Showing posts with label Peaceful Assembly Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peaceful Assembly Act. Show all posts

Saturday, July 14, 2012

Time for a regime change?

Dzulkefly Ahmad
 Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad
is a member of the PAS
central working committee
and MP of Kuala Selangor.


July 14, 2012
JULY 14 — Whether you call it a Freudian slip or not, Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s admission that he repealed the Internal Security Act (ISA) because “it did not benefit BN politically” couldn’t come at worse time.
With the general election looming so close, the prime minister has indeed laid bare his “real self” to the entire nation.
With that unsolicited confession, Najib has in fact committed the greatest blunder of his political career. Faced with such a predicament, political leaders — especially heads of state — can always resort to blaming others, not the least on misreporting by the media. With this one, he has been checkmated because he was heard and quoted verbatim.
But what is so wrong about it, you might wonder.
Well, there is hardly anything right about that statement. As to its wrongs, that will make up an endless list.
Firstly, the draconian nature of the ISA needs no further elaboration. The antiquated law has always been looked upon with scorn and utter disdain. The untold agony it has inflicted on all its victims will never go away and shall remain for eternity.
Despite its selective and blatant abuse, the power-that-be have always insisted that this obsolete piece of legislation was never used to secure or advance the political interest of the ruling party.
But, alas and behold, it takes none other than the sixth premier, the one who has spoken so much about reform and democracy, to speak the truth!
All efforts at dressing up Najib and his administration by highly-paid, big-name consultants have come to almost naught, now.
To commit to saying that the ISA was repealed because “it did not benefit BN politically” but in fact benefited more of those detained, is both deplorable and uncalled for. That this statement is suicidal to Najib could only be proven in due time.
But more importantly for now, Najib’s gaffe seems to amply vindicate the accusation by Mark MacKinnon who, in an article for the Canadian Globe and Mail magazine, included the prime minister in a list of the new autocrats of the 21st century.
MacKinnon also labelled Najib a “false democrat”, the definition being leaders who “hold elections but have no intention of giving up power” and their “serious political rivals are jailed and their parties are outlawed on legal technicalities.”
With those parameters clearly spelt out, one is reminded as to why Najib repealed the ISA. Is his litany of legislative reforms meant to increase civil liberties? Regrettably, no!
One wishes that Najib at least invoked and paid lip-service to the very notion of universal justice and fundamentally liberty, as the underpinning of his repealing the ISA.
Najib’s infamous statement about defending Putrajaya at all cost “even if our bodies are crushed and our lives lost” now flies in the face of all that. The very many instances of Najib’s paradoxes, double-speak and flip-flops amply demonstrate the trait of a “false democrat.”
One is immediately reminded of his Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 that replaces the ISA, which is now ready to be gazetted after being bulldozed through Parliament. The SOA arguably is lot more repressive and draconian, in some respects, than the original ISA.
Similarly, one recalls the Peaceful Assembly Act is in actual fact a law that disallows peaceful assembly. The opposition leader and other Pakatan leaders have been charged by invoking the provisions of this assembly law after the Bersih 3.0
Najib’s commitment to a new political landscape should be a visible one. Sure and convincing evidence of his earnestness for reform will be truly in the class of a true democrat.
In the midst of all the protests, Najib should have shown a willingness to engage and the ability to accommodate legitimate dissent.
Najib, unfortunately, does not have what it takes to undertake genuine change. Najib’s intention to repeal the Sedition Act has been met with contempt and derision by many, not the least by opposition and civil society groups. Their revulsion is understandable.
Similarly, his performance in the field of economic reform and good governance has been equally dismal.
The Land Transport Commission has announced that up to RM160 billion could be spent on railway infrastructure projects in the country, making Malaysia a tempting destination for international engineering firms.
But would a leadership plagued with crony practices and rent-seeking behaviour augur well with international bidders? For that matter, would change ever be possible if the leaders themselves are the stumbling blocks for change? Leaders whose only concern is clinging to power at all cost.
Is a regime change the only way forward to rid Malaysia of corrupt leaders who have brought a systemic rot into our beloved country?
Time will tell and the dissolution of Parliament is surely the first step of a cascade of events that will bring about a regime change worthy of Malaysia!
Hidup Rakyat! Hidup Malaysia!
* The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Human rights group views Sedition Act repeal with caution


