http://newskini.serveftp.net/news-01-Charles_Hector.htmlNewsKini RSS Feeds for Charles_HectorMon, 22 Mar 2010 21:09:54 GMTNewsKini RSS Custom FeederSee http://newskini.serveftp.nethttp://charleshector.blogspot.com/2010/03/racist-anwar-using-racist-tools-against.htmlThere are so many issues of the people that needs to be raised, and better solutions proposed by the Opposition Member of Parliaments/ADUNs. Flaws in the proposed BN (or Pakatan Rakyat) solutions need to be highlighted. Failures and weakness in implementation of BN(or Pakatan Rakyat) plans need to be highlighted. People really want to know what is the Pakatan Rakyat (or other Opposition parties) solution to problems. Do you have an alternative plan to deal with a particular 'problem'? OR do you accept the BN solution but is critical of the manner in which the implementation is being done - and highlighting how differently you would be doing things? But NO - some Opposition personalities is wasting time in trying to paint a 'bad picture' about some of the BN politicians, their wives, their lifestyle, etc >>> and this to me is wrong....and so lame. Focus please on the real issues affecting people - not the character of the person, their spouse, etc.. We are really not bothered about the PM's wife, ...or the allegations that she uses 'bomohs', or about her self-beautifying efforts, or her 'real family' and her current relationship, with them ...or whether she is the 'boss' in the family, ... BUT that sadly was what one PKR speaker was going on and on at a recent PKR talk. People are not interested in 'gossip' or such things - get down to the real stuff. Such may be the content for stand-up comics/comedians but certainly not for serious good politicians... Recently, Anwar Ibrahim, himself, goes off on some irrelevant matters, i.e. that Najib 's latest slogan, 1Malaysia is allegedly influenced by (copied from) the 'One Israel' concept. What does it matter? Why did Anwar bring this up? Was it to make allegations that Najib was influenced by Israel? (or just influenced by the Jews?) I see no wrong in adopting good practices, good solutions, good 'slogans' ...from anywhere or anyone. So why did Anwar raise this matter? What was his real intention? Did he just bring it up for 'education' purposes or was there some other intention? Is Anwar a racist to even raise this? ...i.e. Najib influenced by (or copied) the Jews...Israel... We are all against Israel (the Israel government...and the Zionist party/movement) - but certainly not the Jews. We are against Israel's - illegal occupation of land belonging to the Palestinian people (and other neighbouring Arab nations - attacks and indiscriminate 'air raids' in West Bank that kills the innocent - missile attacks that have killed a lot of innocent - ignoring the rule of law, etc.. But alas, Anwar has not been condemning such actions of Israel. of late... or has he been doing so? What really is the position of Anwar and PKR on the Palestinian issue? * DO YOU ACCEPT THE 2-STATE SOLUTION, THAT RECOGNIZES THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF ISRAEL? * DO YOU CONDEMN THE CONTINUED OCCUPATION OF PALESTINIAN LAND? * DO YOU CONDEMN ISRAEL'S BLOCKADES AND SANCTIONS AGAINST GAZA? * DO YOU CONDEMN THE INDISCRIMINATE AIR STRIKES (& MISSILE ATTACKS) BY ISRAEL THAT HAVE KILLED INNOCENT PERSONS? DO YOU CONDEMN THE MISSILE ATTACKS ON ISRAEL THAT HAVE KILLED INNOCENT PERSONS? I wonder whether Anwar's (and PKR/PR's) silence on these matters has got anything to do with the maintaining of relationship with the US and other friends of Israel. Please condemn the wrong - even if done by a 'friend'. These are the more important matters that Anwar should be dealing with when it comes to Israel-Palestine matter - not trying to attempt to discredit Najib and his UMNO-led BN government on something so lame as to have been influenced by Israel when coming up with that 1Malaysia concept' What is that 1Malaysia concept really all about? For me, it is just a mere slogan ...which will most likely be forgotten when we get a new Prime Minister. We seldom hear about Badawi's 'Islam Hadhari' slogan anymore. Only Mahathir's 'Vision 2020' seem to gone beyond his premiership... In parliament, an MP can say anything and get away with it. An MP can even lie...and get away with it. Or, can we take action against a Member of Parliament that lied? This is interesting... The government will decide whether to refer Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim to Parliament's powerful special rights and privileges committee over his claims that Prime Minister Najib Razak's '1Malaysia' was a carbon copy of the 'One Israel' concept. Should that be the case, Anwar could face a possible suspension from Parliament. At a press conference at the Parliament lobby this afternoon, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri said the cabinet would discuss the matter at its weekly meeting tomorrow. "I will bring this matter to the cabinet to inform the ministers on this allegation which we think is going overboard," said Nazri in response to Anwar's allegation yesterday that Najib's '1Malaysia' idea originated from the Zionist regime. "The select committee will decide whether action should be taken against the opposition leader for uttering false statements in the Dewan, especially for making untrue allegations against the prime minister, added Nazri. During lengthy three-hour speech on the royal address in Parliament yesterday, Anwar claimed that Apco Worldwide, a consultancy agency hired by the Malaysian government, was the brain behind the 'One Israel' slogan. 'A serious offence' According to him, Apco had in 1999 advised former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak to adopt the 'One Israel' slogan . - Malaysiakini, 18/3/2010, BN moves to refer Anwar to privileges committee Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim today went on the attack in Parliament by claiming that Apco Worldwide, a consultancy agency hired by the Malaysian government, was the brain behind the 'One Israel' slogan. During lengthy three-hour speech on the royal address, Anwar said Apco had in 1999 advised former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak to adopt the 'One Israel' slogan. Furthermore, the company which the Malaysian government had engaged to boost its image is led by an Israeli leader who is a former ambassador to the US. Is this not an issue to Umno? In 2009, Apco advised Najib on 1Malaysia. The rest is up to your own interpretation, he said.... - Malaysiakini, 17/3/2010, Anwar spars with KJ over 1Israel, tycoon's daughterSat, 20 Mar 2010 09:09:00 GMThttp://charleshector.blogspot.com/2010/03/al-islams-apology-good-but-what-say.htmlIt was good that the magazine AL-Islam has apologized. It would be better still, if the 2 reporters also personally apologized. But these apologies, coming after the AG's decision not to charge, does not save the perception that UMNO-led BN have little(or no) respect for the other than Islam religions in Malaysia. 1Malaysia - PM and government must be seen to be the PM and government of all Malaysians, not just Malays. PM and the government must be seen to be the PM of persons of all religions, not just the Muslims. Likewise the Rulers in the various States must be seen be the Rulers of all Malaysians, irrespective of ethnicity, religion or culture - not just the Rulers of Malays and Muslims. In fact, we should start referring to them as the Rulers of Malaysia (or Malaysian states), rather than as Malay Rulers, a term that connotes that their primary (or only) concern is for Malays, which really is and should not be the case. The concern of these Rulers must be for all persons from the particular State, and they must be Defenders not just of Islam - but the promoters of respect and rights of all the religions of Malaysia. Maybe, our Prime Minister could work out a proposal about how we should be referring to the Rulers of States under his 1Malaysia concept. Islamic magazine Al-Islam has issued an open apology to the Catholic Church and Christians, which has been posted on the website of its publisher, Utusan Karya. According to the apology , the magazine's editor apologised for running the May 2009 special report, titled 'Tinjauan Al-Islam Dalam Gereja: Mencari Kesahihan Ramaja Melayu Murtad' (Al-Islam visits church: To verify apostasy among Malay teens). Al-Islam said that the report had "unintentionally hurt the feelings of Christians especially Catholics". The monthly magazine also explained that the report was to investigate allegations of apostasy and the actions of its journalists were never intended to deride the Christian faith, let alone desecrate their house of worship. It stated that Al-Islam journalists who wrote the article also apologised for unintentionally hurting the feelings of Christians in the pursuit of their duty. Malaysiakini was informed that Kuala Lumpur Catholic archbishop Murphy Pakiam has already been told about the apology. But attempts to contact Pakiam at his residence for comment has so far been unsuccessful. Sources close to Utusan Karya, which is subsidiary of Umno-owned Utusan Malaysia , said the apology was already in the works but it was delayed as they had to consult with lawyers about the legal ramifications. This apology came following Thursday's press conference where Pakiam told reporters that the church would be satisfied if they received an apology from the magazine or its publishers over the matter. Planned protest cancelled Meanwhile, the planned protest against Al-Islam on March 25 will not go ahead in the wake of the apology. Protest organiser K Sudhagaran Stanley said that the apology has vindicated the Catholic community and they now consider the matter closed. "We accept their apology, the case is closed and we have won. But we will not forget the way the attorney-general and the government have acted on this case. "There was no action even after we sent a letter to the prime minister," he said. Stanley lodged a police report against the two Al-Islam journalists in June last year, resulting the magazine being investigated under the Sedition Act. However, it was revealed last month that no further action will be taken against the journalists. According to attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail, the case was dropped because the journalists had intended no offence, and were not aware of the significance of the Holy Communion. The journalists had entered two churches in Kuala Lumpur to investigate allegations of proselytisation of Malays, and had taken the Holy Communion, spat the wafer out and photographed it. The photo accompanied their article was published last May. Many Catholics considered this as an act of desecration of their faith.- Malaysiakini, 6/3/2010, Al-Islam apologises to Christians The apology, as it appears in the Al-Islam website.. Majalah Al Islam memohon maaf berhubung penyiaran artikel `Tinjauan Al Islam dalam Gereja: Mencari Kesahihan Remaja Melayu Murtad, keluaran Mei 2009, kerana artikel itu tanpa disengajakan telah menyinggung perasaan para penganut agama Kristian, khususnya Katolik. Adalah dimaklumkan, tinjauan itu dilakukan bertujuan mencari kesahihan dakwaan orang awam berhubung isu tersebut. Al Islam juga sama sekali tidak berniat untuk menghina agama Kristian, apatah lagi mengganggu atau menceroboh rumah ibadat mereka. Dua wartawan yang terlibat turut memohon maaf kerana tidak menyedari apa yang mereka lakukan semasa melaksanakan tugasan tersebut telah menyinggung perasaan para penganut agama berkenaan. Al Islam berharap perkara seumpama ini tidak akan berulang lagi. Pengarang Al Islam * Permohonan maaf ini juga akan disiarkan dalam Al Islam keluran April 2010 yang akan berada di pasaran pertengahan bulan ini. - Al-Islam Website, 5/3/2010, Permohonan Maaf Kepada Gereja Katolik It would be good that the 2 reporters also make personal apologies. What hurt the Catholics most was not the article per se, but what the reporters did when they lined up, and received the holy communion, and thereafter spit it out and photographed. For Catholics, we believe that this is really the body of Jesus, and the holy communion is not just a symbolic reminder. Malaysia really must include our education syllabus education about the various religions, in Malaysia including its practices. An understanding of what the different religions believe in, and the meaning of some of their actions in worship would really go a long way in building greater understanding and respect for the different religions/beliefs in Malaysia. I am certain that the various religious authorities would be ever willing to assist in developing the syllabus and subject content. Christians believe in ONE God - not 3...not 4. Some of the banners used in recent protests also indicates that many non-Christians are ignorant of this fact. Education will surely assist. Consider this Prime Minister Najib.. Will the PM, DPM, Ministers and UMNO-led BN reprimand the Attorney General on his decision not to charge the persons concerned in the Al-Islam case? Did the Home Minister do anything to Al Islam after the incident? Was there a letter of reprimand? Was there a 'show-cause letter' sent to Al-Islam? - if anyone has any information, good if post it under comments. Or, will the UMNO-led BN and Najib just sweep this 'Al-Islam' matter under the carpet, and not deal with it since the magazine has already apologized. That would be the easy way out, but Malaysians are still waiting for the UMNO-led BN's response on this matter...Most likely, they won't as the UMNO seem to be playing the 'conservative Muslim' card, in their efforts to try win back the Malaysian Muslim support...mmm. We shall see...we shall see..Sun, 07 Mar 2010 08:05:00 GMThttp://charleshector.blogspot.com/2010/03/orang-asli-when-kings-of-land.htmlOrang Asli - the original people of Peninsular Malaysia, should be referred to as "kings of the land", as later arrivals to Malaysia, i.e. the Malays are being referred to as 'princes of the land' (the Bumiputera) There are possible about 200,000 or more Orang Asli (indigenoue people of Peninsular Malaysia), and they have been discriminated against by the UMNO-led BN government. [UMNO - United Malay National Organisation] . Even in our Federal Constitution, special positive discrimination provisions exist for the benefit of Malays and the Natives of Sabah & Sarawak - but not the Peninsular Malaysia's Orang Asli. Even our Prime Minister shows no respect to the Orang Asli. When over 2,000 Orang Asli on 17/3/2010 marched to the Prime Minister's Department in Putrajaya in a rare protest against what they deem to be the government's unfair land policy . Their intention was to to hand over a memorandum, signed by 9,071 Orang Asli throughout Peninsular Malaysia, to Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak. The police stopped the march, and also were barred from raising their banners and chanting slogans. The police diverted part of the group to the Ministry of Rural Development, about 500m away, where they were asked to see Rural Development Minister Shafie Afdal , who gave them lunch. Pacify and crush dissent, was that it? Then, a delegation of 5 were allowed to go to the Prime Minister's Office - but it was not the Prime Minister...or the Deputy Prime Minister...or even some Minister from the Prime Ministers Department that met them to receive their memorandum...but Rural Development Minister Shafie Afdal . (or was it some 'officer'). To date the Prime Minister (or the Deputy Prime Minister), and that shows how much respect this UMNO-led BN has for the 'kings of the land'.. ORANG ASLI POPULATION STATISTICS The data given below have been collated from various sources including government reports, official seminar presentations, newsreports and academic articles. ORANG ASLI POPULATION TREND Year Orang Asli population 1960 43,896 1965 45,985 1969 52,943 1974 56,927 1989 72,039 1993 92,959 1998 116,119 2000 133,775 2003 147,412 ORANG ASLI POPULATION BREAKDOWN as at 2000 Category Ethnic subgroup Population Total Negrito Kensiu Kintak Jahai Lanoh Mendriq Batek 254 150 1,244 173 167 1,519 3,507 Senoi Semai Temiar Jah Hut Che Wong Mah Meri Sema Beri 34,248 17,706 2,594 234 3,503 2,348 60,633 Aboriginal Malay Temuan Semelai Jakun Orang Kanaq Orang Kuala Orang Seletar 18,560 5,026 21,484 73 3,221 1,037 49,401 113,541 The figures do not include those living outside designated Orang Asli settlementsand centres.