(Photo above even went it was raining we didn’t move from where we sat) Valga HINDRAF Makkal Sakthi

NE
TRIBUTE TO INDIAN MOTHERS
(Photo above even went it was raining we didn’t move from where we sat) Valga HINDRAF Makkal Sakthi

"The facts seem to point to the possibility that they wanted him out of the way and delegated this job to others close to them to execute," said Americk Singh Sidhu (left) in an interview with Malaysiakini.
"As matters stand, I am concerned about the involvement of Nazim (Razak), Najib's younger brother. The question is why would he have an interest in Bala's disappearance if it were not to protect his brother?" asked Americk.
Balasubramaniam recently emerged from hiding to reveal that he had met Nazim, an architect, the night before he made a dramatic reversal and recanted his first statutory declaration in which he alleged that Najib had close ties with murdered Mongolian woman Altantuya Shaariibuu.
Balasubramaniam also claimed that he was offered RM5 million by one Deepak, a businessman close to Najib's wife, Rosmah Mansor, to retract his first statutory declaration.
Najib had repeatedly denied speculations that he was behind Balasubramaniam's retraction.
In the interview, Americk recounted how he was introduced to Balasubramaniam, on his reaction to the retraction of Balasubramaniam's first statutory declaration and his subsequent meeting with the former police officer after he emerged from hiding a year later.
The lawyer also revealed that the video recording of his interview with Balasubramaniam three months ago was secretly taken as an "insurance in the event he was apprehended by the parties involved in his departure from this country over a year ago".
"He did not know he was being filmed at that time but we did inform him of this later and he understood why we did it," said Americk.
According to him, while Balasubramaniam may have committed an offence under the Statutory Declarations Act 1960 for giving conflicting statutory declarations, he could nevertheless defend himself against the charge as it "would appear he was coerced, intimidated and/or forced to sign the second statutory declaration under duress".
But those who allegedly instigated the swearing of the false second statutory declaration - Deepak, one ASP Suresh and lawyer M Arunampalam - are also liable to criminal charges for abetment and conspiracy, added Americk.
"In so far as Nazim is concerned, he was involved in criminal intimidation of Bala besides a possibility of being roped into the abetment/conspiracy charges arising from the creation of the second false statutory declaration."
The following is the first of a two-part interview:
Malaysiakini: When did you first meet Bala?
Americk: I first met Bala sometime in April or May 2008. I was having some early evening drinks with several lawyer friends of mine at 'Fogles', which is a delicatessen/bar at Plaza Damas. We were later joined by ASP Suresh and Bala.
One of the lawyers I was with, M Puravalen, introduced me to them. I had no idea who they were before that. I had not been following the Altantuya case very closely so I had not realised that Abdul Razak Baginda had a private investigator assisting him and this was Bala.
I then started enquiring about this whole saga out of curiosity.
Puravalen had been involved in the Altantuya case as he was the first counsel Abdul Razak Baginda had engaged before he was discharged and a new counsel engaged, and so he enlightened me as regards the more salient facts.
I am not sure how ASP Suresh featured in all this but he appeared to be a good friend of Bala's and appeared to have his interests at heart.
Eventually some of the other lawyers left and the restaurant started closing so we decided to move on to 'The Backyard' pub in Sri Hartamas, which is only a short distance away from Plaza Damas. There were four of us ... Bala, myself, ASP Suresh and Valen.
We were drinking and still discussing the whole Altantuya murder case as I found it fascinating. Sometime later (Subang MP and lawyer) Sivarasa Rasiah walked in. I know Siva as he is also a friend, but we are not very close. We asked him to join us. He also listened to what Bala had to say and after that suggested Bala get someone to record everything.
Somehow I was chosen to do this as everyone felt I was the one lawyer who did not have an agenda in this matter as I was someone neutral. I agreed and that was when I made an appointment for Bala to come to my office so that I could record all he had to say.
The recordings occurred about two or three times over a period of about two months and lasted a few hours each time.
How did you feel when Bala came out with the second statutory declaration? Did you attempt to contact him?
I received a call from a member of the press at about 9.30am on July 4, 2008 asking me why my client, Bala, had called a press conference for 11am that morning at the Prince hotel.
I was a little surprised as I had no idea what this was about so I proceeded to call Bala, who did not answer his phone. I then proceeded to make further enquiries only to find out that Bala had purportedly been represented by another lawyer, one Arunampalam who had spoken to the press at that press conference on behalf of Bala and had said that Bala was retracting the contents of his first SD as he had been forced to sign it under duress.
When I came to know of this press conference and what transpired thereat, I was absolutely flabbergasted. Bala and I had spent two months and many hours over the first SD to ensure it was absolutely correct and for him to deny the contents in the space of 24 hours did seem incredible to me.
Bala had anticipated that he would be arrested by the police after releasing the first statutory declaration and he told me so. This is why he had handed over his mobile phone to me for safe keeping before he left my office the evening before as he did not want the police to download information from it.
We were therefore preparing for his arrest and then to go to the police station he was being held at to represent him. I never expected him to have been 'hijacked' by the personalities involved, and I am sure, neither did he.
It is also worth mentioning here that this lawyer, Arunampalam, was not engaged by Bala to represent him at the press conference at the Prince hotel despite the fact that Arunampalam has said Bala called him and asked him to do so. This is a blatant lie.
Bala does not know this man and had never met him prior to that press conference. In fact, it is well-known that Arunampalam does legal work for Deepak and this can be substantiated quite easily.
There is no doubt in my mind that Bala was forced, coerced, threatened and intimidated into signing the second statutory declaration.
