am Tommorrow 28/9/2007 Friday.
Malaysians Speak Up.! Come join our Burmese friends in solidarity.
Show to ASEAN countries something MUST be done ASAP.
Stand For Burma
After decades of brutal dictatorship, the people of Burma are rising--and they need our help.Peaceful protesters numbered 20,000 on Saturday, 30,000 on Sunday, 100,000 today. By the end of this week, they could win a new life for their country.
In the past, Burma's military rulers have massacred the demonstrators and crushed democracy. This time it can be different--but only if the world stands with the Burmese. We're launching an emergency global petition demanding that the UN Security Council (and key Burmese ally China) press the Burmese generals to negotiate with the demonstrators, not crush them. Click below to sign the petition, we'll deliver it every day that this crisis lasts:http://www.avaaz.org/en/stand_with_burma/d.php?cl=20005688
Hope is hanging by a thread in Burma. Please act right now, tell everyone you know, and show Burma's rulers that people power is rising, on their own streets, and around the world.
Wear RED for Burma this Friday
On 28th September 2007, the Burmese democracy activists are asking the international community to wear a RED shirt or top, in solidarity with those currently engulfed in the fight of their lives in Burma against the most despicable regime, which our government had supported since 1997 when it allowed Burma to join ASEAN.
This simple act of solidarity will further inflame the hopes and strength of those who have struggled and resisted peaceably for 20 years now.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
审视司法黑暗期，恢复司法独立
吉隆坡暨雪兰莪中华大会堂民权委员对于首席大法官阿末法魯斯与资深律师VK林甘涉被揭发涉嫌幕后操纵及安排高级法官擢升事件，深表震惊。这是对司法公正的最大侮辱，令今年重大国庆蒙上耻辱的阴影。
这项事件还涉及数起重大司法案件，可能妨碍司法独立审讯，无疑构成了连串的司法黑暗期，令司法独立机制严重受挫。各造应该极力关注这起事件，讨论重建司法独立、司法人员擢升合理机制议题。媒体及舆论应拥有最大的自由空间去议论这项议题。
为了挽救司法公信力，首席大法官阿末法魯斯应该立即辞职。政府也应成立仲裁庭调查这起司法丑闻，以便传召丑闻中点名涉及的现任旅游部长东姑安南（前首相署部长兼巫统执行秘书）和著名企业家陈志远，调查是否涉及干预多个司法高职委任程序。而前首相马哈迪也应向仲裁庭供证，并向国人解释他在整个事件中的角色。
上述对话丑闻中均谈到阿末法魯斯涉及的几项司法争议案件，因此有理由怀疑其审理的1995年前民主行动党国会议员黄朱强案件，以及2000年否决前副揆安华渎职上诉案，涉及不当内幕利益，妨害司法公正。法院应该重新审查这些案件，以重振司法制度的公信力。
在野党人民公正党勇于揭发真相，2002年8分钟26秒影片的司法丑闻对话已公诸于世，世人皆亲睹此司法黑幕，然而首相阿都拉仍未明确表态正视，而主流媒体也相应低调处理。政府不应再自欺欺人，回避此事件。
上述司法丑闻暴露了我国长久以来的司法制度缺失。民权委员会就此响应律师公会、国民醒觉运动等民间团体的号召，呼吁成立独立委员会检视近20年来的司法黑暗期，以便重建司法独立。其中最重要的是，检视司法体制受破坏的根源，即1988年的司法危机。当时，马哈迪政府面临党争危机，修宪删除了联邦宪法121(1)条款中“司法权”字眼，导致3名法官被革职。另外，也应重新调查前高庭法官艾迪（Syed Ahmad Idid）撰写的投诉信，指12名法官涉及112项贪污及滥权行径。
民权委员会主席谢春荣
这项事件还涉及数起重大司法案件，可能妨碍司法独立审讯，无疑构成了连串的司法黑暗期，令司法独立机制严重受挫。各造应该极力关注这起事件，讨论重建司法独立、司法人员擢升合理机制议题。媒体及舆论应拥有最大的自由空间去议论这项议题。
为了挽救司法公信力，首席大法官阿末法魯斯应该立即辞职。政府也应成立仲裁庭调查这起司法丑闻，以便传召丑闻中点名涉及的现任旅游部长东姑安南（前首相署部长兼巫统执行秘书）和著名企业家陈志远，调查是否涉及干预多个司法高职委任程序。而前首相马哈迪也应向仲裁庭供证，并向国人解释他在整个事件中的角色。
上述对话丑闻中均谈到阿末法魯斯涉及的几项司法争议案件，因此有理由怀疑其审理的1995年前民主行动党国会议员黄朱强案件，以及2000年否决前副揆安华渎职上诉案，涉及不当内幕利益，妨害司法公正。法院应该重新审查这些案件，以重振司法制度的公信力。
在野党人民公正党勇于揭发真相，2002年8分钟26秒影片的司法丑闻对话已公诸于世，世人皆亲睹此司法黑幕，然而首相阿都拉仍未明确表态正视，而主流媒体也相应低调处理。政府不应再自欺欺人，回避此事件。
上述司法丑闻暴露了我国长久以来的司法制度缺失。民权委员会就此响应律师公会、国民醒觉运动等民间团体的号召，呼吁成立独立委员会检视近20年来的司法黑暗期，以便重建司法独立。其中最重要的是，检视司法体制受破坏的根源，即1988年的司法危机。当时，马哈迪政府面临党争危机，修宪删除了联邦宪法121(1)条款中“司法权”字眼，导致3名法官被革职。另外，也应重新调查前高庭法官艾迪（Syed Ahmad Idid）撰写的投诉信，指12名法官涉及112项贪污及滥权行径。
民权委员会主席谢春荣
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Nazri made fool of public
律師公會“公正之行”納茲里不滿律師遊行“他們最好加入反對黨” (星洲日报）
（八打靈再也訊）首相署部長拿督斯里納茲里促請參與“公正之行”活動的律師加入反對黨，以便他知道如何對付他們。他說：“參與‘公正之行’活動的律師的腦袋有如反對黨，最好他們登記為反對黨黨員；如果他們（律師公會）登記為反對黨，我會更歡喜，那麼我就懂得如何處理他們。“要是他們是非政府組織，我才不理睬他們。”
反對成立皇家委員會納茲里接受本報訪問時表示，實際上，律師公會可以事先聯絡他或會見他，無需展開“公正之行”活動；只要來一通電話，便可以見我（提呈備忘錄），但為何他們不這麼做？”
他說，律師公會理應先調查有關短片是否屬實，而非冒然展開“公正之行”，並表示對此感到遺憾。詢及律師公會堅持“公正之行”，以促請政府成立皇家委員會調查“資深律師安排法官人選”一事，納茲里說：“我反對，我們不需要成立皇家委員會，不會為了一個不知真假的錄影短片而這麼做。” （星洲日報•2007.09.26）
炮轰律师会布城游行自贬身价 (当今大马）
“（因为）我是他（联邦法院首席大法官阿末法鲁斯）的部长。我是掌管法律事务的部长。他很聪明 ，因为他知道记者们会要求我做出回应。”
首相署部长纳兹里（右图）今日接受《当今大马》询问 ，针对为何阿末法鲁斯透过他 ，否认本身就是“林甘影片”风暴的当事人时，做出上述的解释。
纳兹里也解释说，阿末法鲁斯没有在媒体上做出澄清，是因为后者并不需要向媒体负责。斥媒体大肆报道散播谣言他也指责媒体散播谣言，大肆报道这宗司法影片丑闻。
针对大马律师公会计划在本周三从布城“司法官”（Palace of Justice）游行至首相署，促请政府设立一个皇家委员会调查司法丑闻，纳兹里却回应说，此举是具有“敌意”及倾向反对党。
“律师是法庭内的一分子，他们在社会有本身的地位。他们的行为不应该好像反对党一样。”指律师公会示威犹如反对党纳兹里表示，律师公会应该向他或首相阿都拉呈交备忘录，因为这才是一个“正当的回应方式”。
“如果他们要自贬身价，好像反对党这样去示威，他们将失去我对他们的尊敬，因为我一直以来与律师公会拥有很好的关系。除非他们是要显示对政府的敌意，以及支持反对党。” 不过，纳兹里表示，他并非质疑律师公会游行的权利，也不是要该公会撤销有关计划，只是他不满律师公会此举而已。
当律师也上街游行一定有不妥, 安美嘉以缅僧侣游行斥纳兹里 (当今大马）
摘要 ：“僧侣和甘地游行愚蠢乎？”
今日不断强调“律师很少游行，可说当律师们也参加游行时，证明已经出现不妥”的安美嘉，也援引缅甸僧侣和印度圣雄甘地示威游行为例，来驳斥近期炮轰律师公会主办“公正之行”愚蠢，行事犹如反对党的首相署部长纳兹里。
她说，“我们不认同，难道你形容缅甸僧侣（示威游行）是愚蠢？难道你形容甘地也是愚蠢？我们不能这么说”。
询及一些在野党领袖在今日的游行上高调的行事时，安美嘉回应说，“我们不能阻止任何人参与关于司法的问题，但是对我们而言，这是律师的游行。我们希望他们会尊重我们的看法”。 她也对今日的游行活动感到满意，因为两千名律师和公众人士能够在和平的方式下完成3.5公里的游行。
“虽然起初有巴士受到阻挡，这些会员必须步行了5公里（司法官）。我感到光荣，因为律师公会会员能够以和平的方式游行3.5公里。我相信我们的会员展现出高尚的尊严。” 引发律师公会游行呈交备忘录的导火线，正是前副首相安华在上周三，接获吹哨者所提供的长达8分钟半的影片，显示著名律师VK林甘以及现任首席大法官阿末法鲁斯在电话中交谈，涉嫌幕后操纵高级法官的擢升和内定司法案件的裁决。
（八打靈再也訊）首相署部長拿督斯里納茲里促請參與“公正之行”活動的律師加入反對黨，以便他知道如何對付他們。他說：“參與‘公正之行’活動的律師的腦袋有如反對黨，最好他們登記為反對黨黨員；如果他們（律師公會）登記為反對黨，我會更歡喜，那麼我就懂得如何處理他們。“要是他們是非政府組織，我才不理睬他們。”
反對成立皇家委員會納茲里接受本報訪問時表示，實際上，律師公會可以事先聯絡他或會見他，無需展開“公正之行”活動；只要來一通電話，便可以見我（提呈備忘錄），但為何他們不這麼做？”
他說，律師公會理應先調查有關短片是否屬實，而非冒然展開“公正之行”，並表示對此感到遺憾。詢及律師公會堅持“公正之行”，以促請政府成立皇家委員會調查“資深律師安排法官人選”一事，納茲里說：“我反對，我們不需要成立皇家委員會，不會為了一個不知真假的錄影短片而這麼做。” （星洲日報•2007.09.26）
炮轰律师会布城游行自贬身价 (当今大马）
“（因为）我是他（联邦法院首席大法官阿末法鲁斯）的部长。我是掌管法律事务的部长。他很聪明 ，因为他知道记者们会要求我做出回应。”
首相署部长纳兹里（右图）今日接受《当今大马》询问 ，针对为何阿末法鲁斯透过他 ，否认本身就是“林甘影片”风暴的当事人时，做出上述的解释。
纳兹里也解释说，阿末法鲁斯没有在媒体上做出澄清，是因为后者并不需要向媒体负责。斥媒体大肆报道散播谣言他也指责媒体散播谣言，大肆报道这宗司法影片丑闻。
针对大马律师公会计划在本周三从布城“司法官”（Palace of Justice）游行至首相署，促请政府设立一个皇家委员会调查司法丑闻，纳兹里却回应说，此举是具有“敌意”及倾向反对党。
“律师是法庭内的一分子，他们在社会有本身的地位。他们的行为不应该好像反对党一样。”指律师公会示威犹如反对党纳兹里表示，律师公会应该向他或首相阿都拉呈交备忘录，因为这才是一个“正当的回应方式”。
“如果他们要自贬身价，好像反对党这样去示威，他们将失去我对他们的尊敬，因为我一直以来与律师公会拥有很好的关系。除非他们是要显示对政府的敌意，以及支持反对党。” 不过，纳兹里表示，他并非质疑律师公会游行的权利，也不是要该公会撤销有关计划，只是他不满律师公会此举而已。
当律师也上街游行一定有不妥, 安美嘉以缅僧侣游行斥纳兹里 (当今大马）
摘要 ：“僧侣和甘地游行愚蠢乎？”
今日不断强调“律师很少游行，可说当律师们也参加游行时，证明已经出现不妥”的安美嘉，也援引缅甸僧侣和印度圣雄甘地示威游行为例，来驳斥近期炮轰律师公会主办“公正之行”愚蠢，行事犹如反对党的首相署部长纳兹里。
她说，“我们不认同，难道你形容缅甸僧侣（示威游行）是愚蠢？难道你形容甘地也是愚蠢？我们不能这么说”。
询及一些在野党领袖在今日的游行上高调的行事时，安美嘉回应说，“我们不能阻止任何人参与关于司法的问题，但是对我们而言，这是律师的游行。我们希望他们会尊重我们的看法”。 她也对今日的游行活动感到满意，因为两千名律师和公众人士能够在和平的方式下完成3.5公里的游行。
“虽然起初有巴士受到阻挡，这些会员必须步行了5公里（司法官）。我感到光荣，因为律师公会会员能够以和平的方式游行3.5公里。我相信我们的会员展现出高尚的尊严。” 引发律师公会游行呈交备忘录的导火线，正是前副首相安华在上周三，接获吹哨者所提供的长达8分钟半的影片，显示著名律师VK林甘以及现任首席大法官阿末法鲁斯在电话中交谈，涉嫌幕后操纵高级法官的擢升和内定司法案件的裁决。
Monday, September 24, 2007
Whistle blower protection act needed
Two policemen may be charged for framing inspection general of police. It is unreasonable to charge whistle blower, the action would deter citizen to impeach corrupted government servant. A whistle blower protection act is needed to ensure anti corruption agency carry out investigation on allegation, if not evidence was found, they should close the case without reveal the identification of whistle blower. Government servant should always be checked, 'infamatory' should not be applied.
In trouble for framing IGP
PUTRAJAYA: Two policemen who framed the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan for corruption may be charged soon in the Johor Sessions Court.
