Malaysia's ‘Peaceful’ Bill off to a rocky start, at odds with PM’s speech

Tweet

‘Peaceful’ Bill off to a rocky start

Analysis By Baradan Kuppusamy

The Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 seeks to regularise public protests. The Opposition, however, claims the conditions are so strict it makes demonstrating even more difficult.

THE Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 ran into heavy flak from the Opposition the moment it was introduced for first reading in Parliament on Monday by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz.

 

   

 Prime Minister Najib Razak’s move comes ahead of a general election expected early next year

They want the law, which provides for public protest without the need for a police permit, withdrawn.

They say conditions attached to public protest are stiff and numerous; police are still the arbitrators and that the notion of allowing public assemblies is defeated by the new Bill. 

 At the same time the  Bill was tabled, Nazri also tabled the amendment Bills repealing Section 27 of the Police Act that requires an organiser to get a police permit for any gathering of more than five persons.

In a nutshell, the need for a permit - one of the things the Opposition and civil rights groups have been campaigning for - has been removed.

They should be rejoicing but they are not.

Opposition MPs and civil society advocates say that although the provision for a permit has been repealed, the Peaceful Assembly Bill stipulates numerous conditions that hamper the people’s constitutional right to peaceful assembly and exercise their right to protest.

What the Government has done is to introduce a Bill that says you can protest and the need for a permit is repealed but only within the accepted parameters and without impinging on the rights of others who are not a party to the protest.

The Opposition and civil society’s immediate reaction is that the attached conditions are strict and makes public protest more difficult than under the Police Act.

Under Section 27 of Police Act you just organise a protest – with or without a permit - and subsequently face the consequences.

This is the preferred method of the Opposition and that’s why illegal assembly cases still continue in the courts for participation or organisation of the first Bersih protest in 2007.

Those involved were activists and rabble rousers but have since been elected MPs and will be voting to oppose the Peaceful Assembly Bill in Parliament!

Under the new Bill, public protest is regularised – while the right to protest over a certain cause is given, the right to not protest or to oppose is also given.

That’s why there are stringent conditions, sometimes impossible conditions, attached to the right to protest which includes that the OCPD should be notified within 30 days. He would respond within 12 days and children 15 years and below are barred from participating.

And then there are increased penalties for those who break the rules like up to RM20,000 for bringing an underage person to an assembly.

The OCPD can impose restrictions which, if not followed, would lead to fines of up to RM10,000.

There is an appeal clause to the minister on the restrictions within four days and the minister has to respond within six days.

Lastly some areas are off-limits for any protest – like places of worship, schools and hospitals.

On the face of it, the restrictions are stringent and probably unworkable especially the one requiring protestors to give 30 days’ notice but as Lord Denning said: “Your rights end where the rights of others begin”.

That’s exactly what the formulators of the law have in mind by imposing conditions that are deemed necessary to allow protest without needing to get police permits.

Unfortunately, one has to sacrifice something to gain something.

Even in some advanced countries like the United States and Britain, protests are only allowed at designated areas.

In New York, for instance, you can protest in front of the United Nations but some distance away.

In other places, too, police broke up the Occupy Brooklyn Bridge protest and Occupy St Paul’s Cathedral in London. In Hong Kong, police prefer night protests conducted away from the all-important business district.

Each country has its “soft underbelly” that it wants to protect and maintain without disruption and Malaysia has said places of worships and schools are off limits.

While the giving of notices and the waiting for responses take out the spontaneity of public protests, the gain is that you don’t need a police permit for any protest of five or more people.

But the people have been asked to pay a heavy price for it in the form of numerous restrictions.

As PAS leaders said, if Israel were to attack Saudi Arabia, Malaysians would have to wait 30 days before protesting.

Perhaps, as the Bar Council suggests, a standing committee could be formed to rectify the weakness at the committee stage of the Bill’s passage – especially the provision to give 30 days’ notice.

This would allow Members of Parliament to study the Bill and its provisions in greater depth and lessen the restrictions to allow the public to exercise their democratic right to protest.

Bill at odds with PM’s speech

ROAMING BEYOND THE FENCE By TUNKU 'ABIDIN MUHRIZ

The drafters of the Peaceful Assembly Bill now before Parliament must have missed what was undoubtedly the Prime Minister’s finest speech of his administration so far, delivered on the eve of Malaysia Day.

