Few doubt the science of climate change – but its impact on the world's poor is largely ignored

This silent suffering

By Rajendra Pachauri

Guardian (UK) 29 May 2009

• Science is now unequivocal as to the reality of climate change. However, one facet - its human face - has been dangerously neglected. Until now. Given what the science tells us about global warming, how many people around the world will be affected, in what way, and at what cost?

  These are the questions that a major new report attempts to answer for the first time. Its findings indicate that hundreds of millions of people are already permanently or temporarily affected, and half a billion are at extreme risk now. Because of climate change, each year hundreds of thousands lose their lives. All these figures are set to increase rapidly in as little as 10-20 years.

  This publication, from the Global Humanitarian Forum, of which I am a board member, constitutes the most plausible estimate of the human impacts of climate change today. The scale of devastation is so great that it is hard to believe the truth behind it, or how it is possible that so many people remain ignorant of this crisis.

  Four main factors have contributed to the silence. First, while the world has been coming to terms with the science of climate change, the problem has moved from being a future threat to a current danger. Climate change is an evolving concern, affecting people now.

  Second, 99% of the casualties linked to climate change occur in developing countries. Worst hit are the world's poorest groups. While climate change will increasingly affect wealthy countries, the brunt of the impact is being borne by the poor, whose plight simply receives less attention.

  Third, and worse, climate change hides its influence among a wide range of today's key global problems. It impacts heavily on nutrition and diseases such as malaria, and increases poverty. But that impact can be lost among the many contributing factors.

  That is why a fourth major challenge is the current inability to separate the impacts of climate change in specific situations. It is impossible to say, for example, how much the severity of any hurricane is due to climate change.

  It is time, however, to break the silence. It may not be possible to pin-point specific situations, or to achieve unequivocal global consensus. It took the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 19 years to accomplish a consensus on the science in its 2007 report. But the general changes in the global climate system are clear: the number and intensity of extreme weather events, such as major floods and storms, has increased steadily in the last 30 years. Temperature changes show similar patterns, as do cyclone trajectories and rainfall patterns. From these changes it is possible to make good estimates about their global impacts on people.

  That tells us who is worst affected: the poor, who are largely unprepared, and unable to cope with climatic change. Of course, wealthy countries are affected: long-term drought in Australia has caused certain crop yields to plummet. But the poor lack the resources to prevent disasters or adapt to changed conditions. Many already subsist on the mere threshold of survival.

  Next week a series of UN talks will take place in Bonn – one of the last stepping stones in the effort to reach international agreement on how the world should tackle climate change, at the Copenhagen summit in December. Any post-Kyoto agreement must take into account the tremendous scale of suffering already being caused today.

  There is a great responsibility for major polluters to protect the poorest populations from a problem for which they cannot be held responsible. Their silent suffering must serve as a warning signal of the greater suffering that lies in store for the rest of us if we fail to tackle climate change together. 

See the relevant post at "Crisis In The Land Of The Indigenous People".

http://imcourageousheart.blogspot.com/2009/04/crisis-in-land-of-indigenous-people.html

Please Pray

Church Not Allowed To Use 'Allah' Until Court's July 7 Decision

By Debra Chong and Edward Cheah

KUALA LUMPUR, May 28 — The Catholic Church failed in its bid to get permission to use the word “Allah” while its suit to overturn the government ban is still being heard in the High Court.

The High Court here said the Catholic Church must wait until it decides conclusively on whether it is allowed to use “Allah” to refer to the Christian God.

“This means don’t use ‘Allah’ until the court decides,” said church lawyer S. Selvarajah.

Reverend Father Lawrence Andrew who edits the Catholic newspaper, The Herald, visibly drooped when he heard the news.

The editor-priest had seemed in high spirits earlier and was confident the High Court would allow the church to use the word “Allah” for the time being. He had smiled frequently while speaking with reporters earlier.

Judge Lau Bee Lan set July 7 for the next hearing after dismissing the church’s request to stay the government ban, lawyers for both the church and the state told reporters this afternoon.

The arguments were carried out in the judge’s chambers instead of in open court.

If the High Court allowed the church to use “Allah” in a non-Muslim context, it would be helping the church commit an offence under state laws, a lawyer for the government explained to The Malaysian Insider.