- Center for Orang Asli Concerns (COAC) website Cops halt Orang Asli advance on Putrajaya Aidila Razak Mar 17, 10, 12:06pm Police today stopped more than 2,000 Orang Asli from marching to the Prime Minister's Department in Putrajaya in a rare protest against what they deem to be the government's unfair land policy. The protest, dubbed the biggest Orang Asli demonstration in history by Centre for Orang Asli Concerns coordinator Colin Nicholas, was stopped by a contingent of police officers 15 minutes after the march kicked off. The Orang Asli protesters arrived this afternoon at the country's administrative capital in 40 buses and gathered at the Putrajaya Mosque. They had planned to march from the mosque to the Prime Minister's Department to hand over a memorandum, signed by 9,071 Orang Asli throughout Peninsular Malaysia, to Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak. The group, comprising the young, old and even children, held banners declaring ' Tanah kami, maruah kami ' (Our land, our dignity) and Kita bukan Melayu, kita tetap Orang Asli (We are not Malays, we will always be Orang Asli), among others. Some of them were dressed in their traditional attire, complete with loincloths and colourful headgear made of flowers, tree bark and coconut leaves. Re-routed by police The police told the protesters not to display their banners and redirected half of the crowd to the nearby Ministry of Rural Development, about 500m away. They were then met by Rural Development Minister Shafie Afdal who engaged the protesters in dialogue and treated them to lunch. The Orang Asli were told not to march all the way to the Prime Minister's Department but were allowed to send five representatives to hand over the memorandum. The protestors eventually agreed to send a five-member delegation to the PM's Department despite the request being initially boo-ed by the crowd. The rest of the protest group were then made to wait at the sidewalk, and were again barred from raising their banners and chanting slogans. Shafie, representing Najib, received two separate memoranda, under the watch of about 20 police officers, at the gates of the PM's Department, some 200 metres away from the protestors. The first, by Persatuan Orang Asli Semenanjung president Majid Suhut, demanded that the community have a say over the Orang Asli representative in Dewan Negara. The memorandum was first submitted to prime mnister last December. The second memorandum was handed in by Jaringan Kampung Orang Asli Perak (JKOAP) secretary Tijah Yokchopil and pertained to the land ownership policy. In this memorandum, the Orang Asli cried foul over the lack of consultation and the fact that they will be denied autonomy over their land, which will be instead be managed by developers. They also object to the fact that the land proposed for their allocation only includes 15 percent of recognised traditional Orang Asli land. 'Reasonable demands' Upon receiving the memoranda, Shafie reassured the Orang Asli leaders that their recommendations will be taken into consideration when amendments to the National Land Act are tabled at the next parliamentary sitting. "We open our ears to whatever grouses the public, in particular the Orang Asli, have. If anyone says we are depriving them, we are neglecting them, that's not true," Shafie ( right ) told reporters. He said the protesters today came to Putrajaya to take photos as they have only seen the administrative capital on television. "Some even took photos with me," he said. Protestors cheered upon witnessing the handing over of memoranda, and triumphantly chanted ' Hidup Orang Asli' before dispersing at 3pm. Earlier, Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin, at a press conference in the Parliament lobby, assured that reasonable demands by the Orang Asli would be taken into account. He said he was not aware of the protest and the community's demands but stressed that the government has always supported the Orang Asli and taken an interest in their welfare. "If they are unhappy, they can submit their views on it and the department concerned will scrutinise it. If there is any proposition which is reasonable, we will do what is necessary," he said. Today's protest was organised by the Peninsular Malaysia Orang Asli Association (POASM) and the Network of Orang Asli Villages Perak. According to coordinator Jenita Engi, representatives of seven states decided to demonstrate after negotiations with the Orang Asli Affairs Department (JHEOA) earlier this month came to a dead end. Among the complaints were the fact that only six to eight acres of land will be allocated to each household. "We demand that all the land explored by our ancestors should be handed over to us, and not just these six to eight acres," she told Malaysiakini yesterday. Activists want Orang Asli claims to their customary land recognised, saying their continual occupation and economic activities establish their ownership. The Orang Asli community is also demanding that all restrictions be removed to allow them the right to sell their land. They said the land policy is to be part of a proposed amendment to Act 134 of the National Land Act, which is expected to be tabled in Parliament by June. It's our land According to the Orang Asli, the new legislation will give them only 50,000 hectares of the 129,000 they claim. "Who are you to give the land when it is already the Orang Asli's," said Colin Nicholas ( right ), coordinator for the Centre for Orang Asli Concerns. Nicholas said the planned amendment to the Aboriginal People's Act would give each family only two to six acres of land. "Once they get this plot of land, they will lose (their rights to) other plots of land," he said. Shafie confirmed the proposed amendment would give each each family two to six acres but said the terms were not final. "This is not finalised so that's why we need their views. We are willing to listen," he said. There are 140,000 Orang Asli divided into 18 ethnic groups - or less than one percent of the country's 28 million population - and they are generally disadvantaged in terms of income, health, education and living standards. This is the second street protest by the Orang Asli this year, with the first having taken place in front of the JHEOA hospital in Gombak, Selangor, on Feb 24. Orang Asli marginalised by conditions akin to 'apartheid' Additional reporting and photos by AFP- Malaysiakini, 17/3/2010, Cops halt Orang Asli advance on Putrajaya Thu, 18 Mar 2010 06:08:00 GMThttp://charleshector.blogspot.com/2010/03/prs-intention-not-to-hold-local.htmlWonder whether Pakatan Rakyat is taking the people on a ride again, with regard to local council elections. They came into power in March 2008, and 2 years have already lapsed and we have yet to have Local Council Elections. All kinds of reasons have been given by the Pakatan Rakyat, and people have been patient with them for too long. Some of the civil society/NGO groups have also been 'silenced' in their call for local council elections - when PR strategically appointed some of the heads/prominent persons/influential persons from the NGO community as local councils. Sadly, the very persons who had advocated for local council eloections accepted the appointment. If it was just a temporary measure until say end 2008, whilst preparations were being being made for local council elections, it may have been acceptable. But there was one appointment for 1 year, and then another appointment - and they accepted. Sadly, by reason of this some civil society groups/NGOs stopped calling for elections - and started talking about criterias for appointments. How sad? But, then PR did the same as the BN, and appointed their party members & some NGO persons as local councillors. No mention on the websites for the basis of the appointment, or the background of the councillors. Then, civil society groups under a different leadership woke up again and started demanding for Local Council elections. Amongst these groups was the Coalition for Good Governance (CCG). A short while ago, Pakatan Rakyat seem to have suddenly decided that they want Local Council Elections. It started with Penang. See earlier post:- Local Council Elections - Penang leads by asking EC to conduct elections.. Selangor MB then said that Selangor will follow suit, and they had written to the Election Commission. But, a perusal of what Selangor did seem to be just asking the EC their views. Another act of procrastination by a Pakatan Rakyat State Government who just is 'anti-democracy', and is not keen on Local Council elections. See earlier post:- Selangor not keen on Local Councilors chosen by the people - they prefer to appoint. A new attempt to pacify LC Elections advocates.. Do not lie to the people. If you really want democracy, and want the people to choose their own Local Councilors, there are many ways of doing it. Even if there is laws preventing it (which is not true), then you could have local elections[or call it referendum] and let people indicate the persons they prefer to be Local Councillors, and the the State could easily appoint the people as indicated/chosen by the people. Write to the EC and ask them to conduct Local Council Elections. EC conducts elections, and you have Local Council Elections. If the EC refuses, then you can take the matter to court to challenge EC's refusal, and also to get a court ruling that Local Council Elections can be held - but then, it is just one of ways of doing it according to the law. T he Coalition for Good Governance (CCG) points this out yet again to Pakatan Rakyat...[Note they already did so long ago] Najib's not wanting the Local Council Elections maybe good for now Pakatan Rakyat will be 'pushed' to fulfil its promise to have Local Council Elections. Or will they? PR may just be 'empty talking' (cakap kosong) with really no intentions to have Local Council Elections. [They did not even have or encourage kampungs, kampung barus, tamans, etc to democratically elect their leaders in their states - and there is no LAW preventing them to bring about greater democracy at this level. The only PR state that did have this level elections was Perak.] See earlier posts:- Najib against democracy - Local Council Elections. Same with Pakatan Rakyat? It is interesting that some in BN also want Local Council Elections. See comments under this Najib post. Local polls can still be legally organised by circumventing the Election Commission and without the need to take the issue to court, according the Coalition for Good Governance (CCG). This bombshell is contained in a paper written by the CCG which pointed out the existence of three ways through which local government elections can make a comeback. "It is misleading to think that if the Election Commission (EC) rejects the request for local election by the Penang government, then the state government needs to take it to the court," said one of the writers of the paper Wong Chin Huat. Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng had announced last week that they had written to the commission requesting that it conduct polls for two of its municipal councils. Wong said that the state government should have taken the simpler alternatives instead of writing to the EC as their first step could prove to be a big hurdle. "S.1 of the Local Government Act 1976 has the power to override the effect of S. 15 of the same act which prohibited local polls; therefore the state government actually has the power to implement local polls without writing to the EC," he explained. Section 1 (4) of the Local Government Act 1976 - The state authority may, notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2), by notification in the gazette exempt any area within any local authority area from all or any of the provision of the Act or from any by-laws Section 15 (1) of the Local Government Act 1976 - Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any written law, all provisions relating to local government election shall cease to have force or effect. Of course, then the state government would need a law that enables the implementation of local polls. This, he said could be done by referring to the Local Government Election Act 1960 which had not been repealed and which confers that power to the state government. "Alternatively, the state government could also enact a new law for local polls," he added. He pointed out that the state government could also resort to an administrative method instead. This way, the EC will not be involved as that process is similar to the appointment of the Jawatankuasa Kemajuan dan Keselamatan Kampung (Village Development and Security Committee) in which elected representatives are eventually appointed by the government. "So we can still conduct an election, and the elected representatives will then be appointed by the state," he said. The CCG paper suggests that the role of EC could be filled by a local government selection commission comprising non- partisans and academics to ensure the selection process' transparency and accountability. PR serious about local polls? However, all said and done, Wong questioned the seriousness of the PR government in fulfilling their election promise on the matter. He speculated one reason that the move was announced just days before the Pakatan Rakyat's second anniversary could be to pre- empt criticism directed at their performance. "It was a calculated move by Penang's chief minister who made the request stealthily," he said. He said their reservations could be based on the fear that if local councils fell into opposition hands or proved to be unsupportive they could lose control of their administrations. "Now it is a winner take all situation where the councillors are political appointees making it easy to mange the state ," he said. Such local appointments are a means of rewarding loyal supporters of the party. "Some parties do not give material reward, and so when the party comes into power, positions are given out as compensation," he said.