Showing posts with label Political Reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political Reform. Show all posts

Monday, June 22, 2015

支持行动党马来西亚政治斗争长跑

2015年6月22日
作者:陈亚伦


陈亚伦(右)与沙末赛益(中)摄于可拉那再也体育场

  马来西亚经过半世纪的长大,看到不少国家越长越衰,总引以为戒。要国家好,虽然我们只有少群正义公民,就必须去芜存菁,不过这是逆流而上的使命。很多人不肯付代价,因为抱着“多一事不如少一事”心态,所以宁愿不敢作出大胆的动作,乱一点不要紧,只要不影响他们的日常作息就足够矣!

        我看到行动党就是国家中流砥柱之一,所以有几方面我要鼓励它们不要心软,政治斗争是长跑接力赛,途中必定很多人放弃,因为许多旁人向你泼冷水,但别放弃,因为陆续会有新血加入阵容。

        一、 制定两线制。因着伊斯兰党在民联不合作,原则上阵线应该不复存在,别藕断丝连,还拉拉扯扯干嘛?行动党必须向伊党高唱那首老歌“再回头我也不要你”,歌词真适合你俩!所以行动党必须致力于找能够合作的伙伴来组新阵线,若加入的政党是以国家利益为大前提的话,两线制的实现机率就会大跃进。

        二、超越种族和宗教的政治。在大马一个多元种族和宗教的国家,单一种族和
单一宗教的政党及政治是国家的致命伤。如果国家的领导人出发点是为了自己的种族和宗教斗争,其实就是转牛角尖,至终没空间好转!行动党是个超种族的政党,但向来都给人有意无意乱骂为华人政党。不过近来行动党做得好,马来族开始加进来,诸如几天前国家文学家沙末赛益加入是好事。它们必须加强招收年轻有为的马来族,好过看伊党面色来浪费时间且模糊了焦点!

        三、带领大马作利民的改革。民联不复存在,找伙伴组阵线,未来政治演变什么
状况都可能出现。开明派 PasMa,基本上从那些人的表现和言论都看到他们有推动改革的品质。他们也表明若成立政党,会收非穆斯林人士作党员。只是美中不足的,乃是它们还沿用 Pas 这个名称,摆脱不了宗教色彩。以宗教治国对异己是不公的,我建议它们采用超越宗教斗争的党号更有说服力。

        不能预料的变化状况可多,包括诸如行动党元老林吉祥曾表达自己的意思,希望那些愿意拯救大马沉沦的人士,无论在朝在野都可以合作。巫统也有一群为了国家的乱七八糟状况而担心的国会议员,加上砂拉越和沙巴的一些国阵国会议员,因着有些对两州人民长期争取的课题受到中央政府无下文对待而不满的,不久他们会不会另有“意中人”呢?那么不必等到第14届全国大选,大马政治真的会实现林吉祥的宏景了吗?这个开斋节之后,将陆续看到清晰状况了吧?

致退出行动党的林汉龙公开信

2015年6月22日
作者:陈亚伦

伊斯兰党不及格
照片来源:http://watan-online.com/?p=3408


  林汉龙先生6月22日刊登在《星洲日报》“言路版”的文章“退出DAP公开信”(http://opinions.sinchew.com.my/node/36840?tid=38),我作个回应。本人不属任何政党党员,只是经常关注马来西亚的时事,有时会以文字发表看法。

        无论什么事情,“原则”是非常重要的。民联由三党组成,大家签署联盟共同的政策后,务必遵守。若有一方违反,是违反者毁约,而不是他人。现在,伊斯兰党在没有跟另两个伙伴政党的商讨下,偷偷向国会提呈“伊斯兰刑事法”私人法案,请问是谁毁约?伊党也偷偷跟巫统谈判结盟的可能性,一脚踏两船,请问是谁背叛了谁?

       就举个例,如果林汉龙跟两个朋友要搞一个企业,目标是成为大马最大的企业。但其中一个伙伴经常跟另一个势力庞大的同样企业暗中谈合作的可能性,请问你还能够容忍他下去吗?你还会不受到你们的企业遭他带来的威胁性吗?

        行动党过去一年已经很努力给伊党很多回头的机会了,但直至6月份伊党的党大会通过跟行动党断交的议案后,行动党给伊党的机会已经到了尽头矣!

