Tuesday, February 21, 2017

PAS MPs absent from parliamentary policy debates?

MM Online - Has PAS become a single-issue party? Yes, for now (extracts):


bukan pengundi (rakyat) kah?

oh! kt lupa parti pas bukan parti demokratik

wakakaka 

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 21 ― After the clergy class drove the so-called progressives out of PAS in the 2015 party election, the Islamist party’s new leadership has since revived calls for Shariah rule in Malaysia.

For almost three years, Malaysia's oldest opposition party had seemingly made its ambition for the implementation of hudud laws in Kelantan ― which some believe is the reason behind its move to table a private member’s Bill in Parliament aiming at elevating the Shariah Courts' punitive powers ― as its sole preoccupation.

Such perception is strengthened by the leadership's seemingly lackadaisical attitude towards other crucial issues like rising costs of living and corruption.

In Parliament, PAS MPs are almost absent in all key policy debates. Apart from religious issues, observers say the new creed of PAS leaders has yet to make a mark intellectually or economically.

Political observers say these factors have given the view that PAS is a party with no capacity to tackle complex issues some truth.



If you vote for PAS, that's what you get - a party with no concern about important social issues such as rising cost of living, corruption, etc, and worse, with no capacity to tackle complex issues that matter for the socio-economic-security aspects of the rakyat.

Another bedevilment for those who voted for PAS has been the observation that In Parliament, PAS MPs are almost absent in all key policy debates

Raja Tuang eh? ('Tuang' is colloquial for 'playing truant'). Apa ini, makan gaji buta kah?


But more importantly, how are those who voted for PAS represented in parliament on policy debates that could affect their lives, children and livelihood?

Kaki makan gaji buta - No wonder PAS exco members in Selangor has shamelessly put on their thick skin to say they refuse to vacate their Pakatan-appointments.

Their argument has been that they were elected by the rakyat to do their duty, but they conveniently forget that their appointments and associated duties were as Pakatan appointed excos, and since they have disavowed their membership in Pakatan, then by the grace of Allah swt, they should be honourable and leave the Pakatan exco positions.


Malu lah, 'ni ahli2 PAS; aisehman, mereka langsung ta'ada maruah.

Their shameless exhibitions have been exactly like what occurred in Penang when those PAS members, appointed to various state positions prior to the breakup between PAS and DAP occurred, had to be dragged away crying, wailing and screaming.

There was also Hadi Awang who threatened another May 13 if Penang were to hold local elections, and that was probably because he feared PAS members won't be elected whereas without state elections they would be appointed (via Pakatan sharing formula).


From FMT (extracts):

Abdul Hadi Awang ... claimed that there would be a repeat May 13 if the DAP kept pushing for local government elections. [...]

Hadi accused the DAP of unilaterally pushing for local elections to pander to its votebank in urban and semi-urban areas.

“We cannot be thinking of politics and economic domination in a mixed society,” said Hadi while taking a swipe at DAP, in vague and couched terms without explaining how not holding local elections will strengthen democracy in the country.
and that's why kt has described PAS as an undemocratic party (see above)



Monday, February 20, 2017

Spartans no more?

FMT on DAP leaders getting smug (an article by TK Chua, abbreviated by kt):


Four DAP representatives – one MP and three assemblymen – quit the party recently. The episode has generated much discussion and doubts have arisen among supporters, adversaries and ordinary voters about the stability of the party. What has happened to the party? It is unprecedented to say the least. [...]

I don’t think these representatives were enticed to leave DAP by an external source. I don’t think Barisan Nasional or any other political party is interested in them right now. [...]

So why did they quit? I think it is more because of their personal frustration and disappointment rather than their intent to throw a spanner in the works for the DAP.

Whether we like it or not, some DAP leaders are more capable and dynamic than others, especially the younger and more educated ones. Some have formed the inner core, leaving many minor leaders at the periphery.

I think feelings of jealousy and being sidelined are real among older party comrades who struggled for many years earlier without much success. The more recent ones have benefited from being elected and appointed to positions in state governments very quickly. I could easily name many who were nominated by the party to stand in winnable seats even though they were still wet behind the ears. [...]

