KUALA LUMPUR, April 23 — The government moved today to soothe uneasiness over Islamic conversion of minors when it decided that children should be raised in the faith of their parents while they were married even if one spouse becomes a Muslim.
The Cabinet decided this yesterday amid simmering tension over a case of three Indian children converted to Islam by their father without the mother’s consent.
Minister in Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohd Nazri Aziz said Muslim converts still had to meet their marriage commitments in raising their children in their common religion at the time of their marriage.
“Religion should not be used as a tool to escape marital responsibilities. Conversion is not a ground for automatic dissolution of a marriage either,” he added.
K. Patmanathan, 40, now known as Mohd Ridzuan Abdullah, had converted to Islam without the knowledge of his wife, Indira Ghandi, who claimed her husband also converted their children — aged one, 11 and 12 years — without her consent.
Indira said she was now living in fear of losing her children as her husband was seeking custody through the Syariah Court.
There has been an increase in the number of cases in which Islamic conversions have been used as a tool to gain custody of children in divorces among non-Muslims couples.
The Cabinet decided yesterday that the Attorney-General will have to look at which laws need to be amended in line with the decision to stop conversions of minors without the consent of both parents.
Nazri said that Islamic enactments may also need amendments and the matter will be discussed with state Rulers.
“Civil marriages have to be resolved according to civil laws. The conversion takes effect on the day of conversion and is not retrospective.
“The convert would have to fulfil his or her marriage responsibilities according to civil laws prior to the conversion,” he said.
Hindu Sangam president A. Vaithilingam described the decision as "an excellent one" and believes this could be a new beginning for Muslim and non-Muslim relations.
"But of course the government must also look into a long-term solution to this matter but I believe this decision can make the much needed dialogue on the matter an amicable one," he told The Malaysian Insider.
..<<>>>...
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
PS from WMP - Govt should STOP the Nonsense and Unlawful Conversion
PRESS STATEMENT 18.04.2009
RE : GOVERNMENT SHOULD IMMEDIATELY STOP THE NONSENSE OF FORCED AND UNLAWFUL CONVERSION.LATEST RELIGIOUS FIASCO – 3 CHILDREN AGED 12 , 11 AND 1 FORCEFULLY CONVERTED TO ISLAM
HINDRAF expresses its shock and utter disgust at the conduct of JAIS in allowing a forceful and unlawful conversion of three children who were born and brought up as Hindus. The father of those children has every right to convert to whatever religion he chooses but he does not have any right to forcibly convert his children who are minors to the Islamic faith unilaterally without the consent of his estranged wife.
The Federal constitution was drafted for everyone in a civil society that consist of a multi racial society but today Syariah laws practiced by fanatical JAIS with assistance from the government and sanction from the Federal Court (which has abdicated its powers) is infringing the basic right of a Malaysian citizen as it seems to supersede the desire of the multi racial society and the true spirit of the constitution.
We are totally sickened with the conduct and manner in which JAIS officers seem to have been colluding with K.Pathmanathan (now Mohd Ridzuan Abdullah) in serving “a syariah court order” on the Hindu wife. Every time a religious controversy arises it is the relevant Islamic religious bodies which colludes and protects the converting party without any regards to the civil society. JAIS continues to strain the social fabric of a multi racial nation with their “CULTURE OF ARROGANCE IN CONVERSION”.
The provisions of the Federal Constitution with regards to religious freedom are crystal clear. It is time the converting party and the Islamic authorities follow the correct logical procedure ie obtaining the necessary court order in a civil court first before attempting to convert the children. What they are doing is definitely a “backdoor method through Syariah law” to conversion and an attempt to bully the mother of those children and non muslims into submission to a syariah court order.
Malaysia is a multi racial country with a Federal constitution and religious zealots cannot usurp its function. There should be respect for universal principles of human rights and religious freedom. HINDRAF urges all democratic minded citizens, NGO’s and lawmakers to condemn this appalling act by the father, Mohd Ridzuan Abdullah and the Islamic authorities in converting the children.
Hindu Sangam which claims to represent the Malaysian Hindu community should act proactively to mount the pressure rather than putting their “faith” and “pray” on promises of setting up committees and “we will look into it” answers given by UMNO government. Many committees have come and gone but there has never been a solution to this pertinent controversial issue relating to conversion as the government continues to defy the very concept of the Federal constitution.
The 2007, Federal court judgment, that the consent of one parent is sufficient to convert a child in the case of R.Subashini is gravely flawed as it always favours the party converting to the Islamic faith rather than upholding the spirit of the constitution. What if the other non Muslim parent then initiates a civil action and provides consent to reconvert the child to its original faith-would that be sufficient consent then and will the Federal court then sanction it or the Syariah court would then declare that the minor could face criminal prosecution for apostasy.
This is a deadlock that the government and the Federal Court need to address for the well being of the multi racial society rather than being intimidated by religious zealots. Hindraf maintains the Federal Court judgment in Subhashini’s case is gravely flawed and the Federal Court should not abdicate its duties and independence to protect every litigant equally and in fairness without fear or favour.
P.Waytha Moorthy
HINDRAF CHAIRMAN
Waytha moves to quell rift in Hindraf
Malaysiakini - K Kabilan Apr 19, 09 12:59pm
Barely 48 hours after suspending all Hindraf coordinators, the outlawed movement's exiled leader P Waythamoorthy has now been forced to defend his decision.His move to clarify the suspension came about following a deepening rift between London-based Waythamoorthy and the movement's grassroots leaders and supporters who were fighting for the cause here.It is also learnt that Waythamoorthy's clarification was as much as to assuage the bruised egos of the suspended coordinators, which included some opposition parliamentarians and well-known rights activists."A complete revamp and restructure is needed to face the new challenges (for Hindraf)," Waythamoorthy told Malaysiakini today in explaining his decision to suspend the coordinators.
He said that his original intention to suspend the coordinators has been "misinterpreted and misunderstood by certain segment of the public"."They read it as though we are replacing our coordinators. This is not the case as it is merely a restructuring exercise," he added.And he went on to further explain the need for such an exercise.
Changes needed to remain relevant
He said that the original 10-member committee was set up towards the end of 2007 to oversee the movement's campaign in fighting for the rights of the Indian community and to demand for the release of Hindraf leaders held under the Internal Security Act in December 2007.By then Waythamoorthy had also left the country to spearhead the movement from London.
However, he added, those appointed to the position of coordinators have now moved on to undertake other key responsibilities which were far more challenging with the increased needs of the society.He gave the examples of M Manoharan (Teluk Intan) and S Manikavasagam (Kapar) (right) who have since become parliamentarians for the opposition.
He said that another coordinator N Surendran had been forced to take up all legal matters involving Hindraf as all other Hindraf legal advisors were under the ISA detention.And as for the movement's national coordinator RS Thanenthiran, Waythamoorthy said the former has since indicated that he was serious about forming his own political party."As chairperson of Hindraf, I can state that the valuable and sound advice, support and contribution from the aforesaid politicians, members of parliament and legal advisor have been vital in spearheading our struggle."
The continuous support from them would only strengthen the movement's direction in fulfilling the demands of the Indian community," he added.However, he said that the expectations and aspirations of the Indian community were beyond the original demands and Hindraf needed to keep up with the needs and changes to be relevant."In these circumstances, a complete revamp and restructuring is needed to face the new challenges.
The new structure would be announced in the next few days," he said.
Grumble in the ground
On Friday, Waythamoorthy dropped a bombshell by announcing the suspension of the movement's 10 state and national coordinators with immediate effect. He replaced them with a three-person interim committee.Among those dropped from the line-up included the movement's top coordinator Thanenthiran (left) who had been helming the group locally while Waythamoorthy was in self-imposed exile.
Waythamoorthy also placed a gag order on the dropped coordinators.The coordinators, while publicly have stated that they accepted Waythamoorthy's decision, have privately expressed their disappointment with the move.It is learnt that some of them were caught unaware by their suspension, leaving them embarrassed in having to explain the situation to their supporters.
These coordinators have played a pivotal role in keeping the Hindraf movement alive and relevant, including successfully turning the Indian voters to support the opposition in the 2008 general election.However, there have been complaints recently that the movement and some of its coordinators have become politically ambitious.
<<>>..<<>>
Barely 48 hours after suspending all Hindraf coordinators, the outlawed movement's exiled leader P Waythamoorthy has now been forced to defend his decision.His move to clarify the suspension came about following a deepening rift between London-based Waythamoorthy and the movement's grassroots leaders and supporters who were fighting for the cause here.It is also learnt that Waythamoorthy's clarification was as much as to assuage the bruised egos of the suspended coordinators, which included some opposition parliamentarians and well-known rights activists."A complete revamp and restructure is needed to face the new challenges (for Hindraf)," Waythamoorthy told Malaysiakini today in explaining his decision to suspend the coordinators.
He said that his original intention to suspend the coordinators has been "misinterpreted and misunderstood by certain segment of the public"."They read it as though we are replacing our coordinators. This is not the case as it is merely a restructuring exercise," he added.And he went on to further explain the need for such an exercise.