I was looking forward to reading the Peaceful Assembly Bill tabled this week. I was expecting a document that would re-affirm and strengthen the freedom and liberties mentioned by our Constitution.

I was hoping furthermore that perhaps, finally, Malaysians would have a government that would once again speak fondly about freedom and liberty in the same way that our first Prime Minister did about those principles: whether in speeches at home or abroad (such as in his now-forgotten condemnations of apartheid in South Africa), or whether in print to other world leaders or through his columns in this newspaper.

These hopes were dashed. Lawyer-commentators are still picking through details as I write this, but it seems apparent that it might result in an even more suffocating environment for freedom of expression than what exists now.

The ban on “street protests”, defined by the Bill, is outright.

The powers conferred upon the police are enormous, not only in weighing the rights of “other persons” who (they may claim) are affected by assemblies, but also in demanding 30 days’ notice, thus preventing spontaneous gatherings of the sort that we have seen throughout the Arab Spring, or 65 years ago during the opposition to the Malayan Union (that partially resulted in the parliamentary democracy, constitutional monarchy and federal system that we all enjoy today).

Perhaps the legislation will be amended for the better if and when it passes through the various readings in both Houses of Parlia­ment.

For now, though, the Bill seems disgracefully at odds with what was undoubtedly our current Prime Minister’s finest speech of his administration, delivered on the eve of Malaysia Day this year. I wonder if those drafting the Bill missed it.

Still, we Malaysians are connoisseurs of witnessing disgraceful behaviour from the political class.
My fellow columnist Datin Paduka Marina Mahathir provided some wonderful examples in her article on Wednesday.

Sometimes, however, a decent member of the political class is in fact a victim of the disgraceful behaviour of someone else. (This is why the efforts of CPPS and UndiMalaysia to get us to assess our YBs are very important – we all benefit from further granularity in our opinions of individual politicians.)

One example of this has just surfaced. It concerns the Deputy Higher Education Minister Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah, who I have praised before and will continue commending if he continues with his progressive, common-sense statements.

He was invited to speak about his latest book Kalau Saya Mahasiswa (downloadable at saifuddinabdullah.com.my) by the Law Students Association of the International Islamic University on Monday, but at the last moment, the programme was cancelled and ostensibly postponed.

This was apparently after orders by the university’s Rector herself.

Regular readers will no doubt recall that I described the earlier suspension of Professor Abdul Aziz Bari as “thoroughly idiotic”, but – I may now be banned by the university myself for saying this – I can think of no better way than to describe the cancellation of an appearance by a Government deputy minister as utter genius.

I am sure that these actions will really get the university up there in the league tables.

My apologies – sometimes bone-headedness can only suitably be countered by the lowest form of wit.

Thankfully, there are still many inspiring distractions that punctuate these crazy weeks as everyone clears their to-do lists for 2011.

On Saturday I attended the Royal Gala Concert of the first International Festival of Classical Music organised by the Chopin Society of Malaysia.

The event truly was international (despite some scepticism before the show), with players hailing from 14 countries.

The repertoire consisted of pieces designed mostly to showcase technical skill, and virtuosity was certainly in ample supply that evening.

One piece that was both technically demanding and gorgeously tuneful was Chopin’s Fantaisie-Impromptu, which brought back some memories as it was my A-Level performance piece back in 1999.

That evening it was played by an 11-year- old Malaysian, Brian Ting Yit Zheng, and many were amazed by the emotion he managed to transmit during the lyrical middle section.

Then again, young people who are musical are often so much more mature than their peers.

The concert ended with the world premiere of …Shadow… (scored for piano, gamelan and Malay percussion with shadow puppet accompaniment) by Seremban boy Ng Chong Lim, STM (Setiawan Tuanku Muhriz).

He was one of four musicians awarded during the Birthday Honours of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negri Sembilan in January – the others being pianist Foo Mei-Yi, STM; harpist Katryna Tan, STM; and pianist-composer Chong Yew Boon, DTM (Darjah Tuanku Muhriz); whose work on Berkatlah Yang di-Pertuan Besar continues to arouse patriotism during many a peaceful assembly throughout the state.

■ Tunku ’Abidin Muhriz is president of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs.