- Malaysiakini, 13/3/2010, Local polls can still be held without ECSat, 13 Mar 2010 11:32:00 GMThttp://charleshector.blogspot.com/2010/03/selangor-not-keen-on-local-councilors.htmlIs the Selangor Pakatan Rakyat government taking us all for a ride with regard to local council elections in the State? We will be writing to the Elections Commission to find out about the feedback given over Penangs call to restore local government elections, said Khalid. We will write a letter to the Election Commission (EC) alongside the Penang government (which did so yesterday) to find out what kind of support the commission will give us for such elections, he said. Just write to the Election Commission and ask them to conduct Local Council Elections - not send them some letter asking them to give their feedback on Penang's call for a local council elections.[I am sure that Lim Guan Eng can forward to the Selangor MB a copy of the letter/response from the Election Commission] . If Selangor truly wants local council elections, then just write letter asking the Election Commission to conduct the local council elections. If they refuse, then they will give their reasons. Then, Selangor should just take the matter to court... It seems that Khalid is now writing letter to the Election Commission to get their views... to get clarification. [Well, this should have been done in March/April 2008, not 2 years later...] He added the state would also like clarification from the Commission on other matters regarding local council elections.... We feel many that legal provisions are unclear and want to clarify every aspect before embarking on it, said Khalid. Further, for clarification about the law, you go to court - not to the Election Commission. Legal opinion have been given by lawyers (prominent lawyers too), that you can have local council elections, and I am sure that the Selangor MB (and Pakatan Rakyat) is inteligent enough to know that if there is any uncertainty about the law, then the proper place to go is the court. File a case...and get your clarifications about Selangor's right and ability to have local council elections... If you conduct elections, and they say " election results were declared null and void due to technicalities." No Problem. Just appoint those chosen by the people as Local Councilors, just like what you are doing now. Only difference would be that these would be the people's choice - not Selangor Pakatan Rakyat's choice. So there is no question of wasting time and money. He added the state did not want to be caught in a situation whereby election results were declared null and void due to technicalities. He added that besides wasting millions of ringgit and countless campaign hours, such an untoward incident would also result in people becoming disillusioned. Selangor's PKR Menteri Besar thinks that Malaysians are fools. If you do not want local council elections, where people elect in the local councilors, then tell us so. You can still carry on appointing Pakatan Rakyat party members and friends as local councilors. This statement by the Selangor MB is sad, and looks like it is made just to pacify the growing campaign for local council elections (that Pakatan Rakyat, including PKR and DAP, promised before GE2008) - just to waste time....waste enough time until the next General Elections. SHAH ALAM: Selangor will emulate Penang in restoring local council elections in the state, said Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim. We will be writing to the Elections Commission to find out about the feedback given over Penangs call to restore local government elections, said Khalid. He said the Selangor government would move in tandem with its Penang counterpart on matters regarding the restoration of local council elections. He added the state would also like clarification from the Commission on other matters regarding local council elections. The mentri besar told a press conference at the state-level Pakatan Rakyat convention that Selangor wanted to clarify various issues with the Commission first before embarking on the restoration of local council elections. We feel many that legal provisions are unclear and want to clarify every aspect before embarking on it, said Khalid. He added the state did not want to be caught in a situation whereby election results were declared null and void due to technicalities. He added that besides wasting millions of ringgit and countless campaign hours, such an untoward incident would also result in people becoming disillusioned. Khalid said the state has been conducting research on the feasibility of holding local council elections as well as to find ways to fine-tune the process. Penang, which wants to conduct local council elections in the state, has written Commission chairman Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof informing him of the states intent.- Star, 7/3/2010, Selangor also wants to restore local elections The Selangor Pakatan Rakyat government will support the Penang government's move towards reinstating local government elections, said Selangor Menteri Besar Abdul Khalid Ibrahim today. We will write a letter to the Election Commission (EC) alongside the Penang government (which did so yesterday) to find out what kind of support the commission will give us for such elections, he said. told a press conference after the officiating the Selangor Pakatan convention this morning in Shah Alam. He said, however, that in-depth research must be conducted to clarify the legal issues surrounding the holding of local government elections, which have not been held since they were scrapped in 1964. We found that (there are) some legal aspects that are still unclear. We want to avoid spending millions on the elections only to have them declared null and void. The people will then feel cheated, he said. Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng said yesterday that the state executive council had written to EC chief Abdul Aziz Yusof seeking his advice on the holding of elections for its Seberang Perai and Penang island municipal councils. A Kedah Gerakan Youth leader yesterday challenged the other Pakatan states to follow in Penang's DAP-led government's steps, failing to do so signifying the opposition coalition was not in agreement over the matter. - Malaysiakini, 7/3/2010, Local elections: S'gor to follow Penang I have looked again at the report about Penang asking the Election Commission to conduct local council elections, and am now wondering what really were the contents of their letter. Was is also a letter seeking clarification and views, OR was it a letter asking the EC to conduct local council elections. It would be good if the Penang letter was published (or posted on the web) - so we know for a fact that Penang, unlike Selangor, is really going for local council elections now. (See earlier post:- Local Council Elections - Penang leads by asking EC to conduct elections.. If Selangor had filed a legal suit in 2008, we would have already had a court decision that Selangor can have local council elections (or not), and if the decision was 'NO', then the appeal to the Court of Appeal and Federal Court could have also been done. So, what is the plan Khalid? - Write letter to EC about what support they can give Selangor government... - Then EC will reply... - Then maybe, Selangor might write more letters...(and wait for more replies).. - Then, maybe it will be time for next GE, and they will promise again that they will restore local council elections... Be honest, and answer this question:- DOES SELANGOR REALLY WANT LOCAL COUNCIL ELECTIONS? (From my observation, they really do not want Local Council Elections, preferring to be able to appoint their own Pakatan Rakyat cronies (which they can control) into the Local Councilors. Human Rights groups and civil society groups who were strongly campaigning for local council elections were 'silenced' by Pakatan Rakyat's strategy of appointing them as Local Councillors..but thankfully, new leadership have emerged, and civil society groups are once again calling for local council elections - Coalition for Good Governance(CGG) Media Statement on Local Council Elections. . Even if the Election Commission does not want to conduct/assist, you can always allow the people to choose the Local Councillors by elections - and, then the State can appoint these persons as Local Councillors. There are so many ways - but the question is whether Pakatan Rakyat has the political will to allow people to choose their own Local Councillors?)Sun, 07 Mar 2010 09:02:00 GMThttp://charleshector.blogspot.com/2010/03/rm1-mil-for-bn-mps-rm500000-for-pr.htmlOpposition MPs are unhappy that the government discriminates against them, and their constituents. Malaysian Federal Constitution guarantees equality - and there is no justification why the Federal Government of Malaysia does not treat all MPs equally. Money - UMNO-led BN MPs get an annual grant for constituency development of RM1 million (I thought it was RM2 million), but not the non-BN MPs. Is this not discrimination? Yes, it is. The people democratically chose their MP, and it is wrong for the Federal Government to treat MPs differently, i.e. solely based on the political party they belong to. All MPs should get the RM1 million from the government. But wait, the Pakatan Rakyat also practices similar discrimination. The Selangor government also give allocations to the ADUNs, but only the Pakatan Rakyat ADUNs - and this is also very wrong. Pakatan Rakyat hence loses the moral standing to now criticize UMNO-led BN government preferential treatment of MPs and ADUNs belonging to BN parties (or friendly to BN). See earlier post: BN ADUNs should also get RM500,000 from Selangor Government. End discrimination - respect people's democratic choice I expected Pakatan Rakyat to do better - and teach the BN good practices in a democracy. But alas, the justification is that BN gives only its people - so now, the Pakatan Rakyat also will give to its own people. Wonder Pakatan Rakyat is doing the same also when it comes to projects, approvals, etc. Will there be more development projects now (and money spend) in constituencies where the MP/ADUN is Pakatan Rakyat. Will those who chose BN be sidelined? - Change. Respect people's choices and freedom to choose who they want. Malaysiakini Sungai Siput MP Dr Michael D Jeyakumar is seriously considering taking the federal government to court for withholding the annual grant for constituency development. He said he has appointed a lawyer to study the matter and has given himself two months to decide whether or not to proceed with the suit. We want to make sure the case is watertight, he said when contacted today. The federal government has no right to withhold the money. This is the peoples money, not Barisan Nasionals money. Who is using the money? Where is the accountability and transparency to ensure the money is well spent for the benefit of the people? Each parliamentary constituency is allocated RM1 million as an annual grant for development projects. Jeyakumar the sole MP from Parti Sosialis Malaysia said that, to the best of his knowledge, opposition MPs have not received the allocation. Two demands If he proceeds with filing legal action, Jeyakumar indicated that he would seek two declarations from the court: that it should be left to the MP to choose the projects; and that the allocation should be disbursed in a transparent manner so that there is no abuse of the process. He reiterated that he is merely fighting for the rights of opposition MPs who now face unequal treatment compared to their BN counterparts The grant is not for me, it is for the people. Let us be transparent as to where it is allocated, he said. Jeyakumar caused a major upset in the 2008 general election when he defeated MIC president S Samy Vellu, who had held the Sungai Siput seat since 1974.- PSM Website By, the way the other interesting question is whether it is legal for the government to be giving such "development grants" to MPs/ADUNs directly? Is there any provision of law that allows for this? I do not think so. There are clear laws that provide for what is the role and responsibility of an MP/ADUN, and also how much he/she gets from the government? MPs/ADUNs should bring to the attention of the relevant State/Federal Departments/Local Councils about things that need to be done - that is all. It is then the responsibility of the relevant department, who should be handling all these 'development grants', to do the needful? There is no need for individual MPs/ADUNs to be getting any money from the government. If money is to be given to MPs/ADUNs, it must be part of the budget - and, in my opinion, the only money that may be given may be rental & utility bills of service centres, salary/benefits of a certain number of support staff, etc - not money to 'bribe' the constituents to vote them in again. A bit of money for the youth football team, jerseys & trophy, some bags of rice, some RM to the poor/elderly, etc - is this not wrong. All monies should be disbursed by the relevant departments...not given to MPs/ADUNs, who then go around dishing out money/gifts pretending that it comes from them. That is what the BN was doing ...but Pakatan Rakyat and other MPs/ADUNs should not get into this bad practice.Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:18:00 GMThttp://charleshector.blogspot.com/2010/03/ex-pkr-mps-name-revelation-may-be.htmlWhy did Bayan Baru MP Zahrain Mohamed Hashim name the 8 BN Members of Parliament including Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah (Umno-Gua Musang)? Who put him up to it? Was it just that Zahrain Mohamed Hashim wanted to show that he was not an 'insignificant' within PKR - but a person who had access to Anwar, and his 'secrets' - an important person within PKR? Or was it a move initiated possibly by PM Najib (or DPM Muhyiddin or some other persons within UMNO/BN) meant to discredit certain persons within the party? Was Ku Li the real target?...After all a 'potential traitor' will not have as much support within UMNO...and will be less of a threat Was some of the other named MPs targetted for certain reasons? It was an 'attack' best coming for a non-UMNO person - for if it came from an UMNO person, then it will be less believable, and most will assume it to be 'un-true' and just another false allegation by an opposing faction? Best, if it came from someone else - an ex-PKR MP would do nicely. Who was the person behind this? The manner in which the DPM reacted reminds us of the Malay proverb, 'Siapa Makan Cili, Dia Rasa Pedas' (He who ate the Chili will feel the heat) . Maybe not the DPM, ...maybe someone else who may feel that his Presidency is being threathened. 