Changes needed to remain relevant
He said that the original 10-member committee was set up towards the end of 2007 to oversee the movement's campaign in fighting for the rights of the Indian community and to demand for the release of Hindraf leaders held under the Internal Security Act in December 2007.By then Waythamoorthy had also left the country to spearhead the movement from London.
However, he added, those appointed to the position of coordinators have now moved on to undertake other key responsibilities which were far more challenging with the increased needs of the society.He gave the examples of M Manoharan (Teluk Intan) and S Manikavasagam (Kapar) (right) who have since become parliamentarians for the opposition.
He said that another coordinator N Surendran had been forced to take up all legal matters involving Hindraf as all other Hindraf legal advisors were under the ISA detention.And as for the movement's national coordinator RS Thanenthiran, Waythamoorthy said the former has since indicated that he was serious about forming his own political party."As chairperson of Hindraf, I can state that the valuable and sound advice, support and contribution from the aforesaid politicians, members of parliament and legal advisor have been vital in spearheading our struggle."
The continuous support from them would only strengthen the movement's direction in fulfilling the demands of the Indian community," he added.However, he said that the expectations and aspirations of the Indian community were beyond the original demands and Hindraf needed to keep up with the needs and changes to be relevant."In these circumstances, a complete revamp and restructuring is needed to face the new challenges.
The new structure would be announced in the next few days," he said.
Grumble in the ground
On Friday, Waythamoorthy dropped a bombshell by announcing the suspension of the movement's 10 state and national coordinators with immediate effect. He replaced them with a three-person interim committee.Among those dropped from the line-up included the movement's top coordinator Thanenthiran (left) who had been helming the group locally while Waythamoorthy was in self-imposed exile.
Waythamoorthy also placed a gag order on the dropped coordinators.The coordinators, while publicly have stated that they accepted Waythamoorthy's decision, have privately expressed their disappointment with the move.It is learnt that some of them were caught unaware by their suspension, leaving them embarrassed in having to explain the situation to their supporters.
These coordinators have played a pivotal role in keeping the Hindraf movement alive and relevant, including successfully turning the Indian voters to support the opposition in the 2008 general election.However, there have been complaints recently that the movement and some of its coordinators have become politically ambitious.
<<>>..<<>>
PS from WMP - Hindraf rescructuring need
PRESS STATEMENT 190409
On the 17th April I had released a statement on the urgent need to restructure HINDRAF and the setting up of a New Committee and Working Groups. This statement has been misinterpreted and misunderstood by certain segment of the public which read it as though we are replacing our coordinators. This is not the case as it merely a restructuring exercise.
The original 10 member committee was set up to oversee the campaign and demands for the release of HINDRAF leaders and since then those appointed to the position of coordinators have moved on to undertake other key responsibilities which is far more challenging with the increased need of the society.
Manoharan and Manickavasagam have since been elected members of Parliament, which requires them to positively contribute to the country and their constituents. Surendran solely has been mounted with the uphill task of handling the burden of all legal matters which was previously handled by 3 of the HINDRAF Lawyers (Uthaya, Manoharan and Genga).
Tanendran has since indicated that he is serious about forming his own political party. With the recent change of the country’s leadership earlier this month, I am of the opinion HINDRAF have to “cave in” for a longer period to struggle for the society to pressure the Government to meet our demands as well as working together in co-operation with all opposition parties to prepare for the next General Election.
As chairman of HINDRAF, I can state that the valuable and sound advice, support and contribution from the aforesaid Politicians, Members of Parliament and Legal advisor has been vital in spearheading HINDRAF in its struggle.
The continuous support from them would only strengthen the movement’s direction in fulfilling the demands of the Indian community The expectations and aspirations of the Indian community are beyond the original demands and HINDRAF needs to keep up with the needs and changes to be relevant and “a player” in the field of Human Rights in Malaysia. In these circumstances a complete revamp and restructure is needed to face the new challenges. The new structure would be announced within the next few days.
P.Waytha Moorthy
CHAIRMAN HINDRAF
On the 17th April I had released a statement on the urgent need to restructure HINDRAF and the setting up of a New Committee and Working Groups. This statement has been misinterpreted and misunderstood by certain segment of the public which read it as though we are replacing our coordinators. This is not the case as it merely a restructuring exercise.
The original 10 member committee was set up to oversee the campaign and demands for the release of HINDRAF leaders and since then those appointed to the position of coordinators have moved on to undertake other key responsibilities which is far more challenging with the increased need of the society.
Manoharan and Manickavasagam have since been elected members of Parliament, which requires them to positively contribute to the country and their constituents. Surendran solely has been mounted with the uphill task of handling the burden of all legal matters which was previously handled by 3 of the HINDRAF Lawyers (Uthaya, Manoharan and Genga).
Tanendran has since indicated that he is serious about forming his own political party. With the recent change of the country’s leadership earlier this month, I am of the opinion HINDRAF have to “cave in” for a longer period to struggle for the society to pressure the Government to meet our demands as well as working together in co-operation with all opposition parties to prepare for the next General Election.
As chairman of HINDRAF, I can state that the valuable and sound advice, support and contribution from the aforesaid Politicians, Members of Parliament and Legal advisor has been vital in spearheading HINDRAF in its struggle.
The continuous support from them would only strengthen the movement’s direction in fulfilling the demands of the Indian community The expectations and aspirations of the Indian community are beyond the original demands and HINDRAF needs to keep up with the needs and changes to be relevant and “a player” in the field of Human Rights in Malaysia. In these circumstances a complete revamp and restructure is needed to face the new challenges. The new structure would be announced within the next few days.
P.Waytha Moorthy
CHAIRMAN HINDRAF
Friday, April 17, 2009
Plan to re-brand outlawed Hindraf
Malaysiakini- Athi Veeranggan Apr 17, 09 4:08pm
The move by the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) chairperson P Waythamoorthy to dismantle its 10-member coordination committee is a strategy to re-brand the movement as both a human rights activist group and a political party.Refuting claims that trouble was brewing within the Hindraf ranks, the movement's outgoing national coordinator RS Thanenthiran said the new plan was to strengthen Hindraf position in the political mainstream.He said he and London-based Waythamoorthy had deliberated and discussed lengthily over the plan when both met in Tamil Nadu, India in January this year."The new plan is being carried out by our leader Waythamoorthy in full knowledge of all local leaders."We were not dropped from Hindraf leadership, nor the movement is breaking up," he said, while rubbishing claims of fallout between local coordinators and Waythamoorthy.He said Hindraf had originally intended to activate its new plan early this year but shelved it due to unfolding political events, such as the recent by-elections in Bukit Selambau, Bukit Gantang and Batang Ai and the transition of power in Putrajaya political corridor."It's common to hear speculations that trouble was brewing in Hindraf for some people always wanted to destroy the movement, which had emerged as an Achilles' heel to the ruling Barisan Nasional," Thanenthiran told Malaysiakini.Since the government crackdown on Hindraf in December 2007, following a mammoth rally in Kuala Lumpur on Nov 25 the same year, Waythamoorthy has been operating Hindraf in exile from United Kingdom with help of local leaders such Thanenthiran.
‘We need a lawful avenue'
Hindraf was instrumental in inspiring the political thunderbolt that change the country's political landscape in last year's general election, in which the opposition Pakatan Rakyat achieved unprecedented electoral gains.However, Hindraf activists felt their wings have been clipped when the Home Ministry banned the unregistered human rights movement in October last year."The ban has become a hindrance to our struggle for peace, justice,
freedom and equality."We need a lawful avenue now to continue our struggle for the betterment of the Indian community and other underprivileged people in the country."We also need a political platform to strengthen our bargaining power with other political parties."Thus, we want to rebrand Hindraf the movement with perhaps another inspirational name and form an Indian-based multi-racial political party interlinked with each other," said Thanenthiran.He explained the movement top leaders were keen to change its name to stop several quarters from misusing and abusing the term ‘Hindraf' and its other common name, ‘Makkal Sakti' (people's power)."It has become a fashion now for many irresponsible characters to claiming as leaders of Hindraf or Makkal Sakti."We want to resolve this once for all to ensure that Hindraf stand as one for all," said the Butterworth-based Thanenthiran.
freedom and equality."We need a lawful avenue now to continue our struggle for the betterment of the Indian community and other underprivileged people in the country."We also need a political platform to strengthen our bargaining power with other political parties."Thus, we want to rebrand Hindraf the movement with perhaps another inspirational name and form an Indian-based multi-racial political party interlinked with each other," said Thanenthiran.He explained the movement top leaders were keen to change its name to stop several quarters from misusing and abusing the term ‘Hindraf' and its other common name, ‘Makkal Sakti' (people's power)."It has become a fashion now for many irresponsible characters to claiming as leaders of Hindraf or Makkal Sakti."We want to resolve this once for all to ensure that Hindraf stand as one for all," said the Butterworth-based Thanenthiran.
