Uthayakumar’s Sedition trial: Malay-sian police racist ‘Operasi Copperhead” saw ‘ethnic cleansing”, police killing of hundreds of Indians in lock-ups and shooting dead by police policy.

The Federal Police deputy Criminal Investigations department deputy chief on 18/1/11 confirmed at P. Uthayakumar’s sedition trial on 18/1/11 at the K.L.

Sessions Court that in 2001 or so Operasi Copperhead was launched targeting Indian suspects.

When objected to by the DPP, Uthayakumar said his defence is that it was from this period onwards that hundreds of Indian youths being racially profiled, arrested, beaten up in police lock ups, killed in police lock ups or simply shot dead in a police shoot to kill policy of mostly Indians. Uthayakumar showed evidence that about 60% of the cases killings in police custody and shot dead by the police were Indians victims, when they form only 8% of the Malaysian population. And this policy is continuing up to date. Surprisingly in the year 2008 there had been zero Indians killed in police custody as a direct result of the 25th November 2007 Hindraf Rally.

P. Uthayakumar’s point is that if given equal skills, training, business loans, licences, permits, business opportunities projects and contracts 95% of the Indians would not want to become gangsters or criminals.

Like every other Malay and Chinese most of them have been denied the business opportunities that had forced them into a world of crime.

Karunai Nithi @ Compassionate Justice

Mahkamah bebas Tharmendran dari tahanan TUDM

KUALA LUMPUR: Mahkamah Tinggi hari ini memerintahkan bekas Sarjan Tentera Udara Diraja Malaysia (TUDM), N Tharmendran

dibebaskan daripada tahanan TUDM.

Hakim Datuk Su Geok Yiam memerintahkan Tharmendran yang ditahan sejak 25 November lepas dibebaskan serta merta dari Kem Batu Kentomen, Jalan Ipoh.

Su membuat keputusan itu selepas membenarkan permohonan habeas corpus oleh Tharmendran untuk dibebaskan daripada tahanan TUDM.

Dalam afidavit sokongannya sebelum ini, Tharmendran mendakwa penahanan dan penangkapannya pada 25 November lepas adalah tidak berasas, salah dan tidak sah mengikut undang-undang dan berniat jahat.

Tharmendran, 42, mendakwa penahanan itu tidak mengikut undang-undang kerana dia adalah orang awam dan tidak lagi berkhidmat dengan TUDM sejak 28 Mei lepas.

Pada 6 Januari 2010, Tharmendran mengaku tidak bersalah di Mahkamah Sesyen Petaling Jaya terhadap pertuduhan bersubahat mencuri dua enjin pesawat F5 milik TUDM.

Dia didakwa bersubahat dengan Laskar Udara Mohamad Shukri Mohamad Yusop untuk mencuri dua enjin itu di Bangunan  Material Processing Shed MATRA 1, Pangkalan Udara TUDM Sungai Besi.

- Bernama

Malay history: What’s missing from the textbooks

By Joe Doe,

Brunei has always been known to be one of the earliest Muslim Kingdoms in Southeast Asia. They pride themselves in this fact. All their neighbors pride themselves in this too, and of course, since it is fact, it is irrefutable. Right?

Good. Let’s quickly look at some FACTS then:
It is taught in school textbooks that Pateh Berbai, the brother of Awang Semaun and Awang Alak Betatar, discovered Brunei. Awang Alak Betatar subsequently became Brunei’s first Sultan and was known as Sultan Muhammad Shah. Awang Semaun and Awang Alak Betatar were the famous heroes in Brunei during that time.

Sultan Muhammad Shah was the first Sultan of Brunei. He ruled Brunei from 1363 to 1402. He was the first Muslim ruler of Brunei as a result of his conversion to Islam in 1363 for his marriage to a Johorean-Temasik princess. Prior to conversion to Islam, he was known as Awang Alak Betatar.

He sent a mission to China in 1371 by which his name is recorded in Ming historical record as Mo-ha-mo-sha. Sultan Muhammad Shah died in 1402. Sultan Muhammad Shah was the first Sultan of Brunei. He ruled Brunei from 1363 to 1402. He married the daughter of Iskander, a Johorean-Temasik princess introduced by Bal-Paki, her brother-in-law to be.

So far so good... Oh Really?

Read the above again very carefully !! Sultan Muhammad Shah married a Johorean-Temasik princess in 1363. Now, for all those products of Biro Tata Negara (BTN) out there, what year was Malacca formed? 1403. So, there was a Johor king already in 1363? Are you going to argue with Ketuanan Brunei on this? (By the way, he’s more Melayu than YOU!) Also for those who insist that Penang be handed over to Kedah, read the following again and again …

The Johor ruler was under the Thais. The entire Peninsular belonged to the Thais! The ‘king’ of Singapore (Temasik), whom Parameswara of the Malaccan Sultanate murdered in cold blood was in fact the brother-in-Law of the ‘King’ of Pattani, who was under Ayodthaya rule. For those who do not know, Ayodthaya is in Thailand. And that, my friend was already well established before 1363.

