An Anti-corruption Advocate, the Voice of Conscience
31 Oct 2014
AG’s statement on Bible-burning boggles the mind
The recent public statement by the
Attorney-General giving his reasons for not prosecuting Ibrahim Ali for
sedition has not in any way allayed the discontent of many people including
even a cabinet minister.
They cannot understand, and rightly so, why this man is
being protected from prosecution.
On the contrary the reasons given by
the AG is nothing but mitigation for the man whose outburst was a call to
Muslims in this country to commit a serious crime under the Penal Code.
If indeed the story given in the AG’s
Statement is true that there was an attempt by a non-Muslim student to
distribute Bibles to students including Muslim students, the AG should know
very well that if the act constituted an offence, it was an offence by the
student or students concerned.
The offence does not extend to the
Bible or to the millions of people in Malaysia who use the Bible as their holy
book.
Would not those millions of Christians
be troubled and offended by the call of that man to seize and burn Bibles?
Does
not such a call constitute a “seditious tendency… to promote ill will and
hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia”
within the meaning of Section 3 of the Sedition Act?
It was reported in a news portal on
October 27 that Minister Khairy Jamaluddin said, “It is up to the
Attorney-General.
My personal opinion is when one says they want to burn the
holy book of another, that is seditious.”
The AG gave two reasons why he chose
not to prosecute Ibrahim. One was that, taken in its overall context, the man’s
call to seize and burn Bibles did not have a seditious tendency.
The other was that the man had “no
intention to offend or to provoke”. Both those reasons are flawed
in law because they are not defences recognised by the Sedition Act.
On the contrary Section 3(3) of the Act has made it
abundantly clear that “intention” (however good) of the person uttering the
statement, is irrelevant if the statement has a seditious tendency.
It boggles my mind how the AG could excuse the man on grounds
of his good intention when the law says otherwise.
It also boggles my mind how burning the Bible would defend
the sanctity of the Islamic religion.
In such a prima facie blatant case of sedition as this, the
AG would have done well to let the court decide if Ibrahim was entitled to the
defence of “context” and “intention” as given by him.
Now, what about the many others who in a swoop, were
recently charged for sedition?
Were the considerations of “context” and
“intention”, even though not valid considerations, not applied to them also
before they were charged?
I think not.
Stanley Isaacs is the former Head of Prosecution,
Attorney-General’s Chambers Malaysia.
Source : http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/highlight/2014/10/31/ags-statement-on-bible-burning-boggles-the-mind/
Ex-chief prosecutor slams AGC's ‘burn bible’ reply
The justifications given by the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) for not prosecuting Perkasa chief Ibrahim Ali over his threat to burn bibles does not hold water, said a former AGC prosecution chief.
Stanley Isaac, who was AGC head of prosecution, said that the reasoning that the call had no seditious tendency or that Ibrahim had no intention to provoke are “flawed in law”.
He said that Section 3(3) of the Sedition Act makes it clear that intention is “irrelevant” if the statement has seditious tendency.
“It boggles my mind how the AG could excuse the man on grounds of his good intention when the law says otherwise.
“It also boggles my mind how burning the bible would defend the sancity of the Islamic religion,” he said in an email to Malaysiakini.
Isaac said that with the prima facie “blatant” in this case, Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail (left)should have let the court decide if Ibrahim’s defence of “context” and “intention” stands.
He added that reasons given were just “mitigation” and not reasons not to prosecute.
Further, he said, clearing Ibrahim because of these two factors also calls to question the other sedition charges, where context and intention were not considered.
The AGC had justified not charging Ibrahim for threatening to burn the Malay-language Bible by saying he did not intend to cause disharmony and was only defending Islam.
It also noted that Ibrahim had said this in response to claims that Muslim students at a school in Penang were given the holy books.
In his own defence, Ibrahim said he was only making the call to burn the holy books to Muslim parents’ whose children were given the bibles.
Meanwhile, Isaac said Ibrahim’s call is a call to Muslims to “commit a serious crime under the Penal Code”.
Even if the claim of distribution of bibles to Muslim student is true, he said, the offence lies with the distributor of the books and not the books themselves or others who use the book for their worship.
“Would not those millions of Christians be troubled and offended by the call of that man to seize and burn bibles?
“Does such a call not constitute a "seditious tendency to promote ill will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia" within the meaning of Section 3 of the Sedition Act?” asked Isaac.
Stanley Isaac, who was AGC head of prosecution, said that the reasoning that the call had no seditious tendency or that Ibrahim had no intention to provoke are “flawed in law”.
He said that Section 3(3) of the Sedition Act makes it clear that intention is “irrelevant” if the statement has seditious tendency.