The Indian experience
Hindraf's political party and human rights movement linkage will be in the similar mould like India's Barathiya Janata Party (BJP), Rashtriya Sivam Sewak (RSS) and Viswa Hindu Parishad (VHP).Most BJP political leaders are derived from the ranks of RSS and VHP leaders.With RSS and VHP as pressure groups, BJP has emerged as a disciplined, strong, dynamic and progressive political force in India.Indeed, BJP is the favourite to re-capture the federal government in on-going Indian general election.
Thanenthiran said Hindraf had hatched the new plan after listening various views and opinions from politicians, social reformists and human rights activists at home and abroad.Claiming that Hindraf has some 100,000 staunch activists, he said Hindraf would hold a series of meetings with the movement grassroots leaders and supporters to explain the new plan."I would like to appeal to all Hindraf leaders and supporters to remain calm and patient, and not listen to rumours and speculations."They should only listen and act on Waythamoorthy official statements on the issue," said Thanenthiran.
Thanenthiran said Hindraf had hatched the new plan after listening various views and opinions from politicians, social reformists and human rights activists at home and abroad.Claiming that Hindraf has some 100,000 staunch activists, he said Hindraf would hold a series of meetings with the movement grassroots leaders and supporters to explain the new plan."I would like to appeal to all Hindraf leaders and supporters to remain calm and patient, and not listen to rumours and speculations."They should only listen and act on Waythamoorthy official statements on the issue," said Thanenthiran. Earlier today, Waythamoorthy suspended the movement's 10 state and national coordinators with immediate effect and replaced them with a three-man interim committee.Among those dropped from the line-up included Thanenthiran who had been helming the group locally while Waythamoorthy was leading from London. Waythamoorthy has also put a gag order on the dropped coordinators.
Anguished mom knocks on PM's door for answers
S Pathmawathy Apr 17, 09 2:09pm
Her three young children were forcefully converted to Islam by her estranged husband. And M Indira Ghandi is taking her plight straight to the doorstep of Sri Perdana.
Calling on newly minted Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to explain the matter, the 35-year-old kindergarten teacher said: "He talks about an united Malaysia. But what does this mean when only the Muslims have rights." "I am not anti-Islam and I am not saying that they (Muslims) are doing wrong things but why do non-Muslims have to suffer like this?" she asked as tears welled up in her eyes.Indira's marriage is now is a limbo as her husband K Patmanathan, 40, had converted without her knowledge on March 11.
She claimed that her husband, who has since assumed the name Mohd Ridzuan Abdullah, had also converted their children, aged one to 12, on April 12 without their presence and using only their birth certificates."He took my baby (their youngest child) from me and ran away... I have not seen her ever since and I don't know how she's doing," lamented Indira.
As for her marriage, the teacher, who also claimed to have been physically abused, said the couple were married for 16 years and had been facing problems for a long time. "It started so many years back that I can no longer keep track of when it started." "Recently he asked for a divorce and I thought to myself that since that was what he wanted I consented but he did not want to start the process and demanded that I do so. "So I went to a marriage tribunal and filed for counselling in Ipoh but he never attended any of the counselling sessions," she said.Indira claimed that after one particular explosive argument, which also involved her mother and sisters, her husband had fled with their youngest daughter Prasana Diksa."When we went to the police station and lodged a report, no immediate action was taken by the police although my baby was still very young and needed to be breast-fed," she said.
Since that incident, Indira has filed six police reports, with one alleging that she feared for her life because her husband had threatened her.Indira said the police managed to locate her husband later but only to discover that he had converted the children.'I don't know what to do'The couple's two other children Tevi Darsiny, 12 and Karan Dinesh, 11 are currently living with Indira, who has taken refuge with a relative fearing that Islamic officials would take the kids away."I was neither told nor asked about it (the conversion)... I don't know what to do," she lamented.According to Indira, her husband had called her last Wednesday and promised to return her youngest child."He asked me to come to the Islamic Department (Jais) in Ipoh and take my baby because he could not care for her but he didn't show up. "Instead there was a man waiting there to serve me papers from the Syariah Court granting custody of my other children to him," she said.However, she refused to accept the papers as she believed that Syariah laws had no jurisdiction over her.
As for her husband's conversion, Indira said he had spoken about his interest in Islam but she claimed this was related to monetary gains."I have no idea what his intentions are... but he mentioned once before that we will get RM5,000 each if we 'nikah' (marry according to Islamic rights) and money would also be given on a monthly basis to each of our children for education purposes."Over the past couple of days he keeps calling me and asks me to convert to Islam. He tells me that I should convert first and then we, as in the whole family, can opt out later back into Hinduism," she said, adding that she wanted to remain a Hindu.'I love my wife very much'Contacted later, her husband dismissed Indira's allegations as absurd, saying he converted because he was passionate about Islam which he had discovered during his business trips.
Denying that he had physically abused her, Mohd Ridzuan said: "I don't want to say anything but I love my wife very much... right now I only want her back."Asked why he had converted the children without informing his wife, he replied: "You see all the children must follow the father's religion no matter whether he is a Hindu, Christian or Muslim.""This is not a political issues, this is my family matter and I don't want to shame my wife," said the businessman who has filed for custody of the children with the Syariah Court.
Meanwhile, Indira has sought the help of several legal adviders, non-Muslim organisations and the public."This is not only my case, many people are suffering because of this. We are filing for the custody of my children because they don't want to go to their father, and they (the other party) are totally rejecting this."But the question is even if I can get back my children, will they be Hindu again? Why does it only take a day to convert my children but it is so difficult to return to their old religion?" she asked."Don't I have say in it, when I was the one who carried them for nine months... aren't they my children too?
So what is my right and my children's rights?"The government say this is a country where it is free to practice your own religion but what is the right of a non-Muslim in this situation?" she added.
//<<>>\\
Her three young children were forcefully converted to Islam by her estranged husband. And M Indira Ghandi is taking her plight straight to the doorstep of Sri Perdana.
Calling on newly minted Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to explain the matter, the 35-year-old kindergarten teacher said: "He talks about an united Malaysia. But what does this mean when only the Muslims have rights." "I am not anti-Islam and I am not saying that they (Muslims) are doing wrong things but why do non-Muslims have to suffer like this?" she asked as tears welled up in her eyes.Indira's marriage is now is a limbo as her husband K Patmanathan, 40, had converted without her knowledge on March 11.
She claimed that her husband, who has since assumed the name Mohd Ridzuan Abdullah, had also converted their children, aged one to 12, on April 12 without their presence and using only their birth certificates."He took my baby (their youngest child) from me and ran away... I have not seen her ever since and I don't know how she's doing," lamented Indira.
As for her marriage, the teacher, who also claimed to have been physically abused, said the couple were married for 16 years and had been facing problems for a long time. "It started so many years back that I can no longer keep track of when it started." "Recently he asked for a divorce and I thought to myself that since that was what he wanted I consented but he did not want to start the process and demanded that I do so. "So I went to a marriage tribunal and filed for counselling in Ipoh but he never attended any of the counselling sessions," she said.Indira claimed that after one particular explosive argument, which also involved her mother and sisters, her husband had fled with their youngest daughter Prasana Diksa."When we went to the police station and lodged a report, no immediate action was taken by the police although my baby was still very young and needed to be breast-fed," she said.
Since that incident, Indira has filed six police reports, with one alleging that she feared for her life because her husband had threatened her.Indira said the police managed to locate her husband later but only to discover that he had converted the children.'I don't know what to do'The couple's two other children Tevi Darsiny, 12 and Karan Dinesh, 11 are currently living with Indira, who has taken refuge with a relative fearing that Islamic officials would take the kids away."I was neither told nor asked about it (the conversion)... I don't know what to do," she lamented.According to Indira, her husband had called her last Wednesday and promised to return her youngest child."He asked me to come to the Islamic Department (Jais) in Ipoh and take my baby because he could not care for her but he didn't show up. "Instead there was a man waiting there to serve me papers from the Syariah Court granting custody of my other children to him," she said.However, she refused to accept the papers as she believed that Syariah laws had no jurisdiction over her.
As for her husband's conversion, Indira said he had spoken about his interest in Islam but she claimed this was related to monetary gains."I have no idea what his intentions are... but he mentioned once before that we will get RM5,000 each if we 'nikah' (marry according to Islamic rights) and money would also be given on a monthly basis to each of our children for education purposes."Over the past couple of days he keeps calling me and asks me to convert to Islam. He tells me that I should convert first and then we, as in the whole family, can opt out later back into Hinduism," she said, adding that she wanted to remain a Hindu.'I love my wife very much'Contacted later, her husband dismissed Indira's allegations as absurd, saying he converted because he was passionate about Islam which he had discovered during his business trips.
Denying that he had physically abused her, Mohd Ridzuan said: "I don't want to say anything but I love my wife very much... right now I only want her back."Asked why he had converted the children without informing his wife, he replied: "You see all the children must follow the father's religion no matter whether he is a Hindu, Christian or Muslim.""This is not a political issues, this is my family matter and I don't want to shame my wife," said the businessman who has filed for custody of the children with the Syariah Court.