Next, Kota Gelanggi was also another Thai City, (yet to be publicized). And why not? Because it is a Thai Buddhist kingdom. Yes, it’s along the Johor River. All I’m allowed to say at this point is that Kota Gelanggi is REALLY along the Johor River. Expose Kota Gelanggi, and you will find its 30ft Buddha statues and its many Buddhist Temples, in all it's glory.

So, for Penang to go back to Kedah, ALL of the peninsula needs to go back to the Thais. Sarawak needs to go back to Brunei, Brunei needs to go back to Majapahit, Sabah needs to go back to the Philippines, and Parameswara needs to go back to Palembang, leaving the Orang Asli in charge all over again. (I find it ludicrous that the Orang Asli are disqualified as ‘Bumiputera’ although they have been here since 60,000 years ago)

Next, the year 1363 is of great significance. Why? That was the year that the first Sultan of Brunei converted to Islam. And he immediately became the Ruler of Brunei? What was he before that? A fisherman? A carpenter? A farmer? What was Awang Alak Betatar in 1362? And what happened the following year when he became a Sultan? Is becoming a Muslim enough to justify becoming a Sultan? Was he the first person in Brunei to convert to Islam?

Let's scroll back time by 100 years; the year is now 1264. A full hundred years BEFORE Awang Alak Betatar converted to Islam, and declared himself a Sultan. A trip to Bandar Seri Begawan is not complete unless one visits the Muslim graves at Rangas. Chuck your ‘pantang’ out the window if you want to enjoy this first-hand, and in real life. Amongst these tombstones is the one of a Chinese Muslim by the name of Pu Kung Chih-mu. He was buried there in 1264. He was a Muslim, buried in a Muslim grave! This is more than a hundred years earlier, before the ascension of Awang Alak Betatar as the ‘first’ Sultan of Brunei. Not only that, he is not the only Chinese Muslim there. I cross-checked against the Brunei Museum Journal of 1993, and found that this has been so well documented!! In fact, this grave had already been found since 1973. Whole communities of Chinese Muslims had already been living in Kampong Batu well before the 12th Century. It is clearly recorded in the 1973 Brunei Museum Journal, and was visited by professors from Japan and China. Pictures are on page 3, 4, 6, 8 and 12. Some are even in colour.

So, here's another nugget for BTN un-educators. The Chinese brought Islam to this region in 1264. Wait! That's not even correct. It was even earlier, because, this Muslim Chinese died in 1264. He had lived a full life in Brunei before he died. And before anyone even thinks of contesting this, let me draw your attention to yet another well-established fact, and let’s see how early the Chinese arrived. 

According to records – as in the ‘Notes on the Malay Archipelago and Malacca Compiled from Chinese Sources’ by WP Groeneveldt in 1880 – a Chinese Islamic trader arrived in Brunei in the 10th century. His name was P’u-lu-shieh. He was both a trader and a diplomat. SQ Fatimi writing in the Sociological Research Institute in Singapore in 1963 under an article entitled ‘Islam Comes to Malaysia’, P'u-lu-shieh name is akin to Abu al-Layth.

The Brunei King at that time was named ‘Hiang-ta’. The arrival of the diplomat-trader from China was greeted with great ceremony. If this is so, Islam actually arrived in Brunei in the year of 977.

If this is the year 977, and the Sultan’s name in the year 977 is Hiang-Ta, then how can Awang Alak Betatar be the ‘first’ Sultan of Brunei in 1363? For those with very bad logic (or timeline problems), the year 977 is 406 years older than 1363. And in the year 977, the Chinese were already sending Muslim ambassadors to Brunei. The real question should be, thus, who exactly was that ‘Hiang Ta’ who ruled Brunei in the year 977? An Iban? A Kadazan or a Chinese?

It gets even better. The MOST interesting thing was that the Brunei king’s delegation to China to return the emperor’s greetings was also headed by another Muslim official by the name of P’u A-li (Abu Ali).

Based on this fact alone, Abu Ali must have held an important position in the Brunei government if he was tasked to be Brunei’s ambassador in those days. This is again, irrefutable proof that there was already a government, with a King, and some members of his royal court were Muslims. Again, this is proof that Islam had already reached Brunei before the year 977. This is 75 years into the beginning of the Soong Dynasty, and only severely retarded people will say that Abu Ali was an Arab because of his name.