I think the elite core of DAP has become smug. They think the party’s idealism and struggle are sufficient to galvanise support among the rank and file in the party.

Well, in any party, there are grassroots leaders, organisers, motivators, and minor leaders who need recognition, support, rewards and nurturing. [...]

There must be humility in consultation with minor leaders even if their ideas are eventually rejected.


In earlier days when the DAP was still struggling to gain a more firm foothold in Malaysian politics, I suspect their leaders could be ultra paranoid about who could join the party, and went about vetting membership applications with perhaps a tight-ass mentality, wakakaka.


Perhaps they feared infiltration, with the party becoming embedded with sleepers. The old Malay saying, 'Musuh dalam selimut' was then much feared.

Members of the DAP especially its leadership lived like Spartans - politically disciplined, hardy, principled, courageous, self-sacrificing, and as a cohesive team, etc.


Apart from that besieged paranoia, there was the deniable reality of Malays in general ignoring the DAP, seeing it as a party dominated by mainly-nons who wanted to dismantle the NEP, the manna of the Heartland.

Still, some Malays became members, but other than Ahmad Nor, none were at that time successful as DAP election candidates. Nonetheless they plodded on as DAP Spartans, like my Penang lang Zulkifli Mohd Noor who was with the DAP for 26 years until he resigned on 24 Oct 2013.


Zulkifli Mohd Noor 

Zul stood as a federal candidate for DAP in my favourite federal constituency of Bukit Bendera (where my hometown of Ayer Itam is) in the 2004 general election.

Like BB (Bukit Bintang), Bukit Bendera (coincidentally also BB) was and is a Chinese-majority federal constituency, currently represented by DAP’s Liew Chin Tong.

But the DAP candidate in Bukit Bendera in 2004 was Zulkifli Mohd Noor.

B. Bendera then had the following breakdown of registered voters: 13.82% Malays, 73.97% Chinese and 11.07% Indians, with 1.14% others (presumably Eurasians and Thais?).

Zul won nearly 18000 of the 47000 votes, just a mere 5500 short of becoming the 2nd ever DAP Malay MP.


Note: Ahmad Nor was the first DAP MP, He won the federal constituency of Bayan Baru in Penang in the 1990 general election.

Since 1969 to 2004, 6 DAP Malay politicians won in elections – as just mentioned, Ahmad Nor in the federal constituency of Bayan Baru, and 5 ADUNs (i) Ibrahim Singgeh; (ii) Haji Hassan bin Haji Ahmad; (iii) Daing Ibrahim Othman; (iv) Mohd Salleh Nakhoda Itam & (v) Fadzlan Yahya won state seats.

Regardless of Zul's loss, his achievement was no mean feat if we look at the above mentioned ethnic breakdown of 13.82% Malays, 73.97% Chinese and 11.07% Indians, with 1.14% others.

Even if all 14% Malays in that constituency had turned up to cast their ballots for Zulkifli in 2004 (which was as likely as war criminal Binjamin Netanyahu withdrawing Israeli military and settlers back behind the 1967 borders), he wouldn’t get more than 5,000 votes.

So, even with 5,000 Malays all voting for him, where did the other 13,000 plus votes came from?

Thus, despite being parachuted into B. Bendera at the eleventh hour, Zul did remarkably well. It's a pity and to kaytee's immense regret that he didn't stand again in the same constituency in 2008 as the political tsunami of that year would have carried him home to victory with a probable landslide majority.

But alas, in 2008 he was replaced by relatively newcomer Liew Chin Tong, and this was exactly what TK Chua wrote (as above):


Liew Chin Tong 

I think feelings of jealousy and being sidelined are real among older party comrades who struggled for many years earlier without much success. The more recent ones have benefited from being elected and appointed to positions in state governments very quickly. I could easily name many who were nominated by the party to stand in winnable seats even though they were still wet behind the ears.

Now, this is not an indictment on Liew Chin Tong who has been the party strategist who in recent years recruited many Malays into DAP. But it's a review of how the DAP had marginalised Zul from mainstream politics, replacing the old for the new.