Meanwhile, Indira has sought the help of several legal adviders, non-Muslim organisations and the public."This is not only my case, many people are suffering because of this. We are filing for the custody of my children because they don't want to go to their father, and they (the other party) are totally rejecting this."But the question is even if I can get back my children, will they be Hindu again? Why does it only take a day to convert my children but it is so difficult to return to their old religion?" she asked."Don't I have say in it, when I was the one who carried them for nine months... aren't they my children too?
So what is my right and my children's rights?"The government say this is a country where it is free to practice your own religion but what is the right of a non-Muslim in this situation?" she added.
//<<>>\\
Waytha suspends Hindraf's coordinators
K Kabilan Apr 17, 09 11:06am
Hindraf's London-based leader P Waythamoorthy has suspended the movement's 10-member coordinators with immediate effect and replaced them with a three-man interim committee.
Among those dropped from the line-up included the movement's national coordinator RS Thanendran who was helming the show for Hindraf locally while Waythamoorthy was leading from London.Waythamoorthy has also put a gag order on these dropped coordinators."All Hindraf coordinators are to refrain from issuing statements in the name of Hindraf though they are free to express their personal opinions on any matters they choose," he said.
He also said that the reason for the change was to allow the movement to move forward with its original cause and aims.The 10-member coordinators were appointed at the end of 2007 after Waythamoorthy had left the country to seek international lobby in the face of government arrests.
The movement's public face P Uthayakumar was detained under the Internal Security Act along with four other Hindraf leaders on December of 2007.Since then Thanendran (photo) and the other nine coordinators have been keeping the Hindraf movement alive and relevant, including successfully turning the Indian voters to support the opposition in the 2008 general election.
However there have been complaints recently that the movement and some of its coordinators have become politically ambitious.The final fallout was apparently the showdown the movement had with PKR's leader Anwar Ibrahim after he decided to pick someone from outside of Hindraf to contest for the Bukit Selambau state by-election early this month.Hindraf supporters had originally proposed that Thanendran was given that seat.
Thanendran accepts decision
The matter came to a close only after a phone call from Anwar to Waythamoorthy, who then instructed his coordinators to stand down and throw their support behind PKR, which eventually won the by-election.At the same time, there were other coordinators who had started acting on their own and without any coordination with the Hindraf leadership.
Waythamoorthy told Malaysiakini today that he had to make the startling changes in order to keep Hindraf in the mainstay of fighting for the community's rights."Hindraf's struggle has entered a new phase where the situation in the country has qualitatively changed since our mass protest on Nov 25, 2007," he said.He said that the needs, expectations, desire and the aspiration of the Indian community from Hindraf has developed beyond the initial demands and seeking the release of its leaders currently held under the ISA."In light of these developments and the need to restructure the working groups, Hindraf with immediate effect suspends its 10-member coordinators team including its national coordinator, event coordinator and publicity coordinators and all state and district coordinators," he added in a statement.
He also said that a new committee of volunteers and working groups would be set up nationwide to meet the need of the Indian community.He said this would be done after consultations with the grassroots supporters of Hindraf/Makkal Sakthi.
When contacted Thanendran said he accepted Waythamoorthy' decision and that he will continue to fight for Hindraf's struggles."I will continue to back the movement. This is a good strategy to ensure that Hindraf remains apolitical in its struggles," he added.
....
Hindraf's London-based leader P Waythamoorthy has suspended the movement's 10-member coordinators with immediate effect and replaced them with a three-man interim committee.
Among those dropped from the line-up included the movement's national coordinator RS Thanendran who was helming the show for Hindraf locally while Waythamoorthy was leading from London.Waythamoorthy has also put a gag order on these dropped coordinators."All Hindraf coordinators are to refrain from issuing statements in the name of Hindraf though they are free to express their personal opinions on any matters they choose," he said.
He also said that the reason for the change was to allow the movement to move forward with its original cause and aims.The 10-member coordinators were appointed at the end of 2007 after Waythamoorthy had left the country to seek international lobby in the face of government arrests.
The movement's public face P Uthayakumar was detained under the Internal Security Act along with four other Hindraf leaders on December of 2007.Since then Thanendran (photo) and the other nine coordinators have been keeping the Hindraf movement alive and relevant, including successfully turning the Indian voters to support the opposition in the 2008 general election.
However there have been complaints recently that the movement and some of its coordinators have become politically ambitious.The final fallout was apparently the showdown the movement had with PKR's leader Anwar Ibrahim after he decided to pick someone from outside of Hindraf to contest for the Bukit Selambau state by-election early this month.Hindraf supporters had originally proposed that Thanendran was given that seat.
Thanendran accepts decision
The matter came to a close only after a phone call from Anwar to Waythamoorthy, who then instructed his coordinators to stand down and throw their support behind PKR, which eventually won the by-election.At the same time, there were other coordinators who had started acting on their own and without any coordination with the Hindraf leadership.
Waythamoorthy told Malaysiakini today that he had to make the startling changes in order to keep Hindraf in the mainstay of fighting for the community's rights."Hindraf's struggle has entered a new phase where the situation in the country has qualitatively changed since our mass protest on Nov 25, 2007," he said.He said that the needs, expectations, desire and the aspiration of the Indian community from Hindraf has developed beyond the initial demands and seeking the release of its leaders currently held under the ISA."In light of these developments and the need to restructure the working groups, Hindraf with immediate effect suspends its 10-member coordinators team including its national coordinator, event coordinator and publicity coordinators and all state and district coordinators," he added in a statement.
He also said that a new committee of volunteers and working groups would be set up nationwide to meet the need of the Indian community.He said this would be done after consultations with the grassroots supporters of Hindraf/Makkal Sakthi.
When contacted Thanendran said he accepted Waythamoorthy' decision and that he will continue to fight for Hindraf's struggles."I will continue to back the movement. This is a good strategy to ensure that Hindraf remains apolitical in its struggles," he added.
..
Hindraf leaders' bid for freedom rejected
Hafiz Yatim Apr 16, 09 7:22pm
Hindraf legal advisor P Uthayakumar today failed in his two separate bids to seek a release from the ISA detention in Kamuning detention centre.
In the morning, the Federal Court struck out an appeal by Uthayakumar and two other Hindraf leaders to be released from detention.And later in the day, the Kuala Lumpur High Court similarly rejected his habeas corpus application to be released from the detention-without-trial.Uthayakumar and four others - M Manoharan, K Vasantha Kumar, R Kengadharan and V Ganabatirau - were all detained on Dec 13, 2007 for their role in Hindraf in mobilising the Indian community to protest against the government over their plight.Kengadharan and Ganabatirau were however released along with 13 other ISA detainees on April 5 as part of Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak first gesture after becoming the premier.
The matter in the Federal Court was an appeal against an earlier High Court decision in rejecting the application of all five to be released.At the start of the hearing this morning, the lawyer for the Hindraf detainees Karpal Singh applied for the freed duo to be removed from the appeal, which the apex court allowed.After that judges Nik Hashim Nik Ab Rahman, S Augustine Paul and Hashim Yusoff heard the appeal and dismissed it unanimously.The judges said they would be delivering their grounds of judgment at a later date, much to the disappointment of Karpal.
This appeal at the Federal Court was against a decision by the Ipoh High Court on May 30 last year to reject their leave for freedom.Their application was based in their challenge against the validity of the king's order confirming the recommendation of the ISA advisory board for extension of their detention on and after March 26 last year.
Karpal told reporters outside the court that he would file for a review of today's decision."I did not come here just to hear the appeal being dismissed and that grounds would be given later," he said."I have to apologise to the family members and Hindraf supporters who are here today to listen to the grounds but none given," he added.He said the court should have delivered the grounds of judgment today as it had ample time to prepare the judgment as the last proceedings were on March 11.
Health grounds unaccepted
Later in the afternoon, Uthayakumar's sole application to be released on the grounds of his health was similarly rejected.His application was on the grounds that he needed medical treatment for his fractured toe which he had suffered since January.Judicial Commissioner Azman Abdullah made the decision in allowing the preliminary objection made by deputy public prosecutor Najib ZakariaNajib's objection was based on the principles of res judicata (a matter already decided) as one of Uthayakumar's earlier habeas corpus applications was also rejected based on the lawyer's medical condition of being a diabetic.
Azman also accepted the second ground of preliminary objection that a person could not apply for a release from detention based on medical grounds."I allow the preliminary objection and hence dismiss the application," he said.Uthayakumar was represented by counsel N Surendran.
The 47-year-old Uthayakumar had filed his habeas corpus application due to the fractured toe which he has been suffering since January, made worse by his diabetes.Surendran said he would seek further instructions but is likely to file an appeal over the decision.All three detainees were not present in court today.
<<>>..<<>>
Friday, April 10, 2009
Hindraf offers Najib 100-day ceasefire
Malaysiakini - Apr 10, 09 1:33pm
Banned movement Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) will refrain from organising protests or submitting memorandums for 100 days to give new Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak (photo
left) a chance to reform.And in that 100 days, Hindraf chief P Waythamoorthy said he hoped Najib would release the three leaders of the movement who had been detained under the Internal Security Act since Dec 13, 2007.Najib, as his first measure after coming into power, released 16 ISA 
detainees, including two Hindraf legal advisors V Ganabatirau and R Kenghadharan.