Economic policies that do not add up

Tweet


Analysis By Baradan Kuppusamy

The lack of economic expertise in Pakatan Rakyat underlines the many difficulties the Opposition would encounter if it captures Putrajaya.

WHILE Pakatan Rakyat has been quick to capitalise on Barisan Nasional’s political setbacks like the current controversy over the National Feedlot Corpora-tion, it is weak in its economic policy formulation, and one reason is the lack of qualified economists.

This shortcoming would weigh heavily on the coalition if it were ever to capture Putrajaya.

Its weakness in formulating economic policies like the Alternative Budget 2012 that Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim read out to reporters a day before Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak presented his Budget in Parliament, is a sign of its incompetency in ruling the country.

The Pakatan Rakyat budget was a wishy-washy affair. More thought should have gone into it beyond a cursory glance at where revenue is coming from and the expenditure incurred.

Instead Anwar just “handed out cash to the poor, teachers and farmers”.

The failure to formulate a serious, alternative Budget is yet another example of the weakness of the coalition that would affect their ability to rule the country.

Its inability to go beyond making unrealistic and populist demands and criticising the policies formulated by the experts i.e. Bank Negara economists, is a setback to Pakatan growing into a valid and competent coalition.

Populist policies are easily made but their implementation is hard, if not totally unrealistic.

For instance, Anwar campaigned in 2008 that if you voted for him and he takes Putrajaya, the price of oil would be lowered the very next day..

He can do it by further subsidising the price of “subsidised oil” – and that is economic madness and unsustainable.

Furthermore, Anwar is economic adviser to the Selangor government, earning a fee of just RM1 – another populist measure that gels well with the rakyat in the state. But how much FDI (foreign direct investment) has he brought into Selangor?

Beyond sloganeering like merakyatkan ekonomi, what are the realistic economic steps that he has taken thus far?



The lack of qualified economic formulators is glaring and shows how the Barisan federal government is far superior in that respect to the proposed Pakatan government when it comes to administering the economy, warts and all.

This lack of economic know-how was apparent in a leaked US State Department cable by Wikileaks on Nov 8, which stated that Pakatan lacked economic policy formulators within its ranks and how this shortcoming weighs on them as a coalition.

It also speculated why this was so and suggested that it could be due to Pakatan’s failure to give them high wages and that “politics” could have frightened them away.

The lack of economic expertise among them underlines some of the many difficulties they would encounter if they capture Putrajaya.

While the Opposition-run states are struggling without competent experts, their politicians also show little aptitude for heavy economics.

Except for Tony Pua, the DAP MP for Petaling Jaya Utara, there are no competent economic advisers working with Opposition controlled states that are struggling to line up economic advisors, the cable noted.

Pua is a one-man-band and he has his hands full. Besides, “one swallow does not make a summer”.

And, if Pakatan captures Putrajaya, PAS will pull the country one way and PKR in another and the DAP, a third way – demanding that affirmative action policies are abolished immediately.

Each is committed to its own constituents in different ways. There is little cooperation among them on economic matters beyond agreeing on political matters like seat sharing and working to capture Putrajaya.

There’s is no deal on how Pakatan would rule the country, no documents stating the basis of their rule and no power-sharing formula.

They have no shadow Cabinet.

Their power-sharing formula, in the event they capture Putrajaya, is simply that Anwar would be prime minister and his deputies would be DAP’s Lim Kit Siang and PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang.

There is also not much difference between Barisan and Pakatan in the broad policy framework for the country. They are both for an open economy and for FDI to grow the economy.

But there the similarities end and the differences emerge.

There are differences over affirmative action policies that is favoured by Barisan, PKR and PAS but not by the DAP. This is a cause for dissension.

While all three Pakatan parties are against corruption along with Barisan there is a realisation that much of the corruption is linked to the affirmative action policies and that corruption can only be defeated if that policy is abolished.

This is the DAP’s stand and it is markedly different from the rest.

Pakatan’s weakness in economic matters would show immediately and in a serious manner if they ever were to capture power. There would be chaos as they find their bearings, if at all.

The state will be pulled in different ways – between Anwar’s populist promises, PAS’ Islamic economics and the DAP’s desire to streamline the civil service and abolish affirmative action.