Whether Zul was jealous or not of the party's johnnies-come-lately, he nonetheless left the DAP, a drastic move for a member who was in DAP for 26 years.

I presume he resigned out of wretched frustration, especially following the 2013 elections, where I studiously looked for him but alas, again he was NOT nominated by the DAP as a candidate - Zairil Khir was for B Bendera.


Zairil Khir 

Again, nothing against Zairil but if Zairil was nominated as the BB candidate, why not Zul?

On Zul's resignation, unlike those hard-up PAS Aduns in Selangor who clung on desperately to their appointed posts, he relinquished three party and government-link company (GLC) positions, saying he lost confidence in the party leadership, which he claimed (via FMT) as being too self-centred and seeking only selfish political goals.

He stated: “I believe the current DAP leaders have swayed far away from the party original struggle based on socialist-democrat ideals. This can be seen from their leadership style and policies in both party and state government.”

You must have heard of the Arabian Nights story of Aladdin (would you believe he was a Chinese?), in which the sly sorcerer (an Arab) cried out "New lamps for old lamps".


who would have thought Aladdin was orang Tionghua, wakakaka 

Well, the DAP in my sad opinion did just that, putting up new whiz kids like Tony Pua to replace (and sideline) old warriors like Zul.

Additionally, DAP's iron grip on Penang and the fact of it winning the most number of federal seats among the opposition made the DAP core leadership too f**king (in TK Chua's lovely choice of word) smug.


now, this is smug 

Also, with LKS now going about his questionable way with his old archfiend ... ooops I mean ... archfoe, who he had berated kau kau for more than 45 years, I wonder with much trepidation as to where the DAP, under the current corp of leadership, is heading?

I worry for the DAP.


Sunday, February 19, 2017

Disaster for PAS re Himpunan355

From MM Online:

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 19 — The smaller than expected crowd size at the “Himpunan 355” rally shows that PAS will have difficulties acting as the third bloc in the next general election, political observers said.

Because only about 20,000 people attended the rally to support a Shariah Bill as opposed to the 300,000 target, analysts said this indicated that PAS lacked supporters at the national level.

“The Bill is a bread and butter issue and if PAS had failed to attract the numbers it predicted, it shows that they lack supporters in the urban areas,” Faisal Hazis, associate professor at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia’s Institute of Malaysian and International Studies, told Malay Mail Online.

Faizal said although PAS may seem like the “largest Malay influential party”, it did not have a balance in political views as it did before with DAP and PKR under the now defunct Pakatan Rakyat.

Because of this, Faizal predicted that PAS would face massive defeats if it were to face the 14th general election alone.

Misuse & abuse of children for political purposes

MM Online - ‘Himpunan 355’ participants broke law by bringing children, police say:


KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 19 — The police are investigating PAS’ “Himpunan 355” rally under the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) 2012 after they found that many participants had brought babies and small children along.

Dang Wangi police chief ACP Mohd Sukri Kaman said initial investigations revealed that infants and children aged between seven months and 15 years were present at the rally in Padang Merbok here yesterday, which he noted was an offence under Section 4(2)(f) of the PAA that prohibits one from bringing a child to an assembly.

“The case is still under investigation and no seizures or arrests have been made so far,” Mohd Sukri said in a statement.

Thousands of people clad in purple gathered at the “Himpunan 355” rally here yesterday to express support for PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang’s private member’s Bill to amend the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 (Act 355).


In Dec 2008 (almost 10 years ago) I posted
Political campaigns - leave children out please in which I wrote:

I notice that there has been a growing tendency to use (or take along) very very young ones to political rallies and other including young kiddies in some candlelight vigils [eg. the one in Penang recently], following a rally or sending a subteen sweetheart to present the PM with bouquets of roses and whatnot.

[kt note: immediate above yellow-highlighted part describes a group of Indian Malaysians (Hindraf) using or misusing a 6-year old sweetie to handover a card, bouquet of flowers and a teddy bear to AAB in Putrajaya to demand the release of the five Hindraf leaders currently held under the ISA.