According to a lawyer representing several state Islamic religious councils, it is an offence for non-Muslims to use the word “Allah” to refer to any God other than the Muslim God.

Abdul Rahim Sinwan referred to the Control and Restriction of the Propagation of non-Islamic Religious Enactment that was passed into law by 10 states in 1988.

The states are: Selangor, Malacca, Perak, Terengganu, Kelantan, Kedah, Pahang, Negri Sembilan, Johor and Perlis.

The Catholic Church is suing the Home minister to overturn the Home minister’s ban.

The lawsuit stems from the government’s assertion that “Allah” should strictly refer to the Muslim God in Malaysia. This is a view that the Catholic Church has been challenging.

The word “Allah”, the church argues, does not belong only to the Muslims.

The Herald is published in four languages, including the national language Bahasa Malaysia (BM), which caters to the indigenous Malaysians from Sabah and Sarawak, who are mostly Christians.

Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur Reverend Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam filed the suit on February 16 to get a declaration from the courts that the church has the right to use the word in print and in church services.

The Home ministry, which issues the annual printing permit for all publications, had warned the church to stop using the word.

Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar, who headed the ministry then, claimed the church’s use of the word “Allah” in any literature published in BM would confuse Muslims, who make up the biggest religious group in the country.

This is the second consecutive year in which Archbishop Murphy Pakiam is suing the Home minister to settle the dispute over the use of the word “Allah”.

Your Right To File Police Report

Extracted from LoyarBurok

By Fahri Azzat · Wednesday, May 27th, 2009

What is hoped to be a practical explanation of what is one's right to lodge a complaint or information with the police, and in doing closely examining sections 107 and 107A of the Criminal Procedure Code by a certain chap named Fahri Azzat who has not lodged a police report recently.

Under the law, you have the right to lodge a police report. But as is common in Malaysia, the police have little respect for the law they purport to protect, defend and enforce. In the past, the police would actually dissuade you if not prohibit you from filing a police report some times. One could not get their schedule as to when those times struck and so that made it difficult and frustrating. They will tell you it's not required, or there's no point because they will not investigate, or give you excuses to send you from station to station until you get so frustrated you give up, or just flat out refuse to take down your complaint. You may have read of such experiences from the media or even experienced such instances yourself. It happens. It's true. They could however tell you to go to the Magistrate in cases involving a non-seizable offence. (Note: A seizable offence is one where the police can arrest you without a warrant; and for non-seizable offences they need a warrant. If you want to see what offences are seizable and which are not, please refer to the Third Column of the First Schedule CPC).

It got to the point that even the Executive realized this and proposed legislation to the Legislature to spell out in the clearest terms the police's duty when it came to receiving a complaint from the public. And it was passed. The recently amended provisions to the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) make this manifestly clear. Our first port of call would be section 107 CPC which was heavily amended to provide in respect of receiving complaints from the public. This provision requires the police to put into writing all oral complaints received from the complainant or 'informant' into a written statement which is then verified by the complainant/informant. This complaint must be recorded in a book along with the date and time it was made. And if it is reduced to writing or there is a written statement then it must be signed by the complainant/informant.

What you should be aware of is that you can therefore prepare a statement before going to the police station - type it out on your computer, print it out. You can sign it but it's better to do that before the police officer you lodge the complaint with. It is also advisable to make a copy of all the relevant documents, media, etc. for the police if you feel it would assist in the investigation of your complaint or in verifying your information. The police must also receive your complaint even if it is not at the police station and any complaint taken outside of it shall be deemed as being received in a police station. So the police cannot tell you that they cannot take your statement because you are not at the police station. In law it is their duty to receive a complaint anywhere they receive it. If they still refuse, remind them that they are in breach as their duty as a police officer. Any complaint received outside the police station must as soon as possible must record the name and address of the informant, the date and time of the complaint and convey that information to an officer in charge of a police station (OCP) or any police officer responsible for receiving complaints. That information has to be put into writing, recorded in the

log book and signed by the complainant/informant.

Subsection (4) of the provision is why I say that the police regularly disobey the law. This is what it provides: A police officer shall be duty bound to receive any information in relation to any offence committed anywhere in Malaysia. You would not have to make such a provision if they did their job. I mean to have one's most petty job requirements to be a police has to be crystallized and realized in a statute. And if you think I'm reading too much into this then consider section 114 of the CPC which provides as follows:

No police officer or other person shall prevent or discourage any person from making in the course of a police investigation ... any statement which he may be disposed to make of his own free will.