And by the way, Malacca was not to have been discovered for another 400 years. Is there a prawn under the stone? You can bet your bottom dollar (because Ringgit is worthless toilet paper) that whenever John Doe writes, there is. 

A number of European historians claimed that Brunei was still not a Muslim nation until the 15th century. However, the Ming Shih, Book 325, a Chinese reference book noted that the King of Brunei in 1370 was Ma-ho-mo-sa. Some say that this should be read as Mahmud Shah. In fact, local Brunei historians prefer to take this to refer to Muhammad Shah, the first Sultan of Brunei.

Robert Nicholl, a former Brunei Museum curator argued in another paper entitled ‘Notes on Some Controversial Issues in Brunei History’ in 1980 that the name Ma-ho-mo-sa could be pronounced as Maha Moksha which means ‘Great Eternity’. ‘Maha Mokhsa’ would make it a Buddhist name. Nicholl goes on to argue that even the Brunei Sultan who died in Nanjing in 1408 was not a Muslim. (History books always detail that the Sultan of Brunei went to China, but few will state that he died there),

Another historian Paul Pelliot said Ma-na-jo-kia-nai-nai was reconstituted as Maharajah Gyana (nai). But the closest title would have been Maharaja Karna. However Brunei historians have insisted that the King was Sultan Abdul Majid Hassan, who would have been the second Sultan of Brunei.

Nicholl further argued that Sultan Muhammad Shah converted to Islam as late as the 16th century and not during the 14th century as is widely known. However according to Brunei historians, Sultan Muhammad Shah converted to Islam in 1363 and that he ruled until 1402. After which time, it was Sultan Abdul Majid Hassan, who died in China who ascended the throne. That was when Sultan Ahmad reigned in Brunei beginning 1406.

And why did I bring up this detail? Simple !! Read the top all over again:

• Sultan Muhammad Shah married a Johorean-Temasik Princess in 1363.
• And that Kota Gelanggi and the entire peninsular Malaya belonged to the Thais. And if this is true and correct, then both the Sultan of Brunei and his wife, would have been Buddhists.
• In fact, the entire peninsular Malaya had been Buddhist and/or Hindu ever since the second century when Lembah Bujang was built. And since this is the year 1363, all of Brunei and Borneo was also under the rule of King Hayam Wuruk, who was King of the Majapahit empire. And what religion did they have? (I’ll give you a hint... they built the Borobudor. And for those who claim that Borobudor is a mosque in disguise, please learn to recognize temple architecture.)

Borrobudor in all its splendour.

Oh, and even more important is this:

“Sultan Abdul Majid Hassan whose proper name is Zein Ul-Abidin, frequented the near distant islands, that He called ‘Solook’ (Sulu) from 1402 to 1424. Marrying the daughter (Parmursuli) of the Sulu Tomaoi (chief) Baginda” – it means he had a Filipino wife.

Also important to note, that since this is 1363, Parameswara had not yet swum across Pirate-Bay to reach Temasik yet. Hence, the need to locate the earlier kingdoms which pre-date ‘His Royal Pendatangness’.

During the reign of Wikramawardhana, the series of Ming armada naval expeditions led by Admiral Hajji Mahmud Shams (aka Zheng He), a Muslim Chinese admiral, arrived in Java for several times, spanning the period from 1405 to 1433. By 1430, Zheng He’s expeditions has established Muslim Chinese and Arab communities in northern ports of Java, and thus Islam began to gain foothold on Java’s northern coast. “Admiral Hajji Mahmud Shams (aka Zheng He) was so frustrated when he first arrived in Java, because he could not find a single halalrestaurant there”, so wrote Mah Huan, his scribe, thus deciding to spread Islam to the “barbarians” as Chinese records would write.

Also interesting to note is the following:

“In late Yuan Dynasty, China became chaotic, people who lived along the coastal area of Fujian, under the leadership of Ong Sum Ping’s siblings, escaped to eastern Kalimantan — they landed at the river mouth. When they were exhausted, facing a shipping crisis, someone lost their arms. After that, the Kadazans named it as Sungai Kinabatangan — the place where the Chinese lost their arms.

Ong Sum Ping and his sister, and the Chinese people developed the area of Sungai Kinabatangan, and they increased their influences there. With the increase of his prosperity, the natives named him Raja, or King. The Chinese named him as ‘Chung Ping’ - meaning the General. We can clearly see that Ong Sum Ping controlled Eastern Kalimantan.

This is Ong Sum Ping Rd in Brunei.

