Why has the DPP drop this case?? What's wrong with our police force?

Source from Malaysiakini
Due to overwhelming pressure from the general public, the Dang Wangi police district headquarters revealed yesterday that charges against two Al-Islam magazine's journalists, who entered a Catholic church in Kuala Lumpur, have been dropped.

The duo who - on the pretext of checking out a claim that Muslims were being converted to Christianity - entered a church and took part in the holy communion.They were investigated under Section 298A (1) of the Penal Code for causing disharmony, disunity or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will, or prejudicing the maintenance of harmony or unity, on grounds of religion.

In a letter to the complainant, senior investigating officer ASP Ananthan Rajoo stated that the Attorney-General's Chambers had decided not to press charges against them."We referred this case to the deputy public prosecutor (DPP) and we received orders from them to take no further action (NFA)," stated the letter, dated Feb 12

SO INSTEAD THE POLICE DECIDES TO HARASS THE OPPOSITION ON THE PROMPTING OF UMNO's POLICE REPORTS!

After Penang Chief Lim Guan Eng and seven others, PKR Gopeng member of parliament Lee Boon Chye became the 9th victim of police investigation against the opposition coalition's wakil rakyat.

They spent three hours taking down his statement on Feb 23 under an illegal gathering charge. Lee described the police action as harassment and an attempt to stop Pakatan representatives from informing the masses the hidden truth behind Anwar Ibrahim's sodomy trial.

"The government is worried that once we reveal the truth behind the sodomy trial to the rakyat, they will be angry and oppose it, so they use this way to oppress us."

Lee, also PKR vice president, told Malaysiakini that, two police personnel from Balik Pulau came to his office in Ipoh to take a statement from him. The IO in-charge was one Inspector Mohd Sobri Taib.

Police informed him he was being investigated for illegal assembly under the Police Act 27 (5), on his presence and speech during Feb 18 PKR Chinese New Year open house in Balik Pulau.

Police also informed him that the police report against him was lodged by the Balik Pulau Umno Youth. Yet they did not produce the report.

Meanwhile in reference to Malaysiakini's report on the issue, Penang Deputy CM P Ramasamy clarified today that police recorded his statements on the speeches he had given at two Pakatan Rakyat events this month.

He had spoken at Tapak Pesta Sungai Nibong on Feb 12 and Balik Pulau on Feb 18. He was not at the Feb 7 ceramah as reported since he was then overseas.Ramasamy added that the police did not provide reasons for taking statement only that they were responding to a report lodged by Umno.

Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code - REMEMBER THIS IMPORTANT ACT!

(MALAYSIAKINI SOURCE)
Today three top Pakatan Rakyat leaders - PKR vice-president Sivarasa Rasiah, PAS vice-president Salahuddin Ayub and DAP central executive committee member P Ramasamy - have been quizzed by the police over alleged sedition.

It is understood that they had touched on the ongoing Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trial and recent controversies affecting the Penang government.

According to lawyer N Surendran, who is representing Sivarasa and Salahuddin, the police are investigating the duo over statements made during a Feb 7 ceramah in Seberang Jaya, Penang.

Two police personnel from the Seberang Jaya district police headquarters recorded statements from them for about an hour from 1pm, at the 14th floor of the Parliament Tower annexe in Kuala Lumpur.

Speaking to reporters later, Sivarasa revealed that they both had refused to answer any of the 18 questions posed to them.

"I exercised my right under Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code to remain silent to the questions," said Sivarasa (right), a practising lawyer.

He alleged that the police probe was a form of harassment to dissuade Pakatan MPs from speaking out on the sodomy trial.

"For me, this (investigation) is an attempt to threaten me, Salahuddin and my comrades from raising important issues, such as the Anwar trial and and the Altantuya (Shaariibuu murder)," he added.

He challenged the police to take action against him, without any form of harassment, should they think that he has vilated any law.

Sivarasa stressed that he has not broken the law by airing his views on the sodomy trial because it is his duty as an MP to share his analysis of current affairs.

"The police should focus on criminal cases like snatch thefts and robbery cases. There is no need to waste time and send a high- ranking police personnel to record our statements," he said.

PLEASE STOP THE HARASSMENT!

Big demonstration in KL! No arrest, no water cannons! Wow! Is the govt becoming more tolerant?

NOPE! Sorry it is just UMNO that's why!