The Chief Inspector and Lance Corporal, both 42, are alleged to have used fake police documents and forged signatures in making their claims.
Sources said an Anti-Corruption Agency probe into the allegations had cleared Musa. The ACA, on receiving a report on the allegations from Deputy Internal Security Minister Datuk Mohd Johari Baharum, initiated an investigation in June.
On establishing that the allegations had been trumped up and that the policemen had committed criminal offences, the agency handed the matter over to the police.
It is understood that both would be charged under Section 465 of the Penal Code for forgery.
Musa, who was supposed to have received RM2.1 million for the release of six gangsters besides having triad links, denied the allegations. He had said that he was framed by his own men, resulting in him being investigated by the ACA.
On July 27, Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail cleared Musa of the allegations and provided details of the investigation by the ACA.
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Sunday/National/20070923084836/Article/index_html
诬赖警察总长贪污滥权 2警官近期被控 2007/09/23 18:09:21
●南洋商报
（布城23日讯）两名涉嫌以伪造证人口供诬告警察总长丹斯里慕沙哈山涉嫌贪污和滥权的警官，料将于近期被提控上柔佛地庭。
两名年龄皆42岁的首席警官及伍长涉嫌利用伪造警方文件及伪造签名，指责慕沙哈山涉嫌贪污及滥权。
《新海峡时报》报道，反贪污局介入调查此事后，目前已撤销对慕沙哈山涉嫌贪污及滥权的指责，当局也在今年6月着手调查国安部副部长拿督佐哈励被指涉嫌贪污的事件。
反贪局从调查中发现上述两名警官涉嫌抵触刑事罪行后，已把此案交由警方处理，两名警官将在刑事法典第465条文（伪造文件）下被提控。
慕沙哈山在约两个月前被指涉嫌收取210万令吉，作为释放6名黑社会分子的条件，不过，慕沙哈山极力否认，并指自己被下属陷害。
总检察长丹斯里阿都干尼在7月27日宣布撤销对慕沙哈山的指责，并把此案交由反贪污局调查。
http://www.nanyang.com/index.php?ch=7&pg=10&ac=772901
In trouble for framing IGP
PUTRAJAYA: Two policemen who framed the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan for corruption may be charged soon in the Johor Sessions Court.
The Chief Inspector and Lance Corporal, both 42, are alleged to have used fake police documents and forged signatures in making their claims.
Sources said an Anti-Corruption Agency probe into the allegations had cleared Musa. The ACA, on receiving a report on the allegations from Deputy Internal Security Minister Datuk Mohd Johari Baharum, initiated an investigation in June.
On establishing that the allegations had been trumped up and that the policemen had committed criminal offences, the agency handed the matter over to the police.
It is understood that both would be charged under Section 465 of the Penal Code for forgery.
Musa, who was supposed to have received RM2.1 million for the release of six gangsters besides having triad links, denied the allegations. He had said that he was framed by his own men, resulting in him being investigated by the ACA.
On July 27, Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail cleared Musa of the allegations and provided details of the investigation by the ACA.
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Sunday/National/20070923084836/Article/index_html
诬赖警察总长贪污滥权 2警官近期被控 2007/09/23 18:09:21
●南洋商报
（布城23日讯）两名涉嫌以伪造证人口供诬告警察总长丹斯里慕沙哈山涉嫌贪污和滥权的警官，料将于近期被提控上柔佛地庭。
两名年龄皆42岁的首席警官及伍长涉嫌利用伪造警方文件及伪造签名，指责慕沙哈山涉嫌贪污及滥权。
《新海峡时报》报道，反贪污局介入调查此事后，目前已撤销对慕沙哈山涉嫌贪污及滥权的指责，当局也在今年6月着手调查国安部副部长拿督佐哈励被指涉嫌贪污的事件。
反贪局从调查中发现上述两名警官涉嫌抵触刑事罪行后，已把此案交由警方处理，两名警官将在刑事法典第465条文（伪造文件）下被提控。
慕沙哈山在约两个月前被指涉嫌收取210万令吉，作为释放6名黑社会分子的条件，不过，慕沙哈山极力否认，并指自己被下属陷害。
总检察长丹斯里阿都干尼在7月27日宣布撤销对慕沙哈山的指责，并把此案交由反贪污局调查。
http://www.nanyang.com/index.php?ch=7&pg=10&ac=772901
Find out the culprit for Bangladeshi mystery
Who should responsible for this ridiculous case? keep in mind that all of the bangladeshi arrived with valid documents, has home affair ministry accessed the recruitment agents before approve their application? find out the agents should responsible for this and shouldn't our home affair ministry apologize?
One big Bangladeshi mystery
By V.P. SUJATA
PUTRAJAYA: The Immigration Department is baffled as to how so many Bangladeshis have arrived in the country with valid work permits – but without jobs or employers waiting for them.
Most have been sent to the nearest immigration depot and are awaiting deportation.
The department believes a syndicate is bringing them into the country using legal documents.
It was responding to a recent case in which 2,000 Bangladeshis had to sleep on the floor of the KL International Airport car park because their agents or employees failed to collect them.
Non-governmental organisation Tenaganita said it was sheltering 3,000 Bangladeshis who had entered the country legally but were not given jobs, bringing the total of those in such a predicament to 5,000.
While the syndicate makes thousands of ringgit, the losers are the Bangladeshis and the Malaysian Government, which has to feed, house and deport them.
Immigration Department enforcement director Datuk Ishak Mohamed said until the newly gazetted Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act was actually implemented, action could not be taken against rogue agents.
Under the Act, anyone who traffics an adult for the purpose of exploitation can be jailed not more than 15 years and fined.
And those profiting from the exploitation of a trafficked person can be jailed not more than 15 years and fined between RM50,000 and RM500,000.
A date for the implementation of the Act has yet to be set.
The recent case of the 2,000 Bangladeshis is part of the problem created by rogue agencies.
Curiously, all those coming in without employers are Bangladeshis.
Ishak said that if it was the Bangladeshis’ plan to enter the country with legal permits and then look for jobs, it had backfired because they could go no further than the immigration depot.
A KLIA immigration spokesman said the car park where the foreigners were stationed was unused and was now being renovated to become the main counter for foreign workers entering the country.
About 800 to 1,000 people could be accommodated at this area at one time, he said, although the number of workers likely to arrive daily could not be estimated accurately.
Over the past month, about 2,000 arrived daily, he added.
http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/9/23/nation/18972319&sec=nation
One big Bangladeshi mystery
By V.P. SUJATA
PUTRAJAYA: The Immigration Department is baffled as to how so many Bangladeshis have arrived in the country with valid work permits – but without jobs or employers waiting for them.
Most have been sent to the nearest immigration depot and are awaiting deportation.
The department believes a syndicate is bringing them into the country using legal documents.
It was responding to a recent case in which 2,000 Bangladeshis had to sleep on the floor of the KL International Airport car park because their agents or employees failed to collect them.
Non-governmental organisation Tenaganita said it was sheltering 3,000 Bangladeshis who had entered the country legally but were not given jobs, bringing the total of those in such a predicament to 5,000.
While the syndicate makes thousands of ringgit, the losers are the Bangladeshis and the Malaysian Government, which has to feed, house and deport them.
Immigration Department enforcement director Datuk Ishak Mohamed said until the newly gazetted Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act was actually implemented, action could not be taken against rogue agents.
Under the Act, anyone who traffics an adult for the purpose of exploitation can be jailed not more than 15 years and fined.
And those profiting from the exploitation of a trafficked person can be jailed not more than 15 years and fined between RM50,000 and RM500,000.
A date for the implementation of the Act has yet to be set.
The recent case of the 2,000 Bangladeshis is part of the problem created by rogue agencies.
Curiously, all those coming in without employers are Bangladeshis.
Ishak said that if it was the Bangladeshis’ plan to enter the country with legal permits and then look for jobs, it had backfired because they could go no further than the immigration depot.
A KLIA immigration spokesman said the car park where the foreigners were stationed was unused and was now being renovated to become the main counter for foreign workers entering the country.
About 800 to 1,000 people could be accommodated at this area at one time, he said, although the number of workers likely to arrive daily could not be estimated accurately.
Over the past month, about 2,000 arrived daily, he added.
http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/9/23/nation/18972319&sec=nation
Let's march against corrupt judiciary, Wednesday, 11.00am, Palace of Justice, Putra Jaya
Message from local NGO. Will you be there?
Dear friends,
The Bar Council is organizing a march on Wednesday (26/9/07), 11.00am from Palace of Justice to the PM's office to demand for the setting up of a royal commission on the video tape of V K Lingam and CJ Fairus. Buses will be chartered to ferry people at 9.00am at the Bar office.
Please help circulate the information to your network and mobilize as many as possible to show that enough is enough, corrupt judges must be sacked and the judicial system must be reformed immediately.
Dear friends,
The Bar Council is organizing a march on Wednesday (26/9/07), 11.00am from Palace of Justice to the PM's office to demand for the setting up of a royal commission on the video tape of V K Lingam and CJ Fairus. Buses will be chartered to ferry people at 9.00am at the Bar office.
Please help circulate the information to your network and mobilize as many as possible to show that enough is enough, corrupt judges must be sacked and the judicial system must be reformed immediately.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
安华公布录像揭司法界丑闻
大法官曾靠陈志远游说晋升？
安华公布录像揭司法界丑闻
■日期／Sep 19, 2007 ■时间／06:26:57 pm
■新闻／家国风云 ■作者／本刊陈慧思
【本刊陈慧思撰述】前副首相、人民公正党实权领袖安华依布拉欣（Anwar Ibrahim）今日召开记者会，放映一节长达8分钟26秒的录像，揭露著名律师维卡纳伽林甘（VK Lingam）曾在2002年一通电话对谈中表明，将说服企业大亨陈志远和现任旅游部长登姑阿南（Tengku Adnan bin Tengku Mansor）游说当时的首相马哈迪擢升阿末法鲁斯（Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim）出任上诉庭主席（PCA）。
人民公正党副主席西华拉萨（Sivarasa Rasiah，左图右）确认，影像中讲电话的人正是林甘，而林甘谈话内容的脉络反映出，电话另一端乃当时仍是马来亚大法官的现任联邦法院首席大法官阿末法鲁斯。
林甘也向电话那头说：“啊，我也会说服丹斯里提醒首相，以颁（你）一个丹斯里衔头，这将提高你（的声誉／地位），你知道的。”在短片中，林甘偶尔以“丹斯里”称呼陈志远（Tan Sri Vincent Tan）。
西华拉萨透露，这段影像摄录于2002年，摄录地点是林甘位于雪兰莪州格拉娜再也的住家。他指出，完整的录影长达14分钟16秒，唯目前人民公正党只公布其中8分钟26秒的录影片段。安华和西华都拒绝透露揭秘者的身份。
2002 年影像摄录时，身为马来亚大法官的阿末法鲁斯是司法界第三号人物。他1967年4月4日进入我国司法界，成为实习法律官员，曾出任地庭主席、州法律顾问和首相署法律顾问团（Advisory Board, Prime Minister's Department）主席。1988年，他被委为马来亚高庭司法专员，随后成为高庭法官。
1995年12月1日，阿末法鲁斯晋升上诉庭法官，2000年9月1日则升任联邦法院法官。2003年，阿末顺利升任联邦法院首席大法官，成为我国司法界第一号人物。
请陈志远和登姑疏通
2002年，当时的联邦法院首席大法官赛丁阿都拉（Mohd Dzaiddin Abdullah，右图）即将在2003年卸任，影像摄录时正处于内定升迁人选的阶段；影像透射出当时司法界和政界的两大派系斗争，也曝露了司法界跃升制度的腐蚀现象。
林甘的谈话显露，阿末法鲁斯是前任联邦法院首席大法官尤索夫晋（Eusoffe Chin）属意升任上诉庭主席的人选，可是当时在任的联邦法院大法官赛丁阿都拉显然另有安排；为了把阿末法鲁斯托上司法界第二高位，林甘有意说服陈志远和登姑阿南在首相马哈迪面前疏通。
影像一开始即显示，林甘对着电话说：“首席大法官说他是最高元首的亲戚，因此他要就任到68岁，因此，登姑阿南，我告诉登姑阿南，昨天我跟他有个会议。他说，首相已经非常生气他，他说，没有问题，他要让你成为呃……确立你为上诉庭主席，很努力很努力，以便让丹斯里莫达（Tan Sri Mokhtar）成为马来亚大法官。”
双方致函首相建议擢升人选
向来被视为陈志远“御用律师”的林甘继说：“啊，我们保密，我很努力地做了。有一封信，根据登姑阿南的说法，我明天将去见他。有一封信已送到首席大法官手中，我的意思是丹斯里赛丁，拿督贺礼利亚（Datuk Heliliah）、拿督蓝立（Datuk Ramli）、拿督蓝立和拿督马若（Datuk Ma’roop）将被擢升为法官，而他拒绝（跃升）安德鲁崔（Dr Andrew Chui）和那个再努丁依斯迈（Zainuddin Ismail）啦，因为再努丁依斯迈非议你的委任和丹斯里莫达的委任。”
接着，他说：“你也一样，你似乎已写了一封信，以便剩下的那五个被确立为法官。正如之前我们记录下的，我跟敦尤索夫晋讨论了，也把同样的讯息传达给了首相。”
有两名资深法官的名字叫“莫达”，一是曾任上诉庭法官的莫达西丁（Mokhtar Sidin），另一名则是从总检察长职务退休三个星期后，便被任命为联邦法院法官的莫达阿都拉（Mokhtar Abdullah）。
1996年，陈志远（左图）透过代表律师林甘，针对杂志和报章就内幕重重的阿逸摩立（Ayer Molek）案子所作的报道，起诉三名新闻从业员和一名律师诽谤，总索偿额为马币一亿九千万元。
1999 年，遭起诉的《亚洲华尔街日报》通讯员（Raphael Pura）一方在对垒Insas有限公司的高庭审讯中揭露，1994年12月莫达西丁在陈志远起诉著名新闻工作者比莱（M.G.G. Pillai）的案件中所撰写的判词，一部分是出自陈志远代表律师林甘的手笔，甚至是在林甘的律师楼打字、由林甘修改、定稿，过后才交到法官手中。在此案中，莫达西丁判陈志远胜诉，比莱需赔偿陈志远马币一千万元名誉损失。
陈志远是国内有名的华裔企业大亨，也是国内20大富商之一；成功集团（Berjaya Group）为其商业王国的旗舰集团，业务横跨博采、产业以及媒体业。陈志远持股的上市公司包括成功多多（Berjaya Toto）、科士威（Cosway）、马特力国际（Matrix）以及英丹（Intan）等。
首相跟阿南陈志远商议
另外，林甘（右图左二）被揭露，在1994年12月22日至30日之间，与当时的联邦法院首席大法官尤索夫晋（右图左一）及其家庭成员在纽西兰度假，与尤索夫晋关系匪浅。【点击：陈志远与“巨额诽谤诉讼”】
林甘告诉电话中人，他已叫登姑阿南告知首相（马哈迪），首相将致电他（电话中人）以安排一个会面。他还说道：“如果丹斯里Vincent和登姑阿南要私下见你，他们会这么做。我会打电话给你，我们将作一个私人安排，在一个非常不寻常的地方。”
从通话录像看来，陈志远、尤索夫晋、登姑阿南、阿末法鲁斯和林甘一方没有十分的把握首相会站在他们一边，林甘告诉对讲人，陈志远曾在他面前致电登姑阿南，后者说：“我不是马来西亚首相啦，你知道，如果那个老人不要听我讲，就死啦。”
林甘在对话中提醒对讲人，在首相面前“吹哨”，以免首相“被另一方说动”。他还说：“但是现在首相非常警觉，因为每一次他收到赛丁的信，他会致电阿南，他说，跟Vincent讨论，来，一起讨论。”
最后，他安抚对讲人：“不，别担心，我知道你为了敦尤索夫晋吃了多少苦。敦也说，拿督阿末法鲁斯110%忠诚。为了首相，也为了国家，我们要确保我们的朋友在那里。”
林甘也在影像和录音记录中提及安华依布拉欣和民主行动党前国会议员黄朱强的名字。安华依布拉欣质疑，政商和法律界人士或幕后操纵两人官司的审讯。【点击：对话提到安华黄朱强名字 安华疑有人妨碍司法公正】
通话文字记录
以下是影片的通话文字记录（人民公正党提供）：
The CJ said he is relative to now Agong, so he wants to stay on to 68, so, Tengku Adnan, I told Tengku Adnan, yesterday I had a meeting with him.