Bala subsequently disappeared for one year. When did you meet him next?
Bala called me around July 19, 2009. I was at that time in a little village called Llanwarne on the Welsh border staying with some friends of mine. My wife was also with me. I was surprised to hear his voice as I hadn't heard from him since he left my office with ASP Suresh in the early evening of July 3, 2008.
He started off the conversation by apologising to me for any trouble he had caused. He said he was returning to Malaysia on July 28 and wanted to see me. I informed him I was only returning to Kuala Lumpur on Aug 2 and landing in the early hours of the morning. He gave me a contact number to call and I said I would call him after I landed to arrange a meeting.
At approximately 9am on Aug 2, 2009, I called the number Bala had given me and we arranged to meet in about two days' time. We left the exact time and place to be decided later.
On Aug 4, we finally arranged to meet at my apartment in Ampang Hilir at about 1pm the next day. As Bala wanted to tell me everything that had happened to him since I saw him last, I thought it would be best to have some witnesses present and so I called my counsel, Manjeet Singh Dhillon and another lawyer, Amarjit Singh Sidhu. They both turned up at about 12pm and we waited for Bala to arrive.
Bala eventually turned up a little later than expected as he was having difficulty locating my apartment. He arrived with two other Indian gentlemen who were introduced to us but I cannot recall their names.
He then spent about three hours telling us exactly what had happened to him. During this time he was constantly questioned by myself, Manjeet and Amarjit.
We had arranged for a concealed audio visual device to record this conversation as we felt Bala may have needed some insurance
Were you convinced by Bala's story? What documentary evidence did you have?
After approximately three hours of conversation, we were more than convinced that what he was telling us was the truth. It took quite a long time to unravel the details as Bala was recalling events which had taken place over a year ago coupled with the fact that there were so many details.
At that stage, Bala did not reveal any documentary evidence as he was still very apprehensive of the entire situation but he did tell us details of all the evidence he had from bank account statements, passports, flight tickets and photocopied cheques paid to him.
We therefore asked him to produce this evidence and he assured us he would.
What was your advice to Bala at the meeting? Was there a follow-up meeting after that?
After digesting everything we were told, we felt it was necessary to record the events which had taken place in a suitable, chronological and coherent format as we were concerned the matter was rather serious.
We advised Bala to hand over all documents to us to enable us to further verify his story. He promised us he would but said he would have to go to his wife's bank (EON) to get her statements for the past year and that other documents were still in India. He did however have copies of his family's passports and copies of the cheques Deepak had signed. He eventually produced these documents to me by hand, by post and by fax.
We advised Bala to behave normally with Deepak and ASP Suresh and not to let them know he had seen us. He told us he would be returning to India shortly and would contact us again. From then on, all contact with Bala was by phone and email.
As a lawyer, do you think Bala has committed any offences?
Technically, he may have committed an offence under the Statutory Declarations Act 1960 by swearing a false declaration. By this I mean the second SD, not the first SD. However under the circumstances, he would have a good defence to a charge of that nature as it would appear he was coerced, intimidated and/or forced to sign the second SD under duress.
Making a false second SD technically exposes Bala to criminal prosecution. It would equally make the ones who instigated the swearing of the false second SD [Deepak/ Arunampalam/Suresh], liable to criminal charges for abetment and conspiracy.
If we refer to section 3 of the SD Act 1960, this states that SDs made under the Act are such declarations as are referred to in sections 199 and 200 of the Penal Code, and where false would be punishable under that Act.
Section 199 of the Penal Code reads:
"Whoever, in any declaration made or subscribed by him, which declaration any court, or any public servant or other person, is bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence of any fact, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, touching any point material to the object for which the declaration is made or used, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence."
This provision is then followed by Section 200 of the Penal Code which states that whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true any such declaration knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.
Even if we limit ourselves to these provisions alone, offences are clearly shown to have been committed by Deepak, Suresh and Arunampalam. Bala may well have a defense of duress but that would be a matter of evidence.
In so far as Nazim (Razak) is concerned, he was involved in criminal intimidation of Bala besides a possibility of being roped into the abetment/conspiracy charges arising from the creation of the second false SD.
Note also that under section 10[b] of the ACA 1997, it is an offence to corruptly give to any person an inducement in such circumstances as those in which Bala was induced to make the false second SD. Deepak, Suresh and Nazim could well be prosecuted under these provisions.
With the evidence that you and the other lawyers have seen from Bala and based on Bala's own explanation, do you think the PM (Najib Abdul Razak) and his wife (Rosmah) are personally involved in this (matter)? Or was it done on their behalf by someone?
If you mean Bala's disappearance, then the facts seem to point to the possibility that they wanted him out of the way and delegated this job to others close to them to execute.
As matters stand, I am concerned about the involvement of Nazim, Najib's younger brother. The question is why would he have an interest in Bala's disappearance if it were not to protect his brother?
I think this is the conclusion any reasonable person would come to.
Tomorrow - Death and Molotov cocktails
THE BALA TAPES
Part 1: Bala was in town, now on Youtube
Part 2: PI Bala reveals his final hours in M'sia
Part 3: Cops grill PI Bala in Bangkok, praise his courage
Part 4: PI Bala - From Bangkok to Kathmandu to Delhi
Part 5: 'I was told Rosmah was happy with my retraction'
26/11/09