        从伊党三番四次的背叛民联的动作,难道林汉龙没看到它们的只为自己种族和宗教斗争的政党吗?两年前505大选,隔日506巫统与伊党即开始谈判合作。真的如果当时民联胜得执政权的话,也给伊党背叛而再由国阵执政呢!

        林汉龙为什么还认为民联必须维护继续三党合作?第14届大选还有最迟三年即出现伊党露出马脚的事,乃是上天给大马的恩典。不然,行动党若假装三党仍然合作没事的话,那才是为了想执政国家而出卖支持者呢!若还是维持三党的民联出战下届大选的话,你还能相信伊党在选举后不会搞破坏吗?

        在此民联闹剧,反而我认为公正党更虚伪。阿兹敏或许就是为了继续坐那把大臣椅子,不愿意接受民联已死的事实。你看民联三党,谁是在上届大选真正努力致使政局变天的政党呢?民联三党在大选的群众大会都在喊口号“Ini kali lah!”(就是这次了!)。许多不满国阵的人民以为那次真的会政局变天。喊归喊,但另两党却不如行动党说到行到,不惜调派强将攻打不一定会胜的选区。猛龙过江,它们却有可能就溺死者江中!真的上天不负苦心人,行动党比前一届增加了10个国会议席,公正党反而少一席,伊党少两席!甚至公正党实权领袖安华都不敢博,要攻打霹雳巫统强区却想打不打!如果另外两个盟党都各自增加10个议席的话,大马政治形势就不一样矣!

        林汉龙,你的意思是认为行动党走错棋,应该容忍下去,民联三党维持原状吗?你对行动党的四项控诉,真的看得那么透彻吗?这四项是:一、政治形象恶劣。二、政治EQ差。三、政治能力低。四、政治文化烂。这番言论很熟悉,哦,对,是巫统常常诬告政敌的言论!

        国阵已经执政了60年,而在野政党正在起步,努力结盟来斗争,万事起头难,林汉龙应该要知道。所以不要希望改变能够一步登天,如果民联在吵吵闹闹也是成长必经之路。吵闹更好,不吵闹才可怕。你看,国阵的成员党,从一开始平起平坐,大家都敢发言,但最终由强势的巫统控制言论,其他成员党明知巫统做错事也只敢怒而不敢言。看看马华和民政党,关乎影响国家前途的事情,按良心纵容,至终必被淘汰。大马的老一辈已经消失了,年轻人看东西不再是像前辈那般怕事的,而是据理力争的一辈。

        行动党不停地争取时间,致使马来西亚的政治改革。国家的不利课题天天在膨胀,行动党并不会无视。行则变,变则通!民联完蛋了,不要紧,再组织新联盟。行动党努力召集那些为了国家利益而斗争的人士加入行列,尤其是年轻人,他们超越种族和宗教观念,乃值得支持。马来西亚人活在这个国家,不是单单为了自己的种族和宗教斗争,如果我们来到一天连衣食住行对应付不来的话,那么你的种族和宗教优越感对你有什么帮助呢?

-------------------------------------

林漢龍‧退出DAP公開信



致民主行動黨:

本人決定退出行動黨。此信內容已經通過電郵寄至行動黨,可是遲遲沒有收到回應,為了讓本人的看法讓行動黨高層看到,只好把退黨信變成了公開信。

本人最初是受到潘儉偉的政治演說的影響而加入行動黨。505大選也自願當了一名選票PACABA小組長。

那時,覺得行動黨的領袖還有大將之風,行動黨的理念可以治國,所以鼎力支持。

針對火箭月亮風波事件,我對行動黨的政治智慧深感失望。此黨已經不是我原來支持的行動黨;原來不是人人都是我敬佩的“潘儉偉”。

個人退黨理由如下:

(一)政治形象惡劣

不排除媒體有片面的報道,但是林吉祥,林冠英為首的一線領袖的形象越來越自大,應該不是空穴來風。

比如近期回應於伊黨分裂的事件,得理不饒人,火上加油的氣勢,我不能苟同。分分合合乃政治兵家常事,以一個融合的馬來西亞為大前提,運籌政治智慧穩固民聯為大局才是大事。
可惜在這非常時期,不論在東馬西馬的火箭領袖的表現,我只看到了剛烈的焚天燒海,卻看不到深思熟慮的穩重。這樣的領袖,如何治國?