He said PM is already very angry with him, he said no problem he is going to make you acting err.. confirm your position as PCA, working very hard then working very hard to get Tan Sri Mokhtar as CJM.
Ah, we just keep it confidential. I am working very hard on it. Then there is a letter, according to Tengku, I am going to see him tomorrow, there is a letter sent to CJ, I mean Tan Sri Dzaiddin, that Datuk Heliliah, Datuk Ramli, Datuk Ramli and Datuk Ma’roop be made judges, and he rejected Dr Andrew Chui and apa itu Zainuddin Ismail lah. Because Zainuddin Ismail condemned your appointment and Tan Sri Mokhtar’s appointment.
And then you also, you seems to wrote a letter for the remaining five be confirmed as judges. As per our memo I discuss with Tun Eusoff Chin and we sent the same memo to PM.
I just want to get a copy letter that that has been done.
And then Tan Sri Dzaiddin said he is going to recommend six people for the court of appeal, but until today the letter hasn’t come to PM. He never discuss, but neither he has sent the letter to PM. Yes he has not sent. I know it is under the constitution for judges all that is your job Datuk to send, but we don’t want to make it an issue now.
Ah. Ok Actually I told tengku adnan to inform PM, PM to call you for a meeting. I organize it so that Tengku Adnan will call you directly. And then I got your number, I will tell him to call you directly to for you to meet PM lah. So should be ok, then ar.. correct correct, it is very important that the key players must be there.
Correct x3. correct x2. You know that the same problem that Tun Eusoff Chin has. He tried to do all this and yet he has run out of soldiers. He couldn’t do it because many are from the other camp. Last time was unfortunate because Tun Daim was doing everything sabotaging, otherwise how are things with you - everything is ok?. No, don’t worry. You know sometimes Tan Sri Vincent that half the time they are talking about judiciary rather than doing the work. But if I don’t do this part my work will be useless.
Ha ha ha. Ah yes.Correct x5, right x3 correct. Ah right susah. You see he has now up for six court of appeal judges, so that he can put his men before he retires.
Correct x3, ah and then ah, correct. But never-mind, I will do this, I will get Tengku Adnan to arrange for PM to call you and Tan Sri Vincent Tan for PM to call you. And you know why, actually, I am very grateful with Tan Sri Vincent Tan you know why, I brainwash you so much even I quarrel with him. One day I went to Vincent Tan house, I fire him at the night in his house. I said very hell if you don’t do this who will do it?
All these people Tun Eusoff Chin, Datuk Ahmad Fairuz, Tan Sri Zainon all fought for that. Then he called Tengku Adnan. Tengku Adnan he said, saya bukan Perdana Menteri Malaysia lah, you know. If the old man doesn’t want to listen to me, go to hell.
He quarreled with me. I said nevermind, nevermind, you talk to PM again tomorrow morning to put Datuk Ahmad Fairuz to CJM. So next day morning he went and he called me back 9.30 that he said PM has already agreed. So I said nevermind, we hope for the best. So I said no harm trying, the worst that it can happen is that you lose. Being the old man, he is 76 years old, he gets whispers everywhere, and then you don’t whisper, he get taken away by the other side. But, now PM is very alert because every time he gets letters from Tan Sri Zaidin, he called Tengku Adnan, he said discuss with Vincent, come and discuss.
Yes yes, ya. Correct x2, ya, but you see although I know PM, I am a lawyer in practice my views are.. I go through them, I go through them lah. Ah x4.
And then Zaidin will call them telling that you went saw PM and you make a big issue out of it. Oh ya, I think so, I think so.
Ok, fine x4 ok x4
Ah x2 correct x2. Now I heard Raja Aziz, Raja Aziz huh, spoke to my lawyer Thayalan, and another lawyer Ailan, in the high court, they have a case each other. So, Thayalan and Ailan asked Raja Aziz, how is Tan Sri Wan Adnan?
He said he is on his way down. But you know what is the shocking thing he said? Datuk Fairuz became CJM. He overruled everybody, in three months time, he is going be made VCA, and 6 months time he is going to be CJ. He said he cant think he shocked. He told us.
Ha, it seems that they are going to organize a campaign to run you down. But you just keep quite don’t say anything. Even the press asked, you said I leave it to God, that’s all. Don’t say. I really like your message. You said you work very hard, what can I do? I leave it to God.
That’s the best answer datuk that you can ever be.
Ah… I will also get Tan Sri to remind PM to put a Tan Sri ship this year lah. This will elevate you, you know.
Oh yes x4. ha. XX got so fast, Tan Sri Chong waited for whole year to get Tan Sri Ship.
Ah.. My god that’s why, ah. Correct x4, ya x4 right x3 correct x2
Don’t worry, we organize this. If Tan Sri Vincent and Tengku Adnan want to meet you privately, they will, I will call you. We organize in a private arrangement, in a very unusual place.
No don’t worry, Datuk, I know how much you suffer for Tun Eusoff Chin. And Tun said Datuk Ahmad Fairuz 110% loyalty. We want to make sure our friends are there for the sake of the PM and the sake of the country.
Not for our own interest, not for our own interest. We want to make sure the country come first. Well, you suffered so well, so much you have done. For the election, Wee Choo Keong, everything. How much, no body would have done all these.
Yes, you know. Good lah. Don’t worry. I am constantly working on this.
Ya ya, don’t worry x2. We work hard on this. And Datuk, and then if Tan Sri Vincent and Tengku Adnan want to see you, I will organize it in such a confidential place.
Ok Datuk very best. God bless you and your family.
Ok. Thank you thank you. Bye.
http://www.merdekareview.com/news.php?n=4971
安华公布录像揭司法界丑闻
■日期／Sep 19, 2007 ■时间／06:26:57 pm
■新闻／家国风云 ■作者／本刊陈慧思
【本刊陈慧思撰述】前副首相、人民公正党实权领袖安华依布拉欣（Anwar Ibrahim）今日召开记者会，放映一节长达8分钟26秒的录像，揭露著名律师维卡纳伽林甘（VK Lingam）曾在2002年一通电话对谈中表明，将说服企业大亨陈志远和现任旅游部长登姑阿南（Tengku Adnan bin Tengku Mansor）游说当时的首相马哈迪擢升阿末法鲁斯（Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim）出任上诉庭主席（PCA）。
人民公正党副主席西华拉萨（Sivarasa Rasiah，左图右）确认，影像中讲电话的人正是林甘，而林甘谈话内容的脉络反映出，电话另一端乃当时仍是马来亚大法官的现任联邦法院首席大法官阿末法鲁斯。
林甘也向电话那头说：“啊，我也会说服丹斯里提醒首相，以颁（你）一个丹斯里衔头，这将提高你（的声誉／地位），你知道的。”在短片中，林甘偶尔以“丹斯里”称呼陈志远（Tan Sri Vincent Tan）。
西华拉萨透露，这段影像摄录于2002年，摄录地点是林甘位于雪兰莪州格拉娜再也的住家。他指出，完整的录影长达14分钟16秒，唯目前人民公正党只公布其中8分钟26秒的录影片段。安华和西华都拒绝透露揭秘者的身份。
2002 年影像摄录时，身为马来亚大法官的阿末法鲁斯是司法界第三号人物。他1967年4月4日进入我国司法界，成为实习法律官员，曾出任地庭主席、州法律顾问和首相署法律顾问团（Advisory Board, Prime Minister's Department）主席。1988年，他被委为马来亚高庭司法专员，随后成为高庭法官。
1995年12月1日，阿末法鲁斯晋升上诉庭法官，2000年9月1日则升任联邦法院法官。2003年，阿末顺利升任联邦法院首席大法官，成为我国司法界第一号人物。
请陈志远和登姑疏通
2002年，当时的联邦法院首席大法官赛丁阿都拉（Mohd Dzaiddin Abdullah，右图）即将在2003年卸任，影像摄录时正处于内定升迁人选的阶段；影像透射出当时司法界和政界的两大派系斗争，也曝露了司法界跃升制度的腐蚀现象。
林甘的谈话显露，阿末法鲁斯是前任联邦法院首席大法官尤索夫晋（Eusoffe Chin）属意升任上诉庭主席的人选，可是当时在任的联邦法院大法官赛丁阿都拉显然另有安排；为了把阿末法鲁斯托上司法界第二高位，林甘有意说服陈志远和登姑阿南在首相马哈迪面前疏通。
影像一开始即显示，林甘对着电话说：“首席大法官说他是最高元首的亲戚，因此他要就任到68岁，因此，登姑阿南，我告诉登姑阿南，昨天我跟他有个会议。他说，首相已经非常生气他，他说，没有问题，他要让你成为呃……确立你为上诉庭主席，很努力很努力，以便让丹斯里莫达（Tan Sri Mokhtar）成为马来亚大法官。”
双方致函首相建议擢升人选
向来被视为陈志远“御用律师”的林甘继说：“啊，我们保密，我很努力地做了。有一封信，根据登姑阿南的说法，我明天将去见他。有一封信已送到首席大法官手中，我的意思是丹斯里赛丁，拿督贺礼利亚（Datuk Heliliah）、拿督蓝立（Datuk Ramli）、拿督蓝立和拿督马若（Datuk Ma’roop）将被擢升为法官，而他拒绝（跃升）安德鲁崔（Dr Andrew Chui）和那个再努丁依斯迈（Zainuddin Ismail）啦，因为再努丁依斯迈非议你的委任和丹斯里莫达的委任。”
接着，他说：“你也一样，你似乎已写了一封信，以便剩下的那五个被确立为法官。正如之前我们记录下的，我跟敦尤索夫晋讨论了，也把同样的讯息传达给了首相。”
有两名资深法官的名字叫“莫达”，一是曾任上诉庭法官的莫达西丁（Mokhtar Sidin），另一名则是从总检察长职务退休三个星期后，便被任命为联邦法院法官的莫达阿都拉（Mokhtar Abdullah）。
1996年，陈志远（左图）透过代表律师林甘，针对杂志和报章就内幕重重的阿逸摩立（Ayer Molek）案子所作的报道，起诉三名新闻从业员和一名律师诽谤，总索偿额为马币一亿九千万元。
1999 年，遭起诉的《亚洲华尔街日报》通讯员（Raphael Pura）一方在对垒Insas有限公司的高庭审讯中揭露，1994年12月莫达西丁在陈志远起诉著名新闻工作者比莱（M.G.G. Pillai）的案件中所撰写的判词，一部分是出自陈志远代表律师林甘的手笔，甚至是在林甘的律师楼打字、由林甘修改、定稿，过后才交到法官手中。在此案中，莫达西丁判陈志远胜诉，比莱需赔偿陈志远马币一千万元名誉损失。
陈志远是国内有名的华裔企业大亨，也是国内20大富商之一；成功集团（Berjaya Group）为其商业王国的旗舰集团，业务横跨博采、产业以及媒体业。陈志远持股的上市公司包括成功多多（Berjaya Toto）、科士威（Cosway）、马特力国际（Matrix）以及英丹（Intan）等。
首相跟阿南陈志远商议
另外，林甘（右图左二）被揭露，在1994年12月22日至30日之间，与当时的联邦法院首席大法官尤索夫晋（右图左一）及其家庭成员在纽西兰度假，与尤索夫晋关系匪浅。【点击：陈志远与“巨额诽谤诉讼”】
林甘告诉电话中人，他已叫登姑阿南告知首相（马哈迪），首相将致电他（电话中人）以安排一个会面。他还说道：“如果丹斯里Vincent和登姑阿南要私下见你，他们会这么做。我会打电话给你，我们将作一个私人安排，在一个非常不寻常的地方。”
从通话录像看来，陈志远、尤索夫晋、登姑阿南、阿末法鲁斯和林甘一方没有十分的把握首相会站在他们一边，林甘告诉对讲人，陈志远曾在他面前致电登姑阿南，后者说：“我不是马来西亚首相啦，你知道，如果那个老人不要听我讲，就死啦。”
林甘在对话中提醒对讲人，在首相面前“吹哨”，以免首相“被另一方说动”。他还说：“但是现在首相非常警觉，因为每一次他收到赛丁的信，他会致电阿南，他说，跟Vincent讨论，来，一起讨论。”
最后，他安抚对讲人：“不，别担心，我知道你为了敦尤索夫晋吃了多少苦。敦也说，拿督阿末法鲁斯110%忠诚。为了首相，也为了国家，我们要确保我们的朋友在那里。”
林甘也在影像和录音记录中提及安华依布拉欣和民主行动党前国会议员黄朱强的名字。安华依布拉欣质疑，政商和法律界人士或幕后操纵两人官司的审讯。【点击：对话提到安华黄朱强名字 安华疑有人妨碍司法公正】
通话文字记录
以下是影片的通话文字记录（人民公正党提供）：
The CJ said he is relative to now Agong, so he wants to stay on to 68, so, Tengku Adnan, I told Tengku Adnan, yesterday I had a meeting with him.