Incidentally I was informed the sweetie (by now sweet 16) was/is Vwaishhnnavi, the daughter of Hindraf Chairman Waythamoorthy who at that time cabut-ed to Mother England while his brother and 4 others were incarcerated.


Vwaishhnnavi, daughter of Hindraf Chairman Waythamoorthy 

When the 11 Hindraf people who were detained by the police, naturally Hindraf and sympathisers blasted the police for "arresting" a 6-year old kid.

The truth was the adults were detained but the kid tagged along her mum (Waythamoorthy's wife, Shanti) because it was her mum who took her along. This was probably how Hindraf misused a lil' sweetheart 'to tuck at your heartstrings' for political gains. 


Vwaishhnnavi's card for AAB

Do you believe she composed it herself?

I really detested (still do) such misuse and abuse of a kid for political purposes]

I personally don’t approve of putting such tender sweeties in harm’s way, especially more so with the known notoriety of our dear police.

I believe the parents of those kids so ‘assigned’ or taken along have been either very naïve or quite irresponsible.

While I support protest rallies including candlelight vigils on principles of freedom of expressions, I don't the misuse, unwitting or otherwise, of children for political posturing.

While Hindraf recruited a young sweetie in its political manoeuvre in Oct 2008, it was notably PAS members who have had a habit of bringing children along on protest rallies. As I blogged 10 years ago, they were/are naïve or and quite irresponsible to expose kiddies to the potential dangers associated with a political rally.

But in some way I can quite understand why some PAS members did/do that. It could be due to:

  • Malay social-cultural tradition of an 'outing' a la 'weekend picnic' with the family which would naturally include children
  • Lack of babysitters
  • Parents oblivious to the potential for a political event to take a dramatic turn for the worst
But what I couldn't and still can't tolerate have been:

  • Parents like those Hindraf people misusing an innocent kid present a bouquet to the PM at his 'Open House' in a disgusting attempt to make a greater impact *through the kid) in their political message
  • Parents deliberately misusing their kids as teflon coating at rallies in a silly belief that the police won't take any actions with kids present

The last especially would be an abysmal abusive atrocity in misusing/exploiting children for political purposes and tell on the total irresponsibility of some parents.

But mind, the former 3 possible causes do not excuse those parents (whether Malay, Chinese or Indian) from exercising some commonsense concerns for their kids' safety and well-being.

PAS has just done it again, namely, bring kids along. But does this mean that out of the claimed 300,000 people attending Himpunan355, 299000 were children?

Wakakaka. 

I am Dr Secularity

MM Online about Islamic academic telling Muslim politicians not to contest if Malaysia is deemed a secular nation (extracts):


KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 18 ― People who believe that Malaysia is a secular nation should not be allowed to contest in the upcoming general election, a Muslim academic said today.

“We must defend Islam. The devils (hantu-hantu) who feel that our country is secular, make sure that in the 14th general election, we throw away all these devils from the Parliament.

“Anyone who feels this country is a secular nation have no right to contest in the next general election,” Prof Datuk Mahamad Nader Disa said in his speech at the Himpunan 355 today.

Mahamad said that the country's Federal Constitution also does not mention Malaysia as a secular nation.

“All of you go home and be firm with this stand. Convey to all Muslim voters in your area. Make sure there is no more of those with secular thoughts being sent to Parliament later,” he added.


My dear Prof of whatever (wakakaka),

Forget about those who FEEL Malaysia is a secular nation. There is no necessity to FEEL it because the the fact is Malaysia is a secular nation, full stop.

Take for example, the syariah courts are SUBORDINATE to the civil (secular) courts, and limited or restricted to trialing ONLY Islamic moral and family laws, BUT not criminal or constitutional laws.

It's a small sub-branch of the national judiciary with limited duties and powers, unlike the secular civil laws which can trial criminal and constitutional issues. Thus secular civil courts rule supreme in Malaysian judiciary.

In short, syariah courts are limited to dealing with Islamic morality and Muslim family laws such as inheritance. Syariah courts are NOT allowed to deal with criminal or constitutional matters.