So section 114 CPC is applicable to police officers as well (not just other citizens)! This is indicative of how widespread the refusal by the police to not receive complaints and that they, in flagrant breach of their duties, discourage citizens from lodging a police report. That is the extent of the police's recalcitrance that its own political masters saw fit to restrain and demand that they carry out their duties through a statute.

Now a lot of you also no doubt think that lodging a complaint with the police is a waste of time because nothing meaningful happens after that. I know the feeling. When my office was ransacked twice two years ago, the police just dusted the place a bit and questioned all of us instead of the neighbours. When I asked what I could expect they said that it was difficult to say because they didn't know who robbed us! Wow. Or when you lose a car and they tell you that it happens all the time and that because the thieves and syndicates are so good all they can do is assure you that your vehicle is probably half way to Thailand by then. And when you call the investigating officer they avoid your calls and never tell you the status of investigations of your complaint.

Because of this, section 107A was enacted. This provision empowers citizens and complainants regarding finding out the status of investigations regarding their complaint? This provision gives you the right to request for a report on the status of the investigation of the offence complained of' from the OCP where you made your complaint. The OCP is required to inform you the status of the report within 2 weeks of receiving the request. However this right to status has three conditions to be fulfilled. Firstly, your complaint must involve a seizable offence only. So you have no right to inquire for the status of your complaint involving non-seizable offences. Secondly, you can only inquire only after 4 weeks of your complaint being lodged. Finally, if informing you of the status would in some way 'adversely affect' the investigation into the offence or its prosecution in court. I hope that the last exception is sparingly used.

If the OCP doesn't respond within that time, you can write directly to the Attorney General's Chambers of that failure. Make sure to include the Investigating Officer's name, phone number if you have it, your police report and copies of any accompanying documents. The AG's Chambers can direct the OCP to give it a status report of the investigation of the complaint or information so far, and to either have a copy sent to you or direct the OCPD to give you a copy of the same.

There are no further provisions if the AG's Chambers fails to carry out the same, so that appears to be your last stop. In summary, where the OCP fails to revert to you in 4 weeks, you should report that failure to the AG's Chambers. Thereafter, you should direct further inquiries to the AG's Chambers in respect of your complaint/information until they inform you to do otherwise.

This entry was posted at 9:00 am.

Peace Vigil In Unity For The Liberty Of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi

This vigil is part of an initiative of coordinated vigils organised by groups in Southeast Asia. While we have our vigil for Aung San Suu Kyi in Malaysia, other groups in other countries in Southeast Asia will also be having vigils at the same time.

Please come with your friends to show solidarity for Aung San Suu Kyi - one of the greatest leader of peaceful resistance against oppression of our time - and the oppressed people of Burma.

You can also make your own posters and/or banners.

Details of the vigil

DATE: Sunday, 31 May 2009

TIME: 6.00pm

VENUE: Meet at entrance of KL & Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall

Dress code: Wear YELLOW and/or RED

Map: http://www.scah.org.my/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=261&forum=16&jump=1

Public transportation: Maharajalela Monorail Station stop

facebook event page: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=91404626058&ref=mf

Local organisers are Tenaganita, SUARAM, Youth 4 Change (Y4C) and the Civil Rights Committee of the KL Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall.

The Reason Why You Must Drive A Proton

Put Interest Of The Nation First

REFLECTING ON THE LAW

By SHAD SALEEM FARIQI

The Star, 20 May 2009

There are no winner-take-all solutions to the Perak political crisis, a hydra-headed monster that cannot be eliminated by ding-dong judicial decisions.

THE Perak political crisis can be likened to a malignant cancer that is voraciously spreading to the lymph nodes of our other institutions – the Sultanate, the judiciary, the federal executive, the civil service, the police, the law officers of the Crown, the court registry, the Anti-Corruption Commission and the Election Commission.

The longer we wait, the farther the affliction will spread. It is time, therefore, to stop this madness, this divisiveness, this polarisation.

There are no black and white, open and shut, or simple solutions.