8 names - but maybe the target is just 1 or 2 persons. The revelation of the ex-PKR MP really helps Anwar, the PKR and Pakatan Rakyat because it 'confirms' what they had been saying all this while. No one really believed that the BN MPs would jump over ... Maybe those named were even not the ones who may have been considering jumping over. I believe, that revelation was a 'strike' made in an internal UMNO feud - rather than an attack against the PKR (or Pakatan Rakyat). I suspect that it was a 'knife' thrown at Ku Li - I may be wrong, and this is just a speculation. The timing is also interesting... Bayan Baru MP Zahrain Mohamed Hashim today named eight MPs, whom he claimed were ready to jump ship in the opposition's bid to take over the government on Sept 16, 2008. He alleged that this was told to PKR MPs by its de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim, but it did not materialised. The eight were Abdul Ghapur Salleh (Umno-Kalabakan), Anifah Aman (Umno-Kimanis), Bung Moktar Radin (Umno-Kinabatangan), Chua Soon Bui (Sapp-Tawau), Eric Majimbun (Sapp-Sepanggar), Dr Mohd Puad Zarkashi (Umno-Batu Pahat), Tengku Azlan Sultan Abu Bakar (Umno-Jerantut) and Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah (Umno-Gua Musang). A Dewan Rakyat deputy speaker was also allegedly among the defectors, said Zahrain when continuing his speech while debating the motion of thanks for the royal address in the Dewan Rakyat. The whole House broke into laughter when deputy speaker Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar interjected and said, "Which deputy speaker?" Zahrain claimed that there was a link between online newspaper MalaysiaKini and Raja Petra Kamaruddin (RPK)'s news portal with the opposition and urged the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission to probe into it. 'Not BN mercenary' Speaking to reporters at the Parliament lobby, Zahrain denied that he was a "BN mercenary soldier" as he had been vocal even before he left Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR). Meanwhile, PKR secretary-general Saifuddin Nasution hit back at Zahrain ( left ) by calling him a "BN attack dog". "Zahrain assumes a new role to denigrate the opposition and his sudden outburst was a marked different from his heydays in the PKR. "He hardly took part in parliamentary debate for the past two years but all of a sudden he became very vocal. "When these MPs jumped ship, they were turned into 'attack dogs'. They had prepared text with them and brought up issues which they thought were crucial," added Saifuddin. Responding to the label "attack dog", Zahrain, "It was unbecoming of him to give me such label. Anyway, it will not stop me. Do respect me as an MP."- Bernama - Malaysiakini, 18/3/2010, Zahrain names eight Sept 16 'defectors' Muhyiddin Yassin wants the authorities to investigate claims that Anwar Ibrahim had convinced opposition members of parliament that he had the blessings of the Agong and the armed forces to execute plans to take over the federal government in 2008. The deputy prime minister said the revelation by Bayan Lepas independent member of parliament Zahrain Mohamed Hashim was serious as it could tarnish the good names of the institution of Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the armed forces. "The authorities should weigh Zahrain's statement and if there is a basis to it, then they should take appropriate action," he told reporters in Muar. Muhyiddin was asked to comment on the revelation by Zahrain in the Dewan Rakyat on the attempt by Anwar to take over the federal government on Sept 16, 2008. Muhyiddin said Zahrain would have a strong evidence to be able to reveal the matter in Parliament. Former PKR 'inner circle' "He (Zahrain) is willing to swear in Parliament. This is not a statement which we can view lightly because he knows better what has been taking place in PKR," he said. Zahrain, said Muhyiddin, was a former member of PKR "inner circle" and at one time was a good friend of Anwar. He said that until now neither Anwar nor other PKR leaders had denied the claims by the Bayan Lepas MP. The deputy prime minister was also asked on the statement by Anwar likening the 1Malaysia concept to 'One Israel'. Muhyiddin said it was another example of lies by the PKR leader. Saying that Anwar and other opposition leaders were feeling threatened by the popularity of 1Malaysia, Muhyiddin said likening 1Malaysia to One Israel was ill-intent and political gimmickry. - Bernama, - Malaysiakini, 19/3/2010, DPM wants Zahrain's claims investigatedSat, 20 Mar 2010 10:22:00 GMThttp://charleshector.blogspot.com/2010/03/26-burmese-migrants-suddenly-terminated.htmlMigrant workers, especially, come to Malaysia to work after being promised employment for a certain number of years, usually 3 or more years. And to get to Malaysia, migrants end up paying a lot of money to agents, government officials, etc - and most migrants end up debt, even before they leave their home country to come to Malaysia to work. When they come to Malaysia, their work permits/passes are restricted to that particular employer. These workers have no choice. They just have to work for that particular employer - and no one else. [Of course, the Director General of Immigration have the authority to vary the permit/pass of the workers, and allow them to work with some other employer. This was done in the case of Rajakannu Boopathy & 30 something other Indian Migrant workers - but it required the migrants to take the DG and the Government of Malaysia to court before the DG voluntarily agreed to allow these workers permits/visas to be varied to permit them to work for another employer.] Hence, employers of migrant workers must fulfill their obligations and provide work and wages for the duration of the agreed period of employment. The law provides for worker rights. When rights are violated, then the law says that the worker can/must go to the Labour Department and lodge a complaint. And when they do so, employers cannot (or should not) penalize workers by immediately terminating them. This is very wrong, and the law must impose a minimum penalty on employers who do this, say 12 months basic wages of the affected worker. A worker can be terminated for misconduct, etc - but before there can be a termination, there is a requirement that there be a domestic inquiry, whereby the worker will have his/her right to be heard. A sudden termination without a domestic inquiry will generally be a wrongful dismissal, and the worker has a right to complain about this to the Industrial Relations Department(IRD), and demand for reinstatement - but the complaint must be made within 60 days...see s.20 Industrial Relations Act 1967, which states as follows:- (1) Where a workman, irrespective of whether he is a member of a trade union of workmen or otherwise, considers that he has been dismissed without just cause or excuse by his employer he may make representations in writing to the Director General to be reinstated in his former employment; the representations may be filed at the office of the Director General nearest to the place of employment from which the workman was dismissed. (1A) The Director General shall not entertain any representations under subsection (1) unless such representations are filed within sixty days of the dismissal :Provided that where a workman is dismissed with notice he may file a representation at any time during the period of such notice but not later than sixty days from the expiry thereof. (2) Upon receipt of the representations the Director General shall take such steps as he may consider necessary or expedient so that an expeditious settlement thereof is arrived at; where the Director General is satisfied that there is no likelihood of the representations being settled, he shall notify the Minister accordingly. (3) Upon receiving the notification of the Director General under subsection (2), the Minister may, if he thinks fit, refer the representations to the Court for an award. The process is long - for if the employer refuses to reinstate the worker, then the matter is referred to the Minister, who then may refer the matter to the Industrial Court - then the the trial and then the decision. It really is a very unfair process for migrant workers - unless the law changes, and wrongfully dismissed workers be given the opportunity to live and work legally while claim is processed, heard and finally determined. The other more common option is to go to the Labour Department, and claim for your unpaid salaries, overtime, unlawful deductions, termination payments, etc - But, what happen when work permits/passes expire.... The government must renew permits/visas to allow the workers to stay in the country until the dispute is determined by the Labour Department(Labour Courts). If the worker is not present for the appointment, trial at the Labour Court, the claim will be dismissed and the workers will not get justice... Of course, the Malaysian government is more concerned about getting cheap labour in, exploiting them, and getting them out of the country when their permits/passes expire. The government of Malaysia has not demonstrated that they are concerned about the workers and their rights...If they are, the process for workers to get their rights need to be expedited, and workers, in particular migrant workers, be allowed to be present in the country (with right to work) until their labour cases are determined by the court, and they have received what the court awarded. KUALA LUMPUR : In Myanmar, US$850 (about RM2,900) is enough to sustain a person comfortably for a year, and that's what Zar Ni Swe from Yangon paid to an agent to get a job as a waitress in a restaurant in Malaysia. But on Feb 15, the second day of the Chinese New Year, Ni Swe, along with 25 other Myanmar waiters and waitresses at Jogoya Restaurant in Kuala Lumpur, were given a week's notice that their services were no longer required. This heart-breaking news was conveyed to them in a memo which gave no reason nor was it signed. On top of that, the memo had more bad news the first part dealt with Myanmar waiters who had savings, and the second part for those who didn't have money. In the case of Ni Swe, she was asked to pay a RM450 levy to the restaurant, also a month's salary of RM150 as compensation for her "previous mistakes" (no matter whether she was at fault or not) and also immigration costs of RM150. Those with no savings were told to work for another company until they paid their dues to get their passports back. Ni Swe, who worked for almost four years, had the courage to ask the restaurant management why she and her countrymen and women were given a week's notice when it should have been a three months'. No satisfactory answer was given. Allegedly too, the restaurant had not paid their February salary. What followed were frantic attempts to seek help from their agents in Myanmar ("We cannot help") and Malaysia ("We can't help too"), embassy of Myanmar ("Call your agents"), the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia or Suhakam ("Wait for labour office to investigate"), police ("Call your agents") and the Federal Territory Labour Department ("Give us some time to investigate"). The hostel where Ni Swe and another 69 Myanmars were staying were also in deplorable condition. The hostel is a four-storey building at Jalan Changkat Thamby Dollah. The restaurant and storeroom are on the first floor, the male Myanmar workers live on the second floor and the females live on the third floor. With so many cramped inside each living room, the air is stuffy. With limited number of fans, the environment is perpetually hot, humid and uncomfortable and it's hard to imagine how anyone can have a peace of mind under such conditions. The staircase is cluttered with personal stuff that could not be accommodated in their living space. The walls of the staircase are also stained by urine. Each worker is provided a thin mattress and they sleep on double-deckers. - Malay Mail, 15/3/2010, Myanmar workers laid off without notice Mon, 15 Mar 2010 08:58:00 GMThttp://charleshector.blogspot.com/2010/03/levy-deductions-workers-complain.htmlLevy - Malaysian employers who want to foreign migrant workers were required to pay levy to the Malaysian government. Why? The government wanted to encourage employers to employ local Malaysians, but if they wanted to still employ a foreign national, then the employers had to pay a levy to the government for each migrant worker they employ. That payment of levy should also allow these migrant workers access to public amenities, services, etc.. But, what a lot of 'naughty' employers did was that they recovered this 'levy' from the wages of the migrant workers...and the Government of Malaysia (i.e. the Minister of Labour) gave them the official permission to do this. In law, they could not simply deduct wages of workers in Malaysia, and they needed this permission, and Malaysia's Labour Minister (DG of Labour) allowed certain(most) employers to do this. The government's permission had a condition, i.e. that the individual worker agree that his/her wages be deducted so that the employer can recover the levy that he had to pay the government. There were some other conditions too. But, alas the workers were made to believe that this was the law, and they had no choice in the matter. Many workers never agreed to such deductions....and the Labour Minister was just not bothered. Some employers put it in as part of the employment contract, and surely this was very wrong ...End result: Many workers worked without pay for many months as many unscrupulous employers just collected back what they spent on these workers (not just the levy..) from the worker's wages. Great injustice. Finally, Malaysian government changed policy last year...and did away with these permission that allow employers to recover levy paid by them from worker's wages.. But, some still did so - and when workers complained...they were suddenly terminated. This is what happened to Burmese migrant workers in Nogoya Cut-throat employers will be booked, says Labour Dept PETALING JAYA: Local employers are still fleecing foreign workers of levies from their salaries despite the Labour Department warning employers about a year ago. Federal Territory director Khamis A.R. Majid said the department was viewing the matter seriously. We witnessed numerous cases where employers were still deducting levies from the foreign workers salaries under unlawful terms, he said. Last April 1, the Labour Department had issued a circular stating that employers could continue to deduct levies from foreign workers wages only until their permit expired for the year. On renewal of the permit, employers should bear the levy cost for foreign workers with no further deductions made for levy purposes. The circular also states that employers are not permitted to deduct wages for the levy payment for workers recruited after April 1, 2009. Until the new decision on Double Levy payment is made, the rates remain unchanged. The annual levy for foreign workers can range from RM360 (domestic help and agriculture) to RM1,800 (services). The circular, dated April 20, 2009 and signed by Labour Department director-general Datuk Ismail Abdul Rahim, was issued to business operators as well as foreign embassies in Malaysia. Khamis said in the latest case, the department had to step in when 26 Myanmar workers from a KL-based Japanese buffet restaurant cried foul upon learning that their salaries were deducted by their employer for levy purposes, among other things. In the Myanmar case, the workers also claimed they were laid off without notice, and only given a weeks notice to move out of their hostel. This is a serious case because there have been too many cases of employers taking advantage of foreign workers and tarnishing the countrys good image, he said. Rest assured we will take action against local employers pulling such stunts. Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) senior industrial relations officer, Peter Kandiah, who is helping the Myanmar workers, including getting their passports back from their employers, has called for the Human Resources Ministry to step up efforts against errant employers. "It's too easy for local employers to dupe foreign workers because too many times, these foreigners don't know how, who or where to turn to for assistance," he said, when met at the FT Labour Department office last Thursday. "The ministry's system is not effective enough even to protect local workers, much less foreign labourers." - Malay Mail, 15/3/2010, Cut-throat employers will be booked, says Labour Dept See also earlier post: 26 Burmese Migrants suddenly terminated ....will they get justice?Mon, 15 Mar 2010 09:31:00 GMThttp://charleshector.blogspot.com/2010/03/rm100-for-indians-rm150-for-chinese-why.htmlWell, with regard to that gathering of old-folks in Temerloh Parliamentary constituency, area for the purpose of receiving government allocation/contribution for Chinese New Year and Deepavali, only the Malaysian of Chinese and Indian origins were invited. And, there was discrimination between what the Indians received, and what the Chinese elders (Warga Mas - Golden Citizens) received. RM100 for the Malaysian Indians RM150 for the Malaysian Chinese.. Why? Why is the UMNO-led BN government practicing discrimination based on the ethnicity/origins of one's forefathers? S0, when they call the Malaysian Malay old folks to receive their Hari Raya contributions, how many will they be given? RM200...RM250...RM500...RM1,000? Will the Orang Asli get anything? The letters were issued by the Temerloh District Office, and as mentioned earlier, the monies could have just came with the letters without requiring our aging fathers and mother going to the Dewan on a very hot afternoon, and having to wait for about 3 hours plus just to receive RM100 (If Indian) and RM150(If Chinese) [See earlier post:- BN tidak hormati Warga Mas - Warga Mas diminta pergi Dewan, tunggu 3 jam, tanpa air minum, untuk 'sumbangan' RM100 selepas dengar ucapan YB. The lack of transparency has led to a lot of questions and speculations, and some of the things that I have heard are:- * Actually, the government gave RM500 to be given to every old folk (i.e. those 65 and above) but the MCA and the MIC took some for themselves, and MCA gave the Chinese RM150, but MIC took more and gave the Indians only RM100. * Actually the government allocated RM1,000 to be given to every old folk (i.e. those 65 and above) but the BN politicians took a lot and only gave a token sum to the people. I heard that in Klang, they got RM500 - do not know why in Temerloh only RM150/RM100... * The money is given only for the old folks (i.e. those 65 and above), who voted for the BN [or are BN party members], and that is the reason why many old people did not receive the money... * Surely, there were a lot of old folks that day who were not even from Temerloh area that took the money since the envelopes did not contain the names of the recepient - surely the BN people also took a lot of the money. I am certain that if you looked at the accounts, they would say they gave out maybe 10 or 20 times more than was given out. * They wanted to pocket the money that was allocated for all the old people of Temerloh (i.e. 65 and above), and that is why they just did not send to all those old people in Temerloh(using maybe the Electoral Roll) to their own address with a check/wang pos in the name of the old people. That way there will be proper records, and difficult to 'put some money in your own pocket'. Now, you call them to come to the hall in Mentakab - only a small number will be able to come --- so you pocket the money of all who did not come. Some would never have been invited - and these also you can pocket the money [How? Cash was given - so no records of who actually received - if wang pos/check, then it will be in the name of the old folks - more difficult to take the money for your own. * I am sure the government would not have allocated just RM100 (for Indians) and RM150 (for Chinese) because Najib is now talking about 1Malaysia - and surely all will have received the same allocation. * I am sure the BN government would not have been so mean, and given so little - Taking a Taxi to get to the hall, and to go back itself cost about RM30-RM40, and lunch and drinks would have cost about RM10- and surely, it is non-sense to just give people RM100...RM150. It is so cruel. A reasonable sum would have been RM1,200 (i.e. about RM100 per month) or maybe even RM600 as times are bad. * What was that money for? I do not know. How much did the UMNO-led BN government allocate for each warga mas? I do not know. How much of the allocated money were wrongly pocketed by the BN ppolitical parties and politicians? I do not know. This is the problem with a lack of transparency - openness and information. There will always be a lot of speculation. And people always think that someone has taken money allocated for the people ...i.e. that there has been some corruption. The UMNO-led BN government must immediately disclose how much money was allocated for each Warga Mas in Temerloh? Was there a different amount allocated for Chinese and Indians, and if so, why? Are we living in an 'apartheid' kind of system in Malaysia? Are there different 'classes of people' based on ethnicity/descendants/forefathers country of origin/religion/... OR are we really 1Malaysia - where there is only 1 Malaysian, and all are treated equally irrespective of where one's forefather came from (or when they came to Malaysia). This is after all just a small thing that happened in Temerloh, where our MP is a Minister(or Deputy Minister), and there is one MCA ADUN and one UMNO ADUN. [There is one PAS ADUN - but, I believe he was not involved in this matter at all - as he was not from the BN] Najib, explain the discrimination, ....and if there was no such discrimination, please clarify matters as this happens in Temerloh, a district in your home state, Pahang...Mon, 01 Mar 2010 09:30:00 GMThttp://charleshector.blogspot.com/2010/03/how-obama-lied-in-his-justification-to.htmlHow Obama lied to the world ....an interesting read from Third World Network's Resurgence . It is important for concerned persons to support these NGOs and their publications. It is only about RM65 for a 2 year subscription for Malaysians (I believe). Another good publication to support is the ALIRAN Monthly, which is RM60 for a 2 year subscription . They really need your support. The truth is so easily distorted when you are so powerful, and control the media. Afghanistan : Obama's decision to escalate the war In his West Point address, President Obama sought to justify his decision to send an additional 30,000 US troops to Afghanistan . Paul Street exposes the lies and half-truths that pepper this war speech. Paul Street Issue No. 231/232 (Nov/Dec 2009) Like a Judas of old You lie and deceive... You hide in your mansions While young people's blood Flows out of their bodies And gets buried in the mud - Bob Dylan, 'Masters of War', 1962 War President Barack Obama's Afghan 'surge' address from the US Military Academy at West Point [1] on 1 December was unsurprising, given the fact that, as Alexander Cockburn has noted, 'Obama has...surrounded himself with the same breed of intellectuals who persuaded Lyndon Johnson to escalate the [ Vietnam ] war.'[2] As Tom 'civilian advisers' on Afghanistan include a large number of military men, all predisposed by career background and philosophy to advocate increased force levels. Did it really make sense to be surprised, Engelhardt wondered more than two months ago, that Obama would opt for more troops, money, and war when the president had 'turn[ed] crucial war decisions over to the military...functionally turn[ing] our foreign policy over to them as well?'[3] The decision to escalate was never much in doubt. Lies and deception Security Council trickery If there was anything surprising about Obama's 1 December address, it was the extent to which he was willing to distort history on behalf of his militaristic policy. 'Just days after 9/11,' Obama proclaimed, 'Congress authorised the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harboured them - an authorisation that continues to this day...For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation invoked Article 5 - the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America , our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda's terrorist network and to protect our common security.'[4] Obama clearly meant here to create the false impression that the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) authorised the Bush administration's attack on Afghanistan in October 2001. But the UNSC did no such thing since the attack met none of the UN's criteria for legitimate self-defence. The United States ' attack on Afghanistan met none of the standard international moral and legal criteria for justifiable self-defence and occurred without reasonable consultation with the United Nations Security Council. As the prominent US legal scholar Marjorie Cohn noted in July of 2008, 'The invasion of Afghanistan was as illegal as the invasion of Iraq .' The UN Charter requires member states to settle international disputes by peaceful means. Nations are permitted to use military force only in self-defence or when authorised by the Security Council. After 9/11, the Council passed two resolutions, neither of which authorised the use of military force in Afghanistan . Assaulting that country was not legitimate self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter since the jetliner assaults were criminal attacks, not 'armed attacks' by another country. Afghanistan did not attack the US and 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia . Furthermore, there was no 'imminent threat of an armed attack on the United States after 11 September or Bush would not have waited three weeks before initiating his October 2001 bombing campaign'. As Cohn added, international law requires that 'The necessity for self-defence must be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation". This classic principle of self-defence in international law has been affirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal and the UN General Assembly.'[5] 'The world according to Washington 'The suggestion that human civilisation ('the world') was united in support for Washington 's attack on Afghanistan is completely incorrect. An international Gallup poll released after the US bombing began showed that global opposition was overwhelming. In 34 of the 37 countries Gallup surveyed, majorities opposed a military attack on Afghanistan , preferring that 9/11 be treated as a criminal matter rather than as a pretext for war. Even in the US, just 54% supported war.[6] 'In Latin America, which has some experience with US behaviour,' Noam Chomsky noted (in a 2008 column titled 'The World According to Washington'), 'support [for the US assault] ranged from 2% in Mexico, to 18% in Panama, and that support was conditional on the culprits being identified (they still weren't eight months later, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported) and civilian targets being spared (they were attacked at once). There was an overwhelming preference in the world for diplomatic/judicial measures, rejected out of hand by [ Washington , claiming to represent] "the world."'[7] 'Only after the Taliban refused to turn over bin Laden' 'Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy - and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden - we sent our troops into Afghanistan ,' Obama said.[8] This was completely false. In the actual history that occurred, the US refused to respond to the Taliban government's offer to turn bin Laden over to a foreign government for a trial once elementary evidence pointing to his guilt was presented. The US deliberately made sure that bin Laden would not be turned over through legal and diplomatic channels because (quite frankly) the Bush administration wanted war and did not wish to follow the UN Charter's requirement that nations pursue 'all means short of force before taking military action' (Rahul Mahajan).[9] 'Safe haven' mythology Six times in his war speech Obama used the phrase 'safe haven'. Afghanistan , Obama wants the American people to think, is a 'safe haven' for past and potential future terror attacks on the 'homeland'. This, too, is deceptive. As Harvard Kennedy School of Government professor Stephen Walt noted in an August 2009 Foreign Policy essay, Obama's 'safe haven myth' rests on the fundamentally flawed premise that al Qaeda or its many and various imitators couldn't just as effectively plot and conduct future terror attacks from any of a large number of other locations, including Western Europe and the US itself. At the same time, Walt observed, Obama's expanded engagement in the 'ambitious social and political reconstruction and re-engineering of Afghanistan and perhaps even Pakistan, trying, with slight chances of success,' to create a centralised democratic state in the former country, was reinforcing al Qaeda's core claim that the West's and above all the United States' presence in South Asia was about imperial control. The more the US is seen as 'trying to restructure their societies along lines that we think are appropriate,' Walt notes, 'the more we play into the narrative that they use to try and attract support and recruit people in Afghanistan itself.' [10] Empire and inequality 'The United States is broken... yet we're nation-building in Afghanistan 'The president said nothing in his address about the tens of thousands of private military contractors deployed by the Pentagon in Afghanistan (57% of the US force presence there at the end of last June!) [11] or about the deadly, largely secret Predator drone war he has dramatically escalated against Afghan and Pakistani 'terrorists' and civilians [12]. He also failed to mention the absurdity of his decision to spend untold billions more dollars on a futile, massively expensive colonial operation abroad as misery and destitution expanded at home. The domestic social uplift and opportunity cost of his imperial policy - the twisted misplacement of resources that Martin Luther King, Jr. described in the late 1960s as symptomatic of America 's 'spiritual death' [13] - is certainly enormous. By the White House's own calculations, the Afghan escalation is going to cost $1 million a year per every single new soldier deployed [14] - a giant investment that could be diverted to meet growing unmet social needs across the US . Echoing Dr King's late-1960s sermons and speeches against the US military state's 'perverted priorities', New York Times columnist Bob Herbert marked the day of Obama's West Point address with an eloquent lament: 'The president has arrived at a decision that never was much in doubt, and that will prove to be a tragic mistake. It was also, for the president, the easier option. 