(Part 2 will appear tomorrow)

Bibligraphy

Kenneth Hall, Maritime trade and state development in early Southeast Asia, citing Wang Gungwu, 'The Nanhai trade: a study of the early history of Chinese trade in the South China Sea', JMBRAS 31, 2 (1958): 33,  citing Paul Wheatley, The Golden Khersonese, studies in the historical geography of the Malay peninsula before 1500, Kuala Lumpur, 1961, and other secondary sources;

Yoshiaki Ishizawa, 'Chinese chronicles of C1st-5th century AD Funan', 

Yoshiaki Ishizawa, 'Chinese chronicles of C1st-5th century AD Funan', citing Wan Zhen, Nanzhou yuwuzhi.

Louise Levathes, When China Ruled the seas, citing the Liang Shu (History of the Liang dynasty) and (i) Paul Shao, Asiatic Influence in Precolumbian art, Ames, Iowa State Univ 1976,  and (ii) David H.Kelley, 'Nine lords of the night', Studies in the Archaeology of Mexico and Guatemala, 16, Berkeley, Univ of California Dept of Anthropology, Oct 1972 & 'Calendar animals and deities', Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 16, Albuqerque, Univ of New Mexico, 1960.
Chisholm, Hugh, ed (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (Eleventh ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Ongkili, James P. "Ancient Chinese Trading Links." East Malaysia and Brunei. Ed. Wendy Hutton. Tuttle Publishing, 2001.
Saunders, Graham. A History of Brunei. London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2002.
Wright, Leigh. "Brunei: An Historical Relic." Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. Vol. 17 (1977).
"Background Note: Brunei Darussalam". U.S. State Department. Retrieved 2008-12-16.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/m/v/mvp111/karin.htm, citing vol.231 of The Great Chinese Encyclopedia, compiled by court historians of the Wang emperors from 502 to 556 AD (other refs give the editor's name as Ma Tuan-Lin);

Prof V.G.Nair, Buddhist mission visits America before Columbus, 

http://www.saigon.com/~hoasen/mission.htm; 

http://www.1s.com/hkmission/history/chinese.htm, citing hearsay of an 1100 page diary in the Chinese imperial archives of which only 75 pages of partial excerpts seen; 

http://users.wi.net/~maracon/;http://www.ventanawild.org/news/se01/fusang.html;

Kenneth L. Feder, Frauds, Myths and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology, p113-4, citing Frost, F, 1982, 

The Palos Verdes Chinese anchor mystery, Archaeology, Jan/Feb 23-27, 

quoted onwww.kenspy.com/Menzies/Ships.html regarding irrelevance of these anchors.

J.V.G.Mills, introduction, to Ma Huan, Ying-yai Sheng Lan; John Carswell, Blue & White, p.87; Louise Levathes, When China ruled the seas; Ma Huan, Ying-yai Sheng Lan. Inscription in Galle

Najib cannot be more wrong. Tenang is about future of Malaysia – no more TBH Kugan Aminurasyid Krishnan & unaccounted deaths

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak said in Tenang yesterday that he also want to know the real truth of Teoh Beng Hock’s death.

If so, it is not too late for him to meet the demands of Teoh Beng Hock’s family and the overwhelming majority of Malaysians who want to see that justice is not only done but seen to be done by setting up a Royal Commission of Inquiry to probe further into the Coroner’s finding of Teoh Beng Hock’s prefall neck injury.

The Teoh Beng Hock RCI should be a meaningful and high-powered one comprising independent and credible members with the widest terms of reference to ferret out the truth of Teoh’s death and a commitment that the government will accept and implement its findings unlike the Lingam Videotape RCI.

Although Najib pledged his commitment “to unravel the mystery” behind Teoh’s death in Tenang yesterday, and that “we have ways to find out the truth”, government actions in the past 18 months since Teoh’s tragic and outrageous death at the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) headquarters in Shah Alam on July 16, 2009, where he had gone voluntarily to give his co-operation to the MACC as a witness and not as a suspect, had not inspired confidence that the Prime Minister would “leave no stone unturned” to uncover the whole truth about Teoh’s death.

Malaysians will not forget the contempt with which the then MACC Chief Commissioner Datuk Seri Ahmad Said had dismissed Teoh’s death at the MACC when he said:

“Teoh Beng Hock’s case is nothing. It is a very small case. We have handled much bigger cases.’’
It would appear that Teoh’s death, like the many other cases of suspicious deaths in official custody or involving official personnel, whether A. Kugan, Aminurasyid Amzah or the latest case of custodial death M. Krishnan, continue to be regarded as “small cases” when they should be given the most serious attention as they involve the loss of precious human lives.

Immediately after the Coroner’s finding of “Open Verdict” on January 5 into the inquest of Teoh Beng Hock’s mysterious death at the MACC Hqrs, ruling out “suicide” and its finding of Teoh’s prefall neck injury, I had called on the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to ensure that Teoh’s death does not end up as a “heinous crime without criminals” and for proper closure for the grieving Teoh Beng Hock family and the larger Malaysian people.