He said PM is already very angry with him, he said no problem he is going to make you acting err.. confirm your position as PCA, working very hard then working very hard to get Tan Sri Mokhtar as CJM.
Ah, we just keep it confidential. I am working very hard on it. Then there is a letter, according to Tengku, I am going to see him tomorrow, there is a letter sent to CJ, I mean Tan Sri Dzaiddin, that Datuk Heliliah, Datuk Ramli, Datuk Ramli and Datuk Ma’roop be made judges, and he rejected Dr Andrew Chui and apa itu Zainuddin Ismail lah. Because Zainuddin Ismail condemned your appointment and Tan Sri Mokhtar’s appointment.
And then you also, you seems to wrote a letter for the remaining five be confirmed as judges. As per our memo I discuss with Tun Eusoff Chin and we sent the same memo to PM.
I just want to get a copy letter that that has been done.
And then Tan Sri Dzaiddin said he is going to recommend six people for the court of appeal, but until today the letter hasn’t come to PM. He never discuss, but neither he has sent the letter to PM. Yes he has not sent. I know it is under the constitution for judges all that is your job Datuk to send, but we don’t want to make it an issue now.
Ah. Ok Actually I told tengku adnan to inform PM, PM to call you for a meeting. I organize it so that Tengku Adnan will call you directly. And then I got your number, I will tell him to call you directly to for you to meet PM lah. So should be ok, then ar.. correct correct, it is very important that the key players must be there.
Correct x3. correct x2. You know that the same problem that Tun Eusoff Chin has. He tried to do all this and yet he has run out of soldiers. He couldn’t do it because many are from the other camp. Last time was unfortunate because Tun Daim was doing everything sabotaging, otherwise how are things with you - everything is ok?. No, don’t worry. You know sometimes Tan Sri Vincent that half the time they are talking about judiciary rather than doing the work. But if I don’t do this part my work will be useless.
Ha ha ha. Ah yes.Correct x5, right x3 correct. Ah right susah. You see he has now up for six court of appeal judges, so that he can put his men before he retires.
Correct x3, ah and then ah, correct. But never-mind, I will do this, I will get Tengku Adnan to arrange for PM to call you and Tan Sri Vincent Tan for PM to call you. And you know why, actually, I am very grateful with Tan Sri Vincent Tan you know why, I brainwash you so much even I quarrel with him. One day I went to Vincent Tan house, I fire him at the night in his house. I said very hell if you don’t do this who will do it?
All these people Tun Eusoff Chin, Datuk Ahmad Fairuz, Tan Sri Zainon all fought for that. Then he called Tengku Adnan. Tengku Adnan he said, saya bukan Perdana Menteri Malaysia lah, you know. If the old man doesn’t want to listen to me, go to hell.
He quarreled with me. I said nevermind, nevermind, you talk to PM again tomorrow morning to put Datuk Ahmad Fairuz to CJM. So next day morning he went and he called me back 9.30 that he said PM has already agreed. So I said nevermind, we hope for the best. So I said no harm trying, the worst that it can happen is that you lose. Being the old man, he is 76 years old, he gets whispers everywhere, and then you don’t whisper, he get taken away by the other side. But, now PM is very alert because every time he gets letters from Tan Sri Zaidin, he called Tengku Adnan, he said discuss with Vincent, come and discuss.
Yes yes, ya. Correct x2, ya, but you see although I know PM, I am a lawyer in practice my views are.. I go through them, I go through them lah. Ah x4.
And then Zaidin will call them telling that you went saw PM and you make a big issue out of it. Oh ya, I think so, I think so.
Ok, fine x4 ok x4
Ah x2 correct x2. Now I heard Raja Aziz, Raja Aziz huh, spoke to my lawyer Thayalan, and another lawyer Ailan, in the high court, they have a case each other. So, Thayalan and Ailan asked Raja Aziz, how is Tan Sri Wan Adnan?
He said he is on his way down. But you know what is the shocking thing he said? Datuk Fairuz became CJM. He overruled everybody, in three months time, he is going be made VCA, and 6 months time he is going to be CJ. He said he cant think he shocked. He told us.
Ha, it seems that they are going to organize a campaign to run you down. But you just keep quite don’t say anything. Even the press asked, you said I leave it to God, that’s all. Don’t say. I really like your message. You said you work very hard, what can I do? I leave it to God.
That’s the best answer datuk that you can ever be.
Ah… I will also get Tan Sri to remind PM to put a Tan Sri ship this year lah. This will elevate you, you know.
Oh yes x4. ha. XX got so fast, Tan Sri Chong waited for whole year to get Tan Sri Ship.
Ah.. My god that’s why, ah. Correct x4, ya x4 right x3 correct x2
Don’t worry, we organize this. If Tan Sri Vincent and Tengku Adnan want to meet you privately, they will, I will call you. We organize in a private arrangement, in a very unusual place.
No don’t worry, Datuk, I know how much you suffer for Tun Eusoff Chin. And Tun said Datuk Ahmad Fairuz 110% loyalty. We want to make sure our friends are there for the sake of the PM and the sake of the country.
Not for our own interest, not for our own interest. We want to make sure the country come first. Well, you suffered so well, so much you have done. For the election, Wee Choo Keong, everything. How much, no body would have done all these.
Yes, you know. Good lah. Don’t worry. I am constantly working on this.
Ya ya, don’t worry x2. We work hard on this. And Datuk, and then if Tan Sri Vincent and Tengku Adnan want to see you, I will organize it in such a confidential place.
Ok Datuk very best. God bless you and your family.
Ok. Thank you thank you. Bye.
http://www.merdekareview.com/news.php?n=4971
Sunday, September 16, 2007
校园保安是现代绿林大盗？
博大保安员硬闯学生宿舍，没收学生资产，不需要任何理由，这成了什么世界？警察要进行搜查都需要搜查令，保安人员为什么可以任意妄为？校园没有法律？没有基本人权吗？保安人员的职责是保护雇主的资产，为什么校园的保安反其道而行之，掠夺＂顾客＂的资产？大学，变成绿林大盗横行，无法无天的地方了吗？
博大保安員闖校舍 盤查學生沒收電腦-16th Sep 2007
（吉隆坡15日訊）博大校園昨夜傳出大學保安突擊檢查學生宿舍，並取走一名學生的手提電腦、手機、mp4和二枚記憶棒（pendrive）。
該名被取走財物的學生是木材科技系一年級學生俞揚陽，是大學親學生陣營的選舉助選團成員。
俞揚陽向《東方日報》透露，于昨晚10時左右，3名大學保安局官員和1名宿舍舍監，對他宿舍房間展開突擊檢查，惟當時他並不在房間。
當他回到宿舍后，就被守候在房間的官員單獨帶到一間會議室盤問超過一個小時，並對他多番的恐嚇，並警告他別在大學校園內玩政治。
隨后，官員以調查為由，將他的手提電腦、手機、mp4、二枚記憶棒以及一些傳單和私人文件取走。俞揚陽表示，這些財物約值5000令吉左右。
今早，俞揚陽在博華註冊運動總協調黃思華陪同下，前往斯里沙登警察局報警，惟警方在聯絡校方保安局后，在確定相關財物是被保安局沒收后，俞揚陽被告知需親自和保安局交涉，以取回財產。
當俞揚陽等人向保安局要回沒有的財物，但遭到保安局負責人嘉瑪里的拒絕，當嘉瑪里企圖驅車離開，則遭到學生的堵住，在雙方相持不下，于是學生召來警察。
校方同意下週歸還
在警察的斡旋下，嘉瑪里發出一封公函給俞揚陽，惟信中只列出沒收了手提電腦、手機和mp4，至于其他財產則並未寫入其中。
于是， 學生向警方要求報案，不過警方以和校方溝通后，校方同意下週一會歸還相關財物為由，只接受學生備案。
陪同俞揚陽到警局投報的全國大專生聯合陣線秘書，也是博大森林系三年級生黃勇進向《東方日報》表示，校方這次舉動，明顯是意圖恐嚇親學生陣營的學生。
他指出，上週三也有一位親學生陣營的馬來學生遭到相類似的對待。因此，他相信這是校方刻意選擇在校園選舉來臨前，針對親學生陣營的學生的打壓行動。
同時，他表示博大親學生陣營會考慮將這起事件，向人權委員會申訴。
新闻：东方日报
博大保安員闖校舍 盤查學生沒收電腦-16th Sep 2007
（吉隆坡15日訊）博大校園昨夜傳出大學保安突擊檢查學生宿舍，並取走一名學生的手提電腦、手機、mp4和二枚記憶棒（pendrive）。
該名被取走財物的學生是木材科技系一年級學生俞揚陽，是大學親學生陣營的選舉助選團成員。
俞揚陽向《東方日報》透露，于昨晚10時左右，3名大學保安局官員和1名宿舍舍監，對他宿舍房間展開突擊檢查，惟當時他並不在房間。
當他回到宿舍后，就被守候在房間的官員單獨帶到一間會議室盤問超過一個小時，並對他多番的恐嚇，並警告他別在大學校園內玩政治。
隨后，官員以調查為由，將他的手提電腦、手機、mp4、二枚記憶棒以及一些傳單和私人文件取走。俞揚陽表示，這些財物約值5000令吉左右。
今早，俞揚陽在博華註冊運動總協調黃思華陪同下，前往斯里沙登警察局報警，惟警方在聯絡校方保安局后，在確定相關財物是被保安局沒收后，俞揚陽被告知需親自和保安局交涉，以取回財產。
當俞揚陽等人向保安局要回沒有的財物，但遭到保安局負責人嘉瑪里的拒絕，當嘉瑪里企圖驅車離開，則遭到學生的堵住，在雙方相持不下，于是學生召來警察。
校方同意下週歸還
在警察的斡旋下，嘉瑪里發出一封公函給俞揚陽，惟信中只列出沒收了手提電腦、手機和mp4，至于其他財產則並未寫入其中。
于是， 學生向警方要求報案，不過警方以和校方溝通后，校方同意下週一會歸還相關財物為由，只接受學生備案。
陪同俞揚陽到警局投報的全國大專生聯合陣線秘書，也是博大森林系三年級生黃勇進向《東方日報》表示，校方這次舉動，明顯是意圖恐嚇親學生陣營的學生。
他指出，上週三也有一位親學生陣營的馬來學生遭到相類似的對待。因此，他相信這是校方刻意選擇在校園選舉來臨前，針對親學生陣營的學生的打壓行動。
同時，他表示博大親學生陣營會考慮將這起事件，向人權委員會申訴。
新闻：东方日报
Friday, September 14, 2007
人权委会允诺查瓜登骚乱事件,公选盟：听证会不能一拖再托
干净与公平选举联盟（Bersih，简称公选盟）继续针对瓜登骚乱风波向当局施压。其成员今日提呈备忘录给大马人权委员会，要求立即召开公开听证会，传召警方和涉及人士供证，以让这起流血冲突事件早日水落石出。
虽然人权委员会没立即答应公选盟的要求，不过却承诺将马上展开调查，并在两周内完成初步报告后，才定夺是否将举办公开听证会。
人权委员会将拜访警方和伤者
自从1999年成立以来，人权委员会只举办过5次公开听证会。最近一次是为了调查警方在去年5月28日暴力驱散一场和平集会的“血腥星期天”事件。
虽然事后的调查报告点出警方采用“过度的暴力”驱散和平集会，但是人权委员会在事发4个月后，才举办听证会的做法却广为人所诟病。
所以公正党副主席西华拉沙（Sivarasa Rasiah）就公开恳求委员会，不要再象过去般一拖再拖，应该立即举办公开听证会。
连同其他公选盟代表一起提呈备忘录的西华拉沙表示，“请不要再等待你们的每月会议，必须马上举办公开听证会”。
本月25日前完成初步报告
不过接见公选盟代表团的人权委员西华苏巴马廉（Siva Subramaniam）却表示，委员会将在这两天内亲自前往瓜登探访两名遭警方枪伤的集会者，并在本月19与20日会见警方和受害者。
他也建议在本月20日会晤登嘉楼州的公选盟代表。
“我们已经委派了6名官员，负责在3天内完成有关的调查报告，并在本月25日之前呈交，以便让委员们去定夺下一步的行动。我将会向人权委员会传达立即举办公开听证会的诉求。”
不过，公选盟代表团显然不甚满意西华苏巴马廉的答覆。
过后，西华拉沙告诉记者，“这算不上是一种回应，只是人权委员会的例常程序罢了，我们要的是立即举办听证会”。
指警方当晚粗暴曾举枪恐吓
公选盟是在上周六于瓜登峇都布洛海边举行讲座，欲向公众宣扬选举制度改革的重要性。但是却遭警方拒绝发出集会准证，并设立路障阻挡人群进入讲座地点。最后演变成人群与镇暴队爆发流血冲突的骚乱事件。在冲突中，有两名回教党党员因遭警方以实弹抢伤而送入院治疗。
目前骚乱事件和警察为何开枪的起因，仍然扑搠迷离。登嘉楼总警长阿育雅谷（Ayub Yaakob）曾多次发表相悖的声明，初时指有关警察是一名镇暴队员，因为遭到集会者攻击而开了一枪，但是较后又改称为两枪和四枪三种版本，就连该名开枪警察的名字和隶属单位也不断更改。
西华拉沙重申公选盟的说法，即该名便衣警察因为尝试煽动，而导致欲避免不愉快事件发生的集会群众欲采取“公民逮捕行动”来制服他，以便交给警方，但殊料他却竟然向人群开枪。
“警方必须回答的关键问题是，若这名警察当时真的受威胁，为何他不向天空开枪，却选择向手无寸铁的人士开枪？”
“这是最严重的案件，警察向手无寸铁的公民开枪，就算他受到威胁，也不能这么做。”
他也指称，警方高压手段所引发的流血事件，是导致不明人士开始破坏公物，最后演变成一场骚乱。
公选盟呈交的备忘录也指称，当晚公选盟的代表和讲座主讲人皆被警方禁止进入讲座地点，在一名公选盟的保安人员尝试移开路障以便让他们进入时，却遭到一名便衣警察拿着手枪指着他阻止，甚至还恫言要逮捕他。
西华拉沙认为，“这清楚反映了当晚警方的态度”
新闻来源：
人权委会允诺查瓜登骚乱事件
公选盟：听证会不能一拖再托 当今大马
虽然人权委员会没立即答应公选盟的要求，不过却承诺将马上展开调查，并在两周内完成初步报告后，才定夺是否将举办公开听证会。
人权委员会将拜访警方和伤者
自从1999年成立以来，人权委员会只举办过5次公开听证会。最近一次是为了调查警方在去年5月28日暴力驱散一场和平集会的“血腥星期天”事件。
虽然事后的调查报告点出警方采用“过度的暴力”驱散和平集会，但是人权委员会在事发4个月后，才举办听证会的做法却广为人所诟病。
所以公正党副主席西华拉沙（Sivarasa Rasiah）就公开恳求委员会，不要再象过去般一拖再拖，应该立即举办公开听证会。
连同其他公选盟代表一起提呈备忘录的西华拉沙表示，“请不要再等待你们的每月会议，必须马上举办公开听证会”。
本月25日前完成初步报告
不过接见公选盟代表团的人权委员西华苏巴马廉（Siva Subramaniam）却表示，委员会将在这两天内亲自前往瓜登探访两名遭警方枪伤的集会者，并在本月19与20日会见警方和受害者。
他也建议在本月20日会晤登嘉楼州的公选盟代表。
“我们已经委派了6名官员，负责在3天内完成有关的调查报告，并在本月25日之前呈交，以便让委员们去定夺下一步的行动。我将会向人权委员会传达立即举办公开听证会的诉求。”
不过，公选盟代表团显然不甚满意西华苏巴马廉的答覆。
过后，西华拉沙告诉记者，“这算不上是一种回应，只是人权委员会的例常程序罢了，我们要的是立即举办听证会”。
指警方当晚粗暴曾举枪恐吓
公选盟是在上周六于瓜登峇都布洛海边举行讲座，欲向公众宣扬选举制度改革的重要性。但是却遭警方拒绝发出集会准证，并设立路障阻挡人群进入讲座地点。最后演变成人群与镇暴队爆发流血冲突的骚乱事件。在冲突中，有两名回教党党员因遭警方以实弹抢伤而送入院治疗。
目前骚乱事件和警察为何开枪的起因，仍然扑搠迷离。登嘉楼总警长阿育雅谷（Ayub Yaakob）曾多次发表相悖的声明，初时指有关警察是一名镇暴队员，因为遭到集会者攻击而开了一枪，但是较后又改称为两枪和四枪三种版本，就连该名开枪警察的名字和隶属单位也不断更改。
西华拉沙重申公选盟的说法，即该名便衣警察因为尝试煽动，而导致欲避免不愉快事件发生的集会群众欲采取“公民逮捕行动”来制服他，以便交给警方，但殊料他却竟然向人群开枪。
“警方必须回答的关键问题是，若这名警察当时真的受威胁，为何他不向天空开枪，却选择向手无寸铁的人士开枪？”
“这是最严重的案件，警察向手无寸铁的公民开枪，就算他受到威胁，也不能这么做。”
他也指称，警方高压手段所引发的流血事件，是导致不明人士开始破坏公物，最后演变成一场骚乱。
公选盟呈交的备忘录也指称，当晚公选盟的代表和讲座主讲人皆被警方禁止进入讲座地点，在一名公选盟的保安人员尝试移开路障以便让他们进入时，却遭到一名便衣警察拿着手枪指着他阻止，甚至还恫言要逮捕他。
西华拉沙认为，“这清楚反映了当晚警方的态度”
新闻来源：
人权委会允诺查瓜登骚乱事件
公选盟：听证会不能一拖再托 当今大马
Suhakam to probe 'bloody' ceramah
Beginning next week the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) will start its fact-finding programme into the clash in Kuala Terengganu last Saturday.
Election watchdog Bersih handed a memorandum to the commission at its Kuala Lumpur office this morning demanding an immediate inquiry into the clash.
In the 30-minute meeting, commissioner N Siva Subramaniam said investigations into the matter will begin next Wednesday.
“We will visit the two men who were shot and we’ve arranged a programme on Sept 19 and 20 to have a meeting with the police and with the victims," he said.
Last Saturday, clashes broke out in Pantai Batu Buruk when the police refused to grant a permit for a public forum organised by the NGO and opposition-backed election watchdog Bersih.