Memo to PM too
Although the group agreed to this request, the police had then asked the group to disperse following complaints from the property owners. The police also told the group that they were involved in an illegal gathering.
Jayathas refused to stop the hunger strike and split his group into smaller groups of four to continue with the hunger strike.
Later today at 1pm, a group of children will present the hunger-strikers with garlands before proceeding to Putrajaya to hand the same 18-point memorandum to Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak.
On Nov 25, 2007, some 30,000 mobilised in the streets of Kuala Lumpur following a protest rally called by Hindraf to submit a memorandum to the British High Commission on the situation of Indians here.
The government had banned Hindraf last October.
Memo left at PM's office
They arrived at the PM's office at about 2.45pm but there was a brief stand-off between them and a representative from the premier's department over where the memorandum will be handed over.The group had wanted the premier's representative to come out to meet them while the other party had invited five representatives from the group to go in to deliver the memorandum.After waiting for about 45 minutes, the group then left their memorandum at the doorstep and dispersed. Those on the hunger-strike will break their fast at 4pm.A small team of police personnel was also on standby to monitor the situation.On Nov 25, 2007, some 30,000 mobilised in the streets of Kuala Lumpur following a protest rally called by Hindraf to submit a memorandum to the British High Commission on the situation of Indians here.The government had banned Hindraf last October.