Banned movement Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) will refrain from organising protests or submitting memorandums for 100 days to give new Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak (photo
left) a chance to reform.And in that 100 days, Hindraf chief P Waythamoorthy said he hoped Najib would release the three leaders of the movement who had been detained under the Internal Security Act since Dec 13, 2007.Najib, as his first measure after coming into power, released 16 ISA 
detainees, including two Hindraf legal advisors V Ganabatirau and R Kenghadharan.Three other Hindraf leaders are still being held.
They are Waythamoorthy's elder brother and the public face of Hindraf Uthayakumar (photo below), Kota Alam Shah state representative M Manoharan and T Vasathakumar."The previous administration had acted unilaterally, with arrogance in a form of fascism against Hindraf although our cause was a genuine grievance that is faced by the Malaysian Indians," said Waythamoorthy in a statement from his current base in London.
He left Malaysia in November 2007 to gain international support for the movement. The Home Ministry had banned Hindraf last October for advocating extremism.
Waythamoorthy (photo) said that Hindraf hoped that Najib's administration will move away from the methods of the old government and will reach out and engage."We hope Najib and his ministers will engage with us to address and solve the perpetual systematic marginalization and discrimination of the Malaysian Indians in the Malaysian society."As a gesture of goodwill and in anticipation of positive and actual reformation in addressing the plight of the Malaysian Indians, Hindraf shall for the first 100 days of the current administration restrain from activities such as street protests, or memorandums," he said.
Waythamoorthy (photo) said that Hindraf hoped that Najib's administration will move away from the methods of the old government and will reach out and engage."We hope Najib and his ministers will engage with us to address and solve the perpetual systematic marginalization and discrimination of the Malaysian Indians in the Malaysian society."As a gesture of goodwill and in anticipation of positive and actual reformation in addressing the plight of the Malaysian Indians, Hindraf shall for the first 100 days of the current administration restrain from activities such as street protests, or memorandums," he said.Be a government for all
He also wished that the new administration will govern every segment of its people fairly and justly for a better Malaysia.Hindraf gained international prominence in 2007 for organising a series of protests against the government over the plight of the Indian community.In November that year, the movement organised a mass 30,000 rally in the heart of the capital to highlight its issues.The government then arrested five of its leaders under the ISA in December 2007.
With Waythamoorthy operating from London, the movement continued to hold demonstrations and protests to highlight their grievances.It is also well-known for submitting memorandums to various parties on numerous issues affecting the Indian community.
..{{}}..
Letter from P.Waytha to Najib on 100 days performane benchmark
HINDRAF – NAJIB’S 100 days performance benchmark
HINDRAF welcomes Dato Seri Najib Razak and new incoming team of cabinet ministers for the remaining term of the current administration.
The previous administration had acted unilateral, with arrogance in a form of fascism against HINDRAF although, our cause was a genuine grievance that is faced by the Malaysian Indians.
HINDRAF sincerely hopes in contrast that the new administration will reach out and engage with us to address and solve the perpetual systematic marginalization and discrimination of the Malaysian Indians in the Malaysian society.
As a gesture of goodwill and in anticipation of positive and actual reformation in addressing the plight of the Malaysian Indians, HINDRAF shall for the first 100 days of the current administration restrain from activities such as street protest, or memorandums.
HINDRAF wishes that the new administration will govern every segment of its people fairly and justly for a better Malaysia.
Thank you.
P.Waythamoorthy
Chairman Hindraf
London
...<<>>....
Letter to New PM from Sec-Gen of Reporters without Border
Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Jean-François Julliard wrote today to Najib Razak, who was sworn in as Malaysia’s new prime minister on 3 April, congratulating him on his appointment and urging him to improve the guarantees of “free speech and free debate in Malaysia” by amending the laws that allow bloggers and other citizens to be held without trial.
REPORTERS WITHOUT BORDERS
International Office
Internet Freedom desk
47 rue Vivienne - 75002
Paris
(France)Tel: 331-4483-8471 / Fax: 331-4523-1151
internet@rsf. org
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
The Honourable Dato' Sri Mohd Najib bin Haji Tun Abdul Razak
Office of the Prime Minister of Malaysia
Blok Utama, Bangunan Perdana Putra
Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan
62502 Putrajaya
MALAYSIA
No.Fax: 03‐88884333,
9 April 2009
Dear Prime Minister,
Reporters Without Borders, an international press freedom organisation, would like to congratulate you on your appointment as Malaysia’s Prime Minister.We hail your first decisions as head of government, which have been to release 13 people held under the Internal Security Act (ISA) and to lift a temporary ban on two opposition party newspapers.
These measures are an important step towards respect for free expression and civil rights in your country.However, we would like to share with you our concerns about the situation of press freedom and free expression in Malaysia.
We are worried about the danger that the ISA represents as a political tool for pressuring opposition activists and supporters. We would like to draw your attention in particular to the situation of bloggers and to the threats and harassment to which they are subjected.
Lawyer and Hindu minority rights defender P. Uthayakumar was arrested on 13 December 2007 under article 8 of the ISA for posting a letter to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown online. The conditions in which he is being held have led to a deterioration in his general state of health and his release is now a question of survival. Prime Minister Brown has told us he is determined to follow Mr. Uthayakumar’s situation closely.
We therefore hope you will decide to free him.One of Malaysia’s most famous bloggers, Malaysia Today website editor Raja Petra Kamarudin, is the target of prosecutions on various charges including sedition and criminal defamation. His freedom is also threatened by the government’s appeal against his release by a Shah Alam court on 7 November.
Also known as RPK, he has already spent 56 days in prison under the ISA. This judicial harassment violates his fundamental rights to individual freedom under article 5 (1) of the constitution, freedom of expression under article 10 (1) (a) and freedom of religion under article 11. We urge you to respect the constitution and to ensure respect for the rights and freedoms he enjoys as a Malaysian citizen.
There is an urgent need to withdraw the charges against him.We welcome your determination to press ahead with lifting the restrictions on free speech and free debate in Malaysia and ending the harassment of civil society actors, including journalists, bloggers and online activists. These actors are nowadays a significant source of information for Malaysian citizens.
This arena of debate must continue to grow as provided for by article 10 of the constitution, which guarantees free expression.The ISA’s repeal is an essential step in Malaysia’s democratisation. Your country has exceptional human and natural resources and its current economic development is an unquestionable success. However, the repeated violations of human rights and free expression are extremely damaging for Malaysia’s image abroad.
We are aware of the complexities of managing a multicultural society but the ISA is definitely no guarantee of stability, less still for maintaining social harmony.Repeal of the ISA, the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 and the Sedition Act would be a major political decision that would make you, Prime Minister, the pioneer of real democratisation in Malaysia.
We hope you will give this request your careful consideration.
Respectfully,
Jean-François Julliard
Secretary-General
Reporters Without Borders
..(())...
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Placating Kugan's ghost and Marginalization of Malaysian Indians
Malaysiakini - Helen Ang Apr 9, 09 2:25pm
In Bukit Selambau, MIC fielded a Datuk who is party Kedah deputy chairperson and an old hand in politics. The PKR victor is a greenhorn almost 15 years younger than his rival. Yet voters placed more confidence in S Manikumar to do the job.
At a press conference on the Kugan autopsies, Dr Mohd Ismail Merican – a Tan Sri who is Health Ministry director-general – tilted to favour ‘years’. He pointed out that Serdang Hospital’s Dr Abdul Karim Tajuddin who conducted the first autopsy had 26 years of working experience as a pathologist.He also revealed Dr Prashant N Samberkar, who carried out the second autopsy, had 11 years work experience mainly in India and Fiji before serving in Malaysia in 2008. The Health DG did not allow that the younger doctor might possibly have done a more honest post-mortem. 
It was Monday that he briefed reporters about the inquiry panel finding on discrepancies between the autopsies. On the same day, police seized forensic specimens, photographs, documents and other materials relating to Kugan Ananthan from Dr Prashant’s office at the University Malaya Medical Centre. Since Kugan had perished under police custody, it seems a conflict of interest for police to be raiding Dr Prashant.
The Health DG summarised, “All body injuries noted on the deceased were insufficient, either individually or collectively to cause death 
directly”.Dr Ismail also added, “There was no evidence that the deceased had been`branded’ or been given repeated application of heat with an instrument or object”. The inquiry instead offered that injuries on Kugan’s back resulted from repeated trauma by a blunt but flexible object, like folded rubber hose.
directly”.Dr Ismail also added, “There was no evidence that the deceased had been`branded’ or been given repeated application of heat with an instrument or object”. The inquiry instead offered that injuries on Kugan’s back resulted from repeated trauma by a blunt but flexible object, like folded rubber hose.The authorities fail to explain (in words I can understand) just how Kugan died. Bernama, our national news 
agency, is no better either with its report headlined ‘Kugan died of Acute Pulmonary Oedema: Inquiry’. As a lay person, I can only surmise that for some unfathomable reason, the youth threw himself backwards against, perhaps, a coiled rubber hose. Wounds and bruises on the body hint that Kugan might have managed this feat remarkably with his limbs bound. He smashed his own back repeatedly over five days in lock-up until his 22-year-old heart gave way. 
agency, is no better either with its report headlined ‘Kugan died of Acute Pulmonary Oedema: Inquiry’. As a lay person, I can only surmise that for some unfathomable reason, the youth threw himself backwards against, perhaps, a coiled rubber hose. Wounds and bruises on the body hint that Kugan might have managed this feat remarkably with his limbs bound. He smashed his own back repeatedly over five days in lock-up until his 22-year-old heart gave way. 