As a result of the incident, two men, Suwandi Abdul Ghani, 37, and Muhamad Azman Aziz, 21, sustained gunshot wounds to the chest and neck respectively. Both, who have been hospitalised, are reported to be in stable condition.
Terengganu police chief SAC I Ayub Yaakob had clarified that the shooter was a 25-year-old constable Wan Abdul Aziz, who was said to have opened fire four times in self-defence after being set upon by an armed mob.
Siva said the commission has given three days for six Suhakam officers stationed in Kuala Terengganu to prepared a report for Suhakam chairperson Abu Talib Othman by Sept 25.
“We have been monitoring the situation and we understand the nature of what has happened. We will investigate into any human rights violations,” he said.
However, Siva said fact-finding programme does not guarantee that a public inquiry will be held as it is subject to the board of commissioner’s collective decision.
Bersih committee member R Sivarasa expressed concerns over the “systematic confiscation” of cameras that night and use of firearms by plainclothes police personnel acting as agent provocateurs.
Equal coverage
While the coalition’s secretariat member Faisal Mustaffa also urged Suhakam to look at how the mainstream media has been reporting on the issue.
He presented a slide show depicting how the press had carried comments from the police and the government but little or none from the coalition.
“We hope the commission will be able to advise these media agencies that they have a responsibility to report from both sides. “We have a right to equal coverage too,” he said.
Bersih, or Coalition for a Free and Fair Election, is an alliance of over 26 NGOs and five opposition parties to campaign for electoral reforms.
Set up Royal Commission
A joint statement by 26 NGOs was also submitted to Suhakam condemning the excessive use of force by the police.
Suaram executive director Yap Swee Seng said the justification by the police for firing the shot was in self-defense was absolutely unacceptable.
“There was no reason at all for the police to carry guns with live ammunition when dealing with peaceful assembly. “The carrying of guns was totally unjustified and disproportionate to the circumstances faced by the police, let alone discharging them,” he said.
The statement urged the government to set up a Royal Commission to conduct an independent and thorough inquiry into the incident to bring responsible police officers to court of justice.
Also, the NGOs are appalled that the incident has been used by some in the government as an excuse to propose a blanket ban on all public gatherings before the coming general election.
“This further reinforces the suggestion that the incident in Kuala Terengganu may have been pre-meditated and politically motivated by the government,” it stated.
News from:-
Suhakam to probe 'bloody' ceramah (Malaysiakini)
Election watchdog Bersih handed a memorandum to the commission at its Kuala Lumpur office this morning demanding an immediate inquiry into the clash.
In the 30-minute meeting, commissioner N Siva Subramaniam said investigations into the matter will begin next Wednesday.
“We will visit the two men who were shot and we’ve arranged a programme on Sept 19 and 20 to have a meeting with the police and with the victims," he said.
Last Saturday, clashes broke out in Pantai Batu Buruk when the police refused to grant a permit for a public forum organised by the NGO and opposition-backed election watchdog Bersih.
As a result of the incident, two men, Suwandi Abdul Ghani, 37, and Muhamad Azman Aziz, 21, sustained gunshot wounds to the chest and neck respectively. Both, who have been hospitalised, are reported to be in stable condition.
Terengganu police chief SAC I Ayub Yaakob had clarified that the shooter was a 25-year-old constable Wan Abdul Aziz, who was said to have opened fire four times in self-defence after being set upon by an armed mob.
Siva said the commission has given three days for six Suhakam officers stationed in Kuala Terengganu to prepared a report for Suhakam chairperson Abu Talib Othman by Sept 25.
“We have been monitoring the situation and we understand the nature of what has happened. We will investigate into any human rights violations,” he said.
However, Siva said fact-finding programme does not guarantee that a public inquiry will be held as it is subject to the board of commissioner’s collective decision.
Bersih committee member R Sivarasa expressed concerns over the “systematic confiscation” of cameras that night and use of firearms by plainclothes police personnel acting as agent provocateurs.
Equal coverage
While the coalition’s secretariat member Faisal Mustaffa also urged Suhakam to look at how the mainstream media has been reporting on the issue.
He presented a slide show depicting how the press had carried comments from the police and the government but little or none from the coalition.
“We hope the commission will be able to advise these media agencies that they have a responsibility to report from both sides. “We have a right to equal coverage too,” he said.
Bersih, or Coalition for a Free and Fair Election, is an alliance of over 26 NGOs and five opposition parties to campaign for electoral reforms.
Set up Royal Commission
A joint statement by 26 NGOs was also submitted to Suhakam condemning the excessive use of force by the police.
Suaram executive director Yap Swee Seng said the justification by the police for firing the shot was in self-defense was absolutely unacceptable.
“There was no reason at all for the police to carry guns with live ammunition when dealing with peaceful assembly. “The carrying of guns was totally unjustified and disproportionate to the circumstances faced by the police, let alone discharging them,” he said.
The statement urged the government to set up a Royal Commission to conduct an independent and thorough inquiry into the incident to bring responsible police officers to court of justice.
Also, the NGOs are appalled that the incident has been used by some in the government as an excuse to propose a blanket ban on all public gatherings before the coming general election.
“This further reinforces the suggestion that the incident in Kuala Terengganu may have been pre-meditated and politically motivated by the government,” it stated.
News from:-
Suhakam to probe 'bloody' ceramah (Malaysiakini)
Police Shootings Of Civilians Must Not Be Tolerated
We, the undersigned, strongly condemn the excessive use of force by the police, such as shooting tear-gas and live ammunition into crowds who have gathered at an open-air forum organized by the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (BERSIH) in Kuala Terengganu on 8 September 2007.
This unprecedented use of police force has caused serious injuries to residents who have gathered there, including beatings and head wounds. However more tragic was the use of guns by the police.
A bullet penetrated the chest and lung of Suwandi Abdul while another victim, Muhamad Azman Aziz was shot in the neck.
The disgraceful and worrying incident has made a mockery of the 50th anniversary of Merdeka that was supposed to symbolize the liberation of the people from oppression.
The statement that the police acted in self-defense is absolutely unacceptable.
There are many alternatives available to the police that the use of firearms should be the last option, not the first. There are too many questions that the police must be made answerable to the public:·
This unprecedented use of police force has caused serious injuries to residents who have gathered there, including beatings and head wounds. However more tragic was the use of guns by the police.
A bullet penetrated the chest and lung of Suwandi Abdul while another victim, Muhamad Azman Aziz was shot in the neck.
The disgraceful and worrying incident has made a mockery of the 50th anniversary of Merdeka that was supposed to symbolize the liberation of the people from oppression.
The statement that the police acted in self-defense is absolutely unacceptable.
There are many alternatives available to the police that the use of firearms should be the last option, not the first. There are too many questions that the police must be made answerable to the public:·
- Why did the police deny the application of permit for the programme by the organizer in the first place? Past events organized by BERSIH have been peaceful and orderly.
- Why was the police officer who shot the civilians not in police uniform while carrying out his duty? This raises doubts whether he was involved in inciting the crowd which prompted responsible civilians who were concerned about untoward incident (had) to make citizen arrest without knowing he was actually a police officer.
- Was it necessary for police officers to carry guns with live ammunition when dealing with a peaceful assembly of unarmed civilians, who have dutifully informed the police about the event? Was it necessary for a police officer to open fire into a large crowd of civilians?
International human rights law imposes strict conditions on the use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials. Article 3 of the United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials states that "Law enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty."
Article 12 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials recognizes the right of everyone to participate in peaceful assembly. It further stipulates in Article 13 that the dispersal of assemblies shall "avoid the use of force or, where that is not practicable, shall restrict such force to the minimum extent necessary".
Clearly, the police who claimed the drawing of arms on the night was on the basis of self defense, did not meet this basic "necessary" and "proportionate" test.
Firstly, it was not necessary for the police to ban the public assembly as the organizers have an unblemished track record of being responsible and peaceful. The right to freedom of peaceful assembly is guaranteed under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution.
Secondly, those who attended the public assembly were unarmed civilians, families, women and children. There was no reason at all for the police to carry guns with live ammunition when dealing with peaceful assembly. The carrying of guns was totally unjustified and disproportionate to the circumstances faced by the police, let alone discharging them.
In view of the gravity of the abuse of police power, which nearly took the lives of two civilians, we call on the government to set up a Royal Commission to conduct an independent and thorough inquiry into the incident and bring responsible police officers to court of justice.
We must stop the police violence immediately before the police force becomes a cold- blooded trigger-happy squad.
We are appalled that the incident has been used as an excuse by the government to impose a blanket ban on all public gatherings before the coming general election. This further reinforces the suggestion that the incident in Kuala Terengganu may have been pre-meditated and politically motivated by the Government. We call for this blanket ban to be revoked immediately and for all permits be granted without prejudice.
