Saturday, November 15, 2008
பெருமை சேர்த்தவர்களுக்கு எனது வாழ்த்துக்கள்
தமிழ்ப் பள்ளி மாணவர்கள் எதிலும் குறைந்தவர்கள் அல்ல என்பதனை நிரூபித்து காட்டிய அனைத்து மாணவர்களுக்கும், அவர்களை இந்த மண்ணில் ஈன்றெடுத்த அவர்தம் பெற்றோர்களுக்கும் எனது மணமார்ந்த வாழ்த்துக்களையும் மகிழ்ச்சியையும் தெரிவித்து கொள்கிறேன்.
மேலும் இவர்களின் சாதனைக்கு முதுகெலும்பாக திகழ்ந்த அனைத்து ஆசிரியர் பெருமக்களுக்கும் எனது வாழ்த்துக்கள். ஒவ்வொரு ஆண்டை காட்டிலும் தமிழ் பள்ளி தரம் உயர்ந்துகொண்டே போகிறது. இது மிகவும் பெருமை பட கூடிய விஷயமாகும்.
சாதனை தான் வாழ்க்கை, வாழ்க்கையில் சாதிப்பதுதான் மிக மிகச் சிறந்தது என்று இவர்களுக்கு அன்றே தெரிந்துவிட்டது.
மீண்டும் பெருமை சேர்த்தவர்களுக்கு எனது வாழ்த்துக்கள்
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Usul mengenai ISA dibahas
Dewan Undangan Negeri Perak telahpun mendapat mandat untuk membahaskan isu mengenai undang-undang zalim ISA.
Usul yang dilulusakan ini, dihadkan kepada 15 minit sahaja setiap seorang dimana 4 orang dibenarkan untuk bahas mengenai usul ini.
Pada peringkat awal ADUN Teja mengemukakan kesemua fakta-fakta mengenai undang-undang ini. Beliau juga menyatakan bahawa undang-undang ini digunakan oleh pemimpin UMNO untuk kepentingan Parti mereka dan bukannya untuk menyelamatkan negara ini.
Semasa beliau menghujahkan fakta-faktanya, beberapa ADUN pembangkang (BN) mula menunjukkan perangai mereka untuk mengacau hujah beliau.
Tanpa menghiraukan kesemua gangguan tersebut, ADUN Teja mula menyifatkan kesengsaraan tahanan ISA dan juga keluarga tahanannya.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Opposition may table restoration of original Article 121 (1)
Malaysia Today - by Sharon Tan, THE EDGE
The opposition may table a private member’s bill to amend Article 121 (1) of the Federal Constitution that restores the court’s judicial power if the government fails to do so.
“It is an option that we are considering seriously. We would do it if the government does not do it,” said DAP member of parliament (MP) for Ipoh Barat, M Kulasegaran.
There has not been a private member’s bill since the 1970s. Any constitutional amendment would need two-thirds support of parliament, which means Barisan Nasional MPs would need to vote for it.
“In this country there is no procedure preference given to private member’s bill. If there is private member’s bill preference given, so many of my earlier application would have come up. It will never come up. It will be impossible to see the light of the day,” said Kulasegaran, adding that the opposition may still go ahead with the tabling of such a bill.
Party Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) MP for Subang, R Sivarasa, said passing a private member’s bill was virtually impossible without the blessing of the government.
“So forget about the Article 121 amendment. It is never going to happen. Westminster has moved on and we are still in the boondocks.
“Even our neighbours have moved on, like Indonesia, Thailand and (the) Philippines. The procedure in parliament does not entertain any proposals like motions or private member’s bills of the opposition,” he said adding that even though if they were to file a private member’s bill, the matter would never be debated.
Sivarasa said former minister in the prime minister’s department Datuk Zaid Ibrahim had spoken to the opposition about judicial reforms.
He said Zaid stirred the interest of all parties, including the Bar Council, which wanted to see the doctrine of separation of powers and rule of law restored.
“Zaid was talking to us about a serious reform of the judiciary — first a judicial appointment commission as a constitution commission which will necessitate amendment to the constitution. He was also talking about amendment to Article 121. Unfortunately with his departure, I think all that is gone,” he said.