Furthermore, syariah courts are limited to court punishments they can award for offenders of Islamic morality laws such as khalwat, adultery, drinking alcohol and not fasting during official fasting periods and such likes.


indirectly saying Malaya /Malaysia has always been a secular nation because one could NOT make Malaysia into an Islamic State unless it was NOT yet an Islamic State (thus a secular state)

Those Islamic morality issues (mentioned just above) are not criminal offences in the civil jurisdiction and unless someone drive after drinking beyond police prescribed upper limits (80 milligrams per decilitre or 100 millilitres) which is considered dangerous driving or sometimes referred to as driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), it's not a criminal offence for non-Muslims to yamseng, wakakaka.

Syariah courts are only allowed to pass down punishments for offenders fo Islamic morality issues up to what is popularly known as 3-5-6 (3 years imprisonment, RM5000 fine, 6 strokes of caning).

OTOH, secular civil courts have unlimited latitude in the punishments they can award, including up to the death sentence, the last of which syariah courts are NOT permitted. In fact, to reiterate, syariah courts may NOT trial criminal offences.

So which is far more superior, the Islamic syariah courts or the secular civil courts?


Do not be confused by some civil court judges who are Muslims and deferred to the jurisdiction of syariah courts especially on cases like custody of the child of mixed marriages (between Muslim and non-Muslim).

As a former AG and once Suhakam Chairman Abu Talib was reported to have said, when informed by human rights lawyer Malik Imtiaz that some civil court judges, the moment they detected the faintest whiff of any Islamic element in a case, even though the Islamic connection wasn't the core issue, they would freeze into gutless abdication of their judicial responsibility:

Abu Talib accused the civil court judges of worrying about their promotional prospects as the possible reason for lacking the courage. He said: “The courts have failed to do so (interpret boldly) for the slightest unreasonable reasons in many cases where Islam is merely seen on the surface.”

Anyway, back to topic, the limitation of punishments permitted to syariah courts a la 3-5-6 has been the precise reason PAS party president Hadi Awang has proposed a private members bill to increase the punishments allowed for the syariah courts from 3-5-6 to 30-100-100, namely:

  • from 3 years imprisonment to 30 years
  • from RM5000 fine to RM100,000
  • from 6 strokes of whipping to 100 lashes

Oh, the poor Muslims. A
lso see my post PAS loves whipping Muslims kau kau?




But hasn't the very fact of Hadi Awang passing a Bill to amend Act 355 for parliament's approval showed clear evidence of the subordinate nature of the syariah courts, in that they need permission to increase whipping from a mere 6 to a scary horrendous 100 lashes of flogging?

All the above differences between Islamic syariah courts and secular civil courts indicate in no uncertain terms, indeed very explicitly, the superiority of the secular civil courts over the Islamic syariah courts, which in turn is clear cut evidence of Malaysia being a secular nation.

If Malaysia is an Islamic nation as fantasized by you my dear Prof of whatever (wakakaka), then Hadi Awang's private member's Bill to amend Act 355 is totally irrelevant, and full Islamic laws would have displaced civil laws long long ago, say, in 2001 when Mahathir declared Malaysia as an Islamic State, and one year later in 2002 when he further announced that Malaysia was not only an Islamic State but a Fundamentalist Islamic State.



See what Lim Kit Siang said regarding that in his post on Mahathir's 617 & 929 Declarations. Don't ask him as he mudah lupa macam Melayu, wakakaka.

So my dear Prof of whatever (wakakaka), suck on the indisputable FACT that Malaysia is a secular nation, which time over time again had been attested to by the Lord Presidents of our Judiciary.

Mahathir was not a judge, let alone a Lord President (latter re-named Chief Justice of the Federal Court, but seen as a downgrading of the Judicial post and the Judiciary)*.

* Wikipedia says: 

The 1988 constitutional crisis
Main article: 1988 Malaysian constitutional crisis



In 1988, Lord President Tun Salleh Abas was brought before a tribunal convened by the Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohammad on the grounds of misconduct. The Supreme Court in the years leading up to 1988 had been fiercely independent and increasingly active, and was at the time due to hear an appeal to determine the future of the ruling party UMNO, which had been declared an illegal society by the High Court of Malaya on the grounds of procedural irregularity.