Hundreds of demonstrators massed outside the Australian High Commission today to protest against criticism of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim's sodomy trial.

Was there a permit for this?
Why don't they do it in the stadium?
Does this not affect the businesses around the area?
Why was there no RELA there?
No Police giving warning to disperse?

Is this Najib's idea of 1 Malaysia?

WIll these political secretaries go behind bars?

Taken from Malaysiakini

Hasbie Satar, the political secretary to Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nor Mohamed Yakcop, has resigned from his post effective yesterday, according to a statement from the office of the Minister in the Prime Minister's Department today.

The one-paragraph statement did not state the reason for the resignation.
Hasbie is believed to be the RM2 million man being investigated by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).

On Thursday, MACC has detained a political secretary to a senior minister after a raid which found bundles of RM5, RM10, RM50 and RM100 at an apartment in Teluk Air Tawar, Butterworth.

The 30-something political secretary is believe to have been under MACC investigation for amassing millions of ringgit in properties including at least four luxury cars and four houses in the Klang Valley.

(see the Star report)

Two months ago, MACC officials had obtained an order to seize several of the aide's properties and that his bank accounts be frozen. Hasbie, a Sarawakian, was appointed political secretary in 2008 while Nor Mohamed was finance minister II.

Nor Mohamed, who hailed from Penang and MP for Tasek Gelugor, was finance minister II from 2004 to 2009.

Teluk Air Tawar, where the Thursday raid was conducted, is one of the three state constituencies under the Tasek Gelugor parliamentary seat in the Seberang Jaya of Penang.

Before joining politics, Nor Mohamed was in Bank Negara for 32 years where he was linked to a currency speculation scandal involving the central bank in the early 1990s.

He was later appointed as special economic adviser by then premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
As minister in the PM's Dept, Nor Mohamed is in charge of the powerful Economic Planning Unit.

Why is Nor Mohamed not even investigated on this case?

This is not the first time that his political secretary has been charge for corruption!

This guy (below)

Former Umno supreme council member Norza Zakaria is charged for offering bribes to party delegates to vote for him. (his court case is still on going)

Norza a former Federal Territory Umno Youth chief was also the former political secretary to Second Finance Minister Nor Mohamed Yaacop.

He is also a close associate of Umno Youth deputy chief Khairy Jamaluddin and considered to be a member of the prime minister's inner circle.

I like the way Rocky's Bru warns the next Political Secretary to Nor Mohamed Yakcop to be careful.

In any case I don't think anyone of these Political Secretaries will ever be convicted of corruption!

After all they belong to UMNO!

Was the Federal Court right in their rulling? (Perak MB vs MB)

The Federal Court, the highest in the country, has delivered a unanimous decision in declaring that Zambry Abd Kadir of BN is the rightful Perak menteri besar (MB).

President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, led a five-member bench in delivering the verdict.

He ruled that it is not necessary for a vote of confidence to be done in the state assembly, as the sultan can conduct his own inquiry to determine which party or coalition has the majority.

“This can be done through extraneous sources,” he said.

"There is nothing in Article 16 (6) or in any other provisions of the Perak Constitution stipulating the loss of confidence in the menteri besar may be gathered from the assembly only," he said.

"There is no requirement in the state constitution which requires a vote of no confidence to be tabled in the legislative assembly based on Article 16 (6)," he said.

Citing a Nigerian legal precedent - the Akintola matter - Arifin said there can be other sources than the state legislative assembly to determine who commands the majority in the House.

The sultan would have had sufficient evidence as to who commanded the majority in the Perak assembly or who suffered a lack of confidence, noted the judge. As such, the sultan would have been able to arrive at a decision (and call for the chief executive to vacate the post). Should an individual refuse to do so, the post can be deemed vacant.

Putting the legal jumbo mumbo aside,the Federal court judgement summarily states :-
1. The Ruler can decide whether the MB has lost confidence by virtue of letters saying so signed by the elected reps and upon consultation with the reps;
2. The Ruler can refuse to dissolve the state assembly if and when the MB has lost the support of the majority and he can further decide that the MB post is vacant when the majority of the elected reps lose confidence with the MB;
3. If the Ruler refuse to accept MB's request to dissolve the assembly then the MB must resign his post;
4. The Ruler can decide that whether the MB has lost the confidence of the reps in special palace meeting;
5. The Ruler can instruct MB to resign (if the Ruler is convinced that the MB has lost the majority support);

So did these Federal Court Judges made the right decision?
Point 1:

The role of the judiciary is to help fill in the gap in the state constitution with a process which is consistent with the spirit of democracy.