'It would have been much more difficult for Mr Obama to look this troubled nation in the eye and explain why it is in our best interest to begin winding down the permanent state of warfare left to us by the Bush and Cheney regime. It would have taken real courage for the commander in chief to stop feeding our young troops into the relentless meat grinder of Afghanistan, to face up to the terrible toll the war is taking - on the troops themselves and in very insidious ways on the nation as a whole. 'More soldiers committed suicide this year than in any year for which we have complete records. But the military is now able to meet its recruitment goals because the young men and women who are signing up can't find jobs in civilian life. The United States is broken - school systems are deteriorating, the economy is in shambles, homelessness and poverty rates are expanding - yet we're nation-building in Afghanistan, sending economically distressed young people over there by the tens of thousands at an annual cost of a million dollars each.'[15] 'A chance to shape their future' Of course, 'nation-building' is a euphemism for imperial assault and occupation. Look at the unimaginable devastation - more than 1 million plus killed before their time, millions more injured and displaced, and massive social and technical infrastructure destroyed - 'we' (our unelected agents of Empire) have inflicted on crippled Iraq, about which Obama had the noxious imperial chutzpah to say the following: 'Thanks to [US troops'] courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future.'[16] Yes, you read that correctly: 'we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future.' Call it Empire and Inequality [17] Re-Branded. Combined and interrelated, mutually reinforcing, and caught up in a dark, dialectically inseparable duet of destruction...the forces of domestic disparity and imperial violence continue their dangerous, viciously circular dalliance of death. 'Like Bush's America ,' John Pilger notes, 'Obama's America is run by some very dangerous people.'[18] Paul Street is a writer, author, activist and speaker based in Iowa City , USA . He is the author of many books and articles, including Empire and Inequality: America and the World Since 9/11 ( Boulder , CO : Paradigm, 2004) and Racial Oppression in the Global Metropolis ( New York : Rowman & Littlefield, 2007). His next book, Empire's New Clothes: Barack Obama in the Real World of Power, will be released next year. This article is reproduced from the ZNet website . Endnotes 1. George W Bush also liked to make militaristic pronouncements from military settings like West Point, Annapolis , the Carlisle War College , and the USS Abraham Lincoln. 2. Alexander Cockburn, 'War and Peace,' CounterPunch (9 October 2009), read at URL. 3. Tom Engelhardt, 'A Military That Wants its Way,' TomDispatch (24 September 2009), read at URL. 4. 'Text of Obama's Speech on Afghanistan ' (1 December 2009), read at URL. 5. Marjorie Cohn, 'End the Occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan ,' ZNet (30 July 2008), read at URL. 'Resolutions 1368 and 1373 condemned the 11 September attacks, and ordered the freezing of assets; the criminalising of terrorist activity; the prevention of the commission of and support for terrorist attacks; the taking of necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist activity, including the sharing of information; and urged ratification and enforcement of the international conventions against terrorism.' 6. Abid Aslam, 'Polls Question Support for Military Campaign,' Inter Press Service, 8 October 2001; Gallup International, 'Gallup International Poll on Terrorism' (September 2001); Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, "Obama's Foreign Policy Report Card": Juan Cole Grades His President - and Very Positively,'MR Zine (9 November 2009), read at mrzine.monthlyreview.org/ hp091109.html 7. Noam Chomsky, 'The world according to Washington ,' Asia Times (28 February 2008). 8. 'Text of Obama's Speech on Afghanistan .' 9. See Rahul Mahajan, The New Crusade: America 's War on Terrorism ( New York : Monthly Review, 2002), 28-31; Noam Chomsky, Hegemony Over Survival: America 's Quest for Global Dominance ( New York : Metropolitan, 2003), 198-202. 10. Stephen Walt, 'The Safe Haven Myth,' Foreign Policy (18 August 2009), read at URL. Stephen Walt, interview by Amy Goodman, Democracy Now, 25 August 2009, read at URL. See also Paul R. Pillar, 'Who's Afraid of a Terrorist Haven?,' Washington Post, 16 September 2009, read at ... 'By utilising networks such as the Internet,' Pillar noted, 'terrorists' organisations have become more network-like, not beholden to any one headquarters.' A significant jihadist terrorist threat to the United States is alive, Pillar argues, but 'that does not mean it will consist of attacks instigated and commanded from a South Asian haven, or that it will require a haven at all. Al-Qaeda's role in that threat is now less one of commander than of ideological lodestar, and for that role a haven is almost meaningless.' Pillar was deputy chief of the counterterrorist centre at the CIA from 1997 to 1999. He is director of graduate studies at Georgetown University 's Security Studies Programme. 1l. Congressional Research Service, 'Department of Defense Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan : Background and Analysis,' CRS Report number R40764, 21 September 2009, URL. 12. For a chilling account, see Jane Mayer, 'The Predator War,' The New Yorker (26 October 2009). 13. 'A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.' Martin Luther King, Jr., 'A Time to Break the Silence,' Riverside Church , New York City, 4 April 1967. 14. Christi Parsons and Julian E. Barnes, 'Pricing an Afghanistan Troop Build Up is No Simple Calculation,' Los Angeles Times, 23 November 2009. 15. Bob Herbert, 'A Tragic Mistake,' New York Times, 1 December 2009. 16. 'Text of Obama's Speech on Afghanistan .' 17. Please see Paul Street , Empire and Inequality: America and the World Since 9/11 ( Boulder , CO : Paradigm, 2004) - written at the height of self-described 'war president' George W Bush's reign, but equally applicable to the first year of the 'progressive' presidency of Barack Obama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. 18. John Pilger, 'Media Lies and the War Drive Against Iran,' Pakistan Daily, 15 October 2009, read at ...Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:37:00 GMThttp://charleshector.blogspot.com/2010/03/referendum-how-people-can-have-their.htmlWe know that the UMNO-led BN has created a 'culture' of government deciding for the people without the people being consulted. Did you consult the people of this town about whether they wanted this mega project? BN will answer 'Yes'. We consulted with the Local Council. We consulted the JKKKs. We consulted the Penghulu - the problem is that all these persons are not peoples' representatives but political appointees. And, sadly one pre-condition is that they be members of the party... Malaysians, as a matter of practice are never consulted on anything. Not only that, they are also not provided with all the information, including differing views/opinions. In an internet age, this is really unacceptable. The culture of 'secrecy' and 'government knows best' must be ended, and Malaysians deserve real democracy now, 50 plus years after we got independence from the British. Referendum - that is what we must start having. It is a process of allowing the people to participate in the decision making process. A referendum (also known as a plebiscite or a ballot question) is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to either accept or reject a particular proposal. This may result in the adoption of a new constitution , a constitutional amendment , a law , the recall of an elected official or simply a specific government policy. It is a form of direct democracy . A referendum could be binding, or persuasive. Maybe, Malaysia needs to start having referendums... It can be done at all levels...national, state, districts, Parliamentary Constituencies, State Legislative Constituencies.. But before any referendums are done - there must be avenues for people to have their say and for all others to hear their views and opinions. We do not want 'government' getting a memorandum/views from this group and that group, and deciding without the rest of us even knowing what the other had said. It should all be open...Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:33:00 GMThttp://charleshector.blogspot.com/2010/03/motion-tabled-debatethen-vote-on.htmlA motion is tabled... Then people are allowed to give their views about the Motion. It could be views in support of the Motion. It could be views opposing the Motion. It could be views asking that there be some amendments to the Motion before it is voted on. Then comes the VOTE - and if it is passed by the Majority, it is carried. If not, it is defeated. It may have been a simple Motion - but when the Speaker did not allow for debate BUT proceeded to put it to a vote, it was wrong. And the Opposition MPs were right to protest - and walk-out. After all, the Opposition MPs may not have objected to it - but that does not matter. A denial of the right to express your views on a Motion before Parliament is a serious matter. Why Walk-Out? Well, if they did not 'walk-out', the media would not have carried the story & the people will not know. How long should one 'walk-out"? Just long enough to make the point & get the media attention. Then, MPs should get back inside and participate in the other matters being debated. Pakatan Rakyat parliamentarians staged a walkout from the Dewan Rakyat after deputy speaker Ronald Kiandee refused to allow a debate on a motion by the Home Ministry. Earlier, the Home Ministry moved a motion directing the inspector-general of police to ensure that roads leading to Parliament were free from obstacles at all times. The motion was passed after obtaining a majority approval through voice count, prompting howls of objections from the Pakatan bench. The motion instructed the IGP to "take care of passages of the streets to the House to be kept free and opened and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passages of the members to and from the House that there be no annoyance therein and thereabouts". Kiandee said that the motion was tabled by convention at the opening session of every Parliament sitting and it was not common practice for it to be debated. The frustrated Pakatan MPs, led by PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang, marched out of the House and refused to partake in the debate on the royal address. Lim expressed regret at the Speaker's decision to decline the debate as there were some crucial points that he was going to present on the jurisdiction of the Home Ministry on the police force. "Although it is is a convention for a motion like this not to be debated because it is very straightforward, it doesn't mean that we can't have a debate when the MPs who want to debate and I have also debated such motions before," Lim told reporters at a press conference at the Parliament lobby. The Ipoh Timor MP said that he intended to raise the matter relating to a newspaper report claiming IGP Musa Hassan's resignation. Allegations that Musa was going to resign to make way for a new appointment on Mar 25, however was denied by the latter, and the Chinese language daily has been asked to explain the intent behind the report. "This were things I wanted to bring up during the debate but unfortunately it was not allowed," said Lim, peeved over the Speaker's decision. Pakatan MPs reject IGP's reappointment The veteran MP argued that the resignation of the IGP is a "hot topic" as the Pakatan Rakyat parliamentarians had opposed the reappointment of Musa when his contract comes to an end in September. "There (are) a lot of questions... there was a parliamentary roundtable last July where all MPs of Pakatan Rakyat refused the extension of Musa as the IGP, and I had said very clearly that there are 2,000 top police officers (who) want a new IGP, I am sure the whole country will want (the current) IGP to go," said Lim. "The doctrine of separation of powers, that the police force is a credible and principled organisation which is not subject to the Home Minister, has to be explained," he reiterated. Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein ( left ) later told reporters that the Pakatan MPs' antics were "disheartening" because he tabled a motion to ensure the safety of all the MPs. "As to what they have done in the House today, the act of walking out of the Dewan in relation to the motion which I brought forth which was to ensure their safety, shows that they are willing to do anything to get support and twist an issue for the sake of politics," said Hishammuddin. The issues relating to the IGP were unrelated said Hishammuddin, and accused the MPs of "sensationalising and politicising" issues for political mileage. - Malaysiakini, 16/3/2010, Pakatan MPs stage walkoutWed, 17 Mar 2010 10:23:00 GMThttp://charleshector.blogspot.com/2010/03/government-should-proactively-ensure.htmlMany workers are still waiting for their wages to be paid by companies/bosses who cease operations and delayed payment of back-wages (and benefits) by reason of the economic crisis. Some are waiting for 6 months wages...some for even 12 months wages. The shut-down of factories and workplaces, which is said to be temporary, also means that even the managers and the bosses are not coming in, and the workers may be cheated as many of these are relying only on 'verbal' assurances by the company. For migrant workers, the problem is even greater. Now, some of the agents and/or employer's rep are asking them to go back to their home country, and they tell these workers that their outstanding wages/benefits will then be send to them. How? Some say that they will pay through their local agent, etc... - There is a great risk that these workers will ultimately be cheated of their wages/benefits unless the Malaysian government, in the form of the Human Resources Minister (or the Labour Department) steps in now to create a procedure...system that will ensure that these workers will not be cheated of their wages/benefits. For many of these workers, it is not just the question of their basic wages, but also overtime allowances. For workers, that are month wage earners, they are entitled to the full monthly wage irrespective of the fact that the companies only provided work for some days of the month. For many of these factories, before the factory stopped operating completely, the workers had to work only on a certain number of days per month. According to law, the workers will still have to be paid their full monthly wages - unless there was any agreement whereby the workers agreed to be paid for the days that they work only. But, rightly this 'agreement' would be invalid, and they should be paid their full monthly wages. Migrant workers, by reason of the work passes/permits suffer even more - since the current law restricts their employment to just that particular employer. At this time, the government must come out with a new policy that allows migrant workers