Previous post:

Malaysia loses the way following the West, politically or economically?

Malaysia loses the way following the West, politically or economically?

Tweet

Clear vision in uncertain times

Diplomatically Speaking By Dennis Ignatius

In this period of global uncertainty, it is more important than ever for Malaysia to be united behind a common purpose lest we lose our way, be it politically or economically.

THERE is an old saying: “Without vision, the people perish.”

Applied broadly, it means that unless we are united behind a clear vision and are fully committed to doing what it takes to get there, we will invariably lose our way.

Do we have such a vision? Are we united behind a common purpose?

These questions are now more critical than ever before given that we have entered a period of global uncertainty, the likes of which we have not seen in quite a while.

Politically, we are seeing nations rise and fall and power shifting from West to East. Economies that were the drivers of world trade and engines of global growth are suddenly floundering.

The Eurozone, for example, is caught up in the worst crisis in its history. Many are wondering if it can even continue.

The United States, that other great economic powerhouse, is in crisis, rendered impo­­tent by massive foreign debt and deep internal divisiveness. Even China, despite its US$3.2 trillion (RM10.1 trillion) surplus, is not immune.

No wonder economists are worried that the world itself now hovers on the brink of another disastrous global recession.

Suddenly, it’s a whole new ball game out there. No one really knows how it will all play out but one thing is certain: resilient, innovative and competitive nations will do better than those which are not.

In this context, does Malaysia have what it takes to thrive in what management guru Peter Drucker calls a time of “accelerating change, overwhelming complexity and tremendous competition”?

Sadly, as anyone listening in on our national conversation quickly discovers, we are still fighting  yesterday’s battles, seemingly unable to make the critical choices that alone can guarantee our prosperity.



While so many other nations have moved on to bigger and better things, we are still mired in issues of race and religion, unwilling to make the compromises necessary to build unity and resilience, unable to de­­cide whether we are a democracy or a theocracy.

Everything is complicated and complex in Malaysia. Even simple issues take forever to be resolved. Indecisiveness can be crippling for a nation.

And for want of a clear vision, the national fabric weakens, our democratic space diminishes and our national institutions decay.

Unsurprisingly, the same dysfunction finds expression in our economy as well.

Malaysia is steadily losing ground, hobbled by the poor choices we make as well as the hard choices we avoid making.

Fifteen years of successive budget deficits have saddled our nation with a staggering RM433bil debt, amounting to 54% of GDP.

Of course, there are those who say that such debt levels are manageable given our growth rates. That is what they were saying in Europe before reality hit them in the face.

Whether we like it or not, international investors are taking stock of our situation and it is their judgement that will decide our fate as much as anything else.

Clearly, we are going to have to make some tough economic decisions sooner than later.

We can no longer remain indifferent, for example, to the waste and abuse that our Auditor-General chronicles year after year.

How long can we continue to spend money on submarines that cannot submerge or satellites that cannot track?

And how long can we afford those expensive subsidies, particularly the ones that go to well-connected corporations and big businesses, that distort the allocation of resources, weaken our competitiveness and foster yet more corruption?

Is it not time to end the reign of the robber barons?

And then there is our bloated and inefficient bureaucracy, now numbering more than 1.3 million, one of the highest civil servants-to-population ratios in the world.

Public service wages and pensions will cost the country more than RM64bil next year.

Significantly trimming the civil service is a must if we are to reduce the deficit.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has, of course, taken some important steps in the right direction and deserves credit for it.

Some say it is simply to win votes but that is what democracy is all about and must be welcomed.

In order to be effective and meaningful, however, the reform agenda needs to be much wider, much deeper and much bolder.

Undoubtedly, being a reformer in a country like Malaysia is no task for political pygmies.

It takes leadership, vision, courage and conviction, something that Thomas Friedman, the New York Times columnist, lamented recently is sorely lacking in much of the world today.

If there is one encouraging spot in an otherwise gloomy picture, it is that Malaysians are increasingly ready for change.

They are tired of the old template of division, distrust and blame and understand that compromise and accommodation is the only way forward.

Surely the near empty stadium in Shah Alam on Oct 25 was a resounding rebuke to those who want to play the old games of race and religion instead of building for the future.

Related articles

• Malaysia world's No.1 highest civil servants-to ...