As a result of criticisms of the judiciary made by the Prime Minister, a letter of protest was written by Tun Salleh to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on behalf of the judiciary. This letter was later used as grounds for the convening of the tribunal.

When the Supreme Court granted an injunction prohibiting the tribunal as constituted from hearing the misconduct allegations, five Supreme Court Justices were suspended (and two were subsequently removed), and the injunction overturned.

The tribunal later removed Tun Salleh from the office of Lord President, in which office he was succeeded by the then-Chief Justice of Malaya, Tun Hamid Omar, who had been the chairman of the tribunal.

The 1988 constitutional crisis was widely considered to be the greatest blow to judicial independence in Malaysian history, and at the time led to the Bar Council of Malaysia refusing to recognise the new Lord President. Around the same time, the Federal Constitution was amended to disvest the courts of the "judicial power of the Federation", granting them instead such judicial powers as Parliament might grant them.

Renaming of the office

I
n 1994, in a move regarded as a further downgrading of the judiciary, the office of Lord President was renamed "Chief Justice of the Federal Court", and the offices of Chief Justices of the High Courts in Malaya and in Borneo renamed "Chief Judge of the High Court in Malaya" and "Chief Judge of the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak" respectively. The Supreme Court reverted to the name of Federal Court.


Guess who was PM of Malaysia in 1988 and 1994?


while you are thinking of who's the PM in 1988 and 1994, let's have some roti kaya 

Mahathir was merely a politician, and many said a nasty one, who claimed Malaysia to be an Islamic nation in 2001 and, as if that was not enough, a fundamentalist Islamic nation in 2002.

Indeed, as he had claimed a lot of other stuff like he did not know about or was ever involved in issues like Project Blue IC in Sabah, that he was not in Malaysia during Memali, Maminco, Forex, BMF, Perwaja, Ops Lalang, etc etc etc.


In the words of Dr Malik Munip, a former Member of Parliament for Muar and also who taught history at University of Malaya for two decades:

Though Malaysian Prime Ministers are vested with a whole battery of executive authority, nonetheless, they do not have the power to determine the identity of a country merely by making an announcement either way.

Indeed, if we think about it, even an individual’s identity cannot be determined by a pronouncement—a person doesn’t become a Muslim, a Christian, an apostate or any identity along the ‘faith- atheist’ spectrum simply due to a declaration. To have meaning and force, the declaration must correspond with the individual’s belief and practice.

So if by itself a declaration cannot determine the religious identity of an individual, can it determine the identity of a state?

Thus, my dear Prof of whatever (wakakaka), apart of the fact of the superiority of the secular civil courts over the Islamic syariah courts, the latter with limited powers and jurisdiction (only over Islamic morality issues but NOT criminal cases), do listen to the words of Tun Salleh Abas.


After all he was the top judge of Malaysia, until he was 'fixed' kau kau by 'someone'.

And since you do not want Muslim politicians, presumably PAS politicians since Hadi Awang is proposing the Bill to amend UUD 355, to contest in GE-14 as Malaysia is undeniably a secular nation, and those PAS politicians listen completely to you and obey to your urging, I promise that I will convert into a Muslim (with full sunat-ization), wakakaka.

Salam mesra.

Yours in secularity (wakakaka),

kaytee




Saturday, February 18, 2017

The bigger imbecile

MM Online on the old saying that "It takes a bigger imbecile to call others imbeciles" (extracts):


KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 18 ― Non-Muslim MPs who oppose PAS’s bid to increase the powers of the Shariah Courts are violating the federal constitution, an activist said today during his speech at the Himpunan 355 rally here.

Dr Abdul Kadir Warsi, from Pertubuhan Permuafakatan Ayahanda Malaysia, also questioned why non-Muslims especially are meddling with Islamic affairs.

“We did not affect, we did not disturb anyone, but why are you being imbecilic towards us?