in this situation, just like local workers, the freedom and the ability to seek alternative temporary wage paying employment wherever they can. Wages should be paid completely before migrant workers are sent back to their home country. In terms of fixed term contract workers, like migrant workers, they should be paid at least their basic monthly wages for the remaining uncompleted term of their contract if they are to be prematurely asked to return to their home country. What the Minister of Human Resources (Labour) should do NOW? * Get all these workers to come in to the Labour Departments, and determine the amount of wages/monies due and payable by the employer. * Get the employer to come in as well. If the employer does not attend the meeting with the Labour Department, an order should be issued stating clearly the amount of monies die and payable to these workers. * Copies of these orders should be given to the workers, and also the Employers - and thereafter, as usual, the Labour Department should try to enforce this order and give the said money back to the workers. * If the monies due and payable could not be returned to the workers before they leave, the Labour Department must get details of the workers (or their family members) bank account in their home country, and undertake to transfer the said monies to the workers as soon as the Labour Department recovers the monies. * The Labour Department must also sent to the Official Assignee copies of the Order, and details of the total sum due and payable by companies to the workers. Payment to workers should be the first priority, in the event the company is wound-up (or their employers made bankrupt). At present, the workers are waiting, relying on promises, for their wages/benefits but we do not know whether other people to recover their debts are taking legal action against the company, including winding-up and bankruptcy proceedings. If no safeguards are put in place now, many workers will be cheated of their wages/benefits. Companies may be wound-up...sold, etc and the workers will still be waiting. The Minister...the Labour Department must get pro-active in this matter to prevent workers being cheated. They cannot sit in their offices waiting for these workers to come to them. Adverts, Banners & Education Campaigns needed now. Seek out the workers... and help them. Many of these are women workers, and this being International Women's Day, they should be protected and not cheated by employers and agents. Migrant workers, who have already incurred great debts and expended a lot of money in coming to Malaysia should be given a special attention. It will be easier for local workers still in Malaysia to chase and claim their rights - but the Migrant Worker, back home in their home country, will certainly find it near impossible to claim their rights. Malaysia brought them in to exploit their 'cheap docile labour', and we hope that caring Malaysia would not cause them to be cheated of their wages, and thus further exploited. Employers really should be required to deposit at least 6 months wages of their migrant workers with the Malaysian government as a security measure - so that at least, they could get some money when employers abscond or become bankrupt/wound-up.Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:11:00 GMThttp://charleshector.blogspot.com/2010/03/another-burmese-migrant-dies-in-alor.htmlI received information that another Burmese Migrant dies in Detention Centre in Alor Star. Name: San Oo Body Number: 4630 Died on 3/3/2010 We recall that it was reported in the media in December 2008, that "About 1,300 illegal foreigners have died during detention in the past six years, Malaysia Nanban quoted Malaysian Human Rights (Suhakam) commissioner Datuk N. Siva Subramaniam as saying. He said many of them died in immigration detention centres, prisons and police lockups because they were denied medical treatment at the right time. [Star, 18/12/2008, 1,300 foreign detainees died due to neglect ] This was again reiterated ABC News (28/5/2009) Malaysia detention centres 'violating rights' . The Bar Council tells us that, "... The Dewan Rakyat figure would mean that an average of one migrant dies in custody almost every day !" - Bar Council: Deaths of migrants in prisons, rehabilitation and detention centres See earlier posts:- Migrants eat grass...walk backfooted...and so they get sick and die... No Za Bou, Women Migrant from Burma dies in KLIA Detention Centre - Could this death have been avoided with proper healthcare? Minister of Health's lack of response shows a lack of accountability - Death of Migrants in Detention Centres by reason of Leptospirosis Malaysian Trade Union Congress (MTUC) makes it 26 groups concerned about recent death of 6 Burmese in detention 2 migrants fell sick and died at the KLIA Immigration Depot. Could death have been avoided if the required healthcare was available? 126 groups:- Death of 2 Burmese Indicative of State of Detention Places in Malaysia - Denial of Healthcare Is a Violation of Right to Life * I have received a letter from the Ministry of Health recently, and I would try to post the same in this blog as soon as possible. Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:07:00 GMThttp://charleshector.blogspot.com/2010/03/burma-campaign-malaysia-mtuc-and-malay.htmlToday, many newspapers, NGOs and persons are focussed on the political dramas happening in Malaysia. There is really too much attention given to that MCA internal problems, PKR's party hoppers and expelled MP, 'Anwar wants to be declared still Deputy Prime Minister' trial, Anwar's Sodomy Trial, Anwar's Defamation Suit, MB Selangor's trials, PR -v- BN Perak trials, ....and little attention is given to struggles of the little person - the workers, the farmers, the 'warga mas', etc.. Interesting as all these may be, it is important for the media to also pay a little more attention to things that really matter in the lives of the poor and oppressed. Malay Mail just did highlight the plight of workers - Burmese migrant workers. Not only did they report this, but also caused to publish 4 reports about the plight of these workers, education n about levy - and how employers cannot deduct anymore worker's wages to recover their expenses, etc.. Burma Campaign Malaysia should also be applauded for the role that they played. Malaysian Trade Unions Congress (MTUC) role must also be applauded. What we need now is for the Malaysian government, in the person of the Minister of Human Resources and the Labour Departments to begin playing a more active role in protecting worker rights... and discouraging employers action of terminating workers who try to claim their rights as provided by law. Some action must be taken against such employers... How The Malay Mail got the action going CHAOTIC: FT Labour officers and the Myanmar workers in front of the restaurant last Thursday . Pic: ASHRAF SHAMSUL AZLAN KUALA LUMPUR: The Malay Mail had received a tip-off that the 26 Myanmar workers had been sacked by Jogoya Restaurant. Our team had gone to the restaurant last Wednesday to seek clarification but to no avail. On Thursday, the workers were brought by countryman Yan Naing Tun from an NGO called Burma Campaign Malaysia to the Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) to seek help from its senior industrial relations officer Peter Kandiah, accompanied by The Paper That Cares .Kandiah led the group to the Federal Territory Labour Department office at Wisma Perkeso in Jalan Ampang to state their case. The same day, the department sent five officers to the restaurant to get back the workers' passports but were unable to meet the management. Soon after, the restaurant manager was called to the FT Labour Department office and was told to return the passports, refund the deducted levies, to pay wages to the workers until today, and also provide their return air tickets. The restaurant management met the department officers on March 12 to return the passports, and negotiate the department's demands. On Friday, the management said they will provide air tickets for those who worked three years and above, and will only pay wages up to February. However, if both sides are unable to agree, the case will be brought to the Labour Court. When contacted last night, Zar Ni Swe, one of the 26 Myanmar workers, said they hoped to get their passports today. NGOs want more vigilance against errant employers PETALING JAYA: Several NGOs have called on the Labour Department to be vigilant against employers who refuse salary slips to foreign workers and to prosecute employers who continue to deduct a levy from foreign workers. Last year, we received about 5,600 reports from foreign workers who claimed they didn't receive their wages, were subject to unknown deductions and were not issued with salary slips, said Tenaganita director Irene Fernandez yesterday. She said Tenaganita received reports in January of illegal levy deductions even though the government had deferred levy costs on foreign workers recruited after April 1 last year. Some foreign workers claimed they didn't get their salary or had unfair deductions from their wages. It is hard for us to ascertain the truth of such complaints since there are foreign workers who are not provided any payslip, said Fernandez, adding that Tenaganita faced difficulties helping such workers when putting forward their cases to the Labour Department for action. She hoped the Labour Department will constantly monitor employers, especially those in small-medium enterprises, manufacturing and service sectors to prevent such unhealthy practices becoming the norm in this country. Meanwhile, the Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) urged the Labour Department to beef up enforcement against levy deductions on foreign workers. Some errant employers have apparently cheated their foreign workers with levy deductions, even with those who came to work in this country after April 1 and who renewed their work permits after that period, said MTUC president Syed Shahir Syed Mohamud. - Malay Mail, 15/3/2010, Myanmar workers laid off without notice See earlier posts:- Levy Deductions: Workers Complain Employers Terminate - Government Must Act Against Such Employers 26 Burmese Migrants suddenly terminated ....will they get justice? Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:07:00 GMThttp://charleshector.blogspot.com/2010/03/should-we-boycott-jogoya-restaurants.htmlThe employer allegedly wrongly deducted from wages of their employees to recover the levy they had to pay the government of Malaysia for hiring foreign workers. The workers complained - and later referred the matter to the Labour Department - exactly what workers have to do when the employer violates their rights - wrongful deduction of wages, non-payment of wages/benefits, etc.. When these workers fought for their rights - and did what the Malaysian law required of them, the employer terminated them. The employer also withheld the passports of these workers - which again is wrong. Will the Malaysian police/immigration department charge the employer in court for holding on to the passport of another? Why not? Is it because the UMNO-led BN government is pro-employer anti-worker? Charge the employer.... Myanmar workers: Passports returned minus February pay Yap Aik Meng Tuesday, March 16th, 2010 11:06:00 BITTERSWEET: The Myanmar workers showing their passports returned to them KUALA LUMPUR: It was a bittersweet day for the 26 Myanmar workers who lost their jobs as waiters and waitresses at a Japanese restaurant and subsequently had their passports withheld by their former employers. They received their passports yesterday. However, it came at a cost. Their previous employer, Jogoya Restaurant based in Starhill shopping centre, is now refusing to pay the February wages owed to them, and is instead deducting the wages from their service points. A meeting between the Jogoya management, the Myanmar workers as well as Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) officials, took place at the Federal Territory Labour Department office in Wisma Perkeso yesterday. However, MTUC senior industrial relations officer Peter Kandiah told The Malay Mail it was not entirely a happy ending for the workers. "At the meeting, the restaurant management stated they were willing to give back the passports. However, they are not willing to pay the workers their February salary," said Kandiah. "They claim this is because the workers failed to show up for work during the period when they had protested against the restaurant's treatment of them." Kandiah also argued with the restaurant management's stand that they were only willing to pay the return airfares for 10 of the Myanmar workers, instead of all 26. The restaurant, he claimed, stated that the other workers have to fulfill the contract requirements, and hence they didn't qualify for the tickets. "However, as the restaurant had already acted illegally by deducting the workers' levy, they should not be talking about breach of contract. They should pay for all their airfares," he said. Kandiah wants the Labour Department director-general to prosecute the restaurant management as he claimed they illegally and unlawfully deducted levy for the workers. Kandiah is seeking a meeting with the department today. Meanwhile, one of the Myanmar workers, Zar Ni Swe, said that despite the mess, she and her colleagues were grateful to get their passports back. "At least I'm not afraid of being caught by the authorities without any identification documents on me. However, I still hope that the case can be resolved soon," she said. The Malay Mail yesterday front-paged the plight of the 26 workers, who claimed that on March 2, they were given a week's notice that their services were no longer required. Some were made to pay a RM450 levy to the restaurant, also a month's salary of RM150 as compensation for "previous mistakes" and immigration costs of RM150. Those with no savings were told to work for another company until they paid their dues to get their passports back. After receiving no help from the various authorities, the workers finally found support from the MTUC which referred them to the FT Labour Department. The Paper That Cares was alerted to the development and last Thursday, the department sent five officers to the restaurant to get back the workers' passports but were unable to meet the management as well. The Labour Department officers then instructed the restaurant to instead send its representatives to the department to return the passports, refund the deducted levies, to pay wages to the workers until March 15, and also provide their return air tickets. The restaurant management met the department officers on March 12 to negotiate the department's demands. - Malay Mail, 16/3/2010, Myanmar workers: Passports returned minus February pay You claim your rights - and your employer terminates your services & also do not to pay for their airfare back to their home country. Why? Because the employer alleges that the workers did not fulfill their contracts. " Did not fulfill their contracts" - Well, was it not the employer who wrongly deducted wages? Was it not the employer that terminated their services when the