Anwar Ibrahim |
- Freedom of Assembly Bill is Unconstitutional and Worse Than The Existing Repressive Police Act
- Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011: Unconstitutional And Anti-Democratic — Tommy Thomas
- Pakatan mahu Putrajaya tarik balik Rang Undang-undang Perhimpunan Aman
- EMU: Sampai Bila Mahu Begini?
| Freedom of Assembly Bill is Unconstitutional and Worse Than The Existing Repressive Police Act Posted: 23 Nov 2011 08:54 AM PST Lawyers For Liberty condemns the tabling of the Freedom of Assembly Bill in Dewan Rakyat today as the Bill clearly appears to be an affront to the constitutional guarantee of the right to peaceful assembly which is enshrined in Article 10(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution. The Prime Minister has once again reneged on his public promise of reform announced on the night of 15 September 2011 where he said among many things "the Government will also review section 27 of the Police Act 1967, taking into consideration Article 10 of the Federal Constitution regarding freedom of assembly and so as to be in line with international norms on the same matter." The Bill also confers wide powers to the Police in dealing with peaceful assembly where section 8 of the Bill clearly states that a police officer may take “such measures as he deems necessary”. This particular section is vague and open to abuse. In relation to the right to peaceful assembly, it is to be noted that any law enacted for the purpose of preserving national security and public order must be in conformity with the international human rights standards and norms of a democratic society. Conditions to the right to peaceful assembly must be clearly spelled out, reasonable and minimal in order to ensure that the right can be exercised without hindrance. Lawyers For Liberty demands the government to immediately withdraw the repressive Bill and pay heed to the people's resolve to challenge any regressive move by the government that infringes the fundamental rights and liberties guaranteed under the Federal Constitution. Lawyers for Liberty This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011: Unconstitutional And Anti-Democratic — Tommy Thomas Posted: 23 Nov 2011 08:33 AM PST Why is it always the case that the Malaysian government, in the guise of improving the freedoms of its citizen, enacts laws that actually erode liberties? Since 1960 when the Emergency was revoked, only to be immediately replaced by the dreaded Internal Security Act, 1960 ("ISA"), successive governments have taken state action to the detriment of its people. The Peaceful Assembly Bill, 2011, which had its first reading in the Federal Parliament yesterday, is another example of such retrograde law making. I cannot believe that after 54 years of Merdeka in the 11th year of the 21st century, the Executive has the audacity to present a Bill, which, in its own Explanatory Statement, describes it as "one of the efforts initiated by the government to undertake the transformation of the existing legal framework in relation to the constitutional rights of citizens to assemble". Fundamental liberties are enshrined in Part II of the Federal Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Article 10(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution provides that "all citizens have the right to assemble peacefully and without arms". Freedom to assemble is not absolute; thus, the Federal Parliament may enact laws that have the effect of restricting such freedom in the interest of "security" or "public order". Case law has established that such Parliamentary restriction must be "reasonable" by objective standards. Thus, Parliament cannot suffocate the enjoyment of such liberties. Freedom of assembly is invariably exercised together with other fundamental liberties like personal liberty (Article 5 (1)); freedom of movement (Article 9(2)); freedom of expression (Article 10(1)(a); freedom of association (Article 10(1)(c); freedom of religion (Article 11) and so forth. In perhaps the most important constitutional case in our history, a five-member Federal Court in 1992 in the Nordin Salleh case, held that any state action that would render illusory or meaningless the exercise of any fundamental liberty is unconstitutional. Hence, the Court looks at the effect or consequence of state action. It is against this background of constitutionalism, that the Peaceful Assembly Bill, 2011 must be scrutinised. My first reservation is philosophical. The Bill introduces the concept of "interests, rights and freedoms of other persons", with the police having to weigh such interests, rights and freedoms with that of the persons who wish to assemble. Hence, the inherent clash between Executive and citizen which characterises the eternal struggle for civil liberty has been extended to include the rights of other people — a classic extension of one of the oldest doctrines in politics : divide and rule. In my opinion, a law that is intended to promote the exercise by citizen A and his friends of their right to assemble should not in any way be dependent on the right of citizen X and his friends to object or veto the former's right to assemble. The fundamental freedoms under Part II of our Constitution do not contemplate such clashes