Endorsees:
1. Aliran Kesedaran Negara (Aliran)
2. Women's Aid Organization (WAO)
3. National Human Rights Society (Hakam)
4. Tenaganita
5. Persatuan Sahabat Wanita
6. Civil Rights Committee of The Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (CRC-KLSCAH)
7. Writers Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI)
8. ArtisProActiv
9. Center for Independent Journalism (CIJ)
10. Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM)
11. Group of Concerned Citizen
12. Citizen Think Tank (CTT)
13. Amnesty International Malaysia (AI Malaysia)14. Labour Resource Center (LRC)
15. Center for Orang Asli Concerns (COAC)
16. Pusat Janadaya (Empower, PJD)
17. All Women's Action Malaysia (AWAM)
18. Persatuan Masyarakat Selangor & Wilayah Persekutuan (PERMAS)
19. Women's Development Collective (WDC)
20. Persatuan Alumni PBTUSM Selangor
21. Women's Centre for Change, Penang (WCC)
22. Sisters in Islam (SIS)
23. Pesticide Action Network, Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP)
24. Pusat Khidmat Pekerja Tanjung (PKPT)
25. Sarawak Dayak Iban Association (SADIA)
26. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
相关新闻
无法接受警方开枪自卫理由民间组织批政府趁机禁集会 (当今大马）
国内26个人权与公民组织今日强烈谴责警方 ，於上周六在瓜拉登嘉楼的干净与公平选举联盟（Bersih）讲座上 ，使用过度暴力如发射催泪弹和动用实弹射击现场公众。
国民醒觉运动、妇女援助组织、隆雪华堂民权委员会、维护媒体独立撰稿人联盟、独立新闻中心、国际特赦大马分部、回教姐妹组织和大马人民之声 ，发表联署声明，批评警方使用空前的暴力和开枪射击导致现场群众蒙受重伤，包括一人胸部和另一人颈项遭子弹射中。
联署声明也表示，警方声称开枪自卫的完全不能令人接受，因为警方仍有许多方式可以解决问题，而不应该动辄开枪。
疑便衣警员煽动人群反遭逮捕声明也提出数个疑问，要求警方做出解释：
－－为何警方一开始拒绝批发集会准证予主办单位？干净与公平选举联盟在过去主办的活动皆和平及有秩序。
－－为何该名开枪射击民众的警员，在执行任务时没有穿警察制服？这令人怀疑，有关警员是否涉及煽动人群的行为，导致一些负责任的群众在不知晓其真实警员身份之下，对他进行“公民逮捕”（citizen arrest）以免发生不愉快事件。
－－警方在处理和平集会及面对手无寸铁的公民时，是否有必要携带荷枪实弹？警员是否有必要在群众之中，公然开枪？
自卫开枪不符执法人员守则
声明表示，国际人权法已制约执法人员使用武力和火器的情况，包括《联合国执法人员行为守则》第3条规定，执法人员只有在绝对必要时才能使用武力，而且不能超出执行职务所必须的范围。
《联合国执法人员使用武力和火器的基本原则》第12条文则表示，根据《世界人权宣言》和《公民权利和政治权利国际盟约》中所体现的原则，人人都可参加合法与和平的集会。第13条文也注明，在驱散非法而非暴力的集会时，执法人员应避免使用武力，或在实际无法避免时应将使用武力限制到必要的最低限度。
声明表示，警方以自卫为由拔枪射击，明显并不符合上述基本原则，尤其是警方一开始就不应该制止负责任与和平的民众集会。自由集会也是联邦宪法第10条文下赋予的基本权利。
其次，出席有关集会的人士都是手无寸铁的公民、携带家眷、女性和幼童，因此警方毫无理由以荷枪实弹处理和平集会。
设皇家委会起诉开枪警员
此外，联署的组织也呼吁政府成立皇家委员会，彻查有关事件及起诉相关的警员。
声明也对政府借这次事件为藉口，禁止在来届大选之前举行任何公开集会表示震惊，表示这无形中使到瓜登骚乱事件可能是政府的政治预谋说法甚嚣尘上。
Friday, September 7, 2007
Theedgedaily : Ex-IGP Hanif calls for independence of ACA
05-09-2007: Ex-IGP Hanif calls for independence of ACA
Email us your feedback at fd@bizedge.com
KUALA LUMPUR: Former Inspector-General of Police Tun Mohd Hanif Omar has called for the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) to be independent of direct or indirect political control. With only 12 years to reach a developed nation status, Malaysia must always benchmark itself against the best countries, their achievements and best practices, he said. “The agency started off very well but had failed us increasingly these past 15 years,” Hanif told participants of the Khazanah National Development Seminar here yesterday. He said there was “a slight awakening” with the new ACA director-general (Datuk Ahmad Said Hamdan) but Malaysia could not afford its institutions to be predicated on personalities. “The system itself must be good, transparent and accountable,” he added. Currently, the ACA still comes under the Prime Minister’s Department. In his speech, “Malaysians Living Together – Rights, Responsibilities and Wealth Sharing”, Hanif said Malaysia also needed an independent judicial commission and an independent police commission on misconduct and corruption. Malaysia could be better off if the Attorney-General was also made accountable in some way, he added. “I think once these institutions are set right and function as they should, the other institutions will improve or will be easily made to improve,” Hanif said. Following these, the government would be in a better position to ensure the welfare and happiness of the people, he added. “The feeling today is that the government has failed to deliver effectively on a very important promise of transparency, accountability and anti-corruption, and our justice system suffers as a result,” Hanif said. On Malaysia’s affirmative action policy, he said it was still necessary but it should be on a need basis instead of a racial basis. He said the policy should probably be looking more in the direction of the Orang Asli and natives in the hinterland of Sabah and Sarawak as well as the poor among the Malays, Chinese, Indians and others. “The disadvantaged should be given a leg-up, otherwise the rich and privileged will sweep them aside,” he added. Hanif also revealed that former deputy prime minister, the late Tun Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman, had asked for a paper on affirmative action from the Special Branch (SB) of the police force. He said the SB was conditioned by its long battle for hearts and minds in the fight against the communists and opted for affirmative action based on needs and not on race. “By not making it racial, it would prevent the CPM (Communist Party of Malaya) from exploiting the issue,” he added. Hanif also acknowledged that a strong civil society could help to dissuade “any hanky-panky” in development and public projects. “By demanding publicity and accountability, fair play and environmental protection, they can make this country attractive to investors, particularly those with a strong CSR (corporate social responsibility) culture,” he said. http://www.theedgedaily.com/cms/content.jsp?id=com.tms.cms.article.Article_d46e43f3-cb73c03a-10df4e20-f2ccf801
Kit Siang : Make IPCMC bill public for feedback and consultation
AG’s draft IPCMC bill - make it public for feedback and consultation
http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2007/09/07/ags-draft-ipcmc-bill-make-it-public-for-feedback-and-consultation/
The second draft Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) Bill which has been prepared by the Attorney-General’s Chambers should be made public to allow for public feedback and consultation.
The Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan, has said that the police is satisfied with the draft IPCMC bill prepared by the Attorney-General’s Chambers as it contained some of the proposals presented by the police.
He said the police is not opposed to an IPCMC but wanted a fair procedure so that there is no victimization of the police.
Malaysians welcome the change-of-heart of the police on the IPCMC issue, backing down from its original stand of total opposition.
Malaysians can accept and agree with Musa that when the IPCMC is formed, no one, including the police, should be victimized by its operation and function.
As the whole purpose of an IPCMC is to uphold justice, it would be a travesty of justice to create new victims or to countenance new injustices to be perpetrated under the IPCMC regime.
The real stand of the police on the IPCMC still await full clarification, as the test of the pudding is in the eating or in the passage of the IPCMC legislation.
As the Attorney-General’s draft IPCMC bill has not been made public, no one knows whether it has kept to the spirit of the key recommendation of the Police Royal Commission for the establishment of an independent external oversight mechanism to check police abuses of powers, misconduct and negligence in order to create an efficient, incorruptible, professional world-class police service which could keep crime low, eradicate corruption in the police service and uphold human rights.
No one knows how far the second draft IPCMC bill prepared by the Attorney-General differed from the first draft Bill prepared and published by the Police Royal Commission.
What is important is that the essence of the recommendation to have an independent external oversight mechanism to effectively check on police abuses should not be compromised in any manner.
There are two reasons why there should be a greater sense of urgency on the part of the government and the police to get the IPCMC established without any more procrastination, viz:
• it is more than a year since the expiry of the time-line for the establishment of the IPCMC as recommended by the Police Royal Commission – which was by May 2006; and
• public confidence in the ability of the police to perform its most elementary duty to protect citizens from crime is even lower than before the establishment of the Police Royal Commission as a result of the galloping crime index with Malaysians feeling more unsafe about their personal safety and that of their loved ones as compared to some four years ago.
Spirit of Merdeka Movement Declaration on Restoring Democracy and Advancing Freedom in Malaysia
Preamble
We, the undersigned civil society organizations, have come together on the occasion of our fifty years of independence in Peninsular Malaysia and 44 years of independence in Sabah and Sarawak to celebrate our nationhood and to rededicate ourselves and our members to the advancement of democracy and freedom.
Today, key democratic and basic freedoms that all Malaysians fought so hard to attain are under siege or are in decline. Our mission is not only with the restoration of democratic norms and practices. It is also to reaffirm our commitment to the safeguarding and support of vital institutions and processes that are the hall mark of vibrant and flourishing democratic systems.
We call on all Malaysians to support this cause and to join us in promoting a strong democracy in which the separation of power of the executive, legislative and judiciary is maintained, and checks and balances preventing the monopoly or abuse of power by the executive branch are in place. The alternative is to see our nation and people be driven down the road of authoritarianism towards an illiberal and shackled society.
Mission Program
Our mission program is focused on the preservation and enhancement of human rights and basic freedoms that are based upon values of participation, accountability, transparency, equality and diversity. These rights, freedoms and values need to be constantly monitored and safeguarded by committed and autonomous institutional stakeholders and the citizenry. Besides the active functioning of established political institutions of Parliament and the Government of the day, the judiciary, the media, and civil society organizations have important roles to play in advancing the cause of democracy in Malaysia.
There are six areas in which progress towards a strong and resilient democratic system should be focused on. These are:
1. Upholding Constitutional Rights by Rescinding Authoritarian Legislation
Our constitutional rights include the right to personal freedom, freedom of thought, conscience and religion; freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of expression and information; freedom of association; and equality before the law without discrimination. Various articles of the Malaysian Constitution provide a sound basis for these basic freedoms and liberties. However, these provisions have been considerably weakened in the past fifty years, especially under the emergency laws that have long outlived their purpose.
To uphold these rights in the original spirit of our Federal Constitution, we call for the repeal of the following legislation:
· Internal Security Act 1960.
· Public Order (Preservation) Act 1958.
· Prevention of Crime Act 1959.
· Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969.
· Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance 1970.
· Essential (Security Cases) Regulations 1975.
· Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985
· Restricted Residence Act 1933
The Federal Constitution has been amended innumerable times since independence. This has diluted tremendously the spirit of the original document. Important parts of the original Constitution, such as jus soli (right of birth) citizenship, a limitation on the variation of the number of electors in constituencies, and Parliamentary control of emergency powers have been modified or altered by amendments with the result that the present Federal Constitution bears little resemblance in many key areas to the original version.
We call for the review of various constitutional amendments that have effectively abrogated other constitutionally protected fundamental freedoms and rights. The rescinding of these amendments is a crucial step in the restoration of our democratic rights and freedoms.
We also call for the ratification of among others, the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of Torture, and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the incorporation of their principles into the Federal Constitution and national laws.
2. Restoring the independence of the Judiciary
Separation of power of the main branches of the state is a core characteristic of all genuine democracies. Adherence to this key concept is also critical to the protection of constitutional rights in Malaysia. The drafters of our Constitution had envisaged “the supremacy of the law and the power and duty of the Courts to annul any attempt to subvert any of the fundamental rights [contained in the Constitution] whether by legislative or administrative action or otherwise” (Reid Commission Report, para 161).
Since 1988 however, the independence of the judiciary has been compromised by numerous actions aimed at undermining its powers and circumscribing its responsibility to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution from legislative and other pressures.
To restore the independence and integrity of the judiciary, we call on Malaysians to support the following measures:
· Upholding the rule of law and the supremacy of the Federal Constitution
· Establishment of an Independent Judicial Commission to ensure transparency and objectivity in the appointment and promotion of judges and to protect judicial integrity
· Ensuring the Judiciary has the exclusive authority to decide whether an issue submitted for its decision is within its competence as defined by law.
· Requiring all executive decisions to be subject to judicial reviews.
All Malaysians must exercise vigilance so that there is no inappropriate or unwarranted executive interference with the judicial process. A manipulated and dependent judiciary can only lead to a weakened democracy.
3. Ensuring Fair and Free Elections
True democracy not only requires that Malaysians have the right to elect and dismiss their leaders but it also requires that the electoral process provides genuinely free and unbiased choices in the election of parties and political leaders at national, state and local levels.
In our country, at the national and state levels, the manipulation of electoral boundaries; the vast disparity of voter numbers among the constituencies, use of the governmental machinery in support of various political party candidates; the growing incidence of phantom, postal and absentee voters; and various other irregularities and unethical practices have debased the credibility and legitimacy of the electoral process and the outcomes.
Local government forms the underpinning of democratic values and public accountability at the grassroots. On March 2, 1965, local government elections in the nation were suspended with the promise of its restoration “the very moment peace is declared and the emergency regulations are withdrawn”. This promise has yet to be honored. Today, the need for reform to the present unelected form of local government is urgent in the wake of the systemic wastage, mismanagement and corruption found in many local councils.
To ensure a free and fair choice of the country’s elected representatives by Malaysians, we call for the following reforms:
· Reintroduction of local elections, which can be done by either the Federal Government or individual state governments under Article 113(4) of the Federal Constitution.
· Upholding the principle of “one person one vote”, by either restricting the disparity in constituency sizes and prohibiting gerrymandering; or introducing the elements of Proportional Representation (PR) into the electoral system.
· Adherence to the principle of administrative neutrality, by barring ruling parties from buying votes through development pledges and misusing public service facilities and apparatus for electioneering purposes.
· Ensuring free and fair access to mass media by all parties.
· Elimination of polling irregularities by cleaning up the electoral roll, abolishing domestic postal voting and employing indelible ink.
· Introduction of senatorial elections as part of the parliamentary reform agenda.
Finally, to protect the integrity of the electoral system and process, the 1962 amendment to the Constitution which abrogated the Electoral Commission’s right to enforce fair delineation of constituencies should be repealed. At the same time, the Electoral Commission should be granted full power to enforce its decision and should be made free from any form of political pressure or influence.