[kt note: 'imbecilic' means 'contemptibly stupid']

“Because all these while, we were soft. So I ask of all, all Yang Berhormat (MPs) today, in the Dewan Rakyat and the Dewan Negara, to not hesitate in ensuring support and passing the Act 355, disregarding their race and religion,” he said referring to the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 or Act 355.

“Why ladies and gentlemen? I would like to say here, that any parliamentarians, and I remind the parliamentarians. Anyone who opposes matters linked to Islam, as stipulated under the Federal Constitution, then they have committed a big mistake in Malaysia. That is, they did not respect the Constitution and can be charged,” he added.

[kt note: under hudud they can be executed, not merely 'charged']


Abdul Kadir however did not elaborate how not supporting the amendments to Act 355 would violate the federal constitution.

That's because he is an imbecile.

[kt note: 'imbecile' means 'a stupid person']

I wonder how he obtained his title of 'Dr'?

And obviously as an uber Islamist he does not understand the parliamentary procedure of passing a Bill.

Or, alternatively he is scared of MPs voting against the Bill?


JAIS like Israel?


MM Online on JAIS land seizure attempt a la Israeli grab of Palestinian land (extracts):


But JAIS didn't have the balls to haul in Raja Bomoh  

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 18 — The Selangor Islamic Religious Department (Jais) is appealing a landmark court decision that quashed its compulsory acquisition of 26 acres of land for a purported mega mosque, a lawyer confirmed yesterday. [...]

Those seeking to have their appeal heard by the Federal Court must first obtain leave to do so, and must present questions of law to the apex court.

..... six appellants filed in a total of 29 such questions in three separate leave applications, with Jais, the Selangor Land and Mines Department director, the Kuala Selangor land administrator, and the Selangor government jointly filing six questions.

Ten days ago the Canberra Times reported
Israel passes law to seize private Palestinian land for Jewish settlements (extracts):


Jerusalem: The Israeli Parliament passed a contentious law late on Monday that allows the state to seize land privately owned by Palestinians in the West Bank and grant the properties to Jewish settlements for their exclusive use. [...]

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu supports the legislation and has told his constituents that no government had done more for the settlers.

Israeli legislators in the opposition condemned the bill as reckless and warned that it would turn the world against Israel while goading prosecutors at the International Criminal Court in The Hague to take action against the Jewish state.


Religious extremism (of any variety) breeds arrogance in acts of robbery, persecutions and oppression with disdain and contempt for the just rights of others.

On the above examples of illegal seizure of other people's land, what's the difference between Israel and Malaysia, save that in Malaysia, at least the civil (secular) courts have acted with balanced reason to serve justice.

If Hadi Awang and his religious cohorts were to have their ways, god saves us.

And that's precisely why we must ensure our parliamentary representatives vote against Hadi Awang's private member's bill to amend UDD 355.

Allowing Hadi Awang's Bill to pass will signal the beginning of his successful attempts to pass further legislation to ride roughshod over us, especially Malaysian Muslims (in the initial stages,thereafter ..... who knows???).



Related:


Friday, February 17, 2017

JAWI oppressive, illegal & kiasu?

MM Online on JAWI's arrogant reenactment of the Nik Raina case (extracts):


KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 17 — The Federal Territories Islamic Religious Department’s (JAWI) forceful and humiliating arrest of a married couple for the Islamic offence of khalwat or close proximity could befall anyone, their lawyer Yusfarizal Yussoff said today.

He added that the Muslim husband-and-wife were pursuing justice against their wrongful detention through the courts to prevent a repeat of the Islamic authority’s power abuse, especially after they showed proof of their marriage.

The lawyer explained that his clients, Mohd Ridhuan Giman and Siti Sarah Maulad Abdullah showed JAWI enforcers a picture of their marriage certificate when their budget hotel room was raided last month and presented the original later the same day.

“What is most disappointing to me personally is when the original copy of the marriage certificate had already been presented at JAWI’s office the same night, but [JAWI] still refused to accept it as firm evidence of the valid marriage ties,” Yusfarizal told reporters at the court complex here after filing the couple’s lawsuit.

He said it was common for married couples not to have their marriage certificates on them at all times.

