Skip to content

All I wanted to do is to help the OKU investors…



Why is it so difficult to do a good deed openly? Is it because I am from Gerakan which is part of the BN government?

It has been depressing for the last 3 days. I received countless messages, calls, emails and comments since I facilitated the refund to JJPTR OKU investors. They consist of sarcastic remarks, criticisms and condemnation.

There are people who accused me that the whole episode was to help Johnson to regain his reputation. Some even alleged that I am part of the game in trying to “con” the public.

I have repeatedly said the background of JJPTR or founder Johnson Lee is none of my business. I do not know them or him. I met them for the first time last Wednesday. All I care was the unfortunate handicap OKUs. It was because of them that I am willing to stick my neck out. Prior to that there were also other ordinary investors seeked my help but I refused.

Hence all we intended was to ensure and witness the refund. I also took the opportunity to share my legal views to some of them.

I do not deny the medias were called for publicity sake. As a matter of fact most of us including the reporters did not believe that Johnson will turn up.

However I am very thankful for the encouragement and motivation. It is moment like this I can see the true colours of people esp comrades. I am particularly touched by the words of support from Senator Chong Sin Woon, a good political friend indeed.

Ultimately all I want to make it clear is there was no hidden agenda whatsoever for me to help the OKUs.

Parti Gerakan plays no part or is involve in it. Any misunderstanding or negative perception caused are wholly my responsibility and fault. I apologise for that.


EC: Follow the law please.



The Election Commission is legally required to provide copies of the draft voter registry when the document is on public display, said Gerakan Youth deputy chief Andy Yong.

Yong, who is also a lawyer, said Section 15(2)(l) of the Elections Act 1958 had stated that a registrar is required to “supply to any such persons as may be prescribed copies of any electoral roll or part of it, whether free of charge or on payment of such fee as may be prescribed in it”.

“Unless amended, clearly under this provision, the EC is obliged to provide the said copies,” Yong told Malaysiakini.

The EC, he said, under Section 15 of the Elections Act 1958 may, with the approval of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, make regulations for the registration of electors and for all matters incidental to it.

“Is the directive a new regulation? If yes, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s approval is required,” he added.

New practice

Yesterday, the EC confirmed it was no longer providing copies of draft voter list during the display period as it feels that their public display is sufficient to inform voters of their status.

EC secretary Abdul Ghani Salleh said the commission will send a formal letter to all political parties on the decision to no longer supply the draft voter list in both book and compact disc forms from this year onwards.

Citing Regulation 13 of the Election Regulations 2002, Abdul Ghani said the draft voter list has to be displayed at a gazetted public area for 14 days, to show a list of voters who are seeking to be included into the list and those seeking to change their voting areas.

As interested parties can still view the list, the new directive does not restrict access, he said.

Why is it so important to have a truly independent Judiciary?



Some in the legal fraternity ponder over the appointment of our new Chief Justice recently.  With one retired and the short tenure of the new one, who should take over subsequently?  Like it or not, the CJ can control the judiciary.  Since 1988, the tension between the Executive and the Judiciary is the result – I would say the inevitable result of the doctrine of separation of powers that may “disturb” the affairs of the government of the day.  Legally and strictly under that doctrine, the political system of a nation divides its governmental power between a legislature, an executive and a judiciary. In theory, the doctrine constructs a system that avoids concentrating too much power in any one body of government – the three powers are separated from one another and none is supposed to trespass into the other’s province.  Furthermore, no arm of government is supposed to abdicate power to another arm.  The premise of this construct is not a harmonious relationship but a checking and balancing of power. Inevitably, the checking provides the blueprint for, and generates, tension between the three arms of government.

Political theory regard this tension between the arms of power as indicating a healthy and well-oiled, working government.  They do not see the tension as a cause for alarm.  Writing extra-judicially, Lord Woolf has said:

“the tension … is acceptable because it demonstrates that the courts are performing their role of ensuring that the actions of the Government of the day are being taken in accordance with the law. The tension is a necessary consequence of maintaining the balance of power between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary …”

Lord Woolf has also said that the tension between the arms of government is:

“… no more than that created by the unseen chains which … hold the three spheres of government in position. If one chain slackens, then another needs to take the strain. However, so long as there is no danger of the chains breaking, the fact that this happens is not a manifestation of weakness but of strength.”