July 12, 2012
KUALA LUMPUR, July 12 — An international human rights group is eyeing with caution the government’s plan to replace the Sedition Act 1948 with the National Harmony Act, saying that other “repressive” laws had been replaced with laws just as “bad or worse”.
Human Rights Watch said the Sedition Act was “clearly a rights-abusing law” and the replacement law needs to be “consistent with international human rights standards.”
Datuk Seri Najib Razak had yesterday announced the repeal of the 64-year-old law as part of his slew of legislative reforms to increase civil liberties initiated on the eve of Malaysia Day last year.
“To date, Prime Minister Najib’s law reform efforts have been mixed,” said Phil Robertson, deputy director of the watchdog’s Asia division.
“To be sure, repressive laws have been repealed but too often — as we saw with the Internal Security Act and the Police Act — the replacement legislation has been as bad or worse from a rights perspective.”
He said “the government should realise that change for change’s sake is not enough”, adding that the drafting of replacement laws “has gone on behind closed doors with little input from civil society.”
“Real reform” will only take place if the government engages and consults civil society groups in a transparent manner over the new National Harmony Act, said Robertson.
He said Malaysians should judge the latest law reform by whether it will actually bring about a “measurable and significant improvement in respect for their human rights”, which can only be done by comparison of both the Sedition Act and its replacement.
Najib had yesterday also said: “With this new Act, we would be better equipped to manage our national fault lines.”
“It will also help to strengthen national cohesion by protecting national unity and nurturing religious harmony,” he was quoted as saying by The Star during the Attorney-General Chambers dinner here.
Opposition lawmakers and civil society groups have long accused the government of using the British-enacted Sedition Act arbitrarily to limit dissent.
Speaking to The Malaysian Insider recently, Bar Council constitutional law committee chief Syahredzan Johan noted a trend for the authorities to cite the Sedition Act as an early measure in their investigations and prosecution because “it is the “easiest offence to satisfy”.
When announcing a raft of reforms last year, Najib admitted that the government’s move to allow greater civil freedom was “risky, but we are doing this for our survival.”
“No individual will ever be detained simply due to political ideology,” he had said in his Malaysia Day message.
The Najib administration has this year repealed the Internal Security Act 1960, lifted three Emergency Declarations and enacted the Peaceful Assembly Act to regulate public gatherings.
The government has also scrapped the need for annual printing licences in the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 and lifted the ban on student participation in politics through amendments to the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971.

Sunday, May 27, 2012

BN and the AG has no track record of fairness and justice


Media statement by Lim Guan Eng in Kuala Lumpur on Saturday, 26th May 2012: 

The Evidence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2012, which was passed in the last sitting of the Dewan Rakyat and the Dewan Negara, will make it easier for the Government to launch selective prosecutions of members of the opposition and civil society. BN and the AG has no track record of fairness and justice and may use this new law to facilitate selective prosecution of members of the opposition and civil society.

The Act, which inserted a new section 114A into the Evidence Act 1950, is part of a package of laws that includes the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012, which replaces the hated ISA, together with the Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2012 and the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2012.

The new section 114A creates presumptions of fact, inter alia, that a person who is the subscriber of a network service is the publisher of anything that originates from his network, and that a person who owns or controls a computer is the publisher of anything that originates from his computer, in either case unless he proves otherwise. This means that a person can be found guilty for publishing anything that is posted by a hacker who breaks into his computer or his wifi network, unless he can prove his innocence.

This reverses the presumption of innocence, whereby a person is presumed innocent until proven by the prosecution to be guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. In other words, I am responsible for anything posted on my website and the burden is on me to prove my innocence, not on the prosecution to prove my guilt.

The DAP has no problem with giving police and prosecutors the tools they need to prosecute cyber-criminals and terrorists. However, the Government and the Public Prosecutor have shown by their past actions that they are more interested in pursuing selective prosecutions against members of the opposition and civil society for political ends than in pursuing real criminals.