He said the current minister in charge of the law portfolio, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, was not looking at a constitutional commission.
“Which means it is a body that nobody is going to take too seriously and the basic framework of PM appointing judges is not going to change. Zaid was talking to us. We didn’t agree with a lot of what he said but it was a serious process.
“It should be properly done, with consultations and it takes time. Do it with consultation as Zaid had started. Now he (Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi) seems to be rushing purely for political purposes,” said Sivarasa, adding that a non-constitutional commission would not have enough clout.
Meanwhile, Kulasegaran welcomed the decision by the judges in both Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s and Raja Petra Raja Kamarudin’s cases last Friday.
Judge SM Komathy Suppiah ruled in favour of Anwar last Friday when she found the transfer form (for the case to be transfered from Sessions Court to the High Court for trial) signed by Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail to be invalid.
The judge made the ruling as Abdullah had assured the nation that the AG would not be a part of the trial as the latter was being investigated for allegedly tampering with evidence in Anwar’s trial a decade ago.
In Raja Petra’s case, Judge Syed Ahmad Helmy Syed Ahmad ruled his detention under the Internal Security Act (ISA) as unconstitutional. He said the home minister had not followed the proper procedure under Section 8 of the ISA in issuing the detention order.
Wondering if other judges around the country would stand up against the executive branch of government, Kulasegaran said he hope for “some semblance of (the judiciary) coming to normalcy.” He added that there was a need of a thorough look at the appointment of judges to ensure that the process was transparent.
On Raja Petra’s case, Bar Council president Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan said: “The decision of the learned High Court judge in the habeas corpus application of Raja Petra Kamarudin gives us hope that our judiciary has acted and will act with courage, integrity and independence when the liberty of an individual is threatened by the arbitrary use of power under the Internal Security Act 1960.”
The opposition may table a private member’s bill to amend Article 121 (1) of the Federal Constitution that restores the court’s judicial power if the government fails to do so.
“It is an option that we are considering seriously. We would do it if the government does not do it,” said DAP member of parliament (MP) for Ipoh Barat, M Kulasegaran.
There has not been a private member’s bill since the 1970s. Any constitutional amendment would need two-thirds support of parliament, which means Barisan Nasional MPs would need to vote for it.
“In this country there is no procedure preference given to private member’s bill. If there is private member’s bill preference given, so many of my earlier application would have come up. It will never come up. It will be impossible to see the light of the day,” said Kulasegaran, adding that the opposition may still go ahead with the tabling of such a bill.
The original Article 121(1) conferred the “judicial power of the Federation” on the courts, but in an amendment in 1988, this was replaced by “judicial power vested” in the courts as “may be provided for by federal law”.
Party Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) MP for Subang, R Sivarasa, said passing a private member’s bill was virtually impossible without the blessing of the government.
“So forget about the Article 121 amendment. It is never going to happen. Westminster has moved on and we are still in the boondocks.
“Even our neighbours have moved on, like Indonesia, Thailand and (the) Philippines. The procedure in parliament does not entertain any proposals like motions or private member’s bills of the opposition,” he said adding that even though if they were to file a private member’s bill, the matter would never be debated.
Sivarasa said former minister in the prime minister’s department Datuk Zaid Ibrahim had spoken to the opposition about judicial reforms.
He said Zaid stirred the interest of all parties, including the Bar Council, which wanted to see the doctrine of separation of powers and rule of law restored.
“Zaid was talking to us about a serious reform of the judiciary — first a judicial appointment commission as a constitution commission which will necessitate amendment to the constitution. He was also talking about amendment to Article 121. Unfortunately with his departure, I think all that is gone,” he said.
He said the current minister in charge of the law portfolio, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, was not looking at a constitutional commission.
“Which means it is a body that nobody is going to take too seriously and the basic framework of PM appointing judges is not going to change. Zaid was talking to us. We didn’t agree with a lot of what he said but it was a serious process.