Friendly cops, and robbers
Kugan is not alive to defend his good name but the mainstream media keep calling him an “alleged car thief”. I prefer to think of him as my fellow Malaysian. Malaysians of Kugan’s skin colour are more inclined to die young, usually after an encounter with police. Following Kugan’s case in January was 20-year-old R Dilip Kumar in February.
Dilip was shot dead by police along with five other Indian men in Kulim.
According to N Naragan’s recce (who together with a human rights group visited the scene of the shootout), Dilip had seven siblings and the family live in a dilapidated little estate house. Two days before the incident, Dilip had asked one of his family members for RM20. Describing Dilip’s injuries, Naragan wrote: “He had gunshot wounds on the forehead and it looked like the back of his head was all bloodied as if from an exiting bullet. He was dressed only in a towel at the time of his death. His parents even had difficulty putting together some money to buy him a shirt and a dhoty for his burial. Thirty six ringgit was all they had.”Like Kugan, Dilip had no criminal record. Yet the media in their reports labelled the men ‘criminals’, ‘armed robbers’ and ‘thieves’ without any qualifiers. We cannot know for sure that Dilip was an armed robber as he was never brought to court, not to mention the lad was likely too poor to afford or acquire a gun. It is really the relationship between poor people and police profiling that bears our scrutiny.
Surviving on RM720
Who is poor and what is considered poor? Jayanath Appudurai writing for the Centre for Policy Initiatives quoted government statistics that in 2007, Malaysia’s poverty rate was 3.6 percent – an admirably low figure. Jaya writes that this Poverty Line Income [PLI] is determined by the government itself. Malaysia’s PLI stipulates that a household – comprising 4.6 people – in the Peninsula earning more than RM720 a month is not deemed impoverished. However if a PLI of RM1,000 were to be employed, then 8.6 percent of households would be poor instead of the 3.6 percent as claimed by the authorities. If a PLI of RM1,500 is used, then one-fifth of Malaysians are mired in poverty, or a total of 1.2 million households. Is the government baseline of RM720 a realistic figure to sustain a family of four-and-a-half persons, Jaya questions?(To sidetrack slightly, the roughly RM157 – as stated by Malaysia for each individual to minimally survive a month on – is not enough to pay for a Children one-day entry ticket to Paris Disneyland which costs RM182.)
State expenditure, for instance in Kugan’s home state of Selangor, on poverty eradication programmes might properly be asked of Disney-loving ex-Selangor menteri besar Dr Khir Toyo. While police undoubtedly have an image problem, how Joe Public reacts to the polemics should be tempered as well, Jaya writes in his other article (this one on the Kugan case). Popular depiction of the Indian community is pulled in two opposite directions.
One is that of gangsters and criminals. The Hindraf movement started both because of the Indian community’s own concern over its social problem of gangsterism, and Police Watch’s alarm over custodial deaths.But it doesn’t clarify matters when the authorities choose to ban the messenger Hindraf rather than address the root cause of their grievances, which is poverty begetting poverty and the lack of legitimate opportunities.
How now, sacred cow?The other popular depiction pushed by official media like Utusan is that Indians have nothing to complain about because many are doctors and lawyers. But even before Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar screwed the statistics, Dr Mahathir Mohamad did. “It (the number of Indian doctors) never was 40 percent until I was PM. Why didn’t they say ‘thank you, thank you, thank you’?
I get many people coming up to me to say thank you but very few Indians say thank you”, Dr M told an interviewer on the eve of the last general election. Samy Vellu rebutted saying that Mahathir did very little for the Indian community when he was prime minister. “Despite the MIC appealing again and again for help, he refused to budge.”
The BN formula has been of ethnic champions appealing to the grace of one autocrat or to Umno ‘proper channels’. Using this method to solve national problems has not proven effective. If, as Samy recently conceded, Indians were in dire need of assistance and not getting it, then it is the way the whole system operates that’s at fault.
The NEP was intended to help every Malaysian who is poor. It obviously didn’t and doesn’t. For those who feel they do not owe the Mahathir regime their gratitude, the way forward is to change the status quo. This is being slowly altered through electoral mandate. However, the more insidious canker (because unlike loud politicians they’re less obvious) is bureaucratic functions. These range from Biro Tata Negara to the Little Napoleon in Ipoh city council who ordered the Democracy Tree plague to be removed by tractor, to top civil servants in ministries and state secretariats. To further good governance, we clearly need a reform in the ruling parties; even our erstwhile premier finally admitted it in his final address as Umno president.
But at the same time, do replace some rusty cogs in the wheels of government machinery too.
Disclosure: The writer is attached to Centre for Policy Initiatives.
..--..
HRW- New Malaysian PM Should Repeal ISA and Reform Laws Used against Free Speech and Peaceful Assembly
(New York, April 6, 2009) – Malaysia’s new prime minister, Najib Abdul Razak, should follow up on his surprise release of 13 detainees by promptly acting to rescind the internal security law, Human Rights Watch said today.
On April 3, 2009, his first day in office, Prime Minister Najib ordered the release of 13 detainees and promised that the government would review the Internal Security Act (ISA) under which they were held. The ISA permits indefinite detention without charge or trial. By April 5, all 13 had been freed, including eight terrorism suspects, three alleged forgers, and two leaders of the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf).
Three foreigners among them have been deported, while the 10 Malaysians remain under police supervision. “The release of 13 detainees is a welcome surprise from Prime Minister Najib, who had long supported the Internal Security Act,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “We hope that his promise to review the law is genuine and that he realizes that it is a blight on the Malaysian justice system and the country’s reputation.”
The detention of the Hindraf members exemplifies the government’s long misuse of the ISA. The release of the two Hindraf leaders, V. Ganabatirau and R. Kengadharan, leaves three Hindraf members in ISA detention for more than 15 months for their part in organizing a massive demonstration on November 25, 2007, to protest educational and economic discrimination against Malaysian Indians.
Hindraf had held the rally even though the police had refused to issue a permit. All five have been accused of threatening national security by “upsetting harmony” among Malaysia’s Malay, Chinese, and Indian communities. Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan publicly stated, without providing any supporting evidence, that the five “clearly have links with international terrorist organizations and they are involved in activities that amount to inciting racial hatred.” “The government imposed the ISA instead of charging the Hindraf activists with credible criminal offenses,” said Adams. “If it can’t promptly charge them and others still held and give them a fair trial, it should release them.”
Also on his first day in office, Prime Minister Najib lifted the ban on two opposition party newspapers, Suara Keadilan, published by Parti Keadilan Rakyats (PKR), and Harakah, published by Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS). The ban had been imposed on March 23, 2009, and was widely seen as an attempt to limit opposition parties from getting their messages to voters before by-elections on April 7. Under the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, annual license renewal is mandatory for all newspapers.
The Home Affairs Ministry can restrict or ban a publication outright on several vaguely defined grounds and no legal remedy is available, as the minister’s discretion to grant, revoke, or suspend licenses is “absolute” and not subject to judicial review. Human Rights Watch said that lifting the ban was an important step and called for a revision of the printing and publications law to ensure it was consistent with the right to freedom of expression. The government also continues to use criminal defamation and other laws to undermine opposition politicians and critics of the government.
Raja Petra Kamaruddin, founder and editor of Malaysia’s most popular website, MalaysiaToday, was originally detained under ISA for demeaning Islam. He was freed on procedural grounds on October 7, 2008. The government is appealing the ruling. He also has been criminally charged with sedition under the Sedition Act 1948 and criminal defamation under the Penal Code on what Human Rights Watch considers to be a politically motivated charge of defaming a government leader.
Opposition parliamentarian and Democratic Action Party (DAP) chairperson Karpal Singh had been charged under the Sedition Act for remarks he made in relation to political changes in Perak, one of Malaysia’s 13 states. And opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim is currently facing trial on politically motivated sodomy charges. “If Prime Minister Najib wants to back up his claim as a reformer, he will repeal laws empowering the government to censor the media or to engage in dirty tricks used previously against political opponents,” Adams said. Also crucial for improving freedom of expression in Malaysia is repeal of the Police Act 1967, which mandates the need for a police permit for public assemblies of three or more people.
In 2008 alone, the law was used to shut down peaceful vigils supporting the repeal of the ISA and to limit election rallies by opposition parties. “Free expression and peaceful assembly are bedrocks of a rights-respecting society,” said Adams. “Until Malaysia’s government stops carving out legal rules to attack its political opponents, it cannot claim to be a modern democratic state.”