(二)政治EQ差

哈迪阿旺說,民聯三大巨頭,各有自己的議程,本來就是眾所周知的。反對腐敗,反對強權才是民聯共同的目標。異中求同,就是伊黨開出最好的下台級。可是DAP認為同床異夢,非友既敵,選擇在伊黨大會期間不留餘地的杯葛而且對空謾罵。如此不友善,不禮貌的行動等同於用行動來說:斷交。伊黨大會,大勝的保守派吞得下這口氣他們就是窩囊!所以伊黨宣佈跟行動黨一刀兩斷,本來就是孤掌難鳴的事,也並非一日之寒。

促使民聯關係破滅,行動黨難辭其究。這樣的黨,如何處理未來更大的國事與衝突?

(三)政治能力低

伊法落實事件,行動黨的激烈反對本人贊同。但是在激烈反對後,有沒有協商,包容與諒解?民聯合作擁抱之前之後大家都清清楚楚知道伊黨的這個議程。這是一個公開的計時炸彈。現在炸彈引爆了,行動黨都還沒有找到折中的解決方按,這讓我懷疑,1.行動黨一開始就是為了選票,明知山中有虎,偏向虎山行。2.行動黨的政治手腕與能力另我失望。再來,哈迪阿旺跟巫統眉來眼去以是不爭的事實。在關係緊張的當而,行動黨又提出新民聯的概念。這不止斷送了民聯的希望與未來,還可能撮合伊巫聯線。如此短視的言論,真的不敢相信是來自於行動黨高層。

(四)政治文化爛

上樑不正下樑歪,行動黨高層領袖牙尖嘴利,批鬥兇狠的習慣根深蒂固。這導致越來越多的行動黨支持者在網上有如政治暴民,把批評行動黨的言論罵的狗血淋頭。如果去小城鎮的咖啡點轉一轉,打聽一下,不難發現很多樸素的叔伯都對行動黨領袖的作風怨言四起。本人認為,行動黨一線領袖沒有做好政治文化模範,導致一部份的行動黨領袖與黨員態度惡劣,不可一世,政治文化低落。借一句馬華名言,魚頭爛了,換政府,路在何方?
505的熱血退下了,民聯的挑戰才是真正的到來。本人希望你把我的名字從會員名單刪除的同時也認真地深思我提出的四點看法。

謝謝。

林漢龍

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Pakatan's death announced, DAP seeks new allies

12:39PM Jun 16, 2015

Penang chief minister and DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng today announced that Pakatan Rakyat has met its demise.

"The DAP central executive committee (last night) accepts the PAS muktamar's motion to sever ties with DAP and effectively, that Pakatan ceases to exist.

"As Pakatan was formed by the three parties based on consensus and bound by the common policy framework, the PAS muktamar's motion effectively killed off Pakatan.

"Pakatan therefore ceases to exist," he added in a media statement.

Lim said DAP will work with PKR and other forces who aspire to see the end of Umno and BN's one-party rule to reshape and realign Malaysian politics with the aim of winning Putrajaya for the people.
"DAP will work towards a broad based and principled new coalition that shall emerge to fill the political vacuum that can rekindle hopes of change to realise our Malaysian dream for a better future for all,"
he added.


As for the Selangor state government, he said DAP will support for the leadership of Selangor Menteri Besar Mohd Azmin Ali to re-frame the state government with  a new functioning coalition.

This, he added, must be based on the common policy and the Selangor GE 2013 election manifesto that received an overwhelming mandate of more than 60% of the popular vote.


Hadi caused Pakatan paralysis

Delving into history, Lim said Pakatan was formed on April 1, 2008 as a joint response by DAP, PKR and PAS to the deep yearning for political change by Malaysian voters following the political tsunami of the 12th GE in 2008.

"With the massive support from Malaysians, the opposition won more than one-thirds of parliamentary seats and five state governments.

"The leaders of DAP, PKR and PAS agreed to form Pakatan with a set of shared principles in the hope of uniting all anti-Umno/BN forces to bring forth a new era of politics and governance of integrity, accountability and democracy in a progressive Malaysia.

"It was agreed then that decision making in Pakatan would be based on consensus and mutual trust at the leadership council.

"The coalition was not meant to be a coalition of convenience but one that is guided by ideas, principles and ideals for a new Malaysia," he added.