• Malaysia still in pursuit of full independence

London Offices Foreign Owned!

Tweet

 Over half London's City offices foreign owned - report

by Andrew Macdonald; Editing by Dan Lalor) Keywords: PROPERTY LONDON

LONDON, Nov 22 (Reuters) - British investors own less than half the office properties in London's City financial hub, with foreign ownership of towers such as the Gherkin likely to continue, a report said.

Property company Development Securities said 52 percent of City office blocks were foreign owned in 2011, up from 8 percent in 1980, with German and U.S. investors hiking their stakes considerably over that period.

'City (of London) offices are perceived to offer quality and transparency -- a 'safe haven' for foreign buyers who have, in turn, deepened liquidity in the market,' chief executive Michael Marx said in the report 'Who Owns the City'.

IPD figures showed property values fell 50 percent during the global financial meltdown to August 2009, subsequently rebounding 25 percent, creating a buying opportunity for cash-rich investors such as sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, insurance firms and real estate investment companies.

'Traditional owners -- livery companies, institutions, established property companies -- have experienced a sharp decline in City office ownership,' Development Securities said, noting these investors now held 17 percent of the office stock, from 29 percent in 2005.



In their place, German investors hiked their market share to 16 percent, from 1 percent in 1980. U.S. investors held 10 percent, from zero, while Middle East investors weighed in at 6 percent, from 3 percent, the survey found.

The 180-metre tall Gherkin tower -- so-called because of its shape, one of the most distinctive in the City -- has been part-owned by German property behemoth IVG Immobilien since 2007.

Foreign ownership increased during the global financial crisis, Development Securities said, noting the changing dynamics of globalisation and international investment would continue to be reflected in City office ownership.

'Such resilience would appear all the more remarkable in the light of the City's associations with the failures of the international financial system. What offsets the systemic risk in relation to the City's lack of diversification is the exceptional liquidity that characterises its office market.'

The Development Securities survey also showed the changing profile of owners, with a growing trend towards private ownership by high-net-worth individuals.

In terms of functional ownership, 41 percent of the office space was owned by companies in the finance, insurance and real estate sectors, and 57 percent by financial and business services firms.

More than half of the City of London's financial buildings are foreign-owned

By Richard Hartley-parkinson

Many landmark buildings in the heart of London's financial district are owned by foreign investors, it has been revealed.

Germany holds the keys to one in five properties across the City including the distinctive Lloyd's Building and Gherkin 

UK ownership is down to it's lowest ever level with just 48 per cent belonging to British people or businesses. In 1980 that figure was 90 per cent.

The Gherkin (right) is owned by a German investment fund Tower 42 (left) looks like it's about to be snapped up by a South African magnate

Lloyds building, famous for having all it's services built outside, is owned by a German bank

The trend is likely to continue in the same direction as more investors look to get real estate in the UK. Tower 42 - also known as NatWest Tower - is currently on the market and South African magnate Natie Kirsh is the frontrunner in the bidding.

Matthew Weiner, executive director of development securities PLC which compiled the report, said: 'It's gone from 40 percent in 2006 to now 52 percent, so every other building in the city is ultimately owned by somebody from overseas.

'What we've seen as well is the rise for the first time in private net worth individuals which we've never been able to identify in all the studies previously and I think that's an interesting dynamic against safe haven assets that London represents.'

More...

• Good news at last as borrowing falls by £1.2bn... but Cameron warns that cutting the debt is harder than he expected
• Driving commuters around the Benz: New York City's wealthiest enjoy hidden luxury in Mercedes vans that take up half the road

Other significant parts of the City that are foreign owned include 10 Gresham Street (50 per cent Canadian), City Point, Moorgate (American), and Paternoster Square (Japanese).

Mr Weiner believes that foreign ownership is actually beneficial to the British economy. He said: 'I think it's good for liquidity in the market and good for London's status as an international capital.

'I think also these investors coming in have got long term investment horizons which gives greater stability to the market which will help the occupational market as well and help London function as a centre.'

Ownership of buildings has also shifted significantly over the last 30 years.
In 1973, 40 per cent of offices in the City were owned by what the report calls traditional owners.

Now, that figure has fallen to three per cent while nearly 10 per cent are owned by individuals.

