Ambiga: Four ‘good’ reasons, my foot!

RK Anand

 | March 28, 2013

The Bersih chief dismisses the four reasons given by the Star's group editor-in-chief for Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's delay in dissolving Parliament.

KUALA LUMPUR: In a comment piece published on the front-page of the Star today, the MCA-owned daily’s group editor-in-chief Wong Chun Wai stated four reasons for Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak’s feet-dragging on the dissolution of Parliament.

However, Bersih co-chairperson S Ambiga is not convinced with the four “good” reasons, which were:

• A caretaker government cannot enter into agreements at the Langkawi International Maritime and Aerospace Exhibition (Lima).

• Finishing touches to some projects and programmes.

• Barisan Nasional’s candidates’ list not finalised.

• Impossible at the moment for politicians to campaign freely in Lahad Datu.

Commenting on the first reason cited, Ambiga told FMT that it is not a licence to dig into the public coffers to embark on a spending spree.

“Lima contracts were all foreseeable. If this was an aim, then why lead the public on a merry ride and threaten to dissolve Parliament for more than a year?” she asked.

Ambiga stressed that it is morally wrong to extend the dissolution date on this premise, adding that the move smacked of utter desperation.

“The way they [the incumbent government] are spending suggests that they are not certain of returning to power. And that is the whole point of a caretaker government: they should not make any contracts which the next incoming government would be bound by; you must uphold the status quo.

“It is wrong to rush into contracts when it is very close to the caretaker period,” she added.

As for Wong’s second point, Ambiga argued that putting the final touches on projects and programmes is also something that was foreseeable in the past.

“This once again suggests that they are not confident. It seems that for the first time, there is a confidence crisis [in BN] with regard to retaining Putrajaya.

“However, your nervousness does not justify spending the rakyat’s money so close to the election and for keeping us on hold regarding the election date,” she said.

‘Automatic dissolution is shameful’

On BN still finalising its list of candidates, the Bersih chairperson dismissed this as the weakest possible excuse.

Ambiga said the list has to be finalised before any general election, and since Najib has been toying with the people over the election date for more than a year, BN should have worked on the list a long time ago.

“This is a pathetic excuse for delaying the dissolution of Parliament,” she added.

As for the security in Lahad Datu being used as a reason, Ambiga expressed puzzlement.

“We were previously given the impression that everything was fine and safe… for the election to be held there. This is news to me. It seems like the government is caught in its own web of misinformation… I would like to know the truth about the situation there,” she said.

Commenting on the automatic dissolution of the Negeri Sembilan State Legislative Assembly last night, Ambiga said this is not something to be proud of as it meant that the incumbent government is being booted out of power by the Federal Constitution.

“…unless we amend the Constitution and have fixed dates for elections. Then everybody’s life goes on until the date of election; now everyone’s life is on hold… this is the psychological point and it is shameful,” she added.

Furthermore, Ambiga stated that automatic dissolution is a constitutional safeguard against recalcitrant regimes.

“Let me stress again that there was nothing to be proud of allowing for an automatic dissolution, although it was legal. No self-respecting government would allow that to happen,” she added.

Najib’s delay in dissolving Parliament has led to a litany of speculations, ranging from a lack of confidence to more last-minute plots being hatched against the opposition.

Parliament is scheduled for automatic dissolution on April 27.

Source: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2013/03/28/ambiga-four-good-reasons-my-foot/

Want to stop MCA? Just stop buying The Star

How to stop MCA?

July 05, 2012

by Sam Peh

JULY 5 — The Star has dropped all its pretence, now that the countdown to elections has started. Fiction is being handed out as news, fiction aimed at putting the opposition in bad light, especially Lim Guan Eng and Khalid Ibrahim, the two high-profile chief ministers.

The Star’s editors talk openly about being a MCA newspaper and are happy to wear their political affiliation on their sleeves. Fair enough. After all, they have ceased being reporters for a long time and are really people only after a pay packet.

But what is our excuse? What is our excuse to keep on feeding Chua Soi Lek, Liow Tiong Lai, Ng Yen Yen and the MCA?

Well, that is what you are doing every time you buy The Star. The newspaper group is MCA’s biggest contributor. So in reality, every time you pick up The Star, you are helping MCA.

Every time you pick up The Star, you are encouraging the editors and reporters to continue mutilating the profession that once was honourable.

In conclusion, if we are repulsed by MCA, there cannot be any compromise. You cannot buy The Star any longer. It goes against common sense and logic and principles to fund a group that you want wiped out.

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/how-to-stop-mca-sam-peh/

Inaccuracies in report on UN-approved tear gas

(News from The Star is posted below this letter) Dr Lin Mui Kiang 4:31PM May 10, 2012

The United Nations in Malaysia would like to refer to the article published in The Star newspaper on May 7, 2012 titled ‘Police: Tear gas used at rally safe, UN-approved’.