However, Lim said in several major incidents over the past year, including the Selangor menteri besar crisis, decisions agreed upon by the leadership council was violated by PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang.

This, he added, resulted in near-paralysis of the coalition.

He said the situation was exacerbated by Hadi’s willingness to forge a unity government with Umno and his support for Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak despite the 1MDB imbroglio.

"The breach of promise made personally by Hadi at the leadership council on Feb 10 to discuss the hudud laws proposed by PAS first with Pakatan partners before being tabled to the Kelantan state assembly or a private motion by Hadi in Parliament further immobilised the entire leadership council.

"This breach of promise by Hadi was followed by the momentous decision on June 6, when the PAS muktamar, the general assembly and the highest authority of the party, accepted without debate a motion to sever ties with DAP," he added.


Source: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/302006

Friday, February 1, 2013

‘Najib falling short of promised reforms’



February 1, 2013
Rights to free expression and peaceful assembly take hits in Human Rights Watch's annual report on Malaysia.
PETALING JAYA: Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak’s promised reforms did not significantly improve legal protections for basic liberties in Malaysia, said Human Rights Watch today in its World Report 2013.
Press restrictions, the use of excessive force against peaceful demonstrators, and intimidation of rights groups exposed the limits of government adherence to internationally recognized human rights.
In its 665-page report, Human Rights Watch assessed progress on human rights during the past year in more than 90 countries, including an analysis of the aftermath of the Arab Spring.
In Malaysia, Human Rights Watch said, government respect for basic rights and liberties is likely to be tested in the run-up to national parliamentary elections, which must be held no later than June 2013.
“The Malaysian government’s promised human rights agenda fell far short in practice in 2012,” said Phil Robertson, Asia deputy director at Human Rights Watch.
“As elections approach, the government will need to demonstrate its willingness to uphold the rights of all citizens, whatever their political views.”
On April 28, 2012, tens of thousands of peaceful protesters were met by water cannon, teargas, beatings, and arrests during a march and sit-in led by Bersih, a coalition of civil rights organisations, to demand clean and fair elections.
A government committee set up to investigate the incident has done little to shed light on the actions of the authorities on that day. Negotiations between the police and a coalition of opposition political parties and activist groups resulted in a peaceful gathering of the “People’s Uprising Rally” in Merdeka Stadium in Kuala Lumpur on Jan 12, 2013.
Revisions to longstanding abusive laws had less of an impact on the ground than was hoped, Human Rights Watch said.
The replacement of section 27 of the Police Act by the Peaceful Assembly Act did not rescind the absolute power of the police to grant permits for demonstrations. Instead the new law allows police to effectively outlaw marches by prohibiting “moving assemblies” by declaring innumerable sites off limits, and by giving the police the power to set time, date, and place conditions.
The People’s Uprising Rally organisers agreed to 27 conditions – including on appropriate slogans – before their rally got approval, and the government is currently investigating compliance with three of the conditions.

Continued harassment
In another legal reform that fell short of international standards, the Malaysian government repealed the infamous Internal Security Act (ISA), and substituted the Security Offenses (Special Measures) 2012 Act (SOSMA).
SOSMA reduced arbitrary detention to 28 days instead of the indeterminate period permitted under the ISA but added new infringements of rights. The law’s definition of a security defense is overbroad. Police, rather than judges, have the power to authorize communication intercepts, and prosecutors can utilize information as evidence without disclosing sources.
Moreover, should a suspect be acquitted and the state appeal that decision, the acquitted suspect may be detained in prison or tethered to a monitoring device until the appeal is settled, a process that could take years.
Government harassment of human rights defenders continued in 2012, Human Rights Watch said.
In response to spurious allegations by Jaringan Melayu Malaysia, an organization with close ties to Malaysia’s leaders, the government pursued a politically motivated investigation of Suaram, a leading Malaysian human rights organization in operation since 1989.
At least six government agencies are seeking to find Suaram’s registration and operations illegal.
Investigators have harassed staff and supporters, and threatened them with arrest while government politicians and government-controlled media outlets have publicly attacked the organization. On Sept 3, a week before investigations had begun, a government minister accused Suaram of keeping “highly suspicious” accounts and said that “99.4 percent” of its activities were “money collecting.”
Groups supporting the rights of lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender (LGBT) people fared even worse, Human Rights Watch said.
In two speeches in 2012, Najib condoned discrimination by singling out the LGBT community as a threatening “deviant culture” that “would not have a place in the country.” Not only was the annual Seksualiti Merdeka (Sexual Diversity, in English) festival canceled in 2012 amidst ongoing intimidation of the LGBT community, but a court refused a judicial review of the police ban on the 2011 festival, a decision that festival organizers say leaves future festivals in legal limbo.
“The Malaysian authorities should respect the fundamental rights of non-discrimination and equality, and stop demonizing people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity,” said Boris Dittrich, advocacy director for the LGBT program at Human Rights Watch.
Press not free
Reforms to freedom of the press also proved to be less than anticipated, Human Rights Watch said.
The Printing Presses and Publications Act was amended, dropping the requirement for annual licensing of publications and ending the Home Affairs Minister’s power to award or rescind publishing licenses without court review.
However, the revised law still requires that new publications obtain initial approval, and licenses still may be arbitrarily revoked.
The government appealed a 2011 Kuala Lumpur High Court ruling that a “license to publish is a right, not a privilege,” therefore requiring review of the government’s “improper and irrational” unwillingness to issue a license to the largest on-line newspaper, Malaysiakini, to publish a daily print edition.
An amendment to the Evidence Act provides that computer owners and operators of computer networks are publishers and thus responsible for the content displayed on their screens unless they could prove they had nothing to do with the content. This raises concerns about the presumption of innocence as well as free expression.