In the shadow of the very British icon of St Paul's Cathedral, Paternoster Square is in the hands of the Japanese

This table shows how the ownership of City of London buildings has changed since 1980

Around the time of the last recession in 2008, the number of institution owned buildings nearly halved as more specialist real estate groups snapped up property while prices were low.

Despite the economic downturn in Europe London remains the world's top financial centre - ahead of New York and Hong Kong.

The housing market shows a similar pattern as the eurozone crisis continues to hit Greece and Italy, with more and more investors putting their money in London properties.

Greeks and Italians have spent £406m this year on domestic ownership - a 120 per cent increase on 201, according to the Financial Times recently.

This has taken the total number of home-owners from the two countries in the capital to 10 per cent.

There has also been a rise in house purchases by Middle Eastern and North African investors, keen to take advantage of the weak pound.

Vying for dubious achievements?

Tweet

MUSINGS By MARINA MAHATHIR

We are great at railing against idiotic politicians at mamak stalls and on social websites, but when it actually comes to doing something, we make excuses; and with that, we disempower ourselves.

IN 2000, Malcolm Gladwell wrote a book called The Tipping Point, defining it as “the moment of critical mass, the threshold, the boiling point”.

It’s that pivotal moment when people decide that enough is enough and actually do something to make a change.

In 2011, we’ve seen lots of tipping points.

It happened at the end of December in Tunisia when fruitseller Mohamad Bouazizi set himself on fire in protest against the confiscation of his stall.

That act of defiance against in­­justice became the tipping point for Tunisians fed up with the sys­­-tem and their rebellion led to the downfall of their president and set off a chain of events in neighbouring countries known as the Arab Spring.

Sooner or later, people reach a tipping point where they will no longer tolerate repression and corruption, pushing them to do something about it, even if it means that lives had to be sacrificed.

I really have to wonder when we Malaysians will reach our tipping point.

Every day, we read so much blatant nonsense from our leaders that the newspapers have truly stopped being readable.

News reports treat us all as people of low intelligence because only imbeciles would believe some of the outrageous claims made by our leaders.

When elections are in the offing, there is no doubt that our politicians immediately start jockeying for positions by trying to outdo one another.



It would be wonderful if they were racing to think up the best policies to manage the country, the economy, social issues, etc.

Instead, they are racing to find the silliest ways to strike fear into our souls and find more ways to oppress people.

I mean, solar-powered talking Bibles, really?

There is a foreign magazine that gives out Dubious Achievements Awards every year.

These are a bit like the Ig Noble awards, the opposite of the Nobel prizes, where people are cited for doing the silliest things.

Malaysia, especially our politicians, seems to be in the running for a lot of dubious achievements this year.
Maybe we should just accept that those are the only achievements we will ever have.

Meanwhile, we the people have to live with these shenanigans.

We find out every year from the Auditor-General’s Report that millions have been wasted on ridi­­-culous items which any fool would know should not cost that much.

The report highlights a “mess” in a government-related company and an unexplained stupendously expensive apartment purchase.

There are also ministers who claim that none of it has anything to do with the Government.

Gee, the Auditor-General must have so little to do that he needs to audit private companies as well.
And wow, they must really think we are dumb.

And while the world is facing an economic recession that will be more severe than anything ever seen, fodder for revolutions everywhere, what do our politicians care about?

Whether people of different sexual orientation should be allowed any space at all to talk about their problems?

Like natural disasters, the last thing economic catastrophes care about is whom you’re attracted to.

And given that most people are heterosexual, the chances are that the people who will be most affected by a recession are the heterosexual and poor.

Shouldn’t politicians vying for votes be concentrating on them?

Perhaps our politicians, unlike voters, don’t read.

They seem not to have noticed that there are protests going all round the world against inequality, especially the ever-increasing gap between the rich and the poor.

Even some business people are saying that things must change or else there will be a global revolution, particularly against exploitative and uncaring corporations.

But as always, our politicians are one step behind the rest of the world.

They’re still dreaming of joining the fat cat 1% and forgetting that the 99% have a lot more votes.

Why do we put up with all this?

Are our tolerance levels for stupidity that high?

Is it because we don’t know any better?

Or are we just lazy and complacent?