For more information on human rights in Malaysia, please visit:http://www.hrw.org/en/asia/malaysia For more information, please contact:
In New York, Mickey Spiegel (English): +1-212-216-1229; or +1-917-968-9937 (mobile)
In Washington, DC, Sophie Richardson (English, Mandarin): +1-202-612-4341; or +1-917-721-7473 (mobile)
In London, Brad Adams (English): +44-20-7713-2767; or +44-790-872-8333 (mobile)
On April 3, 2009, his first day in office, Prime Minister Najib ordered the release of 13 detainees and promised that the government would review the Internal Security Act (ISA) under which they were held. The ISA permits indefinite detention without charge or trial. By April 5, all 13 had been freed, including eight terrorism suspects, three alleged forgers, and two leaders of the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf).
Three foreigners among them have been deported, while the 10 Malaysians remain under police supervision. “The release of 13 detainees is a welcome surprise from Prime Minister Najib, who had long supported the Internal Security Act,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “We hope that his promise to review the law is genuine and that he realizes that it is a blight on the Malaysian justice system and the country’s reputation.”
The detention of the Hindraf members exemplifies the government’s long misuse of the ISA. The release of the two Hindraf leaders, V. Ganabatirau and R. Kengadharan, leaves three Hindraf members in ISA detention for more than 15 months for their part in organizing a massive demonstration on November 25, 2007, to protest educational and economic discrimination against Malaysian Indians.
Hindraf had held the rally even though the police had refused to issue a permit. All five have been accused of threatening national security by “upsetting harmony” among Malaysia’s Malay, Chinese, and Indian communities. Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan publicly stated, without providing any supporting evidence, that the five “clearly have links with international terrorist organizations and they are involved in activities that amount to inciting racial hatred.” “The government imposed the ISA instead of charging the Hindraf activists with credible criminal offenses,” said Adams. “If it can’t promptly charge them and others still held and give them a fair trial, it should release them.”
Also on his first day in office, Prime Minister Najib lifted the ban on two opposition party newspapers, Suara Keadilan, published by Parti Keadilan Rakyats (PKR), and Harakah, published by Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS). The ban had been imposed on March 23, 2009, and was widely seen as an attempt to limit opposition parties from getting their messages to voters before by-elections on April 7. Under the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, annual license renewal is mandatory for all newspapers.
The Home Affairs Ministry can restrict or ban a publication outright on several vaguely defined grounds and no legal remedy is available, as the minister’s discretion to grant, revoke, or suspend licenses is “absolute” and not subject to judicial review. Human Rights Watch said that lifting the ban was an important step and called for a revision of the printing and publications law to ensure it was consistent with the right to freedom of expression. The government also continues to use criminal defamation and other laws to undermine opposition politicians and critics of the government.
Raja Petra Kamaruddin, founder and editor of Malaysia’s most popular website, MalaysiaToday, was originally detained under ISA for demeaning Islam. He was freed on procedural grounds on October 7, 2008. The government is appealing the ruling. He also has been criminally charged with sedition under the Sedition Act 1948 and criminal defamation under the Penal Code on what Human Rights Watch considers to be a politically motivated charge of defaming a government leader.
Opposition parliamentarian and Democratic Action Party (DAP) chairperson Karpal Singh had been charged under the Sedition Act for remarks he made in relation to political changes in Perak, one of Malaysia’s 13 states. And opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim is currently facing trial on politically motivated sodomy charges. “If Prime Minister Najib wants to back up his claim as a reformer, he will repeal laws empowering the government to censor the media or to engage in dirty tricks used previously against political opponents,” Adams said. Also crucial for improving freedom of expression in Malaysia is repeal of the Police Act 1967, which mandates the need for a police permit for public assemblies of three or more people.
In 2008 alone, the law was used to shut down peaceful vigils supporting the repeal of the ISA and to limit election rallies by opposition parties. “Free expression and peaceful assembly are bedrocks of a rights-respecting society,” said Adams. “Until Malaysia’s government stops carving out legal rules to attack its political opponents, it cannot claim to be a modern democratic state.”
For more information on human rights in Malaysia, please visit:http://www.hrw.org/en/asia/malaysia For more information, please contact:
In New York, Mickey Spiegel (English): +1-212-216-1229; or +1-917-968-9937 (mobile)
In Washington, DC, Sophie Richardson (English, Mandarin): +1-202-612-4341; or +1-917-721-7473 (mobile)
In London, Brad Adams (English): +44-20-7713-2767; or +44-790-872-8333 (mobile)
Kugan's case: Unsettling questions remain
Malaysiakini - David KL Quek Apr 9, 09 12:33pm
It is laudable that the Ministry of Health had taken the preemptive move to help diffuse the public anger regarding the custodial death of Kugan Ananthan, especially in the light of discrepancies between two separate post-mortems.
Whether an inquiry initiated on its own behalf is the correct avenue to address the public unease about this custodial death, is open to differing interpretation, acceptance or otherwise.Any inquiry if it should be made at all should be carefully-constituted, thoughtfully empanelled and well-empowered by law. Its terms of reference must be made absolutely clear. It must uphold the final truth.It must be based on facts and rational analyses of findings which are consistent, and which should be striving towards the ultimate truth of what actually is the cause of death or its contributing factors.It should not be simply to water down discrepancies which would need fuller explanation and perhaps further elaboration from the actual forensic pathologists who had performed their respective tasks.
These pathologists should be allowed to defend their findings and interpretations.Furthermore, more expert and renowned forensic pathologists should have been invited to give their interpretations as to the facts of the findings and their weightage of causes of death, especially since there had been unmistakable evidence of torture, i.e. undeniable beating marks and unexplained bruises. These experts should be fiercely independent and thus unimpeachable.
Most importantly, this inquiry held behind closed doors, should not be seen to be papering over any misdeeds of any authority which it may be perceived as trying to defend.Also, since this is not a public hearing and we know that the second pathologist declined to take part in the inquiry, this may make the report less than solid or above reproach. Seniority of pathologists is no measure of professional competence. Forensic evidence based on previous precedents and specialist experience, and not conjectures should be the essence of any meaningful truth-finding exercise.It is usually disingenuous and pointless to assume another chance event as having taken place to be the cause of death, just because it is possible.
Suggesting the unlikely pathologically- unevidenced diagnosis of acute myocarditis is simply conjecture. Whichever is more probable and plausible is usually the truth, to paraphrase the legendary Shelock Holmes.
Doctors are alarmed by seizure
Unfortunately, because of these glaring slants to the report, questions will continue to linger as to whether this report is truly independent and whether all the inquiry members are in agreement with the findings.The legal standing of the report is still questionable, and may be challenged in a proper court. It might be better to have a public inquiry where all queries and representation can be made known to the satisfaction of the public, and especially, the victim's family.
To add salt to injury, doctors are aghast and very alarmed that the police had raided the UMMC pathologist's office and taken the material records of his autopsy findings. We are also shocked about media reports that tissue samples for toxicology which had meant to be sent to an independent laboratory in Australia had been intercepted and seized by the police.
Toxicological studies should always be allowed to enable proper and independent discovery of the truth. Denial of such a legitimate avenue for forensic finding would prejudice against the police, and make their action that much more difficult to accept or to tolerate.Therefore, this arbitrary seizure is reprehensible, unprecedented and certainly breaches normal procedures of medico-legal discovery.
Usually only detailed reports are obtained from court-approved injunctions and demands.Medical records and details are nominally the property of the physician in charge or the facility where he practices, and should only be made available under a court order, and are usually never confiscated or seizable by any enforcement authority.
There are clear procedures to be followed, and are well articulated in handbooks for the police and enforcement authorities, clearly established by the UN Center for Human Rights. I'd like to reiterate that: "International humanitarian law prohibits the following acts in all situations: - murder; - torture; - corporal punishment; - mutilation; - outrages upon personal dignity; - hostage-taking; - collective punishment; - executions without regular trial; - cruel or degrading treatment."Such extrajudicial actions should never be made in a climate of intimidating circumstances just because these events may mar the good name and professionalism of the police force.
It is difficult to comment when the DG of Health decides to come forward and announce this so-called independent inquiry, which incidentally incorporates two foreign specialists. At best this inquiry had added to the confusion of being a third interpretation into this sad case of custodial death and did not refute the probability of torture.
Adhere to humanitarian principles
Any custodial death in any instance the world over, is inexcusable, wrong and criminal.
The UN Human Rights Committee has defined "Extralegal, arbitrary or summary executions as deprivation of life without full judicial process, and with the involvement, complicity, tolerance or acquiescence of the government or its agents.
This includes death through the use of excessive force by police or security forces."Torture is further defined by the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) and its Committee against Torture (CAT) as: "Any act committed with intent to cause severe pain or suffering, whether mental or physical, for purposes such as:
(a) obtaining information or a confession;
(b) punishing, intimidating or coercing.