The issues are so complex and so interconnected that arguments from both sides of the divide have depth and richness.

In sych a politically-charged situation, the courts cannot supply any satisfactory solutions. The judiciary is suited to resolving legal issues, not political ones.

The courts usually provide piecemeal solutions to simple, succinct questions.

But when there is a bottomless cesspool of polarising and contentious issues, no court, here or anywhere, can wipe away the discord and restore harmony and sanity.

Thus, even if after an agonizingly slow course of interim proceedings, ap peals and cross appeals there is an authoritative judicial determination of who the legitimate Mentri Besar is, a plethora of other connected is sues — each capable of toppling the apple cart — will still be left unaddressed.

Among the issues are the validity of the resignation letters by the three who opted out of Pakatan Rakat to be Independents friendly to Barisan Nasional; the unilateral power of the Speaker to declare Assembly seats vacant; and the power of the Election Commission to make a ruling on the same issue.

If there are calls for a vote of confidence on the floor of the House, the Speaker may frustrate it by disqualifying and barring 10 out of 59 members of the Assembly from attending the proceedings.

Is the Speaker subject to a restraining order from the court, or are proceedings in the Assembly immune from judicial interference?

If the result of a vote of confidence is influenced by exclusion of a large number of members, is the Sultan bound by it?

Or does he have any other way of determining the question of “confidence of the members of the Assembly”?

There are disagreements about the legal validity of the “assembly un der the tree” and the resolutions it passed.

The removal of V. Sivakumar as Perak Assembly Speaker and the installation of Datuk R. Ganesan as the new Speaker aroused deep revulsion and raised many legal issues.

The repeated dismissal and rein state ment of the Secretary of the Perak Assembly, the State Secretary and the State Legal Advisor pose ma ny queries.

Scores of local authority personnel have lost their jobs in the musical-chair manner in which governments are rising and falling in Pe rak.

Till a judicial decision is made on the validity of the removal and the rein­statement, there will be doubts about the legality of any decisions they may have made.

Partisan tactics by the police within the premises of the State Assembly raise constitutional issues of the sanctity and privileges of state as semblies.

The officers involved may one day have to appear before the Privileges Committee to answer charges of contempt.

In sum, the political crisis in Perak is like a hydra-headed monster that cannot be eliminated so easily by ding-dong judicial decisions.

Let us stop this insane and naked show of unprincipled politics.

Let us accept that in this stalemate, there are no winner-take-all solutions.

For this reason, recourse to the courts is pointless. The warring factions should negotiate and accommodate.

There are four more years to the next general election.

Barisan and Pakatan can agree to share two years each at the helm.

Alternatively, there is the political possibility of appointment of a neutral, caretaker government advising dissolution and state elections within 60 days from the date of dissolution.

There is the legal sledgehammer of federal intervention through an emergency proclamation under Arti cle 150 of the Federal Constitu tion, as happened in Sarawak in 1966 and Kelantan in 1977.

This may restore order out of chaos to pave the way for a state poll in due course of time.

The country as a whole is more important than the fate of Barisan or Pakatan in Perak.

In Rome, Nero played the fiddle while the city burned. We should not allow that to happen to us.

Perak politicians have no right to paralyse the rest of the country or to distract us from the many urgent and daunting tasks staring us in the face.

Among them are an economy reeling under the effects of the world financial turmoil, racial polarisation, the conflict between civil and syariah courts, and the deeply divisive is sue of religious conversion of minors upon one parent changing his or her religion.

The liberalisation of the economy requires deft handling. The review of such controversial laws as the ISA requires thorough con sultation and deep soul-searching. The education system is ripe for review.

Because of the shenanigans in Perak, the country is on the verge of a political precipice.

We are afraid both to climb or to fall. But the ground is slipping be neath us.

Quick action is needed.

The public is fed up with political intrigues and wishes a closure to this Perak temasya.

Perhaps the Conference of Rulers can exercise its powers under Article 38 (3) to discuss issues of national importance and to propose some via­ble solutions to the Perak crisis.

Perhaps the Yang di-Pertuan Agong can draw on his vast prerogative power to advise, caution and warn about the long-term effects of Perak to the integrity of our legal and political system.

Perhaps politically disinterested, towering personalities like Tun Musa Hitam or Tan Sri Razali Ismail could be roped in to broker peace and to stop this haemorrhaging of public trust.