Tension between the Executive and the Judiciary is inevitable. It is unrealistic to think that it can be eliminated. But it can be reduced, if the Executive and the Judiciary recognise that each has a role to perform and that each is better equipped to carry it out than the other.  For the good of our society, it is better for the combatants to realise that they are there to serve the people, not their own ends, and to adapt their conduct accordingly.

GE14 around the corner?



I have been often asked when is the next GE. And I always answered only the PM knows.

Apparently after attending some of BN retreats and workshops (and being part of the Naziran team in Selangor), I am inclined to say that they are still very much believe in the 3Ms ie money, machinery and medias as the main strategies to win election.  Yes undeniably these are important requirements but previous results proved there is no guarantee to win comfortably with such strengths.

Some say Umno is prepared to sacrifice seats with a majority of Chinese voters. That is why they decided to concentrate on “focussed seats”.  On how they decide the latter, it is questionable.  I always warn some of the Malay politicians in BN, do not be surprised in GE14 it could be a Malay tsunami. So it is not wise to sacrifice the Chinese and Indian votes.

After the last 2 general elections some Malaysian Chinese as a community appears to have reached a crossroad both politically and socioeconomically.  In an age where democratic values have become a norm around the world and with the increased awareness of liberty and equality as universal values, they look set to settle nothing short of equal treatment among all races in Malaysia (putting aside other issues such as corruption; where ironically some BN leaders see it as only a perception issue).

By now most Chinese community realised that RUU355 or Hudud Pas is all about their political games. Perhaps not some of the Malay community or Umno and Pas members (or they prefer to be ignorant).

They are not prepared or do not want to change. Some especially the division chiefs are still in arrogance mode and of course the same applies to the opposition (the more so in Penang as they can afford to be so).

The reality is majority rules; like it or not it is about the numbers game for the time being. If one is to do the political calculation in depth, BN/Umno is unlikely to be defeated in GE14 especially with the support of rural and East Malaysia voters. As a result Chinese have to live with it or earn their living in the usual ways.

Those who are discontented and have the qualification or wealth could migrate but the harsh fact is most are not able to do so. Brain drain will always be a concern issue.  The country will never truly progress into a developed nation, so long as the conservative and narrow-minded mentality exists.

Sadly the ambition of being truly One Malaysia or Bangsa Malaysia or Malaysia Malaysians is still a long way to go.

Human Rights must be guaranteed but it should not be the only consideration



A couple of weeks back, I was invited to speak at Suaram’s new office.  Suaram is an NGO that champion human rights for many years.

In my endeavour along the similar struggles, I am inclined to say that it is impossible and impractical to achieve complete human rights in any country, organisation or a family. It doesnt makes sense though I have profound conviction in defending it.  There must be a balance.

A politician once said:

“Within a system which denies the existence of basic human rights, fear tends to be the order of the day. Fear of imprisonment, fear of torture, fear of death, fear of losing friends, family, property or means of livelihood, fear of poverty, fear of isolation, fear of failure. A most insidious form of fear is that which masquerades as common sense or even wisdom, condemning as foolish, reckless, insignificant or futile the small, daily acts of courage which help to preserve man’s self-respect and inherent human dignity. It is not easy for a people conditioned by fear under the iron rule of the principle that might is right to free themselves from the enervating miasma of fear. Yet even under the most crushing state machinery courage rises up again and again, for fear is not the natural state of civilized man”.

Corruption is one of the cause of traffic accidents



To me two of the major obstacles that deter us from moving forward in most aspects are our education system and corruption. The previous is about its quality where it relates to the latter. There must a strong political will to do so. Otherwise it will an uphill task to change the mindset of the 1.6 million civil servants.

Of late there are many fatal accidents involving buses, lorries, boats and even bicycles. It is reported yesterday that a trailer had caused the death of six innocent victims at Hulu Selangor due to its “tayar celup” or “botak” (recycled or bald tyres).