Opposition and civil society members are routinely investigated and prosecuted under the Sedition Act 1948 for innocuous statements of fact or opinion. Internet users have been prosecuted under the Communications and Multmedia Act 1998 simply on the basis of statements deemed "offensive" by the Government.

Yet no action is taken, despite the lodging of police reports, against UMNO Online and other BN-linked blogs that criminally defamed me and my 16-year-old son for political reasons in October last year, or against the false news and incitement to racial and religious hatred that is regularly published in the UMNO-linked media, such as Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian.
Malaysians may rightly question whether the amendments to the Evidence Act 1950 now open the door for convictions against members of the opposition and members of civil society to be more easily obtained on the basis of posts that have been "planted" without the knowledge of the accused. Before public confidence in the public prosecution service can be restored, the unfettered discretion of the Public Prosecutor to pursue selective prosecutions must be abolished, and the role of Public Prosecutor given to someone who is separate from and independent of the politically-appointed Attorney-General.

The recent charges against Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and Deputy President Azmin Ali under the Peaceful Assembly Act as well as court action for compensation againt 10 organizers of Bersih 3.0 including its co-Chair Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan highlights the double-standards of the BN government. This is because no similar action is taken against those supporters of BN who organised weekly demonstrations against the Penang PR state government in Komtar in Penang as well as those who masquerade as petty traders demonstrating outside Datuk Ambiga private residence.

*Lim Guan Eng, DAP Secretary General & MP for Bagan
Source: http://dapmalaysia.org/english/2012/may12/lge/lge1637.htm?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Najib will be biggest loser in prosecution of Anwar, Azmin and Badrul, first case to be charged under Peaceful Assembly Act, as it will totally discredit his various transformation programmes

By Lim Kit Siang


(Speech at the opening of the new Triang DAP branch building in Triang, Pahang on Tuesday, 22nd May 2012 at 3 pm)
I was in the Kuala Lumpur court complex this morning where the Parliamentary Opposition Leader, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and PKR leaders Azmin Ali and Badrul Hisham were charged in connection with the Bersih 3.0 rally on April 28 which could result in their five-year disqualification from elective office and disenfranchisement in losing the civic right to stand for elective office whether as MP or State Assembly member if fined over RM2,000.
The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak will be the biggest loser in the prosecution of Anwar, Azmin and Badrul, the first case to be charged under the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA), as it will totally discredit his various transformation programmes, in particular his Political Transformation Programme.
Pakatan Rakyat MPs have warned in Parliament that Najib’s promises to amend or repeal undemocratic and draconian laws and provisions contain the seeds of greater repression as the new laws and replacements provide for even more repressive measures – as in the case of the prosecution of Anwar, Azmin and Badrul under the PAA.
The prosecution also sends out a very clear message to Malaysians, and in particular to the hundreds of thousands of Malaysians, regardless of race, religion, region, class, gender or age who had gathered peacefully in Kuala Lumpur on April 28, armed at most with salt and water bottles to protect themselves from indiscriminate police shooting of tear gas and chemically-laced water cannon, with the unmistakable message to the Najib administration that they want clean elections for a clean Malaysia.
Najib’s message to them is one of utter contempt for their message to want to have clean elections and a clean Malaysia!
Najib should realise that he will have to pay a very heavy political price in the forthcoming general elections with such arrogance of power and contempt for the legitimate and ordinary aspirations of Malaysians transcending race, religion, region, class, gender or age.
Najib should take note that the former Solicitor-General II who headed the prosecution team against Anwar in the Sodomy II trial, Datuk Mohd Yusuf Zainal Abiden, has joined Anwar’s defence team headed by Karpal Singh.
If the Prime Minister cannot read and understand the implications of Yusuf’s joining the Anwar defence team, then he is not as politically astute as he should be.
The prosecution of Anwar, Azmin and Badrul is in fact the latest in the BN demonisation campaign against Bersih 3.0, polarising the ground instead of starting a process of national healing. I would reiterate my call to Najib to end the demonisation campaign of Bersih 3.0 to reagain public confidence and credibility or be prepared to pay a heavy political price in the forthcoming general elections.