4. Advancing Media Freedom and Independence
The growth on an independent and impartial media in Malaysia has been constrained by coercive legislation as well as by the ruling coalition parties’ control over the ownership of the major news outlets and publications. Increasingly too, journalists have become victims of the controls exerted by the political leadership and their business partners, or have engaged in biased reporting.
Numerous calls have been made for the repeal of the Printing Presses and Publications Act, Official Secrets Act, and national security laws introduced during the colonial period. All such legislations has long outlived their usefulness and should be replaced by a new Freedom of Information Act that enshrines key principles of media freedom and independence and removes the impediments to media independence and freedom, whilst ensuring appropriate social responsibility.
To ensure the independence and integrity of our mass media we call for the establishment of a Parliamentary Select Committee for Media Law Reform to look into
· Repealing all legislation which curb media freedom including:
o Printing Presses and Publication Act 1984.
o Sedition Act 1948.
o Official Secrets Act 1972.
· Enactment of a Freedom of Information Act to enhance the public’s right to public information and to protect whistle-blowers.
· Introduction of effective anti-monopoly mechanisms to protect the pluralism of ownership and control in the media industry.
5. Fostering civil society participation and a culture of transparency and accountability
Civil society plays a crucial role in a democratic system, especially in the context of Malaysia where legislative power cannot effectively control the executive. Today, despite the presence of repressive legislation and limitations to democratic space, numerous civil society organizations have emerged to pursue the cause of fundamental rights and freedoms in the civil, political, economic, social, and cultural fields. Through activities aimed at a culture of participation, transparency and accountability and the raising of public consciousness, civil society organizations are playing a vital role in issues of public interest and by providing important resistance to coercive elements seeking to undermine democratic norms and practices.
To enable a vibrant and critical civil society to take root, freedoms of expression, association and assembly must be respected. We call for the repeal of the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971, the Universiti Aku Janji policy and Section 27, 27A-C of the Police Act, 1967 on the right to peaceful assembly. We further call for the reforms of the following laws:
· Societies Act 1966
· Trade Unions Act 1959
· Police Act 1967
We call on all Malaysians to stand up for civil society organizations that are facing threats to their freedom of association and organization, assembly and expression.
6. Protecting and celebrating the nation’s diversity
Malaysia is a nation of diverse ethnic groups, religions, cultures and languages. In recognition of the difficulty of building a resilient democratic system where wide disparities exist amongst communities derived from geographical, ethnic, socio-cultural and other differences, we call for the acceptance of four general principles that can contribute to building a resilient democracy in our plural society.
These are:
· No citizen should suffer unjustified discrimination in economic and educational opportunities on the grounds of ethnicity, religion, gender, class, disability, age or lifestyle.
· The state should invest sufficiently in education, healthcare and other public services so that the marginalized and poorer segments of society are provided opportunities to improve themselves and we can more quickly reduce the disparities that are found in the nation’s economy.
· All individuals, groups and communities should respect one another as equal fellow citizens with constitutionally-enshrined rights and duties.
· Elimination of the scourge of corruption which has taken deep root and is acting to destroy the moral and ethnical basis of the nation, whilst rewarding the greedy, unscrupulous and unworthy.
1. Alaigal
2. All Women’s Action Society (AWAM)
3. Aliran Kesedaran Negara
4. Bar Council Human Rights Committee
5. Centre for Environment, Technology & Development Malaysia (CETDEM)
6. Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ)
7. Centre for Orang Asli Concerns (COAC)
8. Chinese Language Society, University Putra Malaysia (UPM)
9. Chinese Language Society, University Malaya (UM)
10. Chinese Student Association, University Utara Malaysia (UUM)
11. Chinese Student Council, University Technology Malaysia (UTM)
12. Citizen Think Tank
13. Civil Rights Committee of The Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall, (CRC-KLSCAH)
14. Community Action Network (CAN)
15. Community Development Center (CDC)
16. Council of Churches of Malaysia (CCM)
17. Food Not Bomb
18. Gabungan Anak Muda dan Pelajar (GAMP)
19. Gabungan Mansuhkah ISA (GMI)
20. Gabungan Rakyat Membantah US-Malaysia FTA
21. Gerakan Mahasiswa Maju University Putra Malaysia (GMMUPM)
22. Group of Concerned Citizens (GCC)
23. Institut Kajian Dasar (IKD)
24. Jaringan Rakyat Tertindas (JERIT)
25. Jawatankuasa Kebajikan Mahasiswa-Mahasiswi, UKM (JKMI)
26. Komunite Seni Jalan Telawi (KsJT)
27. Labour Resource Center (LRC)
28. Lim Liong Gek Cultural Foundation
29. Malaysia Youth and Student Democratic Movement (DEMA)
30. Malaysian Voters Union (MALVU)
31. Monitoring Sustainability of Globalisation (MSN)
32. National Human Rights Society (HAKAM)
33. Penang Watch
34. Penang Youth Graduate Association
35. People’s Parliament
36. Persatuan Alumni LiHua PBTUSM Kuala Lumpur dan Selangor
37. Persatuan Masyarakat Selangor Dan Wilayah Persekutuan (PERMAS)
38. Persatuan Sahabat Wanita Selangor
39. Pusat Janajaya (EMPOWER)
40. Pusat Khidmat Pekerja Tanjung
41. Pusat Komuniti Masyarakat(KOMAS)
42. Rakan Perjuangan Peneroka Bandar (RAKAN)
43. Research for Social Advancement (REFSA)
44. Sarawak Dayak Iban Association (SADIA)
45. Save Our School Damansara (SOS DAMANSARA)
46. Save OurSelves (SOS) Penang
47. Sisters in Islam
48. Solidarity Mahasiswa Putra (SMP)
49. Solidarity Mahasiswa Malaysia (SMM)
50. Student Progressive Front, University Science Malaysia (SPFUSM)
51. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
52. Tamil Foundation
53. Tenaganita
54. The United Kingdom and Eire Council for Malaysian Students (UKEC)
55. Transparency International - Malaysia
56. University Malaya Association of New Youth (UMANY)
57. Women’s Development Collective (WDC)
58. Writers Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI)
59. Yayasan Kajian & Pembanguan Masyarakat (YKPM)
60. Youth for Change (Y4C)
61. Youth Section of The KL & Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (KLSCAH-Youth)
We, the undersigned civil society organizations, have come together on the occasion of our fifty years of independence in Peninsular Malaysia and 44 years of independence in Sabah and Sarawak to celebrate our nationhood and to rededicate ourselves and our members to the advancement of democracy and freedom.
Today, key democratic and basic freedoms that all Malaysians fought so hard to attain are under siege or are in decline. Our mission is not only with the restoration of democratic norms and practices. It is also to reaffirm our commitment to the safeguarding and support of vital institutions and processes that are the hall mark of vibrant and flourishing democratic systems.
We call on all Malaysians to support this cause and to join us in promoting a strong democracy in which the separation of power of the executive, legislative and judiciary is maintained, and checks and balances preventing the monopoly or abuse of power by the executive branch are in place. The alternative is to see our nation and people be driven down the road of authoritarianism towards an illiberal and shackled society.
Mission Program
Our mission program is focused on the preservation and enhancement of human rights and basic freedoms that are based upon values of participation, accountability, transparency, equality and diversity. These rights, freedoms and values need to be constantly monitored and safeguarded by committed and autonomous institutional stakeholders and the citizenry. Besides the active functioning of established political institutions of Parliament and the Government of the day, the judiciary, the media, and civil society organizations have important roles to play in advancing the cause of democracy in Malaysia.
There are six areas in which progress towards a strong and resilient democratic system should be focused on. These are:
1. Upholding Constitutional Rights by Rescinding Authoritarian Legislation
Our constitutional rights include the right to personal freedom, freedom of thought, conscience and religion; freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of expression and information; freedom of association; and equality before the law without discrimination. Various articles of the Malaysian Constitution provide a sound basis for these basic freedoms and liberties. However, these provisions have been considerably weakened in the past fifty years, especially under the emergency laws that have long outlived their purpose.
To uphold these rights in the original spirit of our Federal Constitution, we call for the repeal of the following legislation:
· Internal Security Act 1960.
· Public Order (Preservation) Act 1958.
· Prevention of Crime Act 1959.
· Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969.
· Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance 1970.
· Essential (Security Cases) Regulations 1975.
· Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985
· Restricted Residence Act 1933
The Federal Constitution has been amended innumerable times since independence. This has diluted tremendously the spirit of the original document. Important parts of the original Constitution, such as jus soli (right of birth) citizenship, a limitation on the variation of the number of electors in constituencies, and Parliamentary control of emergency powers have been modified or altered by amendments with the result that the present Federal Constitution bears little resemblance in many key areas to the original version.
We call for the review of various constitutional amendments that have effectively abrogated other constitutionally protected fundamental freedoms and rights. The rescinding of these amendments is a crucial step in the restoration of our democratic rights and freedoms.
We also call for the ratification of among others, the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of Torture, and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the incorporation of their principles into the Federal Constitution and national laws.
2. Restoring the independence of the Judiciary
Separation of power of the main branches of the state is a core characteristic of all genuine democracies. Adherence to this key concept is also critical to the protection of constitutional rights in Malaysia. The drafters of our Constitution had envisaged “the supremacy of the law and the power and duty of the Courts to annul any attempt to subvert any of the fundamental rights [contained in the Constitution] whether by legislative or administrative action or otherwise” (Reid Commission Report, para 161).
Since 1988 however, the independence of the judiciary has been compromised by numerous actions aimed at undermining its powers and circumscribing its responsibility to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution from legislative and other pressures.
To restore the independence and integrity of the judiciary, we call on Malaysians to support the following measures:
· Upholding the rule of law and the supremacy of the Federal Constitution
· Establishment of an Independent Judicial Commission to ensure transparency and objectivity in the appointment and promotion of judges and to protect judicial integrity
· Ensuring the Judiciary has the exclusive authority to decide whether an issue submitted for its decision is within its competence as defined by law.
· Requiring all executive decisions to be subject to judicial reviews.
All Malaysians must exercise vigilance so that there is no inappropriate or unwarranted executive interference with the judicial process. A manipulated and dependent judiciary can only lead to a weakened democracy.
3. Ensuring Fair and Free Elections
True democracy not only requires that Malaysians have the right to elect and dismiss their leaders but it also requires that the electoral process provides genuinely free and unbiased choices in the election of parties and political leaders at national, state and local levels.
In our country, at the national and state levels, the manipulation of electoral boundaries; the vast disparity of voter numbers among the constituencies, use of the governmental machinery in support of various political party candidates; the growing incidence of phantom, postal and absentee voters; and various other irregularities and unethical practices have debased the credibility and legitimacy of the electoral process and the outcomes.
Local government forms the underpinning of democratic values and public accountability at the grassroots. On March 2, 1965, local government elections in the nation were suspended with the promise of its restoration “the very moment peace is declared and the emergency regulations are withdrawn”. This promise has yet to be honored. Today, the need for reform to the present unelected form of local government is urgent in the wake of the systemic wastage, mismanagement and corruption found in many local councils.
To ensure a free and fair choice of the country’s elected representatives by Malaysians, we call for the following reforms:
· Reintroduction of local elections, which can be done by either the Federal Government or individual state governments under Article 113(4) of the Federal Constitution.
· Upholding the principle of “one person one vote”, by either restricting the disparity in constituency sizes and prohibiting gerrymandering; or introducing the elements of Proportional Representation (PR) into the electoral system.
· Adherence to the principle of administrative neutrality, by barring ruling parties from buying votes through development pledges and misusing public service facilities and apparatus for electioneering purposes.
· Ensuring free and fair access to mass media by all parties.
· Elimination of polling irregularities by cleaning up the electoral roll, abolishing domestic postal voting and employing indelible ink.
· Introduction of senatorial elections as part of the parliamentary reform agenda.
Finally, to protect the integrity of the electoral system and process, the 1962 amendment to the Constitution which abrogated the Electoral Commission’s right to enforce fair delineation of constituencies should be repealed. At the same time, the Electoral Commission should be granted full power to enforce its decision and should be made free from any form of political pressure or influence.
4. Advancing Media Freedom and Independence
The growth on an independent and impartial media in Malaysia has been constrained by coercive legislation as well as by the ruling coalition parties’ control over the ownership of the major news outlets and publications. Increasingly too, journalists have become victims of the controls exerted by the political leadership and their business partners, or have engaged in biased reporting.
Numerous calls have been made for the repeal of the Printing Presses and Publications Act, Official Secrets Act, and national security laws introduced during the colonial period. All such legislations has long outlived their usefulness and should be replaced by a new Freedom of Information Act that enshrines key principles of media freedom and independence and removes the impediments to media independence and freedom, whilst ensuring appropriate social responsibility.
To ensure the independence and integrity of our mass media we call for the establishment of a Parliamentary Select Committee for Media Law Reform to look into
· Repealing all legislation which curb media freedom including:
o Printing Presses and Publication Act 1984.
o Sedition Act 1948.
o Official Secrets Act 1972.
· Enactment of a Freedom of Information Act to enhance the public’s right to public information and to protect whistle-blowers.
· Introduction of effective anti-monopoly mechanisms to protect the pluralism of ownership and control in the media industry.
5. Fostering civil society participation and a culture of transparency and accountability
Civil society plays a crucial role in a democratic system, especially in the context of Malaysia where legislative power cannot effectively control the executive. Today, despite the presence of repressive legislation and limitations to democratic space, numerous civil society organizations have emerged to pursue the cause of fundamental rights and freedoms in the civil, political, economic, social, and cultural fields. Through activities aimed at a culture of participation, transparency and accountability and the raising of public consciousness, civil society organizations are playing a vital role in issues of public interest and by providing important resistance to coercive elements seeking to undermine democratic norms and practices.
To enable a vibrant and critical civil society to take root, freedoms of expression, association and assembly must be respected. We call for the repeal of the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971, the Universiti Aku Janji policy and Section 27, 27A-C of the Police Act, 1967 on the right to peaceful assembly. We further call for the reforms of the following laws:
· Societies Act 1966
· Trade Unions Act 1959
· Police Act 1967
We call on all Malaysians to stand up for civil society organizations that are facing threats to their freedom of association and organization, assembly and expression.