A short pictorial essay on how we could emulate others in peaceful co-existence. Since the source is anonymous, we do not know where these photos were taken, but wouldn't it be great if they were taken in Malaysia?

Buddhist monks invited for prayers

Peaceful co-existence in prayers

Exchanging of ideas

Guests-of-honour at the main table, sharing a simple meal. Can this happen in Malaysia?
24/11/09
Hindraf
24/11/09
Having completed the Tiram state constituency forum on 22/11/2009 at 7.00 p.m, a meeting was held with the HRP Johor committee. Thereafter our Secretary General, Information Chief and loyalist P.Karuna shot off for the Chaah, Johor dialogue with about 50 members at their rented premises off the Chaah Main Road.
This Chaah dialogue has been the most interactive with the local supporters asking the most relevant, protruding and at one point even a question amounting to a Cross Examination.
We are proud of these mostly ordinary palm oil harvesters, lorry drivers and odd job workers who after the 25th November 2007 Hindraf rally have awakened and are again
S. JAYATHAS
HRP Information Chief
Human Rights Party
24/11/098
FINALLY, private investigator P.Balasubramaniam has come out of hiding after 15 months to give a no holds barred interview on what happened to him.
In the presence of three prominent lawyers on Oct 27, he reaffirmed that his first statutory declaration released on July 3 last year was true and that he was offered to RM5million to retract it.
He named carpet businessman Deepak—who is said to be an associate of Rosmah Mansor, the wife of Prime Minister Najib Razak—as the person who met him at a Rawang restaurant and made the cash offer.
Excepts of the video interview has been posted on YouTube
In the interview, Bala said Deepak made more than a cash offer.
“He asked me to go to Putrajaya but he never mentioned who he wanted me to go and meet… then after that he offered me RM5million to retract the SD,” Bala said.
The meeting allegedly took place at a restaurant in Rawang, on the same day Bala’s statutory declaration became public alleging links between Najib, his aide Razak Baginda and murdered Mongolian model Altantuya Shaaribu.
Today, the first part of Bala’s interview appeared on YouTube and Raja Petra’s www.malaysia-today.net . This is to be followed by a series of other portions of his Bombshell 3 expose.
Bala is likely to name people who played a role in the retraction of his first statutory declaration, which was replaced by a second one read out at a press conference the next day, on July 4 last year.
It is learnt that some of the personalities to be named are those close to the Prime Minister and his wife as well as senior police officers.
The 50-year- old former Special Branch officer is also expected to give a full account of his family’s ordeal while hiding away from Malaysia.
It is learnt that he and his family first went to Singapore , then flew to Bangkok before arriving in New Dehli and Chennai via Kathmandu.
Who are the people and why they went to such lengths to buy Bala’s silence is likely to become clearer as his expose in the interview unfolds.
23/11/09

Construction site for the new Istana Negara (© Rachel Leow)
IF you drive down Jalan Duta in Kuala Lumpur today, along the road that runs from the Sri Hartamas housing estate to the foot of the majestic Masjid Kuala Lumpur, most of the journey will be flanked on your right by a large temporary wall. That wall girds the borders of the new Istana Negara construction site, slated for completion in 2009 or 2010.
This new Istana will house each of our nine Malaysian sultans during their five-year stints as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. Something about the interminable length of the drive past that long white wall made me ask myself: Why do we need a new Istana? Let alone one that sits on 96.52 hectares of land, and, in these severe financial times, one that is reportedly costing the rakyat RM1.1 billion?