If the State Constitution is silence on the issue of removal, it does not automatically empower the Sultan to act on his personal capacity to decide who should be the legitimate menteri besar. What is the mechanism available to ensure that the Sultan does not err in his decision?
It is dangerous to go back to this road, letting the monarch to decide who should be the head of government, without potentially causing an irreparable destruction to Malaysia's democratic credentials.

Democracy is justice delivered and not denied. The whole episode of party hopping and the decision to sack a democratically elected government by appointing a new government supported by three controversial assemblymen is a mockery of people's mandate. This is the real problem, not who ends up governing Perak.

Point 2:

This decision by the Federal Court ignored the established precedents.

The precedents were set in the Stephen Kalong Ningkan case in Sarawak in 1966 and the Pairin Kitingan case in Sabah in 1985.

In both cases, the incumbent chief minister, were either removed by ruler's fiat or the appointment was challenged by a rival candidate for the post.

The Ningkan case established as a legal principle that once appointed, a chief minister could only be removed by a vote of no-confidence in the legislative assembly.

The judge's decision in the Pairin case upheld that principle.

In the Nizar vs Zambry case, (0n May 11, 2009) KL High Court judge Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim had ruled that Nizar is the rightful menteri besar."He is, and was, at all material times the chief minister of Perak," Abdul Aziz told the court.

Justice Abdul Aziz was respectful of the established precedent in the case. Doctrinal consistency is highly valued in jurisprudential theory.

However, the appellate court's three-member bench unanimously overturned the decision in favour of Zambry

In jurisprudential theory, established precedents can be overthrown only if unique facts enter the vortex of discursive imperatives in which a case is decided.

There were no unique facts in the Nizar vs Zambry case.

Three state assemblypersons belonging to Nizar's Pakatan Rakyat faction abruptly became independents, leaning towards support for the BN.

Two of them were under indictment for corruption. In the circumstances, the motives of the duo for becoming BN leaning independents could not be said to be above cavil.

What is the consequence of this judgement?

Zaid Ibrahim, former law minister said, "Our judges in the upper echelon of the judiciary will continue to fail the people of this country. Today, the principles governing parliamentary democracy and the rule of law have been sacrificed because they have to please the political masters."

"I hope the BN leaders in the midst of their celebrations realise the significance of the ruling. It means that the monarch can refuse the appointment of a menteri besar chosen by the party in power (as in Terengganu) but now can dismiss the lawful menteri besar if he so chooses. Another black day for the country. "

Marina Mahathir view on the usage of Allah

Posted by Marina Mahathir (2010.01.02)

Prophet Muhammad's Promise to Christians

The document is not a modern human rights treaty but even thought it was penned in 628 AD it clearly protects the right to property, freedom of religion, freedom of work, and security of the person, says Muqtedar Khan.

Muslims and Christians together constitute over 50 per cent of the world and if they lived in peace, we will be half way to world peace. One small step that we can take towards fostering Muslim-Christian harmony is to tell and retell positive stories and abstain from mutual demonisation.
In this article I propose to remind both Muslims and Christians about a promise that Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) made to Christians. The knowledge of this promise can have enormous impact on Muslim conduct towards Christians.

Muslims generally respect the precedent of their Prophet and try to practise it in their lives.
In 628 AD, a delegation from St Catherine's Monastery came to Prophet Muhammed and requested his protection. He responded by granting them a charter of rights, which I reproduce below in its entirety. St Catherine's Monastery is located at the foot of Mt Sinai and is the world's oldest monastery. It possesses a huge collection of Christian manuscripts, second only to the Vatican, and is a world heritage site. It also boasts the oldest collection of Christian icons. It is a treasure house of Christian history that has remained safe for 1,400 years under Muslim protection.

The Promise to St Catherine:
"This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.

"Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by God! I hold out against anything that displeases them.

"No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.

"Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.

"No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.

"No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world)."