Custodial deaths

Malaysian police appear to routinely violate the rights of persons in custody, Human Rights Watch said.
Police personnel have employed unnecessary or excessive force during demonstrations, while carrying out arrests, and in police lockups.
Deaths in custody, routinely attributed to disease, go uninvestigated, suspects are beaten to coerce confessions, and criminal suspects die in suspicious circumstances during apprehension by police. Alleged police abuses go uninvestigated.
Malaysian immigration law still does not recognize refugees and asylum seekers, and prohibits them from working and their children from going to school.
Unauthorized migrants face arrest and detention in unsanitary and overcrowded immigration detention centers, and caning for violating the immigration law.
Anti-trafficking efforts conflate human trafficking with people smuggling, and punishes rather than protects trafficking victims by holding them in inadequate, locked shelters that resemble detention centers rather than care facilities.
The government continues to do little to protect migrant domestic workers from beatings and sexual abuse by their employers.
“Numerous sectors of Malaysia’s economy depend on migrant workers, yet Malaysia continues to treat them as disposable people who can be used and abused,” said Robertson.
“The government should fully respect migrant workers’ rights and stop re-victimizing those who have been trafficked to Malaysia.”
Source: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2013/02/01/najib-falling-short-of-promised-reforms/

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, April 12, 2012

Security Bill threatens basic liberties — Human Rights Watch

April 12, 2012

APRIL 12 — On April 10, the government submitted the Security Offences (Special Measures) Bill 2012 to parliament, where quick ratification is expected.

The administration of Prime Minister Najib Razak touted the bill as a significant improvement over the ISA because it reduces the period of detention without judicial review from 60 to 28 days and only for an “active investigation”. It also prohibits arrest solely on the basis of “political belief or political activity”.

“The Malaysian government is putting to rest the long-derided ISA, but it is also setting the stage for future abuses,” said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “While the new law has improvements, the authorities still hold too much power to detain people on broad grounds, for too long, and without judicial oversight.”

Provisions of the Security Offences Bill will facilitate violations of fundamental human rights, Human Rights Watch said. Permitting detention for 28 days without being brought before a judge violates international standards for prompt judicial review. The bill also allows delays of 48 hours before the suspect has access to a lawyer, which encourages abusive interrogations. And the bill defines “political activity” too narrowly, leaving room for arrests for other forms of peaceful political activity.

Other provisions of the Security Offences Bill raise due process concerns for those suspected of committing security offences, Human Rights Watch said. The proposed law would allow police to make an arrest without a warrant if the officer merely “has reason to believe” that the person may be involved in security offences, many of which are vaguely defined.

It would give the police broad powers to conduct searches and intercept communications without judicial warrant. And it would permit the police unilaterally to impose electronic monitoring devices on individuals released from detention, a serious infringement of personal liberty.

“There are not nearly enough civil liberties protections written into this law,” Robertson said.