The current Istana Negara along Jalan Syed Putra (public domain / Wiki Commons)
To give you some idea of what 96.52 hectares of land is, here are some real-world expressions of the size of the new palace. One Jalan Duta Royal Istana is equivalent to 2.3 MidValley Cities, 4.9 KLCC parks, 209 Khir Toyo mansions, and 3,472 average semi-D houses (at 3,000 sq ft each). Our present Istana Negara, on Jalan Istana, is a historic building dating back to 1928, and it sits on 11 hectares of land. Our new Istana therefore represents a nine-fold increase in the amount of land that has been set aside for our Malaysian royalty.
Let's not forget, we live in a constitutional monarchy. That means that our monarchs are accountable to us. Accountability is what I want to talk about in this article, and I want to do this by taking a short detour to modern day Britain.
Criticising the monarchy

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Tuanku Mizan
Zainal Abidin (© Presiden Republik
Indonesia / Wiki Commons)
Some time ago, I was struck by an article in the Guardian that reported on a series of parliamentary discussions over the state of the British royal family's finances. The royal family, uniquely among all British public sector institutions, was deemed exempt from all public spending cuts necessitated by the financial crisis. In fact, they even appeared to be seeking a raise on their yearly allowance, which at present stands at around £7.9 million per annum. Despite their present £21 million surplus in royal reserves, Buckingham Palace officials claimed, in an annual report on royal finances in June, that without a raise, they would be £40 million in the red by 2019.
To put the debate in context, it is worth noting that there have been a recent slew of drastic cuts in public spending in the UK. This includes a one-year pay freeze for five million public sector workers, and a withdrawing of middle-class tax benefits. In view of all this, the royal exemption has been perceived by many Members of Parliament (MPs) as gratuitous mollycoddling. As Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker said, "When we are looking at potentially painful cuts in public services, the royal family should not be feather-bedded in this way. I am talking about the taxpayer paying for Prince Andrew's flights to take part in golf matches."
Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom
(public domain / Wiki Commons)There are two points I wish to make about this Guardian article. Firstly, I was struck by the liveliness of the comments section, expressing an extraordinary range of opinions on the British monarchy. These range from the critical to the defensive; from the reasoned to the illogical; from the constructive to the banal. "Welfare bums," one commentator wrote, "they should get a real job." Another declared: "The Queen, defender of the Faith — worth every penny!" Yet another scoffed: "Parasites at worst, anachronisms at best." One voice among the yowling anti-royals said staunchly: "I support the royal family one hundred percent. Firstly, they do bring in money via tourists... But more importantly, they support many charities and sports organisations [and they] represent our country's heritage and tradition, and an age lost in the last fifty or so years. I would be deeply saddened to see that gone."
For better or worse, I ask you: Where in Malaysia can we have such an open, fearless debate on our monarchical institutions? In the UK, open public debate has not resulted in anarchy and the monarchy's dissolution. Rather, it has resulted in a monarchy that has incentive to remain relevant to the people over whom it constitutionally governs, and also continues to be, on the whole, well loved by the majority of British.
That begs the question: Are our royals afraid of what the people think of them that they need to be protected from public opinion?
Transparent spending