"Therefore, torture of any one suspect or detainee or prisoner is never condoned, whether this leads on to death is immaterial (but which only adds to the grievousness of the crime), and is liable for prosecution in any international court of law.Kugan's custodial death and other possible past custodial deaths should be given a truly independent investigation by a publicly open Royal Commission or Inquiry or even by Suhakam.
It is time that we adhere to humanitarian principles as we grapple with our modernisation to become a developed people and nation. Our human development index as a civilised nation must necessarily rise proportionately.We call on the police and law enforcement agencies to respect these tenets of modern life and human rights and urge them to abide by these nondiscriminatory rules as a norm. Only then, can we believe and respect their true and usual professionalism again.
DR DAVID KL QUEK is past editor-in-chief of the MMA (Malaysian Medical Association) News for 11 years and currently president-elect of the MMA.
..--..
It is laudable that the Ministry of Health had taken the preemptive move to help diffuse the public anger regarding the custodial death of Kugan Ananthan, especially in the light of discrepancies between two separate post-mortems.
Whether an inquiry initiated on its own behalf is the correct avenue to address the public unease about this custodial death, is open to differing interpretation, acceptance or otherwise.Any inquiry if it should be made at all should be carefully-constituted, thoughtfully empanelled and well-empowered by law. Its terms of reference must be made absolutely clear. It must uphold the final truth.It must be based on facts and rational analyses of findings which are consistent, and which should be striving towards the ultimate truth of what actually is the cause of death or its contributing factors.It should not be simply to water down discrepancies which would need fuller explanation and perhaps further elaboration from the actual forensic pathologists who had performed their respective tasks.
These pathologists should be allowed to defend their findings and interpretations.Furthermore, more expert and renowned forensic pathologists should have been invited to give their interpretations as to the facts of the findings and their weightage of causes of death, especially since there had been unmistakable evidence of torture, i.e. undeniable beating marks and unexplained bruises. These experts should be fiercely independent and thus unimpeachable.
Most importantly, this inquiry held behind closed doors, should not be seen to be papering over any misdeeds of any authority which it may be perceived as trying to defend.Also, since this is not a public hearing and we know that the second pathologist declined to take part in the inquiry, this may make the report less than solid or above reproach. Seniority of pathologists is no measure of professional competence. Forensic evidence based on previous precedents and specialist experience, and not conjectures should be the essence of any meaningful truth-finding exercise.It is usually disingenuous and pointless to assume another chance event as having taken place to be the cause of death, just because it is possible.
Suggesting the unlikely pathologically- unevidenced diagnosis of acute myocarditis is simply conjecture. Whichever is more probable and plausible is usually the truth, to paraphrase the legendary Shelock Holmes.
Doctors are alarmed by seizure
Unfortunately, because of these glaring slants to the report, questions will continue to linger as to whether this report is truly independent and whether all the inquiry members are in agreement with the findings.The legal standing of the report is still questionable, and may be challenged in a proper court. It might be better to have a public inquiry where all queries and representation can be made known to the satisfaction of the public, and especially, the victim's family.
To add salt to injury, doctors are aghast and very alarmed that the police had raided the UMMC pathologist's office and taken the material records of his autopsy findings. We are also shocked about media reports that tissue samples for toxicology which had meant to be sent to an independent laboratory in Australia had been intercepted and seized by the police.
Toxicological studies should always be allowed to enable proper and independent discovery of the truth. Denial of such a legitimate avenue for forensic finding would prejudice against the police, and make their action that much more difficult to accept or to tolerate.Therefore, this arbitrary seizure is reprehensible, unprecedented and certainly breaches normal procedures of medico-legal discovery.
Usually only detailed reports are obtained from court-approved injunctions and demands.Medical records and details are nominally the property of the physician in charge or the facility where he practices, and should only be made available under a court order, and are usually never confiscated or seizable by any enforcement authority.
There are clear procedures to be followed, and are well articulated in handbooks for the police and enforcement authorities, clearly established by the UN Center for Human Rights. I'd like to reiterate that: "International humanitarian law prohibits the following acts in all situations: - murder; - torture; - corporal punishment; - mutilation; - outrages upon personal dignity; - hostage-taking; - collective punishment; - executions without regular trial; - cruel or degrading treatment."Such extrajudicial actions should never be made in a climate of intimidating circumstances just because these events may mar the good name and professionalism of the police force.
It is difficult to comment when the DG of Health decides to come forward and announce this so-called independent inquiry, which incidentally incorporates two foreign specialists. At best this inquiry had added to the confusion of being a third interpretation into this sad case of custodial death and did not refute the probability of torture.
Adhere to humanitarian principles
Any custodial death in any instance the world over, is inexcusable, wrong and criminal.
The UN Human Rights Committee has defined "Extralegal, arbitrary or summary executions as deprivation of life without full judicial process, and with the involvement, complicity, tolerance or acquiescence of the government or its agents.
This includes death through the use of excessive force by police or security forces."Torture is further defined by the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) and its Committee against Torture (CAT) as: "Any act committed with intent to cause severe pain or suffering, whether mental or physical, for purposes such as:
(a) obtaining information or a confession;
(b) punishing, intimidating or coercing.
"Therefore, torture of any one suspect or detainee or prisoner is never condoned, whether this leads on to death is immaterial (but which only adds to the grievousness of the crime), and is liable for prosecution in any international court of law.Kugan's custodial death and other possible past custodial deaths should be given a truly independent investigation by a publicly open Royal Commission or Inquiry or even by Suhakam.
It is time that we adhere to humanitarian principles as we grapple with our modernisation to become a developed people and nation. Our human development index as a civilised nation must necessarily rise proportionately.We call on the police and law enforcement agencies to respect these tenets of modern life and human rights and urge them to abide by these nondiscriminatory rules as a norm. Only then, can we believe and respect their true and usual professionalism again.
DR DAVID KL QUEK is past editor-in-chief of the MMA (Malaysian Medical Association) News for 11 years and currently president-elect of the MMA.
..--..
Kugan’s family rejects panel’s findings, wants justice to be served
KUALA LUMPUR: The father of A. Kugan says he does not accept the findings of the independent committee which investigated the two conflicting post-mortem reports on his son’s death.
G. Ananthan said he was willing to exhume Kugan’s body, if need be.
“If you want a third post-mortem, I will dig up his body,” he said, adding that he and his wife N. Indra were at their wit’s end and just wanted justice.
Speaking to reporters yesterday, they questioned what else was needed for the authorities to arrest those responsible for Kugan’s death.
Teluk Intan MP M. Manogaran said the family had not cremated Kugan’s body for fear that the matter would not be resolved.
Kugan, 22, died five days after he was detained on Jan 15 and an autopsy by the Serdang Hospital on Jan 21 gave the cause of death as ‘’acute pulmonary oedema’’.
The family sought a second post-mortem, which was conducted by Universiti Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC) pathologist Dr Prashant Samberkar on Jan 25. He gave the provisional cause of death (pending toxicology report) as ‘’acute renal failure due to rhabdomyolysis (the breakdown of muscle fibres resulting in the release of myoglobin into the bloodstream) due to blunt trauma to skeletal muscles’’.
The conflicting reports led the Health Ministry to set up the independent committee, which on Tuesday concluded a third cause of death – acute congestion of the lungs due to acute inflammation of the heart muscles, compounded by blunt force trauma.
The family’s counsel N. Surendran called the findings a “whitewash” and pointed out that the 10-man committee made their findings without conducting a post-mortem on the body.
Surendran also said police were unethical when they confiscated samples, documents and pictures related to the UMMC post-mortem on Monday. He said a letter of demand had been sent for the return of the items.
G. Ananthan said he was willing to exhume Kugan’s body, if need be.
“If you want a third post-mortem, I will dig up his body,” he said, adding that he and his wife N. Indra were at their wit’s end and just wanted justice.
Speaking to reporters yesterday, they questioned what else was needed for the authorities to arrest those responsible for Kugan’s death.
Teluk Intan MP M. Manogaran said the family had not cremated Kugan’s body for fear that the matter would not be resolved.
Kugan, 22, died five days after he was detained on Jan 15 and an autopsy by the Serdang Hospital on Jan 21 gave the cause of death as ‘’acute pulmonary oedema’’.
The family sought a second post-mortem, which was conducted by Universiti Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC) pathologist Dr Prashant Samberkar on Jan 25. He gave the provisional cause of death (pending toxicology report) as ‘’acute renal failure due to rhabdomyolysis (the breakdown of muscle fibres resulting in the release of myoglobin into the bloodstream) due to blunt trauma to skeletal muscles’’.
The conflicting reports led the Health Ministry to set up the independent committee, which on Tuesday concluded a third cause of death – acute congestion of the lungs due to acute inflammation of the heart muscles, compounded by blunt force trauma.
The family’s counsel N. Surendran called the findings a “whitewash” and pointed out that the 10-man committee made their findings without conducting a post-mortem on the body.
Surendran also said police were unethical when they confiscated samples, documents and pictures related to the UMMC post-mortem on Monday. He said a letter of demand had been sent for the return of the items.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