took steps to claim their rights? The law provides an avenue for workers to complain if they believe that their worker rights are being violated - and this is the Labour Department (Labour Court), or in the case of wrongful dismissal where one is seeking re-instatement - the Industrial Relations Department. When a worker goes to the Labour Department, he lodges his complaint and his claim. Labour Department informs the employer and seeks his response. Labour Department tries to resolve dispute between employer and workers. If 'mediation'/negotiations do not work - we proceed to the Labour Trial, where parties put forward their evidence (and challenge the other side's evidence), and at the end of the day, the Labour Court decides. Then, if the court decides in favour of the workers - the employer will be ordered to do the needful. If the court decides against the workers, that is it. [Of course, parties have a right to then bring the matter to the High Court,...] What must an employer do when workers claim their rights? Certainly not terminate these workers - and, I believe, that the law must place a very high penalty (or even make it an offence) on employers who terminate their workers when they utilize the mechanisms available to claim their rights as workers. What this Jogoya Restaurant did, as reported, is so wrong. Maybe Malaysians who are for human rights and worker rights should BOYCOTT Jogoya.until :- a) All workers are immediately reinstated as workers without loss of benefits, b) The employer returns all wrongful deduction from wages, c) All these workers be allowed to work until at the very least the end of their contract period, and the employer pays for the necessary airfare back home, etc... Jogoya Malaysia Since its opening in January 2006, Jogoya's flagship Japanese buffet restaurant on the Relish Floor of Starhill Gallery, Kuala Lumpur has attracted more than 1 million customers. With a large area of nearly 30000 square feet, Jogoya buffet restaurant in Kuala Lumpur can accommodate up to 580 guests at a time. The whole interior design is made based on the 'flowing' concept and has a variety of dining area such as the disclosed area, semi-disclosed, private seats for couples and the VIP rooms. Using the highest quality of ingredients (No Pork) , the creative and skilled chefs at Jogoya have prepared more than 200 dishes of different style like Chinese, Western, Japanese, Malaysian and a lot of other styles. This has made Jogoya an irresistible place to enjoy delicious cuisines. Recently, we have added Haagen-Dazs ice-creams to our dessert menu as we want to serve you the best quality ice-creams. Besides, we also provides unlimited liquor such as wines and cocktails and you do not need to pay extra for it.- Jogoya Website See earlier posts:- Levy Deductions: Workers Complain Employers Terminate - Government Must Act Against Such Employers 26 Burmese Migrants suddenly terminated ....will they get justice? Burma Campaign Malaysia, MTUC and Malay Mail do good in workers' struggle for rights Tue, 16 Mar 2010 08:38:00 GMThttp://charleshector.blogspot.com/2010/02/mbpj-sad-reflection-of-pakatan-rakyat.htmlI have made concrete proposals of how the MBPJ (Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya - Petaling Jaya City Council) could improve - become more transparent, accountable, informative, open... Many were simple to implement, and they could have used their website to do this... Some of the suggestions were:- * Minutes/Decisions of MBPJ meetings [after all the Meetings should be open to the public, and it is already available. All that had needed to be done is to upload the minutes.] - NOT DONE * Information of upcoming MBPJ Meetings, the Agenda, Time & Venue - so that the public is aware about it, and can make arrangement to come attend. This should be prominent in the Website. - NOT DONE * Make all MBPJ (and MBPJ Committee meetings open to the public) - Now, only MBPJ meetings are open to the public (unless they decide otherwise), and the other committee meetings can be open if the MBPJ decides so. The power is in the hands of the MBPJ - NOT DONE * MBPJ By-Laws, Regulations, Enactments, Laws - These set out the powers, procedures, rights, which applies to MBPJ, the people working/living within the MBPJ area, etc. Now the MBPJ makes mention of these laws - but it is not laid out in full so that all people know what it is. You cannot easily find or purchase these 'laws' - and that is why it is important that MBPJ in their website (at the very least) lay out the law in full - so people will know what it is. - NOT DONE Betrayed - Pakatan Rakyat is just like the Barisan Nasional, it seems. Just like the BN, they too do not listen to criticisms/suggestions for reform. Like BN, there was a lot of promises before elections - but after that, promises are forgotten. Local Council Elections was promised - and we still have not yet had a Local Council Election in any of the Pakatan Rakyat states - let alone a real attempt to have it. Should we give Pakatan Rakyat more time? more chances? OR should we just start looking for other options. See earlier posts: MBPJ - More proposals for reform & wondering the reason for not implementing simple reforms already suggested.. MBPJ meeting are open to the public - but people do not know this, or when, or what is on the agenda.... Meeting of Local Council (MBPJ, etc) should be open to the public... Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya - No changes because Mayor and staff following 'old policies and old ways...' of BN - so, not Pakatan's fault Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya - Where is the transparency and accountability?Sat, 27 Feb 2010 05:53:00 GMThttp://charleshector.blogspot.com/2010/03/local-council-elections-penang-leads-by.htmlFinally, the Pakatan Rakyat State Government of Penang has repented, and have taken the first step to fulfill its pre-2008 General Election promise by having local council elections. During the campaigning for the March 8 2008 General Elections, Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), the Democratic Action Party (DAP) and Parti Islam Malaysia (PAS), now forming the Pakatan Rayat coalition, had individually and collectively promised local council elections in various campaign documents. They were as follows: PKR's Manifesto 2008 promised in item 9 of its vision for a constitutional state, to reinstate with immediate effect local elections for municipal and local councils to create greater accountability at every level of government. DAP, both through its campaign on The Third Vote: Restore Local Government Elections and its 2008 Election Manifesto, reiterated its call to implement local government elections to ensure accountability and efficiency. The Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (BERSIH) , whose membership includes all three Pakatan Rakyat component parties, promised: The need to re-introduce elections for local authorities at city, municipal, district and village levels with an electoral system which is free and fair, and [which] enables Malaysians to participate actively. The Peoples Declaration , which all three Pakatan Rakyat component parties endorsed during the 2008 elections, also upheld the principle of local elections.- Coalition for Good Governance(CGG) Media Statement on Local Council Elections Yes, the 1st step is to ask the Election Commission to conduct the local council elections - Penang government finally sent this letter "...last Thursday..." If the Election Commission refuses, then the next step is to take the matter to court... Before this, all blame lied on the Pakatan Rakyat because they did not have local council elections, and did not do anything towards holding these elections. Like the BN before this, the Pakatan Rakyat appointed its own party members/supporters into the local council. Penang has taken the first step ... but what about Selangor(PKR MB), Kedah (PAS MB) and Kelantan (PAS MB)? Perak, when under the rule of Pakatan Rakyat, conducted elections at the Kampung level (and at 1 Kampung Baru). The reason for not having elections at the Kampung Baru level allegedly was because DAP did not want it. Now, could Penang, Selangor, Kedah and Kelantan also start having elections at the Kampung, Kampung Baru and Taman levels - and this is something that the State has the full power to do. There is no need to go through the Election Commission, and as such this failure cannot be blamed on any other, other than the Pakatan Rakyat themselves - DAP, PKR and PAS (maybe PSM too) GEORGE TOWN: The Penang state government has written to the Election Commission asking it to hold local government elections for the Penang and Seberang Prai municipal councils. Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng said the letter was sent to the commission on Thursday, a day after the state executive council made the decision to call for the elections. We have also sent a facsimile to the commission and Im sure they would have got it by now, he told a press conference here Saturday. Lim said the state government had asked the commission to hold the election under Article 113 (4) of the Federal Constitution. The section says that the state government can call for elections other than federal or state matters. In January, a non-governmental organisation slammed the state government for failing to live up to its Competency, Accountability and Transparency (CAT) policy when appointing local councillors. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram) Penang branch coordinator Ong Jing Cheng said the state government must restore local government elections to enhance democracy. - Star, 6/3/2010, Penang seeking local govt elections Two days before Pakatan Rakyat celebrates its second anniversary of its takeover of Penang, the state government announced that it has moved to restore local government elections. The local election will involve two municipal councils - the Municipal Council of Penang Island (MPPP) and Municipal Council of Seberang Perai (MPSP). Chief minister Lim Guan Eng ( right ) said he had sent a letter to Election Commission (EC) chief Abdul Aziz Yusof on March 4 asking the commission to conduct election for both local councils. The state executive council had, in a meeting a day earlier, decided for local council elections to be held, Lim said in the letter. He also cited Article 113(4) of the Federal Constitution, which states that "Federal or State law may authorize the Election Commission to conduct elections other than those referred to in Clause (1)." Among the state laws that empower the Penang government as the competent authority, the letter reads further, are the Local Government Elections Act 1960 and the Local Government Act 1976. "Consequently, in order to facilitate and implement this proposal to carry out the election, we request that the Election Commission advise us of its views in relation to the proposed local council election process as soon as possible. "The state government is prepared to meet with you to discuss the matter further". When contacted, EC deputy chairperson Wan Ahmad Wan Omar said the letter has yet to be brought to the attention of the commission. The EC will look at the letter and discuss it before giving a response (to the Penang government). Whether that response will be positive or negative, it is too early to say. This involves legal issues that we have to taken into consideration, said Ahmad. It has been over 40 years since the government outlawed local council elections through the Local Government Act 1976. Local polls were suspended following the declaration of emergency on Sept 3, 1964, which remains in force. The call to have local council elections reinstated have grown louder in recent years due to an increasing reports and complaints on alleged poor administration and weak financial management. - Malaysiakini, 6/3/2010, Penang seeks to restore local government elections 2 years late - but better late than never for Pakatan Rakyat to start having local council elections. If the Election Commission refuses, then the blame will shift to the UMNO-led Barisan Nasional. Then, Penang need to take the matter to court...Sat, 06 Mar 2010 05:06:00 GMThttp://charleshector.blogspot.com/2010/03/media-should-uphold-responsibilities.htmlPress Statement - 4 March 2010 Media should uphold responsibilities, not self-censor The Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) is concerned about The Star newspaper's spiking of a column about the shari'ah law, following the show-cause letter issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs for an earlier article on a related topic. Once again, the media resorts to self-censorship in favour of the state and Muslim pressure groups, instead of upholding its check and balance role. On 2 March, social activist and commentator Marina Mahathir , who has been writing for the Star for 20 years, updated on her blog that her Musings column -- slated for publication on 3 March in The Star -- was spiked. Marina said the reason for The Star's censorship was to avoid the risk of losing its publication permit after a show cause letter was recently issued over an article in February by its managing editor P. Gunasegaram questioning the caning of three Muslim women under the shari'ah law. Although the media is restricted under the Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA), resorting to self-censorship demonstrates the medium's inability to read into readers' demand for the media to provide them with informed and balanced views. The Star, which has one of the widest circulation in the country and recently launched its Malay weekly, Mingguan mStar, clearly has failed to respect the role of the media to provide different perspectives in news, information and opinions that benefit the public's right to information. It has caved in to pressures by the authorities and the Muslim groups which lodged police report against the paper, first by publishing a public apology and later by taking P. Gunasegaram' s column, 'Persuasion, not Compulsion' off its website. As The Star refused to publish Marina's column which argues that shari'ah laws are man-made and like civil laws, should be open for debate, the writer posted the entry on her blog instead. This shows that, with the proliferation of online publishing platform, the act of self-censorship is a futile one. When the censored content surfaces online, it only entrenches the public impression that the mainstream media is less reliable than their online counterpart. CIJ urges the media to uphold its responsibilities as the fourth estate , and calls on the Government to enable an environment for the media to operate freely. To achieve this end, the PPPA, as well as other restrictive laws must be repealed. Yip Wai Fong Communication and Publications Officer Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) 27C Jalan Sarikei, off Jalan Pahang 53000 Kuala Lumpur Tel: 03 4023 0772 Fax: 03 4023 0769 *The Centre for Independent Journalism, Malaysia (CIJ) is a non-profit organisation that aspires for a society that is democratic, just and free where all people will enjoy free media and the freedom to express, seek, and impart information.Sat, 06 Mar 2010 05:37:00 GMT