This is why the establishment of a RCI confined to the investigation procedures of MACC instead of probing further into the Coroner’s finding of Teoh’s pre-fall neck injury to establish the cause of Teoh’s death is unsatisfactory and unacceptable.

The Prime Minister has announced that the Attorney-General is seeking a revision of the “Open Verdict” of the Teoh Beng Hock inquest but is silent as to purpose of the Attorney-General’s application – whether to support Teoh Beng Hock’s family to revise the inquest finding from one of “Open Verdict” to one of “Death by Homicide” or to revise the Coroner’s “Open Verdict” to “Death by Suicide”.

In the circumstances, how can Najib’s assurance in Tenang that he also wants to uncover the whole truth of Teoh’s death to have any credibility, especially when he went on to say:

“This (by-election) is bigger than Teoh Beng Hock, this is about the future of Malaysia, the future of all of us, the future of our next generation.”


Najib cannot be more wrong. It is precisely because the Tenang by-election is “about the future of Malaysia, the future of all of us, the future of our next generation” that it is also about Teoh Beng Hock, to ensure that there should not be another Teoh Beng Hock tragedy in the country and to end the list of mysterious, outrageous and unaccounted deaths in official custody or involving official personnel – whether A. Kugan, Aminurasyid Amzah or M. Krishnan.

‘No changes to book’: Writer reveals otherwise

PETALING JAYA: Kavyan Writers Association president Uthaya Sankar SB today debunked the National Writers Federation’s (Gapena) resolution that not a single word can be removed from the controversial Interlok novel.
He pointed out that amendments were done to the circumstances surrounding the death of one character in the novel, known as Malini.

He said the student’s edition did not explain the cause of death but the 2003 edition, page 325, revealed that Malini committed suicide by hanging herself from a star fruit tree.
Malini, added the book, was disheartened by the separation from her husband, Maniam.
A quote from the book reads: “Saya tak sangka dia mahu mengambil keputusan serupa itu, tuan guru,” kata Perumal dalam esakannya.
“Dia sudah bersetuju walaupun pada mula-mula dia membantah dengan keras…. Saya menjumpainya tergantung di bawah pokok belimbing di belakang dapur.” Perumal terus menangis kembali.
(I did not expect her to make such a decision, teacher, Perumal said in between sobs. She had agreed though she was strongly against it initially… I found her hanging under the star fruit tree behind the kitchen. Perumal continued to cry.)
The 2010 student’s edition, page 284, however posed an open question on how Malini died.
“Malini meninggal dunia,” kata perempuan itu dengan sedih. Raman terhenti daripada berjalan.
“Saya tak sangka dia meninggalkan saya, tuan guru, kata Perumal dalam esakannya.”
(Malini died, the woman said with sadness. Raman stopped walking. I did not expect that she would leave me, teacher, said Perumal in between sobs.)
In the student’s edition, Malini’s death was related to Raman by another character and confirmed by Perumal. The cause of death was not mentioned.
Interlok, the form five Malay literary component for Bahasa Malaysia, landed in the limelight after Deputy Minister in Prime Minister’s Department, T Murugiah called for the book to be removed.
Critics, including MIC, claimed that the book contained inaccurate information about the Indian community and used derogatory terms pertaining to caste.
However, Gapena supported the use of the book in schools.

Second post-mortem: Case management set for tomorrow

KUALA LUMPUR: The family of M Krishnan, the wireman who died in police custody on Jan 7, today filed an application to the High Court for a second post-mortem to be conducted.

The court has fixed tomorrow for case management of the application (to set a date for hearing).

The application, by Krishnan’s widow P Revathi, named as defendants the Inspector-General of Police, the Cheras district police chief, the head of Bukit Jalil police station, the magistrate and public prosecutor.

They also asked for an inquest to be held before another magistrate.

“Why are the police not allowing a second post-mortem? Why? Do they have something to hide?” asked a distraught Revathi at the court lobby here.

“We don’t mind if you say he is guilty but we just want to know why he died. The government is not helping us, why should we vote for them?” she said.

Revathi was was accompanied by a large crowd of supporters to the court. Her six children and Krishnan’s mother E Letchumy were also with her.

“We’re not rich people. My grandchildren’s education is disrupted because of this. I want justice, there’s no reason to beat up my son,” said 55-year-old Letchumy.

Krishnan, 36, was the eldest of her five sons.

Lawyer Gurmit Singh submitted the application on behalf of the family.

Police make U-turn

Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo, one of the opposition leaders present at the court, said the government should step in and accede to the family’s request for a second post-mortem.