Side view of Istana Melawati, another royal residence for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong,
in Putrajaya (© Gryffindor / Wiki Commons)
My second point concerns the relative transparency of the state of British royal finances. It is possible for any British citizen to access information about royal expenditure. It is possible, in other words, for the public to have some sense of how much of their tax dollars are being used to finance the royal family, and indeed, for some people to complain about it. Accountability is at the heart of all attacks and defences of the British monarchy. Its naysayers claim there is not enough of it; its defenders retort that they are more financially accountable than many heads of states would be in a republic. Royal accountants state, a bit defensively, that the British monarchy supposedly cost each British taxpayer only 69p in the 2008 to 2009 fiscal year.
In Malaysia, I, for one, have no idea how much the rakyat spends on our constitutional monarchs. And I am quite sure that there have been no studies or inquiry commissions into this. Unfortunately, in Malaysia, asking for monarchical accountability of their expenses will probably be construed as derhaka, or hasutan against our royal institution.
There are not even, so far as I am aware, any polls of enquiry regarding the general popularity of the various monarchs and their families, let alone published accounts of royal expenditure.
Under the Ninth Malaysia Plan, all royal projects are obliged to be conducted by open tender, but as PAS's Mahfuz Omar has pointed out, Projek Istana Negara was not, and the project's costs have suffered as a result. Initially slated to cost around RM400 million, our new Istana Negara is about to cost the nation RM1.1 billion instead.
24/11/09

This is UMNO’s justice which “abides” by Article 8 of the Federal Constitution which provides for equality and equal protection before the law. Bravo UMNO!
Hindraf Cow head candle vigil
Bravo UMNO! This is One Malay-sia!
21/11/09
HINDRAF – 3 events on November 25th 2009 to commemorate HINDRAF’s
Neo Democratic Revolution.
It has been two years since the Neo Democratic Revolution and uprising of the Malaysian Indians against the marginalized and systematic discrimination against them by the UMNO led Government.
HINDRAF would be organizing three events to commemorate the people’s Neo Democratic Revolution initiated by HINDRAF against the totalitarian government led by the UMNO.
Event No 1 -
A gathering of 18 HINDRAF supporters in front of KLCC between 9.00am- 4.00pm to observe a hunger strike representing the 18 point demands that was submitted to the UMNO led government in uplifting the Malaysian Indian community that has been systematically marginalized and discriminated by the government for the last 52 years.
Event No 2 –
HINDRAF chairman’s daughter, W. Vaishnavi will be attending the Prime Minister’s Department in Putra Jaya to hand over a letter from HINDRAF Chairman detailing the current and immediate problems of the Malaysian Indians in regards to the discrimination that they face in socio development backwardness of the Malaysian Indian society within the sphere of Malaysian community in regards to education, economics, business, police abuses, freedom of religious practice and other continued suppression on Article 5, 8, 10 & 13 of the constitution against the public more particularly against the Malaysian Indians.
Event No 3 :
Nationwide prayers at more than 100 locations to light 18 ghee lamps to signify the 18 Point Demands submitted by Hindraf to the then Prime Minister that is yet to be fulfilled. A complete list of temples holding such prayers would be available for viewing on our website on the 25th November 2009.
A separate mega Ruthra yagam/fire ritual would be held on 29th November 2009 at Agora Veerabathrar Sanggili Karuppar Temple 17 ½ Mile Kg.Benggali Rawang Selangor.
It is a common cause for all Malaysian if fairness and equality is what we pursue to enhance our community’s agenda against the repressive government led by UMNO and its voiceless and spineless coalition for the betterment of the society.
Hindraf warns the Royal Malaysian Police not to interfere, disrupt and/or sabotage these peaceful gatherings which are organised in accordance to our basic rights enshrined under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution and which is very meaningful and significant to Malaysian Indians.
Thank you
R.Shan
Internal Relations Coordinator
HINDRAF
New York
+1 646 6378600
Hishammuddin's statements as Home Minister since he was sworn into Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's administration in April 2009, betray either how clueless or disrespectful he is about human rights, democratic principles and gender equality.
Examples abound. Most notably:

Hishammuddin may as well have said this...(all pics of Hishammuddin courtesy of theSun)
Hishammuddin famously said he was "thankful" that no "serious incidents" occurred in Perak on 7 May 2009 despite police action in arresting scores of people, including elected representatives, and the unlawful imprisonment of Perak Speaker V Sivakumar.