We have had enough of political mudslinging and acrimony. We need to move on to the real problems and challenges of living.

Prof Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi is a Professor of Law at Universiti Teknologi Mara

Why is Burma's junta afraid of Suu Kyi?

By Jonathan Head

BBC News, Bangkok

19 May 2009, UK

The trial of Burma's renowned opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, is being held in secret, behind the walls of the country's most notorious jail, the aptly named Insein Prison.

Anyone approaching the prison had to pass through two lines of barbed-wire barricades, manned by armed police. Very few did. Four EU diplomats were refused entry.

A small handful of sympathisers were allowed to stage a silent vigil between the two cordons. Her lawyers were instructed not to repeat any of the testimony given in court.

It sounds like the trial of a dangerous, terrorist suspect.

But the defendants are a waif-like 63-year-old woman and her two female companions, accused of nothing more than allowing an uninvited well-wisher, an American, who had swum across the lake to reach her home, to stay until he had recovered from his exhaustion.

Aung San Suu Kyi has spent much of the past two decades under house arrest, the last six years in such severe isolation that she has had almost no opportunity to communicate with the outside world.

Her party, which resoundingly won the last election 19 years ago, has been weakened and divided by almost constant military harassment.

Meanwhile the army, her nemesis, has more than doubled in size, has extended its control into all areas of life and now consumes around 40% of the national budget.

Powerful figure

So Ms Suu Kyi does not appear to pose much of a threat. Yet even as she has been increasingly isolated, her potency as a symbol of the hunger so many Burmese clearly have for change and an end to military rule seems to have grown.

Qualities that have sometimes provoked quiet criticism of her leadership style when she was free, like her aloofness and her stubborn adherence to principle, have made her appear more heroic as a prisoner.

Her lonely stand has won her passionate admirers across the world, including, presumably, the hapless American John Yettaw whose misguided attempt to meet her has now got her into such trouble. There is simply no political figure in Burma who can match her crowd-pulling charisma.

And that worries the military as it prepares the ground for the country's first election in 20 years.

Widely dismissed outside Burma as a sham, because it guarantees to preserve the predominant role of the armed forces in politics and society, this election matters a great deal to Than Shwe, the ageing, secretive general who still calls most of the shots in Burma.

It will allow him to cast off the stain of illegitimacy which has haunted Burma's military rulers for the past two decades and give them a veneer of legitimacy.

Electoral legitimacy is something I have heard Burmese ministers go on and on about at length during my own visits there.

Their main beef is the legitimacy Aung San Suu Kyi's party, the National League for Democracy, has always claimed from its 1990 election victory, an election the military later annulled.

This seems to infuriate them, and these ministers go to extraordinary lengths to try to discredit these claims. Legitimacy, it seems, is a big issue for the generals, as is security.

'Than Shwe's succession'

"Next year's election is all about Than Shwe's succession," says Aung Naing Oo, a former student activist now living in exile in Thailand.

"He is obsessed with assuring his security once he steps down after the election. So he is being very careful about who is put in key positions. He has to make sure nothing goes wrong."

Than Shwe has not forgotten the last time he released Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest, in 2002, in the mistaken belief that Western sanctions would be eased in return.

They were not and she was greeted as a national saviour, mobbed by huge crowds as she travelled around the country. A year later, dozens of her supporters had been killed or jailed by military-backed thugs, and she was back under house arrest.

That is why there is a clause in the military-drafted constitution barring anyone "who enjoys the rights and privileges of a foreign citizen" from running for office - Ms Suu Kyi, through her marriage to the late British academic Michael Aris, falls into that category.

There was never much realistic hope that she would be released before the election. A criminal conviction now would disqualify her from contesting the election even as a candidate. The chances are she will still be in custody when it takes place.

So what about afterwards?

Once the generals have, in their own view, consigned the 1990 election to the history books by holding an election they are more or less guaranteed to win, perhaps then they will have the confidence to release Aung San Suu Kyi.

And perhaps, once Than Shwe, who is 76 and often in poor health, has left the scene, Burma may see a gradual softening of its repressive political climate. But no-one is counting on it.

Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/8050262.stm

Published: 2009/05/19 03:15:50 GMT 

It's All In The Heart

O ye believers Friday, 15 May 2009 07:17am

©My Sinchew.com AL JAZEERA recently ran an interesting story which struck a chord here in Malaysia. At least that’s how I see it. The international news network received a video, shot by an independent flim maker in Bagram Afghanistan.The video was recorded last year. It showed a group of US servicemen and a military chaplain talking about the need to “spread the word of God” among the locals. Nothing wrong with that you might say. And I agree. But when the servicemen are Christians and the local populace are made up of Muslims then it becomes something else, as the al Jazzera report tells viewers. The group of staunch Christian military men, led by the chaplain also spoke of distributing bibles, translated into local Afghan languages or dialects to the masses. Hence the soldiers were accused of protelyzing--spreading their religion to people of other faith. In short, wanting to convert Muslims into Christianity. The US military immediately issued a denial when the story was aired by Al Jazeera. They say it has always been their policy to “stay away” religious issues. They are against protelyzing and certainly do not encourage their personnel to “turn preacher” and go around spreading their religion or belief to people of other faith. The US military commander in Afghanisitan accused Al Jazeera of being “irresponsible”. The network retorted by defending it’s report. Incidently the commander, the Al Jazeera correspondent and the film maker who shot the video are non Muslims. Anyway Al Jazeera also “reminded” viewers of a report last year of a US marine who paid money to Iraqis who were trying to turn Muslims to become Christians. The US marine was “ immediately reprimanded ” by the military. I never doubted the US military policy against protelyzing. But like everywhere else, there are extremists in the US military. In this case Christian extremists. Perhaps “extremist” is too harsh a word to use. But the point is, there are people in the US military who are “religiously overzealous.” And in their “overzealousness” they protelyzise. And giving away free bibles which have been translated into local dialects is just one way of spreading their belief to people of other belief. Which brings us to Malaysia. Translated version of holy books has always been an issue for us. Especially among Muslims/Malays. And the controversy over the issue of the word “Allah” to describe God in Christian journal and bibles in Bahasa Melayu is still “raging”. There are Muslims /Malays who say they “fear Muslims getting confused” by that. But what they actually fear is Muslims “converting to Christianity after reading bibles in Bahasa Melayu”. In Indonesia journals, magazines and holy books of all religions in Bahasa Indonesia are sold or distributed freely without anyone raising an eye brow. Christian sermons in Bahasa Indonesia are televised. All that in a country with the largest number of Muslims in the world. Back to our beloved country. As for the non Muslims in Malaysia, well, we hear of their “concern” when their children are required (or “forced’?) to wear songkok and tudung at events in school. Making it more “fearsome” when there are Quran recital in the event. The “concern” is in reality “fear’ of what they see as efforts by the authorities to protelyzise. Simply put, effort to make their kids Muslims. To me, by reading bibles in Bahasa Melayu do not make a Muslim convert into Christianity . Like wise donning songkok and tudung will not make people leave their religion and embrace Islam. If one strongly believe in one’s religion, nothing will make one leave the religion of origin. so to speak. A believer will always be a believer. We do not hear of Muslims in Indonesia “abandoning” Islam just because of translated bibles and Christian sermon in Bahasa Indonesia on TV. The Muslims in Jordan and the Middle East remain strong Muslims although the Pope paid them a visit recently. It’s all in the heart my friend, it’s all in the heart. (By MOHSIN ABDULLAH/MySinchew) (MOHSIN ABDULLAH is Editor-in-Chief, News and current Affairs, ntv7 & 8TV)

Reflecting True Islam

Influential scholar adds to Muslim disquiet in conversion row

(Malaysian Insider)

By Shannon Teoh

LAMPETER, (Wales), May 1 — The Cabinet's unilateral decision that children be raised in the faith of their parents while married even if one spouse later converts to Islam contradicts both Islam and fundamental human rights, according to the former mufti of Perlis, Mohamad Asri Zainul Abidin.

He said, however, that there should be no forced conversions and that both parents have a right to educate their children in their respective religions.

Adding more fuel to the roiling debate over the issue of conversion, the maverick Muslim scholar with a strong following among young Muslims in Malaysia accused the government of making the decision simply to gain support from the electorate.