“The hassle and stress of going through legal proceedings is unnecessary. Allow the second post- mortem and let the findings speak for themselves,” said Gobind.

“I ask that the second post-mortem be automatic for deaths in custody. I don’t see why the Attorney-General or police should object,” he said.

Gobind added that a second post-mortem had proved invaluable in cases of deaths in custody as in the cases of A Kugan and Teoh Beng Hock.

“I also call on the government to set up an independent forensic research institute so that we have a better system and to check on the quality of our forensic pathologists,” said Gobind.

Lawyer N Surendran, Port Dickson state assemblyman M Ravi, and a number of PKR members were also present to lend support to Revathi’s family.

Last week, police said that they would be seeking a second post-mortem on Krishnan, but made a U-turn when the Attorney-General’s Chambers advised a different course of action.

On Jan 3, Krishnan was arrested with several others in Taman Miharja, Cheras, on suspicion of possessing drugs.

Four days later, Krishnan was found dead at the Bukit Jalil police station lockup where he was remanded. According to the police, initial post-mortem results showed his death was related to an ulcer.

But Krishnan’s family disputed the claim and said there were bruises all over his back, an open cut wound on his right abdomen, and a bruise on his right eye.

A jailmate, A Sargunan, came forward and said that Krishnan was tortured to death by policemen and subsequently lodged a police report, saying he saw Krishnan being beaten up and trampled upon by policemen in boots.

He also claimed that Krishnan was denied medical assistance.

Guidelines For Muslims Celebrating Religious Festivals Of Non-Muslims

 The 68th muzakarah of the National Fatwa Committee for Islamic Religious Affairs on April 12, 2005  discussed the Guidelines For Muslims Celebrating Religious Festivals Of Non-Muslims. The muzakarah has decided that:

In determining the non-Muslim celebrations that can be attended by Muslims, several main criteria should serve as guidelines so as not to contradict the teachings of Islam. The criteria are as follows:

1. The event is not accompanied by ceremonies that are against the Islamic faith (aqidah).

The meaning of “against the Islamic faith (aqidah)” is a thing, act, word or situation which if conducted will lead to tarnishing the faith (aqidah) of Muslims. 

For example:

1. to include religious symbols such as the cross, installing lights, candles, Christmas tree and so forth;
2. to sing religious songs;
3. to put any religious markings on the forehead, or other markings onto parts of the body;
4. to deliver speech or gestures in the form of a praise to the non-Muslim religion;
5. to bow or conduct acts of honour to the religious ceremony of non-Muslims.

 

2. The event is not accompanied by acts against the Islamic law.

The meaning of “against the Islamic law” is a thing, act, word or situation which if conducted will contradict the Islamic teachings practised by the Muslim community.

For example:

1. Wearing red costumes like Santa Claus or other garments that reflect religion;
2. Serving intoxicating food or beverages and the likes;
3. Having sounds or ornaments like church bells, Christmas tree, temple or breaking of coconuts;
4. Having ceremonies with elements of gaming, worship, cult, superstitions and the likes. 

3. The event is not accompanied by “acts that contradict with moral and cultural development of Muslim society” in this country.

The meaning of “acts that contradict with moral and cultural development of Muslim society” is a thing, act, word or situation which if conducted will contradict the values and norms of the Muslim society of this country which adheres to the Islamic teachings based on Ahlus Sunnah Wal-Jamaah.

 

For example:

1. Mixing freely without any limit or manners;
2. Wearing conspicuous clothing;
3. Singing songs that contain lyrics of obscenity and worship;
4. Organising programmes such as beauty pageants, cock fighting and such. 

4. The event is not accompanied by acts that can “stir the sensitivity of Muslim community”.

The meaning of “stir the sensitivity of Muslim community” is a thing, act, word or situation which if conducted will offend the feelings of Muslims about their beliefs and practices.

 

For Example:

1. Speeches or songs in the form of non-Muslim religious propaganda;
2. Speeches that insult the Muslims;
3. Speeches that insult Islam;
4. Presentations with the aim to ridicule the religious belief of Muslims. 

5. The organisers and the public are asked to get the views of religious authorities before organising or attending celebrations of non-Muslims.

Custodial death claim: 2nd witness 'missing'

(Malaysiakini) The second witness in the M Krishnan's death-in-custody case has vanished without a trace, raising suspicions that he was threatened against coming out, said a prominent human rights lawyer.

N Surendran (right), who is representing Krishnan's family in seeking a second post-mortem to determine the cause of death, said they do not know where the witness is and are not able to contact him.

"We have lost our second witness in suspicious circumstances. We suspect someone may be preventing him from coming forward," Surendran said when met today.

"It seems common now for witnesses in cases related to death in custody to be threatened and even arrested by the authorities."Krishnan, who was arrested at a friend's house late on Jan 2 night, died on Jan 7 while being detained at the Bukit Jalil police lock-up.