6. Protecting and celebrating the nation’s diversity
Malaysia is a nation of diverse ethnic groups, religions, cultures and languages. In recognition of the difficulty of building a resilient democratic system where wide disparities exist amongst communities derived from geographical, ethnic, socio-cultural and other differences, we call for the acceptance of four general principles that can contribute to building a resilient democracy in our plural society.
These are:
· No citizen should suffer unjustified discrimination in economic and educational opportunities on the grounds of ethnicity, religion, gender, class, disability, age or lifestyle.
· The state should invest sufficiently in education, healthcare and other public services so that the marginalized and poorer segments of society are provided opportunities to improve themselves and we can more quickly reduce the disparities that are found in the nation’s economy.
· All individuals, groups and communities should respect one another as equal fellow citizens with constitutionally-enshrined rights and duties.
· Elimination of the scourge of corruption which has taken deep root and is acting to destroy the moral and ethnical basis of the nation, whilst rewarding the greedy, unscrupulous and unworthy.
1. Alaigal
2. All Women’s Action Society (AWAM)
3. Aliran Kesedaran Negara
4. Bar Council Human Rights Committee
5. Centre for Environment, Technology & Development Malaysia (CETDEM)
6. Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ)
7. Centre for Orang Asli Concerns (COAC)
8. Chinese Language Society, University Putra Malaysia (UPM)
9. Chinese Language Society, University Malaya (UM)
10. Chinese Student Association, University Utara Malaysia (UUM)
11. Chinese Student Council, University Technology Malaysia (UTM)
12. Citizen Think Tank
13. Civil Rights Committee of The Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall, (CRC-KLSCAH)
14. Community Action Network (CAN)
15. Community Development Center (CDC)
16. Council of Churches of Malaysia (CCM)
17. Food Not Bomb
18. Gabungan Anak Muda dan Pelajar (GAMP)
19. Gabungan Mansuhkah ISA (GMI)
20. Gabungan Rakyat Membantah US-Malaysia FTA
21. Gerakan Mahasiswa Maju University Putra Malaysia (GMMUPM)
22. Group of Concerned Citizens (GCC)
23. Institut Kajian Dasar (IKD)
24. Jaringan Rakyat Tertindas (JERIT)
25. Jawatankuasa Kebajikan Mahasiswa-Mahasiswi, UKM (JKMI)
26. Komunite Seni Jalan Telawi (KsJT)
27. Labour Resource Center (LRC)
28. Lim Liong Gek Cultural Foundation
29. Malaysia Youth and Student Democratic Movement (DEMA)
30. Malaysian Voters Union (MALVU)
31. Monitoring Sustainability of Globalisation (MSN)
32. National Human Rights Society (HAKAM)
33. Penang Watch
34. Penang Youth Graduate Association
35. People’s Parliament
36. Persatuan Alumni LiHua PBTUSM Kuala Lumpur dan Selangor
37. Persatuan Masyarakat Selangor Dan Wilayah Persekutuan (PERMAS)
38. Persatuan Sahabat Wanita Selangor
39. Pusat Janajaya (EMPOWER)
40. Pusat Khidmat Pekerja Tanjung
41. Pusat Komuniti Masyarakat(KOMAS)
42. Rakan Perjuangan Peneroka Bandar (RAKAN)
43. Research for Social Advancement (REFSA)
44. Sarawak Dayak Iban Association (SADIA)
45. Save Our School Damansara (SOS DAMANSARA)
46. Save OurSelves (SOS) Penang
47. Sisters in Islam
48. Solidarity Mahasiswa Putra (SMP)
49. Solidarity Mahasiswa Malaysia (SMM)
50. Student Progressive Front, University Science Malaysia (SPFUSM)
51. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
52. Tamil Foundation
53. Tenaganita
54. The United Kingdom and Eire Council for Malaysian Students (UKEC)
55. Transparency International - Malaysia
56. University Malaya Association of New Youth (UMANY)
57. Women’s Development Collective (WDC)
58. Writers Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI)
59. Yayasan Kajian & Pembanguan Masyarakat (YKPM)
60. Youth for Change (Y4C)
61. Youth Section of The KL & Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (KLSCAH-Youth)
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
联合声明：废除煽动法令，制定反仇恨法
吉隆坡暨雪兰莪中华大会堂民权委员会（CRC）、维护媒体独立撰稿人联盟（WAMI）、独立新闻中心（CRC）、政策研究中心（IKD）、人民的国会（People’s Parliament）、回教姐妹组织（SIS）、妇女发展协力组织（WDC）与有心公民组织（GCC）呼吁国会废除《1948年煽动法令》，另外制定 “反仇恨法”已取代之。压制言论自由不但不能确保社会和谐，反而将适得其反，妨碍了社群之间的沟通、对话、辩论与谅解。真正应该受到限制的是散播仇恨、导致其他个人因为属于某一社群而遭受暴力的言行。
目前在《煽动法令》下，所有被视为“煽动”或有“煽动倾向”的言论、行为与出版物，都可以被定罪。任何意欲以下这两类效果的言行，（一）对国家机关的仇恨、藐视、不满，包括针对法律或政策者；（二）种族或阶级之间的敌意；都可以被视为有“煽动倾向”。
保护国家机关免于受到来自公民叛国性的仇恨、藐视与不满，《刑事法典》已经有足够条文可以对付。更重要的是，这方面的考量，必须让位于公民就公共事务提出正当批评与不满的权利。否则，我们的民主就沦为虚文，自由也化为乌有。自由民主空洞化的危险，不幸地在《煽动法令》下是如此真实。当局在一个月内两次动用《煽动法令》对付部落客。七月的受害者是热门网站《今日马来西亚》（Malaysia Today）的编辑Raja Petra Kamarudin（RPK），八月的受害者则是以国歌为副歌创作饶舌歌曲《我爱我的国家Negarakuku》的24岁大学生黄明志。
一如《内安法令》和《大专法令》，《煽动法令》必须废除。当政府在大选前夕对关心国事公民诸多迫害骚扰时，公民社会必须齐心协力反对！
为了避免公民与非公民受到仇恨与暴力的伤害，我们呼吁国会立法制定一项狭隘性定义（narrowly defined）的“反仇恨法”（anti-hatred law）。该法生效之时应该自动废除《煽动法令》，而其唯一目的则是保护公民与非公民，避免他们因为属于特定族裔或宗教社群、性别、信仰或生活方式而遭受语言或肢体上的暴力。为了确保有关新法不会被用来限制正当的对话、讨论与辩论，包括触及族群、信仰、意识形态与国家机关等课题者，“反仇恨法”必须由一个国会特选委员会在公民社会与公众的全面咨询与讨论下制定。唯有如此，马来西亚人才能够同时避免两害：仇恨罪行（hate crimes）与《煽动法令》下言论自由受压制。
吉隆坡暨雪兰莪中华大会堂民权委员会（CRC）、
维护媒体独立撰稿人联盟 （WAMI）、
独立新闻中心（CRC）、
政策研究中心（IKD）、
人民的国会（People’s Parliament）、
回教姐妹组织（SIS）、
妇女发展协力组织（WDC） 、
有心公民组织（GCC）
http://www.scah.org.my/modules/news/article.php?storyid=656
目前在《煽动法令》下，所有被视为“煽动”或有“煽动倾向”的言论、行为与出版物，都可以被定罪。任何意欲以下这两类效果的言行，（一）对国家机关的仇恨、藐视、不满，包括针对法律或政策者；（二）种族或阶级之间的敌意；都可以被视为有“煽动倾向”。
保护国家机关免于受到来自公民叛国性的仇恨、藐视与不满，《刑事法典》已经有足够条文可以对付。更重要的是，这方面的考量，必须让位于公民就公共事务提出正当批评与不满的权利。否则，我们的民主就沦为虚文，自由也化为乌有。自由民主空洞化的危险，不幸地在《煽动法令》下是如此真实。当局在一个月内两次动用《煽动法令》对付部落客。七月的受害者是热门网站《今日马来西亚》（Malaysia Today）的编辑Raja Petra Kamarudin（RPK），八月的受害者则是以国歌为副歌创作饶舌歌曲《我爱我的国家Negarakuku》的24岁大学生黄明志。
一如《内安法令》和《大专法令》，《煽动法令》必须废除。当政府在大选前夕对关心国事公民诸多迫害骚扰时，公民社会必须齐心协力反对！
为了避免公民与非公民受到仇恨与暴力的伤害，我们呼吁国会立法制定一项狭隘性定义（narrowly defined）的“反仇恨法”（anti-hatred law）。该法生效之时应该自动废除《煽动法令》，而其唯一目的则是保护公民与非公民，避免他们因为属于特定族裔或宗教社群、性别、信仰或生活方式而遭受语言或肢体上的暴力。为了确保有关新法不会被用来限制正当的对话、讨论与辩论，包括触及族群、信仰、意识形态与国家机关等课题者，“反仇恨法”必须由一个国会特选委员会在公民社会与公众的全面咨询与讨论下制定。唯有如此，马来西亚人才能够同时避免两害：仇恨罪行（hate crimes）与《煽动法令》下言论自由受压制。
吉隆坡暨雪兰莪中华大会堂民权委员会（CRC）、
维护媒体独立撰稿人联盟 （WAMI）、
独立新闻中心（CRC）、
政策研究中心（IKD）、
人民的国会（People’s Parliament）、
回教姐妹组织（SIS）、
妇女发展协力组织（WDC） 、
有心公民组织（GCC）
http://www.scah.org.my/modules/news/article.php?storyid=656
Press Statement : Abolish Sedition Act, Establish Anti-hatred Law
Civil Rights Committee – Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (CRC-KLSCAH), Writers Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI), Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ), Institut Kajian Dasar (IKD), People’s Parliament, Sisters in Islam (SIS) and Women’s Development Collective (WDC) and Group of Concerned Citizens (GCC) call for the repeal of the Sedition Act and the enactment of a narrowly defined anti-hatred law in its place. Suppression of free speech will not guarantee social harmony, but instead threatens it by obstructing communication, dialogue, debate and understanding. What should be curbed are only speeches and acts that promote hatred which causes or leads to violence directed to individuals on the ground of group membership.
Currently, the Sedition Act criminalizes speeches, acts and publications which is seditious or having “seditious tendency”, a term which broadly covers two types of intended effects: (a) hatred, contempt, dissatisfaction against the state, including over legal and policy matters; (b) ill-will and hostility between different races or classes.
Protection of the state against hatred, contempt and dissatisfaction by her citizens of a treasonous nature have been amply provided for by various provisions in the Penal Code and must take a back seat after citizens’ rights to legitimate criticism and grievance related to public affairs. Otherwise, our democracy will be hollow and liberties vanished. Such threat is unfortunately real under the Sedition Act as we witness now the second case within a month whereby the draconian act is to be used against bloggers. While July’s victim was Raja Petra Kamarudin, the editor of the influential Malaysia Today news site; the August pick is Wee Ming Chee, a 24-years-old who wrote a rap song “I love my country, Negarakuku” with the national anthem as its chorus.
As with the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA) and Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA), the Sedition Act must go. It is time for civil society to act together as the government is stepping up its harassment of concerned citizens online on the eve of general elections.
To protect citizens and non-citizens against the propagation and incitement of hatred and violence, we call for the enactment of a narrowly defined anti-hatred law, which automatically repeals the Sedition Act and whose sole purpose is to protect citizens and non-citizens from verbal or physical harms merely on the ground of his/her membership of ethnic or religious group, gender, sexuality, belief or lifestyle. To ensure that the new law does not curb legitimate dialogue, discourse and debate, including on ethnicity, faith, ideology and state institutions, the legislation must be drafted with full consultation and the participation of civil society and the general public, under a Parliamentary Select Committee. Malaysians will then be protected from both hate crimes and the infringements of freedom of speech that are occurring under the Sedition Act.
Joint statement by:
Civil Rights Committee – Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (CRC-KLSCAH)
Writers Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI)
Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ)
Institut Kajian Dasar (IKD)
People’s Parliament
Sisters in Islam (SIS)
Women’s Development Collective (WDC)
Group of Concerned Citizens (GCC)
http://www.scah.org.my/modules/news/article.php?storyid=655
Currently, the Sedition Act criminalizes speeches, acts and publications which is seditious or having “seditious tendency”, a term which broadly covers two types of intended effects: (a) hatred, contempt, dissatisfaction against the state, including over legal and policy matters; (b) ill-will and hostility between different races or classes.
Protection of the state against hatred, contempt and dissatisfaction by her citizens of a treasonous nature have been amply provided for by various provisions in the Penal Code and must take a back seat after citizens’ rights to legitimate criticism and grievance related to public affairs. Otherwise, our democracy will be hollow and liberties vanished. Such threat is unfortunately real under the Sedition Act as we witness now the second case within a month whereby the draconian act is to be used against bloggers. While July’s victim was Raja Petra Kamarudin, the editor of the influential Malaysia Today news site; the August pick is Wee Ming Chee, a 24-years-old who wrote a rap song “I love my country, Negarakuku” with the national anthem as its chorus.
As with the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA) and Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA), the Sedition Act must go. It is time for civil society to act together as the government is stepping up its harassment of concerned citizens online on the eve of general elections.
To protect citizens and non-citizens against the propagation and incitement of hatred and violence, we call for the enactment of a narrowly defined anti-hatred law, which automatically repeals the Sedition Act and whose sole purpose is to protect citizens and non-citizens from verbal or physical harms merely on the ground of his/her membership of ethnic or religious group, gender, sexuality, belief or lifestyle. To ensure that the new law does not curb legitimate dialogue, discourse and debate, including on ethnicity, faith, ideology and state institutions, the legislation must be drafted with full consultation and the participation of civil society and the general public, under a Parliamentary Select Committee. Malaysians will then be protected from both hate crimes and the infringements of freedom of speech that are occurring under the Sedition Act.
Joint statement by:
Civil Rights Committee – Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (CRC-KLSCAH)
Writers Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI)
Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ)
Institut Kajian Dasar (IKD)
People’s Parliament
Sisters in Islam (SIS)
Women’s Development Collective (WDC)
Group of Concerned Citizens (GCC)
http://www.scah.org.my/modules/news/article.php?storyid=655
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)