This is not something new. It is becoming a commonplace affair that because of these traffic accidents, resulting in fatalities and casualties, one is no more safe on the road regardless of how careful we are.

Each time I hear the news, I get seized with uncontrollable feelings of bitterness and anger. Every year, there are bound to have such related tragedy due to careless or ignored cause.

So far, we cannot find effective means with which to fight this battle and real law seems able get its teeth into the problem.

On the contrary, as laws combating traffic accidents are filling the books, the scale and severity of such accidents is increasing exponentially. It seems that these laws come to exist, in large parts, just to shift accountability to the unknown and to find no person to point the finger at.

Also quite often the authorities would take stern action once such an accident happens, but it’s back to square one after a while.

There seems to be no genuine will to enforce the related laws and empower them.

I believe a real solution to this problem is there, concealed in the existing gap between the law itself and what stands behind its effective implementation; corruption. Until this link is effectively broken, these laws will always be futile and may even result in the very real possibility of making the situation worse.

Circumventing laws the norm

Corruption is a major obstacle to law enforcement.

Certainly, it is an obstacle to achieving progress in lessening the number and severity of traffic accidents in the country and to which numerous social and economic problems are traced directly or indirectly.

However, either we fail to gain a higher vantage point from which we can see and understand the link between growth and corruption or, we intentionally turn a blind eye to avoid a serious debate about the major perpetrators who benefit from such a corrupt system.

Vehicles such as commercial buses and lorries are good examples. Owners may prefer to bribe the authorities to pass the inspection rather than spend a huge budget to ensure the vehicles are roadworthy.

Hence if we do not recognise and work out the real problem, we will forever remain trapped in a defective, corrupted system that manifests itself in every aspect of our lives and in the most basic ways.

Corruption is the hallmark of a self-destructive society that is befuddled by falsehood. It is not by chance that we have reached this alarming stage of traffic accidents; it is because circumventing laws has become the norm, aside from our tendency to opt for quick fixes and shortcuts.

Traffic rules are respected at the convenience of everyone and the concepts of incentive and punishment are no longer working because corruption opens the doors of impunity in every direction.

Even selective enforcement would indicate that the powerless and vulnerable citizens are at a big disadvantage in a country where all citizens are not treated equally before the law.







如果它被允许修改,可能导致不平等和不公正的问题。 也影响经济,吓跑外国投资者,这种情形在世界各地屡见不鲜。 更重要的是,它与最高法律 –联邦宪法不一致。







这是天大的误导。实际上,它是在为伊刑法开路。首先,我们必须先搞清楚,伊斯兰刑事司法制度到底是如何在马来西亚操作的。所有形式的伊斯兰法律,包括伊斯兰法庭的成立,都是源自《联邦宪法》州事务表(State List)第1项目。

接着,为了将这种管辖权授予伊斯兰法庭,国会颁布了该法令。 简而言之,国会凭其智慧赋予伊斯兰法庭权限审判所有违反伊斯兰教规的罪行,但惩罚的轻重必须在国会规定的限度内。










刑法是联邦宪法事务表下的事。 马来西亚以联邦体制立国,联邦政府比州政府具有更大的权力。 正因如此,两者若有不一致之处,必须以联邦宪法为重。 如果伊斯兰教法庭被赋予这么广泛的权力(在鞭刑方面其权力甚至比民事法庭更大),形同不顺从国会在刑法问题上所拥有的权力。 我们必须记住,民事法庭在这方面拥有最高权力。


也很显然的,哈迪提出RUU 355法令修正的方式引起很多怀疑。 从一开始他就非常谨慎地处理,之后修改了几次。 原来提出的法案是给予伊斯兰教法庭无限权力惩罚, 随后的变化是试图使其不违宪。

此外,他也从来没和伊斯兰学者、执法当局、机构(如Majlis Dakwah Negara)、理事会,甚至是掌管伊斯兰事务的最高机构 — 统治者会议协商。

哈迪没有引用任何研究或报告来支持他的观点,以证明加重刑罚足以摄制和减少违反伊斯兰教规的罪行。 他也没给予充足理由为何需要该法案,除了授权伊斯兰法庭处理上帝的律法。