between different groups of citizens which would inevitable develop into a contest between majority and minority, with the minority always being the casualty. Accordingly, all references to "the interests, rights and freedoms of other persons" in the Bill are, in my opinion, without any constitutional basis. The same point can be made about the use of new expressions like "counter assembly" and "simultaneous assemblies". Hence, the Parliamentary draftsman is deliberately giving power to the police to impose stringent restrictions and conditions under Paragraph 15 of the Bill that would have the effect of completely nullifying any freedom to assemble. The Bill introduces a new type of assembly that I believe is unprecedented under our law, viz "street protest", which is defined in Paragraph 3 to mean: "an open air assembly which begins with a meeting at a specified place and consists of walking in a mass march or rally for the purpose of objecting to or advancing a particular cause or causes". Paragraph 4(1) of the Bill imposes an outright ban on street protests. The current position is that if the police issue a license under Section 27 (2) of the Police Act, 1967, a "street protest" is permitted. Hence, the new provision in this "reforming" Bill make it worse by totally banning such types of assemblies. This would be unconstitutional. Does this mean that, under this Bill, only assemblies that are not "street protest" are permitted? Yes. What then are the features of such a permitted or sanitised form of "assembly"? Part IV contains 11 separate provisions that specify the requirements before the police would approve the holding of such an assembly. To start off, written notice of at least 30 days must be given to the police. Hence, spontaneous gatherings are not permitted. The First Schedule to the Bill contains 12 categories of "prohibited places", 50 meters from where assemblies cannot be held. The Bill is so extensive in its reach, indeed, of Orwellian proportions, that daily innocent activities like funerals, weddings, family gatherings and meetings of associations have to be expressly excluded! The best way to test the efficacy of the Bill is to ask whether the assemblies organised by Bersih (1) or Hindraf before the General Election of 2008 would be permitted under the Bill. The answer is clearly in the negative because they would be deemed "street protest", and hence banned. Likewise, the lawyers march to Putrajaya in 2007 to protest against the VK Lingam tape. Finally, Bersih (2) in July 2011 would also not be permitted. And, yet, this Bill is presented by the government as a piece of reforming law to enhance political space! Try as one may, one cannot find any redeeming features in the Bill. On the contrary, the provisions are offensive, and will certainly not pass muster. How in the name of "security" and "public order" this Bill can be enacted by Parliament is absolutely baffling. Are our leaders so out of touch? Can they ever tell the truth? Are they aware of "Occupy Wall Street" as a global protest movement? What about the Arab Spring? Even sleepy, dull Singapore has had some kind of political awakening this year. But let me conclude with our own example from history. Some 65 years ago, just a year after the Second World War had ended, and the British colonial power had returned to Malaya, they had the temerity to introduce the Malayan Union plan in 1946. "Street protests" as defined in Paragraph 3 of the Peaceful Assembly Bill, 2011, became the order of the day. Indeed, Umno was founded by Onn Jaafar to lead the protests against Malayan Union. The supremely ironic question is, if Hishammuddin Hussein had been in charge of such matters in 1946, would Umno have been founded, and his grandfather allowed to demonstrate and protest? I call on all freedom-loving Malaysians to immediately contact their Members of Parliament to vote against this terrible Bill. Indeed, the government should withdraw it. I would expect the Malaysian Bar to lead the opposition to this poorly designed law that is not only an insult to our constitutional rights, but also to our intelligence. * Tommy Thomas is a senior lawyer of the Malaysian Bar. This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| Pakatan mahu Putrajaya tarik balik Rang Undang-undang Perhimpunan Aman Posted: 23 Nov 2011 02:48 AM PST Pemimpin-pemimpin Pakatan Rakyat (PR) menggesa agar kerajaan menarik balik Rang Undang-undang Perhimpunan Aman 2011 sambil menyifatkan ia sebagai respons yang tidak demokratik kepada tuntutan-tuntutan kepada hak asasi sivil di Malaysia. Ketua Umum PR Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim berkata ahli-ahli Parlimen perikatan itu akan membantah rang undang-undang itu apabila ia dibahaskan mulai esok. This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| Posted: 22 Nov 2011 11:45 PM PST Oleh Dr. Dzulkefly Ahmad Isu pembelian 38 set Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) enam gerabak dari syarikat Zhuzhou Electric Locomotive Co. Ltd (ZELC) dari China dengan harga RM1.89 bilion secara runding terus atau dianggarkan RM500 juta lebih mahal berbanding harga yang ditawarkan melalui tender sebelumnya, mula saya bangkitkan di Parlimen pada 29 Jun 2010. Kementerian Pengangkutan (MOT) telah mengeluarkan