"The problem here is that when a government is crazy for votes, especially non-Muslim votes, they make decisions based on sentiment. If the Chinese now ask for something, and then the Malays, then the stand keeps changing," he said in an exclusive interview with The Malaysian Insider here.

Asri, who was mufti for two years before quitting the position to move to Wales last December to research on Islam, joined the chorus of disapproval which includes conservative Muslim groups as well as a number of PAS leaders.

The criticisms were sparked by the controversial case of conversion involving the custody of children belonging to Indira Ghandi, a Hindu, and her ex-husband who had converted to Islam.

As a state mufti, Asri has been praised by progressive voices for his stand against the propensity of religious authorities to conduct raids on Muslim couples engaged in khalwat, or close proximity, and has stated that non-Muslims had a right to use the word "Allah".

But he remains a dogmatic Islamic scholar.

"Just because I convert, I have no right over the religious future of my children? This is not right according to Islam and also universal human rights," he said.

"Why can't the father teach his children? In fact, there should be no decision until he reaches the proper age because even in Islam, children are not responsible over sin and pahala (reward).

"The Cabinet should have left it to the courts, whether Syariah or civil. It does not matter so long as they decide fairly," he said, adding that both courts would have to take into account religious factors as well as which parent can best provide for the child in deciding custody rights.

Asri explained that as long as the other parent had visitation rights, he or she can also teach the children about his or her own religion before the children decide for themselves.

He also defended the role of Syariah courts in arbitrating these matters, stating that the problem in Malaysia was not the fairness of Islamic jurisprudence but the inefficiency of the Syariah courts locally.

"The problem is not Islam but Syariah courts not reflecting true Islam. According to Islam, divorce cases must be settled within three menstrual cycles of the wife, but instead, we see that it takes years.

"When cases are delayed, people feel Islam is being cruel, but in fact, it is the inefficiency of the Syariah courts," he said.

Asri also said that no authority should force religion on a person as there was nothing to be gained from it.

"As a Muslim, of course I want people to join my religion as I believe it is the true way. But you can force a person to eat or drink but you cannot force belief. If you say something is red, and he thinks it is blue, even though we force him to say it is red, in his heart, it is still blue," he commented.

Referring to the landmark case of Lina Joy, who attempted to change her religious status on her identity card from Islam to Christian, Asri said that there was no point in retaining her status as a Muslim.

"What is the benefit? Do we want people who do not believe in Islam with ICs that say they are Muslim? If they get married to Muslims, then there will be problems. What if their spouses become committee members of mosques, for example. Won't this create confusion?"

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/42059-jais-targets-ex-perlis-mufti-for-unauthorised-lecture : JAIS targets ex-Perlis Mufti for unauthorised-lecture.

Caution: Do Not Mess With Lawyers

Bar Council To Sue Govt Over Lawyer Detentions

15 May 09 : 7.58PM

By Deborah Loh (The Nutgraph)
deborahloh@thenutgraph.com

PETALING JAYA, 15 May 2009: The Bar Council plans to file a civil suit against the government for the unlawful detention of five lawyers on 7 May and for denying them access to detainees.

Other defendants in the suit will be Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan, and Brickfields OCPD ACP Wan Abdul Bahari Wan Abdul Khalid, Bar Council president Ragunath Kesavan said today.

The civil suit was one of the action plans decided at the Bar's emergency general meeting today, called specifically to pass a motion condemning the government and police for the lawyers' arrests.

The meeting was attended by 1,428 lawyers, far exceeding the required 500 for a quorum. The motion was unanimously adopted.

The lawyers from the Kuala Lumpur Legal Aid Centre — Fadiah Nadwa Fikri, Murnie Hidayah Anuar, Puspawati Rosman, Ravinder Singh Dhalilwal and Syuhaini Safwan — were arrested after they had gone to the Brickfields police station to meet those who had been detained for holding a candlelight vigil outside the police station. The vigil was held over the arrest of political scientist Wong Chin Huat.

The lawyers were arrested after they had asked to meet the detainees and were denied access to them by the police. They were released on police bail the next day at around 3pm.

On 8 May, some 150 lawyers had gathered at the Jalan Duta court complex to protest the arrest of their five colleagues.

Ragunath said video recordings of the arrests clearly showed that the lawyers did not participate in the vigil.