“If this can happen to my clients, it can happen to anyone, so we take this (legal) action to correct abuse of powers and to seek justice,” he added.


I term JAWI's arrogant behaviour as an reenactment of the notorious and infamous Nik Raina's case to illustrate JAWI's kiasu attitude, in which the FT religious department did not want to accept it has been wrong in prosecuting innocent people like Nik Raina.

Many believed Nik Raina was relentless prosecuted and persecuted even though she was definitely innocent because JAWI could do f**kall with Borders so someone in Borders, a Muslim, had to pay for it, a frightening kiasu act of surrogate targetting that turned JAWI's prosecution of an innocent lady into an evil persecution of poor her.

The dictionary defines:

  • 'prosecution' as "the institution and conducting of legal proceedings against someone in respect of a criminal charge."

  • 'persecution' as "hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs; oppression."


In the former, 'prosecution', there has to be a criminal charge, but when there is no criminal charge possible because of the innocence of the party to be charged or has been charged, then by law and logic the prosecution fails or has to be dropped.

If the authority continues to prosecute even when it's know the party charged or to be charged is innocent, then the authority is persecuting or oppressing (usually with hostility or ill-intent).

The MM Online continues:

Yusfarizal said the lawsuit seeking for an open apology is also to clear his clients’ names, adding that it was assumed that JAWI had yet to drop investigations as it had failed to respond to two letters requesting for the probe retraction.

Mohd Ridhuan and Siti Sarah who have been married for three years sued JAWI and six others over a raid of their budget hotel room at 1.30am on January 8.

According to the couple’s court filing, the JAWI raid team comprised eight officers, seven who were male and had forcefully entered their room despite Mohd Ridhuan telling them his wife was underdressed.

Even after seeing that Siti Sarah was only dressed in a singlet and shorts — a condition which men who are not a Muslim woman’s immediate family members should not view—the officers ignored her state and took videos and photos of the couple.

The male enforcers allegedly refused to leave the room even after the husband presented photos of their wedding and their JAWI-issued marriage certificate, and instead ordered Siti Sarah to put her clothes on in front of them.

A scuffle broke out during the raid during which Mohd Ridhuan said he was strangled and suffered injuries to his neck while his wife’s left arm was bruised. Both said their injuries required medical attention.

The duo said they were held separately at JAWI’s office for an hour, and the officers refused to recognise they were a married couple despite being presented with the original marriage certificate by the husband’s mother later.

Mohd Ridhuan and Siti Sarah were only released after his mother was forced to sign a personal bond stating that the couple would return for investigation and pay RM3,000 if they failed to turn up.

The couple themselves said they were forced to sign a personal bond acknowledging their arrest for khalwat.


JAWI had also persecuted octogenarian Dr Kassim Ahmad but as usual, failed in its legal case.


In 2005, BBC reported on JAWI (as follows):

New allegations have surfaced about misconduct by Malaysia's religious police during a raid on a top Kuala Lumpur nightclub last month.

More than 100 plainclothes officers from the Federal Territories Islamic Department (JAWI) detained young Muslims at the Zouk nightclub.

Female detainees complained of sexual harassment by officers and the incident has led to a heated debate about the department's future.

Eyewitnesses have now told the BBC that officers assaulted and severely beat members of the club's staff.

The sources also said that non-Muslim patrons, including tourists, who were outside the officers' jurisdiction, also reported being threatened with violence.

"Up to 150 of them came in," one witness said. "They didn't identify themselves, they didn't show any ID cards. They just forced their way in and started pushing people around."

In the days after the raid it emerged that dozens of young women were held for up to 10 hours without access to a toilet, long after male detainees had been released.

A number of women said religious officers ordered them to pose in their nightclub outfits while others were asked lewd questions about their genitalia.

JAWI would neither confirm nor deny the allegations.
The incident prompted Malaysia's cabinet to discuss the future of the religious police.

Cabinet minister and former law minister Rais Yatim said after the meeting that he believed crime should be a matter for the police and morality for the family.

However, his colleague Abdullah Mohamed Zin, Minister for Islamic affairs, defended the officers and maintained that the raid was carried out according to procedures.