Surat Tawaran (Letter of Acceptance – LOA) kepada ZHUZHOU pada 19 Mei 2010. Harga pembelian tersebut pula tidak termasuk kos Maintenance, Repair & Overhaul – MRO yang dikatakan akan diputuskan MOT secara berasingan. Walau pun pembelian EMU dari ZHUZHOU ini dilihat seakan terdapat unsur penyelewengan, MOT tetap meneruskannya dengan menandatangani perjanjian pembelian dengan ZHUZHOU pada 23 Julai 2010. Tindakan tersebut dilihat dibuat dalam keadaan tergesa-gesa kerana dokumen perjanjian disediakan dan ditandatangani dalam masa yang begitu singkat selepas LOA dikeluarkan iaitu 2 bulan 4 hari. Persoalannya apakah perjanjian penjualan yang melibatkan kos yang begitu tinggi itu telah diteliti dan disemak oleh Jabatan Peguam Negara? Susulan desakan saya, PAC telah memutuskan pada 27 Julai 2010 bahawa terdapat sebab untuk isu pembelian EMU ini di siasat dengan lebih terperinci. PAC telah mengarahkan SPRM untuk memulakan siasatan. Pada 1 April 2011, saya telah menerima jawapan bertulis dari Y.B Dato' Seri Nazri bin Abdul Aziz, Menteri diJabatan Perdana Menteri bahawa siasatan kes ini masih dijalankan oleh SPRM dan tidak boleh didedahkan kepada umum atas kepentingan siasatan dan unsur kerahsiaan. Bagaimana pun, pada 14 November 2011, Y.B. Timbalan Menteri Pengangkutan mengumumkan bahawa hasil siasatan mendapati tiada unsur irregularity dalam pembelian EMU dari ZHUZHOU. Di sini saya ingin meminta penjelasan lebih lanjut dari Menteri Pengangkutan berhubung perkara-perkara berikut: a. Atas kriteria apakah MOT memilih untuk mengadakan rundingan terus dengan ZELC bagi pembelian 38 set EMU di atas? Saya percaya pemilihan ZELC adalah berdasarkan ZELC menawarkan EMU yang mengikut spesifikasi KTMB pada harga yang munasabah dalam tender terdahulu iaitu Tender Membekal Lapan (8) set EMU tiga gerabak. Saya percaya rundingan harga dengan ZELC dibuat tidak mengikut spesifikasi asal KTMB memandangkan tender terdahulu telah dibatalkan pada 27 April 2010. b. Persoalannya, mengapakah rundingan harga dengan ZELC tidak dibuat mengikut spesifikasi tender asal dengan mengubahsuai klausa-klausa tertentu bagi mengambilkira perubahan keperluan dari set EMU tiga kepada enam gerabak? Mengapa perlu dibatal tender terdahulu sedangkan pemilihan ZELC dibuat berasaskan penilaian tender tersebut? Saya percaya sekiranya rundingan harga dengan ZELC didasarkan kepada spesifikasi yang diberi KTMB, selain perubahan dari tiga kepada enam gerabak bagi setiap set EMU, harga setiap set EMU enam gerabak tidak akan meningkat sehingga RM48 juta setiap set seperti yang ditawarkan oleh ZELC. Ironisnya, harga yang ditawarkan ZELC melalui rundingan terus melonjak kepada RM48 juta bagi setiap set EMU enam gerabak berbanding harga tender sebelumnya RM13.725 juta bagi setiap set EMU tiga gerabak. Saya menganggarkan harga yang paling mahal bagi setiap set EMU enam gerabak ialah RM40 juta. c. Sehubungan itu, saya memohon jasa baik Y.B Menteri Pengangkutan untuk saya dan juru perunding yang telah saya lantik untuk menyemak dokumen spesifikasi EMU yang telah dijadikan asas rundingan harga bagi pembelian 38 set EMU enam gerabak dari ZELC. Memandangkan tidak terdapat elemen penyelewengan seperti yang dinyatakan oleh Y.B Menteri Pengangkutan, saya percaya tidak akan ada masalah untuk saya menyemak dokumen spesifikasi tersebut untuk saya bandingkan dengan dokumen spesifikasi EMU bagi tender terdahulu yang ada dalam simpanan saya. Melalui perbandingan kedua-dua dokumen spesifikasi tersebut, saya percaya akan dapat merungkaikan isu ketirisan sehingga RM500 juta yang kini menyelubungi pembelian 38 set EM enam gerabak dari ZELC. d. Apakah semua pegawai-pegawai KTMB yang ditemubual oleh SPRM bersetuju harga yang ditawar ZELC itu munasabah? e. Apakah SPRM telah menyiasat secara menyeluruh mengenai cara pembayaran EMU yang dikatakan tidak dibayar terus kepada ZELC, selaku pengeluar EMU yang berpengkalan di Zhuzhou, China. Saya telah difahamkan bahawa perjanjian pembelian berkemungkinan besar melibatkan ZELC (Hong Kong) memandangkan ZELC yang berpengkalan di Zhuzhou, China, di kawalselia secara ketat oleh Kerajaan China berhubung transaksi yang melibatkan keluar masuk wang dari negara itu. f. SPRM dikatakan telah menghubungi rakan sejawat mereka di China. Apakah agensi anti-rasuah China itu tidak sedikit pun merasa sangsi mengenai harga tawaran yang terlalu mahal yang dikemukakan oleh ZELC. Berdasarkan spesifikasi yang diberi oleh KTMB, semua pengeluar EMU milik negara China akan mengeluarkan EMU yang mempunyai harga yang tidak akan mempunyai jurang perbezaan yang besar. Hakikat ini terbukti melalui harga yang ditawarkan oleh tiga (3) pengeluar China, termasuk ZELC, dalam tender membekal EMU tiga (3) gerabak sebelum ini. Saya percaya harga yang amat tinggi yang ditawarkan oleh ZELC termasuk 'elemen komisyen' atau lebih tepat lagi 'kickback' agen tempatan. Kalau benar tidak terdapat sebarang unsur penyelewangan, saya ingin mendapatkan butir-butir pembelian (cost breakdown) komponen-komponen utama yang digunakan dalam EMU yang dibeli. Ini membolehkan saya untuk menyemak dengan mudah sama ada berlaku penokoktambahan harga yang tidak munasabah. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Anwar Ibrahim To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Tiada ulasan:
Catat Ulasan