"Denying them access to detainees is a travesty of justice. There is a need for lawyers to see the accused when arrested or interrogated so that there is public accountability," he said in a press conference after the EGM.

There was a greater need for public accountability in the police as they used more physical force than any other enforcement agency, Ragunath added, noting that the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) had clear provisions on a detainee's right to see his or her lawyers.

Hishammuddin should resign

Hishammuddin Hussein (Pic courtesy
of theSun)

The Bar Council also called for Home Affairs Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, as well as IGP Musa, to resign over the incident.

Ragunath took Hishammuddin to task for his remarks that lawyers should not think they were above the law. Ragunath said that police were also not above the law.

"For Hishammuddin to say that lawyers are not above the law is not a reply, is not a solution, is not what we want to hear. We (the Bar Council) had asked for an apology over the arrests, and he gave that response without even investigating what happened," Ragunath said.

He said while Section 28 of the CPC detailed the circumstances whereby police were allowed to prevent lawyers from meeting detainees, none of those conditions could be logically applied to the lawyers who had gone to the Brickfields police station.

The conditions are if police suspect an accomplice is involved, or if concealment, destruction or fabrication of evidence could result, or if there is intimidation of witnesses.

"I cannot see what or how these reasons apply for denying access to lawyers," Ragunath said.

Going all out

In addition to the civil suit, the Bar Council also intends to seek a meeting with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak over the matter, lodge a complaint with the National Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) to request an inquiry, and seek the intervention of the Chief Justice.

In the EGM motion condemning the government and police for the lawyers' arrest, the Bar Council noted that the lawyers were made to wear lock-up uniforms and were unnecessarily handcuffed.

The motion also denounced the police for deliberately refusing to give family members and the lawyers of those arrested any information about their arrest and the police's next course of action.

Calling the incident a "gross abuse of police powers", the Bar is demanding an unconditional apology from the government to the lawyers.

Lawyers should be allowed to discharge their responsibilities to their clients without threat or intimidation, it added.

The Bar also reiterated its call for the government to establish the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC).

A Black Day For Malaysia

Lawyers Gather To Protest Arrest Of Colleagues

Malaysia Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, May 8 — Hundreds of lawyers have formed a sea of black and white at the Jalan Duta courts to protest the detention of five of their colleagues.

The five lawyers were arrested last night at the Brickfields police station, where they had gone to represent their clients who were detained for allegedly participating in an illegal candlelight vigil for activist Wong Chin Huat.

Wong was arrested for sedition earlier this week after he called on Malaysians to wear black yesterday to protest the power grab in Perak.

His arrest was among a clutch made by the authorities in a sign of growing unease over the level of dissent sparked by Barisan Nasional’s (BN) controversial takeover of the Perak state government from Pakatan Rakyat (PR).

Yesterday’s Perak state assembly sitting descended into chaos with scuffles and wrestling matches between lawmakers from both sides and resulted in the police entering a legislative assembly for the first time in the country’s history of parliamentary democracy.

The Bar Council has already described yesterday’s events as a black day for democracy and heavily criticised the police for interference.

This morning its president Ragunath Kesavan again condemned the police over the arrests of his colleagues.

“We are shocked and disgusted by this blatant transgression of the rule of law. By their action, the police personnel in question have demonstrated utter disrespect and blatant disregard for the criminal justice system that they are duty-bound to uphold and protect.

“They have violated the specific provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code guaranteeing access to lawyers. Although there is an exception to this provision, it cannot by any stretch of the imagination be turned into a right to arrest lawyers who are waiting to render legal representation to their clients,” he said in a statement issued this morning.”

He said the police action made an absolute mockery of the constitutional right to legal representation and was a travesty of justice.

“We call on the Inspector-General of Police to immediately explain this gross abuse of police power.

“This unprecedented conduct by the police has far-reaching consequences. It means arrested persons can be denied access to their lawyers without challenge. And when their lawyers are denied access and are forced to wait outside the police station, the lawyers themselves are at risk of arrest. “

The five lawyers arrested yesterday were from the Kuala Lumpur Legal Aid Centre.

They are Fadiah Nadwa Binti Fikri, Murnie Hidayah Binti Anuar, Puspawati Binti Rosman, Ravinder Singh Dhalliwal and Syuhaini Binti Safwan.