We are great about railing against idiotic politicians at mamak stalls and on social websites, but when it actually comes to doing something, we make excuses.

We shrug our shoulders and say we can’t make a difference, only some people can.

And with that, we disempower ourselves, much to the delight of our leaders.

But every now and then, we do rise to the occasion.

I think last July we reached a tipping point of sorts, where lots of ordinary people simply got fed up and decided to make it known, albeit peacefully.

But have our leaders learnt anything from it?

Not much, going by the constant demonising ever since.

So how long will we put up with imbeciles leading us?

How long will we tolerate unbridled greed and hate?

Bush and Blair found guilty of 'crimes against peace' !

Image via WikipediaTweet

Bush and Blair found guilty

By EUNICE AU KUALA LUMPUR euniceau@nst.com.my

Committed international crime by invading Iraq

Chief judge Datuk Abdul Kadir Sulaiman (centre) presiding over the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal against former United States president George W. Bush and former British prime minister Tony Blair yesterday. Pic by Sharul Hafiz Zam

  THE Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal (KLWCC) returned a guilty verdict against former United States president George W. Bush and former British prime minister Tony Blair on a charge of crimes against peace on its final day of hearing yesterday.

  Chief judge Datuk Abdul Kadir Sulaiman, in announcing the verdict, said both the accused had acted with deceit, selectively manipulated international law and committed an unlawful act of aggression and an international crime by invading Iraq in 2003.



  The tribunal found that both the accused had contemplated to invade Iraq as far back as September 2001 and had defied the United Nations Resolution 1441, which clearly did not authorise the use of military action to compel Iraq's compliance.

  Kadir added that the two accused had admitted since the Iraq war that they knew or believed the intelligence reports on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to be unreliable and yet both proceeded to wage war against Iraq based on this false and contrite basis.

  Memoirs of both the accused that had been tendered as evidence during the proceedings were also found to implicate both Bush and Blair, both having admitted their own intention to invade Iraq, regardless of international law.

  It was suggested by the tribunal that the KLWCC file a report with the International Court of Crime against both the accused under the Nuremberg principles and include reports of genocide and crimes against humanity committed by Bush and Blair.

  The tribunal also recommended that the names of both accused be entered into the Register of War Criminals and publicised.

  The KLWCC was tasked to publicise the tribunal's findings to all nations who were signatories of the Rome Statue, so that the two criminals can be prosecuted if they enter the jurisdiction of these nations.

  The KLWCC should also suggest to the UN General Assembly to pass resolution to end Iraq's occupation and request that the UN Security Council pass a resolution to transfer sovereignty back to the Iraqis.

  Earlier, chief defence Jason Kay Kit Leon had argued that Bush had exhausted all means of diplomacy before launching an attack after receiving intelligence briefings on Iraq for two years, suggesting that then president Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and Iraq posed an imminent threat.

  He quoted Bush as having said that  he would not lead his nation to war on a lie which would be easily discernable after the war.

  Kay also mention that  Blair, in his memoir, had said he understood the need for the second UN resolution but knew the difficulty in getting one due to the politics within the UN Security Council permanent members.

  The prosecution had made out a compelling case over the four days.

  Chief prosecutor Professor Gurdial S. Nijar, in his summation, reiterated key documents of several intelligence reports that indicated there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq reported by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Neither was there an attempt by Saddam Hussein to obtain uranium from Niger by former United States diplomat Joseph Wilson and weapons inspector David Kay found that Saddam's nuclear facility had deteriorated to such a point that it was totally useless, all discovered well before the UN Resolution 1441.

  The tribunal reached a unanimous guilty verdict after four hours of deliberation.

KL tribunal convicts two former leaders with ‘crimes against peace’

PETALING JAYA: The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal unanimously found former United States president George W. Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair guilty of “crimes against peace”.

The tribunal found that the two had planned, prepared and invaded the state of Iraq on March 19, 2003, in violation of the United Nations Charter and international law.

“The charge is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The accused are found guilty,” read an official media statement from Perdana Global Peace Foundation, organisers of the tribunal.

“War criminals have to be dealt with, convict Bush and Blair as charged. A guilty verdict will serve as a notice to the world that war criminals may run but can never ultimately hide from truth and justice,” the statement read.