...and this...
He also famously declared that lawyers were not above the law in justifying the arrest of five legal aid lawyers who were trying to represent their clients who had been arrested at the Brickfields police station on the night of 7 May 2009. It wasn't just the Bar Council who was outraged, even the MCA was appalled at the arrest of lawyers who were merely doing their job. But Hishammuddin still found it fit to defend such police action.

...also this...
Of course, the starkest example of the kind of minister Hishammuddin is was demonstrated when he not only welcomed the Shah Alam cow-head protestors, he also defended them. With Hishammuddin's powerful and public legitimisation of bigotry and the threat of violence against Hindus in Malaysia, I reckon that Hishammuddin's behaviour was far more shameful than the protestors'. After all, his is a public office paid for by all tax-paying Malaysians to protect the nation's, and not some thugs', interest.

...and this...
Hishammuddin also became the butt of ridicule when on 12 Nov 2009 he defended the police yet again despite the country's high crime rate.

...and this.
And most recently, Hishammuddin demonstrated a total lack of gender awareness when he declared that Section 498 of the Penal Code was here to stay. His statement in Parliament also reminds us that actually, Hishammuddin, a lawyer by training, has no understanding of Malaysia's commitments under international law. In this case, it would be the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women or Cedaw, which Malaysia signed in 1995.
Incompetent
What do these gaffes by Hishammuddin tell us? Clearly, he's an incompetent minister who seems intent on defending the police force for their disregard of human rights and for their inefficiencies.

What has been done about the Penan issue in Sarawak?
(pic courtesy of http://www.flickr.com/photos/malayrish/)
After all, the Home Ministry's mission statement, according to its website, is the "administration of internal security matters in ensuring peace and wellbeing of the people". How can a minister entrusted with this defend police incompetence and the threat of violence by non-state actors such as the cow-head protestors?
Also, what is Hishammuddin doing about the sheer incompetence of the Sarawak police force? Why has no action been taken against the police in Sarawak for its sloppy investigations into the rape of Penan girls and women despite a government task force report finding evidence of the rapes? Already, the Sarawak Women for Women Society (SWWS) has reported yet another rape in a primary school in the interiors of Sarawak where a teacher is a suspect.
As SWWS points out: "... the lesson for society to learn is that rape happens in the interior and will continue to happen until people who commit this crime know they are going to be found out and held to account for their actions."

Shaitaan defends his demons against Hishamuddin's accusations
(source: ribut di kuala lumpur)
But with Hishammuddin so busy defending the police force for its incompetence and lack of respect for human rights and democratic principles, will those who threaten the "peace and wellbeing of the people" ever be taken to task?
I'd be curious to know what Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) will eventually be put in place for the Home Ministry. And if these KPIs are drawn up intelligently and fairly, I'll be willing to wager that Hishammuddin is more likely to fail in meeting his KPIs than succeed.
Cabinet appointments
Even so, will Hishammuddin be retained? That would really be a measure of whether Najib is serious about meeting his own KPIs as the nation's chief executive officer.
See, the problem with Hishammuddin being a minister isn't who he is per se. The problem with Hishammuddin is that the selection process of cabinet ministers is governed by political patronage.
On 13 Nov 2009, theSun ran a translation of the Chinese language press reports that quoted Najib as squashing rumours about an impending cabinet reshuffle involving MCA leaders. The Chinese press had speculated that MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat would ask for vice-president Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai to be removed as Health Minister because of the fighting between both men.