His family has claimed that he was assaulted, based on bruises and cuts on his body, but both the police and the hospital have contended that his death was due to a stomach ulcer.

Krishnan's friend, taxi driver A Sargunan (right), 34, had come forward last Tuesday as the first witness in the case.

Sargunan claimed that the police had ordered them both to lie on their stomach before proceeding to kick and stomp their backs while wearing boots.

Surendran also said the police have made the situation unduly difficult by forcing the family to secure a court order for a second post-mortem to be carried out on Krishnan's body.

“All they need to do is to say 'yes' to a (second) post-mortem. Instead, the police (were) deceitful (in saying) that the family needs to get a court order.

“What surprises me is they (police) still refuse to give their consent after an eyewitness has forward, because now it is in everyone's best interest to have a second post-mortem.”

'Justice for Krishnan'

Surendran pointed out, though, that the delaying tactic has done little to dent his clients' resolve to pursue justice to honour Krishnan's (left) memory.

The people from Krishnan's kampong are “extremely upset” and are expected to turn up in force at the Kuala Lumpur court complex tomorrow to protest his death, said Surendran.

“I'm glad the family is quite resolute. His mother said that, no matter how long it takes, she wants the truth out... not just for the family but also for the community.”

Krishnan's family is expected to apply for a court order tomorrow to allow the second post-mortem to be carried out.

Police response

In response to Surendran's claim, the police urged the lawyer to inform them if the witness is missing.

Prosecuting division senior deputy director Razali Basri pointed out that the police so far have no record of any witness "disappearing" in the probe into Krishnan's death.

"There are a number of witnesses. We don't know which one he (Surendran) is referring to," he told Malaysiakini.

"It is normal for witnesses to go on holiday or go (out of town), but if he feels a witness has really gone missing then he should let us know.

"As a lawyer, he should report back to us so an investigation can be carried out."

Razali also urged Surendran to verify his facts first before making sweeping statements regarding the status of witnesses or investigations.

"If you are not sure of certain facts, you can always confirm with the authorities. If your statement can lead to any unhealthy speculation, please avoid it as it is unfair to accuse the authorities of things without being sure of your facts," he added.

Biased Judge in P. Uthayakumar’s Sedition trial disallows reference to pariah in Interlok book to prove UMNO Attorney General’s malicious and selective prosecution.

The biased Judge Sabaraiah Osman had been difficult first thing this morning, despite P. Uthayakumar having to attend another Federal Court Sedition matter where even the Judge Junaidah who had dismissed the criminal charge of Sedition against P. Uthayakumar was “scaked”.

This biased Sessions Court Judge Sabariah Osman threatened to issue a warrant for P. Uthayakumar knowing that he was at the Federal Court.

P. Uthayakumar’s sedition trial at the K.L. Court started at 2.30 p.m P. Uthayakumar tendered the Interlok book, pages 211 “ Satu pekara besar yang membuatkan mereka senang bergaul adalah kerana mereka tergolong dalam satu kasta Paria. Mereka tidak perlu takut akan mengotori sesiapa kalau bersentuhan”, page 224 “Maniam hanya membawa bungkusan kecil berisi sirih pinang. Tidak makan tengah hari tidak mendatangkan masalah asalkan dia dapat mengunyah sirihnya seperti lembu atau kambing memamah biak” and page 276 “Dia berasa bangga kerana anjing orang putih itu jinak dengannya. Kadang-kadang dia menunjukkan lagaknya dengan membawa anjing itu sampai ke biliknya”.

DCP Acryl Sani Abdullah Sani was made to read these passages and a newsreport in Sinarharian 11/1/11 at page S9 of the angry Indians burning the Interlok book.

This biased Judge refused to allow the tendering of the Interlok book or two other newspaper clippings on the seditions use of the word Pariah leading to the angering of the Indian community in Malaysia. She also disallowed the witness DCP Dato Acryl Sani Abdullah Sani the Deputy federal Criminal Investigations Director from answering how many police reports had been lodged by the Indians thus for and why there is no Sedition Charge unlike in the case of P. Uthayakumar who had used the word ‘ethnic cleansing” of Indians in Malaysia referring to Kg. Medan racial attacks , Hindu temple demolishments, killings in police lock up of Indians and shooting dead Indians by the Malay-sian police.

Double standards vindictive and malicious prosecution of the UMNO Attorney General’s prosecution. When the malay call the Indian Pariah there is no criminal prosecution.

This is UMNO AGs’ double standards.

This case resumes tomorrow (18/1/11) @ 9.30a.m at full steam by this biased Judge to convict P. Uthayakumar.