“It boggles my mind how the AG could excuse the man on grounds of his good intention when the law says otherwise.
“It also boggles my mind how burning the bible would defend the sancity of the Islamic religion,” he said in an email to Malaysiakini.
Isaac said that with the prima facie “blatant” in this case, Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail (left)should have let the court decide if Ibrahim’s defence of “context” and “intention” stands.He added that reasons given were just “mitigation” and not reasons not to prosecute.
Further, he said, clearing Ibrahim because of these two factors also calls to question the other sedition charges, where context and intention were not considered.
The AGC had justified not charging Ibrahim for threatening to burn the Malay-language Bible by saying he did not intend to cause disharmony and was only defending Islam.
It also noted that Ibrahim had said this in response to claims that Muslim students at a school in Penang were given the holy books.
In his own defence, Ibrahim said he was only making the call to burn the holy books to Muslim parents’ whose children were given the bibles.
Meanwhile, Isaac said Ibrahim’s call is a call to Muslims to “commit a serious crime under the Penal Code”.Even if the claim of distribution of bibles to Muslim student is true, he said, the offence lies with the distributor of the books and not the books themselves or others who use the book for their worship.
“Would not those millions of Christians be troubled and offended by the call of that man to seize and burn bibles?
“Does such a call not constitute a "seditious tendency to promote ill will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia" within the meaning of Section 3 of the Sedition Act?” asked Isaac.
Source : http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/279082
28 Oct 2014
不提控焚烧圣经论- 难以服衆，為司法立下不良示范
马华妇女组主席拿督王赛之文告（28-10-14）
王赛之：不提控焚烧圣经论- 难以服衆，為司法立下不良示范
（吉隆坡28日讯）马华妇女组主席拿督王赛之今日总检察署以土权主席依布拉欣阿里发表焚烧圣经论不含煽动倾向～乃“捍卫伊斯兰教圣洁”而不作出提控，表示震驚及难以置伩。
在联邦憲法第3，8及11條文保障下，我国人民被赋于宗教伩仰自由。換句话说，毎个人都可以自由去选釋及履行其宗教职责，包括在必要時捍衛本身宗教，这本無可厚非，可以理解。不过，在"捍卫本身宗教圣洁 "过程中，并不代表就可以发表或做出欺压或伤害其他宗教伩徒或个人的言行。这一点，作为国家司法权威之首，总检察署应该更加暸解。
更何况，土权主席之"焚烧圣经论"不但已严重伤害了我大马两百六十万名基度教徒的感受，同時也造成种族分歧，破坏宗教和谐及引发社会不安。因此， 总检察署之"不含煽动倾向"之说，理由牽強，实在难以服衆。
她续稱，立国以耒，大马是个多元种族、多元宗教的国家。若不及時纠正，总检察署此举必将为大马司法开了先例，立下不良示范，亦恐他日不利于我国多元宗教和谐犮展。
道理很简单，今日你以土权主席依布拉欣阿里发表焚烧圣经论乃“捍卫伊斯兰教圣洁”而不严办，那他日若有其他宗教伩徒有样学样，也以"捍卫本身宗教圣洁"為由，大珒发表"焚烧佛经、焚烧可兰经、焚烧印度经" 论，此起彼落，那我国豈不将陷入宗教对立乱局。即時代表公正严明的总检察暑又將如何自处呢 ?～是否还是—視同仁，从宽以待吗 ?
她强调，姑息足以养奸。身為决策者，应以国家長远的利益、稳定与发展為依归。何况大马是个民主多元国家，在推广不同宗教文化之际，互相尊重及包容是各族和谐共处的主要原则。眼看当下宗教极端分子日趨严重之挑衅言论，总检察署身为司法之首，更应秉持其专业公正职业操守，维护司法权威和国家之稳定和谐，这样，才能挽回人民对国家司法体系的信心。”
王赛之：不提控焚烧圣经论- 难以服衆，為司法立下不良示范
（吉隆坡28日讯）马华妇女组主席拿督王赛之今日总检察署以土权主席依布拉欣阿里发表焚烧圣经论不含煽动倾向～乃“捍卫伊斯兰教圣洁”而不作出提控，表示震驚及难以置伩。
在联邦憲法第3，8及11條文保障下，我国人民被赋于宗教伩仰自由。換句话说，毎个人都可以自由去选釋及履行其宗教职责，包括在必要時捍衛本身宗教，这本無可厚非，可以理解。不过，在"捍卫本身宗教圣洁 "过程中，并不代表就可以发表或做出欺压或伤害其他宗教伩徒或个人的言行。这一点，作为国家司法权威之首，总检察署应该更加暸解。
更何况，土权主席之"焚烧圣经论"不但已严重伤害了我大马两百六十万名基度教徒的感受，同時也造成种族分歧，破坏宗教和谐及引发社会不安。因此， 总检察署之"不含煽动倾向"之说，理由牽強，实在难以服衆。
她续稱，立国以耒，大马是个多元种族、多元宗教的国家。若不及時纠正，总检察署此举必将为大马司法开了先例，立下不良示范，亦恐他日不利于我国多元宗教和谐犮展。
道理很简单，今日你以土权主席依布拉欣阿里发表焚烧圣经论乃“捍卫伊斯兰教圣洁”而不严办，那他日若有其他宗教伩徒有样学样，也以"捍卫本身宗教圣洁"為由，大珒发表"焚烧佛经、焚烧可兰经、焚烧印度经" 论，此起彼落，那我国豈不将陷入宗教对立乱局。即時代表公正严明的总检察暑又將如何自处呢 ?～是否还是—視同仁，从宽以待吗 ?