We very much regret that the UN in Malaysia was not consulted before the publication of this article as it contains serious inaccuracies. 

The UN has consistently condemned the excessive use of force, including through the use of tear gas. 

Please also note that the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council have on various occasions publicly expressed concerns about reliable reports indicating that civilians who died from tear gas suffered complications from gas inhalation, and that security forces have been firing metal tear gas canisters from grenade launchers into crowds. 

The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression after his mission to the Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) in December 2011 noted that "while the use of tear gas to disperse a crowd may be legitimate under certain circumstances, tear-gas canisters should never be fired directly at demonstrators." 

Moreover, unlike what is alleged in the article, the UN does not set international standards on different kinds of irritants, nor has the UN approved ‘CS Gas’ as a ‘riot control’ agent.

As far as the use of force is concerned, the relevant UN instrument is the Basic Principles on the use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, which was adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in 1990, not the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) of 1993. 

I provide its general provisions below:

1. Governments and law enforcement agencies shall adopt and implement rules and regulations on the use of force and firearms against persons by law enforcement officials. 

In developing such rules and regulations, governments and law enforcement agencies shall keep the ethical issues associated with the use of force and firearms constantly under review.

2. Governments and law enforcement agencies should develop a range of means as broad as possible and equip law enforcement officials with various types of weapons and ammunition that would allow for a differentiated use of force and firearms. 

These should include the development of non-lethal incapacitating weapons for use in appropriate situations, with a view to increasingly restraining the application of means capable of causing death or injury to persons.

For the same purpose, it should also be possible for law enforcement officials to be equipped with self-defensive equipment such as shields, helmets, bullet-proof vests and bullet-proof means of transportation, in order to decrease the need to use weapons of any kind.

3. The development and deployment of non-lethal incapacitating weapons should be carefully evaluated in order to minimise the risk of endangering uninvolved persons, and the use of such weapons should be carefully controlled.

4. Law enforcement officials, in carrying out their duty, shall, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms. They may use force and firearms only if other means remain ineffective or without any promise of achieving the intended result.

5. Whenever the lawful use of force and firearms is unavoidable, law enforcement officials shall:

a) Exercise restraint in such use and act in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate objective to be achieved;

b) Minimise damage and injury, and respect and preserve human life;

c) Ensure that assistance and medical aid are rendered to any injured or affected persons at the earliest possible moment;

d) Ensure that relatives or close friends of the injured or affected person are notified at the earliest possible moment.

6. Where injury or death is caused by the use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials, they shall report the incident promptly to their superiors, in accordance with principle 22.

7. Governments shall ensure that arbitrary or abusive use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials is punished as a criminal offence under their law.

8. Exceptional circumstances such as internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked to justify any departure from these basic principles.

We at the United Nations appeal to all journalists to correctly and accurately research and report all matters and procedures related to the UN. We believe that such professionalism should also extend to all public officials.

The writer is United Nations coordination specialist in Malaysia.

Source: http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/197536

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

Source: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2012/5/7/nation/20120507151605&sec=nation

Police: Tear gas used at rally safe, UN-approved

By JOSEPH KAOS Jr

PETALING JAYA: The police have defended their use of tear gas during the Bersih 3.0 rally on April 28, saying it was not harmful to human health.

Logistics Department (Weaponry) assistant chief director ACP Syed Mustafa Raja Syed Nordin, in a five-minute-long video clip posted Monday at the Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM) official Facebook page, said the equipment used to dispersed protesters was "safe" and "complied with international standards."

In the video, Syed Mustafa showed four different kinds of irritants used during the rally - tear gas grenades, tear gas canisters, liquid eye irritants and pepper spray.

"All these are imported from the United States, Canada and Switzerland. Each complies with international standards set by United Nations (UN)," said Syed Mustafa.

"These items contain 'CS Gas', which the UN has approved as a 'riot control agent.' Many countries generally endorse this gas as non-lethal," he explained.

He added that countries such as the US, United Kingdom, Switzerland and Germany used the same irritants during rallies and protests.

He also said the Federal Reserve Unit (FRU) was frequently exposed to CG Gas during training and that so far, none of its personnel had been injured from exposure.

"The CS gas is also not banned under the Chemical Weapons Convention 1993. Malaysia is one of the countries that has ratified this convention," said Syed Mustafa.

Syed Mustafa also dismissed allegations that CS Ggas was the same one used by Israel.

PDRM also uploaded another video featuring interviews with the suppliers of CS Gas and CS liquid who assured the irritants caused only in temporary irritations to those hit by it.