Those charged with security offences would face serious infringements of their basic rights under the proposed law, Human Rights Watch said. The bill contains a blanket provision denying bail to people charged with security offences. The identity of certain prosecution witnesses could be kept from defendants and their attorneys, depriving them their right to cross-examine the witnesses against them.

The law would also permit the use in court of any information obtained in raids and investigations, as well as all intercepted communications — which presumably would allow the admission of evidence obtained unlawfully. Finally, the law would permit a court to order the continued detention of an acquitted defendant pending the exhaustion of all prosecution appeals, thus allowing the authorities to keep a person who has been found not guilty behind bars for years.

Human Rights Watch expressed concern that the proposed law was drafted by the government without meaningful consultation with Malaysian civil society, including the Bar Council and other groups that seek to promote respect for human rights.

“The Security Offences Bill sets the stage for trials with secret witnesses, unlawfully obtained evidence, and continued detention of those found not guilty,” Robertson said. “The government should go back to the drawing board and draft a law with input from civil society that will ensure the protection of basic rights.” — aliran.com

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/security-bill-threatens-basic-liberties-human-rights-watch/

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

“与末沙布辩论而非提控他”,党团联署质疑纳吉改革诚意

2011年9月21日
下午 2点24分

47个党团组织今日联署,集体表达对政府提控回教党署理主席莫哈末沙布的厌恶。

45个公民团体及2个政治组织发表联合文告表示,政府提控莫哈末沙布,显然与首相纳吉在马来西亚日宣布的民主开放措施背道而驰。

“这令人质疑首相纳吉宣布的系列改革的诚意,包括修改印刷与出版法令。首相是否还能全面控制警察部队的行动?”

“我们促请政府即刻撤销此含有政治动机的提控,停止恐吓挑战官方历史与意识形态的异议者。”

“我们吁请首相与副首相,与其滥用政府机关将莫哈末沙布入罪,不如接受莫哈末沙布的挑战,在不设禁的电视台上公开与他辩论武吉格蓬事件。”

使反对者噤声懦弱行为

文告是,政治人物、前军警人员和土著权威组织也应在媒体或论坛上与莫哈末沙布公开辩论,并应该尊重莫哈末沙布有表达不同意见的权利。

文告谴责,滥用政府机关使反对者噤声是懦弱的行为,显示掌权者没有安全感、没有信心以事实与道理赢得辩论。

“如此压制言论自由,实际上对马来西亚的独立是个侮辱。不同于殖民地或一党专政的国家,一个独立国家的人民应享有基本人权和自由。”

联署公民团体:

1. 维护媒体独立撰稿人联盟
2. 人民之声
3. 妇女力量组织
4. 雪隆社区协会
5. 社会传播中心(KOMAS)
6. 隆雪华堂民权委员会
7. 林连玉基金公民社会委员会
8. 连环扣全国行动小组(NIAT)
9. 528媒体行动小组
10. 政策倡议中心(CPI)
11. 马来西亚青年与学生民主运动
12. 社区行动网络(CAN)
13. 我是马来西亚之子(SABM)
14. 全球化可续性监督组织(MSN)
15. 被压迫人民联盟
16. 隆雪华堂青年团
17. 理大前进阵线
18. 博大前进阵线
19. 北大前进阵线
20. 新纪元学院前进阵线
21. 雪兰莪社区关怀协会
22. 博大华文学会
23. 大专生团结阵线 (SMM)
24. 动力青年 (Y4C)
25. 新纪元学院校友会
26. 马来西亚印裔组织联合会(PRIMA)
27. 雪隆理华同学会
28. 北马理华同学会
29. 中国维权大马后援会
30. 还原大马历史运动委员会
31. 独立大专生活跃小组(KAMI)
32. 50B 空间
33. 709黄潮世代
34. 政改研究所 (KPRU)
35. 人民之声新山支会 (SUARAM JB)
36. 原住民关怀中心 (COAC)
37. 妇女行动协会 (AWAM)
38. 彩虹性别学会
39. 社会想像工作室
40. 全民挺明福运动
41. 杨伟光后援会
42. 回教复兴阵线(IRF)
43. 雪兰莪妇女之友协会
44. T'anda Tanya of DurianFM.com
45. 槟城中文报记者及摄影记者协会 (PEWAJU)

联署政治组织:

1. 社会主义党
2. 雪兰莪民联议员助理协会(SELPROA)

来源:http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/176434