她强调，姑息足以养奸。身為决策者，应以国家長远的利益、稳定与发展為依归。何况大马是个民主多元国家，在推广不同宗教文化之际，互相尊重及包容是各族和谐共处的主要原则。眼看当下宗教极端分子日趨严重之挑衅言论，总检察署身为司法之首，更应秉持其专业公正职业操守，维护司法权威和国家之稳定和谐，这样，才能挽回人民对国家司法体系的信心。”
China Press (27-10-2014)
领头大哥会振臂高呼大家应该捍卫华小维护自己族群的权益
彭总一句 ：【你是华人，您不捍卫华小，谁来捍卫？】
彭总接着说：【我们是马来西亚人！我们也要有自己的权益！】
我第一次因为联欢晚会的致辞而有所感动！
彭总！您好样啊！！！
彭总！您好样啊！！！
3 Oct 2014
2 Oct 2014
捍卫华校，华人有责，速为关中正名正身
彭茂燊：捍卫华校，华人有责，速为关中正名正身
社会爱心基金会主席丹斯里彭茂燊文告
新闻稿，请即发布，谢谢
2014年10月2日
社会爱心基金会主席丹斯里彭茂燊促请董总召开全国华团大会, 反映华社要求政府修正关丹中华中学批文及学校注册证的广大民意，使它成为一所华文独中，让其学生能够参加华文独中统考。
彭茂燊劝请华总总会长兼关中董事长丹斯里方天兴，积极配合董总召开华团大会的努力，要求政府就关中地位及统考问题给全体华社一个明确的交待，而不是没有法律保障及没有约束力的所谓“口头承诺”。华总和关中董事会应与董总站在同一阵线向政府据理力争。
彭茂燊表示，教育总监9月18日致彭亨董联会的公函，其实是重复2012年7月26日关中批文内容，没有任何的修改。关中批文和教育总监公函，完全没有提到魏家祥所声称的“关中可以考政府考试以外的考试”字眼，那是魏家祥把自己的话强塞进教育总监的口里，再次严重误导华社。
彭茂燊指出，教育部在公布的2013年和2014年教育统计报告里，明确指出彭亨州没有华文独中，再次强调全国只有60所华文独中；教育部不承认关丹中华中学为一所华文独中。他表示， 魏家祥、方天兴及教总主席王超群，一开始就把关中这所私立中学包装成“华文独中”，把华社欺骗得好苦。如今纸纸包不住火，现在就看他们如何善后向华社交待。
彭茂燊指出，关中批文是魏家祥担任副教育部长时拟定的，魏家祥必须承认犯下此严重错误，公开向华社道歉，不应继续推卸责任。
彭茂燊表示，马华要华裔选票回流其实很简单，就看他们愿不愿意或能不能够说服当权者给华社一个更公平的待遇，将功赎罪，关中课题可以是马华翻身的良机，也可能是它继续沉沦的险滩。
他指出，如果当官的马华部长在朝办不到或不愿做，那么就由民间团体向政府集体继续争取，要求政府修正关中批文及学校注册证。
他表示，董总为华教斗争几十年，坚持捍卫母语教育的总方针，主席叶新田和署理主席邹寿汉的立场也非常明确及坚定，在2012年5月20日发动关丹申办华文独中和平请愿大会，以及同年9月26日发动游行到国会的华教救亡运动，向首相呈函要求解决的八项诉求， 其中第4项就是要求修正关中批文，以符合华文独中的体制。方天兴指董总排斥关中的言论是不能够成立的。
他强调：“如果方天兴真正是为了关中学生的前途着想，他别无抉择，惟有坚决向政府要求明文批示准予统考；如果他真心是为了捍卫华教,
他也别无他法，必须配合董总以及华社广大群众及社团，共同向政府要求修改关中批文及学校注册证。”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)