The tribunal noted that the UN Security Council Resolution 1441 did not authorise any use of force against Iraq but the US proceeded to invade Iraq under the pretext of the Sept 11 attacks and weapons of mass destruction.

“Weapons investigators had established that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was also not posing any threat to any nation at the relevant time that was immediate that would have justified any form of pre-emptive strike.”

With the findings, the tribunal has ordered that Bush and Blair’s names be included in the war register of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission.

It also ordered the findings of the tribunal to be publicised to all nations who are signatories of the Rome Statute.

The tribunal, held for four days here, was initiated by former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who is also the Perdana Global Peace Foundation president.

The tribunal members were Datuk Abdul Kadir Sulaiman, Tunku Sofiah Jewa, Prof Salleh Buang, Alfred Lambremont Webre and Prof Emeritus Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi.

Prof Niloufer Bhagwat and Datuk Zakaria Yatim were recused as tribunal members.

Related post:

War Crimes Tribunal Tries Bush, Blair for War Crimes against humanity! 

Youngsters rising Net value, goto register & vote!

Tweet

 The rising Net value

ANALYSIS by BADARAN KUPPUSAMY

Whoever wins the hearts and minds of the young will win big at the next general election. And that's why the cyber troopers from both sides of the divide are an important tool of the battle!

WITH nearly 70% of the 4.5 million unregistered voters being in the 21 to 40 age group, Barisan Nasional has sounded the battle cry for its bloggers and social media practitioners to reach out to them with their iPads, iPhones, BlackBerries and laptops.



Besides, about 500,000 youths join the ranks of unregistered voters each year and getting them hooked early to either Barisan or Pakatan Rakyat is half the battle won for the parties as the youngsters will be voters as well as campaign workers.

The youths are the mainstay in any mass political campaign, either as voters, party workers, supporters and even fodder for demonstrations, as seen in the July street demonstration by the Bersih 2.0 coalition.

Making connectio ns: Latest gadgets like the iPad are the weapons of cyber warriors, says Najib. — Bernama

Barisan is taking a leaf from the Pakatan playbook to reach out to the youth in more ways than one.

Even its election cry has been carefully rewritten as BN Pilihan Orang Muda (BN the Young People's Choice), from the previous straight forward Vote for BN.

Prime Minister and Barisan chief Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak launched the campaign to get the young voters by urging pro-Barisan bloggers and social media practitioners to bring out their iPads, iPhone, BlackBerries, tablets and laptops.

“These are your weapons as cyber warriors,” Najib told about 2,000 bloggers and social media practitioners gathered at the PWTC on Sunday at the first-ever social media convention.

Also called the 1Malaysia Social Media Volunteers or myVO1CE they will explain and defend government policies online.

Pakatan has had a head start, being first to embrace social media and harnessing it for political purposes.

The impact was seen in the outcome of the March 2008 polls, when voters gave the alliance 82 urban and semi-urban parliamentary constituencies and four states, in addition to Kelantan.

The battle to win hearts and minds of voters ahead of the 13th general election will be fought with everything the two rival coalitions can throw at each other.

While Barisan sees its cyber war as setting the record straight, Pakatan sees it as a life-and-death matter to change the voting pattern.

Najib said Barisan cannot be content with just the rural support and must also rally the urban votes. But it is easier said than done.

Urban voters have a multitude of avenues for information, from the print media to the Internet and their own participation in social media like blogs and Twitter.

Pakatan simply questions each government information, from the 1Malaysia milk programme for schools to giving RM500 to households earning less than RM3,000 a month.

It casts doubts on the programmes and questions the effectiveness.

Najib said the Barisan-friendly social media practitioners are the coalition's advocates to explain government policies and to correct the falsehood on the Internet.

Whoever wins the hearts and minds of those in the 21 to 35 age group will win big.

And that's why the cyber troopers from both sides of the divide are an important tool of the battle.

While Umno is confident of winning the majority of the Malay voters in that age group, the DAP is sure of the urban Chinese support in the same age group.

That leaves the PKR and PAS to struggle and gain the support of the rural Malays voters and the MCA and Gerakan for the urban Chinese voters.

Cyber troopers from both sides play a crucial role in convincing the 3.2 million new voters to side with them.

Combined with the 4.5 million unregistered voters who did not vote in 2008, the next election could be a close call.