The first and the final sentence of the charter are critical. They make the promise eternal and universal. Muhammed asserts that Muslims are with Christians near and far, straight away rejecting any future attempts to limit the promise to St Catherine alone. By ordering Muslims to obey it until the Day of Judgment the charter again undermines any future attempts to revoke the privileges. These rights are inalienable. Muhammed declared Christians, all of them, as his allies and he equated ill treatment of Christians with violating God's covenant.

A remarkable aspect of the charter is that it imposes no conditions on Christians for enjoying its privileges. It is enough that they are Christians. They are not required to alter their beliefs, they do not have to make any payments and they do not have any obligations. This is a charter of rights without any duties!
The document is not a modern human rights treaty but even thought it was penned in 628 AD it clearly protects the right to property, freedom of religion, freedom of work, and security of the person.

I know most readers must be thinking so what? Well the answer is simple.

Those who seek to foster discord among Muslims and Christians focus on issues that divide and emphasise areas of conflict. But when resources such as Muhammad's promise to Christians are invoked and highlighted it builds bridges. It inspires Muslims to rise above communal intolerance and engenders goodwill in Christians who might be nursing fear of Islam or Muslims.

When I look at Islamic sources, I find in them unprecedented examples of religious tolerance and inclusiveness. They make me want to become a better person. I think the capacity to seek good and do good inheres in all of us.

When we subdue this predisposition towards the good, we deny our fundamental humanity. In this holiday season, I hope all of us can find time to look for something positive and worthy of appreciation in the values, cultures and histories of other peoples..

Dr Muqtedar Khan is director of Islamic Studies at the University of Delaware and a fellow of the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding.

Now, when that delegation from St Catherine's monastery came to meet with Prophet Mohamad (pbuh), I suppose it's fair to assume that they spoke Arabic to one another. And when they were conversing, surely the word "God" must have come up. As in "May God Be With You" and such like. What word did the Prophet (pbuh) use for "God" I wonder? And what did the St Catherinians use in return? For monotheists like them, was there a "your God" and "my God"
type of situation, or did they understand that they were both talking about the same One?

While some idiots are mourning over the "loss" of the word "Allah" and therefore basically telling the world that they are people easily confused by nomenclature, and others are predicting riots over what is basically a "copyright" issue, let me define what I think a confident Muslim should be:

1. A confident Muslim is unfazed by the issue of God's name. God speaks to all of humankind in the Quran and never said that only Muslims could call him by the name Allah.

2. A confident Muslim has 99 names to choose from to describe that One God.
My favourites are Ar-Rahman (The All-Compassionate) and Ar-Rahim (The All-Merciful).

3. A confident Muslim never gets confused over which is his/her religion and which is other people's. For instance, a confident Muslim knows exactly what the first chapter of the Quran is. And it's not the Lord's Prayer.

4. A confident Muslim will not walk into a church, hear a liturgy in Malay or Arabic where they use the word "Allah" and then think that he or she is in a mosque. A confident Muslim knows the difference.

5. A confident Muslim is generous, inclusive and doesn't think that his or her brethren is made exclusive through the use of a single language. The confident Muslim is well aware that in the Middle East, all services of ANY religion are in Arabic because that's what they all speak.

6. A confident Muslim knows the basis of his/her faith are the five pillars of Islam and will not be shaken just because other people call God by the same name.

7. A Muslim believes in only One God. Therefore it makes sense that other people should call God by the same name because there is no other God.

ART THOU NOT aware that it is God whose limitless glory all [creatures] that are in the heavens and on earth extol, even the birds as they spread out their wings? Each [of them] knows indeed how to pray unto Him and to glorify Him; and God has full knowledge of all that they do: (Surah Nour, Verse 41) (Asad).

So I would ask those people demonstrating against the court decision, have you no pride? Are you saying you're easily confused?

And before anyone says I have no qualifications to say these things, read what Dr Asri Zainal Abidin (who does have qualifications no matter what JAIS
says) has written about this very subject here.

And here's something interesting. In 2007, the Majlis Agama Negeri Perlis, which is a large majlis filled with people very learned in Islamic religious knowledge, discussed the question of the use of "Allah" by non-Muslims.

Their unanimous decision? They issued a fatwa to say that there is absolutely nothing wrong with non-Muslims using the word at all. (This was told to me by Asri but I cannot find the fatwa anywhere online because all the religious departments' websites are so useless.)

Are we now going to excommunicate the whole of Perlis?