Najib and Hishammuddin are cousins
(file pic)We all know that such a scenario is entirely possible. After all, by convention, the leaders of the main Barisan Nasional component parties have always been given cabinet positions.
In Hishammuddin's case, it would not be surprising if he was appointed to a powerful cabinet portfolio because he is Umno vice-president. Not only that, he is also Najib's cousin and the son of a former prime minister, Tun Hussein Onn.
This begs the question: who merits being appointed to cabinet positions in this country? Surely, if we are to achieve all the development goals that our prime ministers have been so fond of announcing, what we need are appointments based on meritocracy. Not political patronage nor family ties nor positions within a party.
20/11/09

According to the housewife, she was converted to Islam in 1989, when she was seven years old.
At the home, an officer handed over her birth certificate which stipulated that she was a born Hindu on Aug 13, 1982. The certificate revealed that she was born in Keratong, Pahang to plantation worker B Subramaniam and Latchumy Ramadu.
The welfare home officer also handed over a certificate disclosing her conversion in 1989.
She was apparently converted to Islam before a religious officer representing the state Islamic council and department. The document showed her signature 'Hasnah' on the left side bottom corner.
However, Banggarma could not recall the incident and claimed that she was living as a Hindu while she was at the welfare home.
"I have always been a practicing Hindu," she told reporters.
However, she admitted that she had attended Islamic prayer sessions with other inmates. "I supposed I just followed the crowd," she said.
Due to the conversion, Banggarma had difficulties in registering the birth of her two children - Kanagaraj, eight, and Hisyanthini, two – until last year.
"I finally managed to obtain birth certificates for my Hindu children through legal help. I also tried to change my name back to my original Hindu name in my MyKad twice. But my attempts were unsuccessful," she said.
Islamic authorities to investigate
Meanwhile, Gooi said he would bring up the issue with the state Islamic authorities to find a solution to end her Banggarma's predicament.
"We would take the matter to court if we have to," he said.
Gooi also chided the officers who converted Banggarma for being "irresponsible" and the welfare home for neglecting its duty.
"A welfare home's primary objective is to take care of the children, not convert them. Only an irresponsible person would have converted a seven-year-old," he said.
Contacted later, Penang Islamic Religious Affairs Council president Shabudin Yahaya said he would push for an investigation into the case.
"It happened a long time ago. We have to check our past records. It would take time," he said.
State executive councillor in charge of Islamic affairs Abdul Malik Kassim however declined to comment on the case since it was a legal issue.
'My husband and kids are all I have'
During the press conference, Banggarma also revealed that she was brought to the welfare home together with two of her elder brothers and a younger sister.
"I was apparently found sleeping with my siblings on the roadside in Kepala Batas when the welfare officers took us to the home," she recalled.
However, once they were enrolled into the welfare home, the siblings were separated and she never met them again.
Banggarma said her mother died when she was very young and her father had abandoned her and her siblings soon after.
She said her father had visited her at the welfare home only once when she 13.
Banggarma added that she had three more older siblings who went missing before she was placed in the welfare home.
"My husband and my children are all I have. They are the world to me," she said.
20/11/09
Menurut surirumah itu, agamanya ditukar kepada Islam pada tahun 1989, ketika dia baru berusia tujuh tahun.
Banggarma berkata selepas diberitahu mengenai pertukaran agamanya itu, dia pergi semula ke rumah kebajikan tersebut untuk mengambil dokumen pengenalan dirinya.
Pertukaran agamanya dikatakan dibuat di hadapan seorang pegawai agama yang mewakili jabatan dan majlis agama Islam negeri. Dokumen tersebut mempunyai tandatangannya 'Hasnah' pada sudut bawah sebelah kiri.
ihak berkuasa agama siasat
Dalam sidang akhbar tersebut, Banggarma memberitahu yang dia dimasukkan ke rumah kebajikan tersebut






BOYCOTT ALL ADVERTISEMENTS SHOWN IN THESE STATIONS - TV1, TV2, TV3, NTV7, TV8 & TV9
WE SHOULD TEACH THESE MORONS A LESSON.
WHY SHOULD YOU VOTE FOR THE GOVERNMENT THAT PRACTICES DISCRIMINATORY POLICIES?


VIDEO