Karunai Nithi @ Compassionate Justice

Federal Court strikes out appeal by three Hindraf activists

PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court here today struck out an appeal by three Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) activists to overturn a High Court decision to reinstate a sedition charge against them.

Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Richard Malanjum and Federal Court judges Hashim Yusoff and Md Raus Sharif made the unanimous decision after ruling that the apex court did not have the jurisdiction to hear their appeal because the matter originated from the Sessions Court.

Matters originating from the Sessions Court end at the Court of Appeal.

Lawyers P Uthayakumar, 49, younger brother P Waytha Moorthy, 44, and V Ganabatirau, 37, were charged at the Klang Sessions Court on Nov 23, 2007, with allegedly inciting a crowd through their speeches in Tamil, at a restaurant in Batang Berjuntai between 8.30pm and 11.15pm on Nov 16, 2007.

Ten days later, the Sessions Court ordered the three to be discharged not amounting to an acquittal on a technicality, after ruling that the charge was improperly framed.

However, on Dec 10, the same year, the High Court reversed the decision after allowing the prosecution’s application to review that of the Sessions Court.

The Court of Appeal on July 7, last year rejected their appeal and upheld the High Court”s decision to order the trio to stand trial on the charge.

Uthayakumar, Waytha Moorthy and Ganabatirau were charged under Section 4 of the Sedition Act 1948 (Revised 1969) and would be liable to a maximum RM5,000 fine or three years” jail, upon conviction.

-Bernama

School principal defends ‘pariah’ remark, apologises to Indian students

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 17 — A Muslim school principal apologised to some 200 Indian students this afternoon, hours after word spread that she had allegedly called the Indian community “pariahs” during the morning's school assembly.

A senior teacher with SMK Taman Tasik Ampang confirmed that headmistress Zaini Mohd Zin made the apology to the students in the school library at 12.30pm.

“She apologised and shook their hands,” he told The Malaysian Insider, adding the students responded positively to her apology.

But one student questioned her intentions in using the term, the teacher said, disclosing that Zaini then gave a private explanation to the student who then accepted the apology.

Zaini earlier told The Malaysian Insider that while she admitted to using the word once during her speech, she had merely been quoting from the controversial “Interlok” novel.

“I was explaining to the students about the importance of excelling in the history subject and it was then that I referred to the ‘Interlok’ novel.

“I quoted from the novel, mentioning that the reason why the Indians were unhappy with the book was because of the word. I do not even dare to repeat the word now,” she said when contacted.

Zaini added that in her speech she had also said the Indian community from the lower castes in India had migrated to Malaysia in the past and were contented here as they were better recognised.

“I said many left India because of the caste system and they are happy here because Malaysia does not practice that. We are all equal,” she said.

But her words, Zaini lamented, had been taken out of context to mean that she was insulting the community by calling them “pariahs” and low class.

She admitted that she had treaded on dangerous ground when she touched on the “Interlok” row and expressed regret that the incident had annoyed the Indian community.

“I am getting cold feet now. I truly did not mean to insult anyone with my statement. It would have been extremely stupid of me to mention the word with the intention to hurt anyone.

“Now, I do not even dare to repeat the word... even to you,” she said.

Zaini said she was willing to apologise over the incident and revealed that she would clarify the matter during school assembly next Monday.

“I am also writing a letter now to the Selangor and federal education departments,” she said.

Word of the incident spread like wildfire this morning as SMSes began circulating that Zaini had insulted the Indian community by accusing them of being in the lower caste and calling them “pariahs”.

The senior teacher vouched for his superior and came to her immediate defence when asked if she had uttered the derogatory term.

“I am from the Indian community myself and here, I have worked with over seven or eight bosses before.

“I am not trying to back her because she is my boss but I truly believe that I have never worked with a superior more open-minded and moderate than Zaini,” he said.

He added that Zaini even allowed her Hindu students to take special religious classes during school hours and never objected when he invited religious leaders to give speeches.

“Even a Buddhist monk has entered our school to give talks. I am convinced that she had made those statements without any malice.

“Zaini is not a racist. She is even willing to retract what she said and apologise although her words were taken out of context,” he said.

The senior teacher claimed the incident was being blown out of proportion as certain parties were attempting to use it to their benefit in the ongoing row over the “Interlok” novel.

“People are just trying to turn it into an issue for their own personal reason. But this is wrong,” he said. - The Malaysian Insider

“We are fighting for the entire community”

An exclusive interview with the family members of death-in-custody victim M Krishnan who was found dead in the Bukit Jalil police station on the 7th Jan 2011.
The mother, A Lakshmie and wife P Revathi of the victim are not convinced with the reason given by the police; that the victim died due to a medical condition, and they are seeking a second post-mortem.