“It should be properly done, with consultations and it takes time. Do it with consultation as Zaid had started. Now he (Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi) seems to be rushing purely for political purposes,” said Sivarasa, adding that a non-constitutional commission would not have enough clout.
Meanwhile, Kulasegaran welcomed the decision by the judges in both Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s and Raja Petra Raja Kamarudin’s cases last Friday.
Judge SM Komathy Suppiah ruled in favour of Anwar last Friday when she found the transfer form (for the case to be transfered from Sessions Court to the High Court for trial) signed by Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail to be invalid.
The judge made the ruling as Abdullah had assured the nation that the AG would not be a part of the trial as the latter was being investigated for allegedly tampering with evidence in Anwar’s trial a decade ago.
In Raja Petra’s case, Judge Syed Ahmad Helmy Syed Ahmad ruled his detention under the Internal Security Act (ISA) as unconstitutional. He said the home minister had not followed the proper procedure under Section 8 of the ISA in issuing the detention order.
Wondering if other judges around the country would stand up against the executive branch of government, Kulasegaran said he hope for “some semblance of (the judiciary) coming to normalcy.” He added that there was a need of a thorough look at the appointment of judges to ensure that the process was transparent.
On Raja Petra’s case, Bar Council president Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan said: “The decision of the learned High Court judge in the habeas corpus application of Raja Petra Kamarudin gives us hope that our judiciary has acted and will act with courage, integrity and independence when the liberty of an individual is threatened by the arbitrary use of power under the Internal Security Act 1960.”
5 Minutes With M.KulasegaranBy Kharleez Zubin November 07, 2008 Categories: 5-Minute Interview
For the rest of his life, Ipoh Barat MP M. Kulasegaran, will vividly remember Nov 5, 2008.
That was the day he was entangled in a heated exchange that saw Pasir Salak MP, Datuk Tajuddin Abdul Rahman, calling him a b******.
Tajuddin lost his cool when Kulasegaran said many Indians in Pasir Salak "benci YB lah" (hate you).
Kulasegaran retracted his statement and used ‘tak suka" instead of hate, but this still did not go down with Tajuddin, who claimed that while he had retracted the b****** word, Kulasegaran was not sincere when he retracted the word "benci’’.
How are you taking the incident on Wednesday?
I have said my piece in Parliament. But being a human being, you feel bad when someone uses that word on you. I am shocked, and even surprised a person of his standing can utter such a thing.
Will you forgive him for saying such a thing?
He must apologise inside or outside Parliament. He didn’t apologise. He only retracted his remark when ordered to do so by Deputy Speaker Datuk Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar.
Tajuddin’s contention is that you provoked him, saying the Indian community in Pasir Salak hate him and did not vote for him in the last general election ... ?
Is it justified for anyone, especially a parliamentarian, to use such uncouth language even under provocation? All I said was not all voters in Pasir Salak voted for him. If they did, he would have had a landslide victory.
Is it justified for anyone, especially a parliamentarian, to use such uncouth language even under provocation? All I said was not all voters in Pasir Salak voted for him. If they did, he would have had a landslide victory.
Your comments on the government putting on hold the minimum wage proposal you are pushing for all sectors because of the global economic situation?
Now, the economic situation is the excuse. Why was this proposal not considered during good times? The minister and his deputy have been giving inconsistent statements on this issue. Conditions are not right and this and that. Do you really need a favourable time to do a good thing?
How will this help in reducing our dependence on foreign labour, especially in the construction sector?
The absence of minimum wage legislation encourages a free flow of foreign workers. When you set a minimum wage, employers must prove to the Immigration Department that they are unable to get locals. Without this legislation, the locals are deprived of a decent salary and a job. You can’t blame the locals for not taking up low paying jobs. This vacuum is filled by foreigner workers.
What is your next move?
The labour caucus. We have been pushing for the setting up of this mechanism for some time now and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Deaprtment Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz has agreed to launch it in Parliament on Nov 18.
What is the scope of the caucus?
Among the matters the caucus will look into is the setting up of a fund for retrenched workers. Also, it will set in place mechanisms to safeguard foreign workers who are not paid salaries, overworked and abused.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
