Penang Island Makkal Sakthi Service Panthal and Palkudam Procession for Thaipusam
Powered by MaxBlogPress  

Tag Archive 'DAP'

Sep 19 2008

7 days in ISA and only 3 main questions?



That works out to a question for every two days, with a day to spare. No wonder she wants to sue the goverment. Really waste of time and money.

Kok’s press statement in full
Sep 19, 08 4:21pm
http://malaysiakini.com/news/90052

MCPX

The following is the press statement issued by Teresa Kok who was released after being detained for seven days under the .

I have been released after being detained in solitary confinement in a 6-by-8 holding cell for seven days under the Internal Security Act (). I was informed by the police that they detained me under section 73(1) of Internal Security Act 1960, which means I have incited racial and religious tension and conflict.

After being detained for seven days under the guise of so-called investigations, the police failed to produce any evidence or proof of me being involved in the activities of causing racial and religious tension. They were only able to ask me few questions based entirely on the false and malicious article written by Zaini Hassan under the topic ‘Azan, Jawi, JAIS, UiTM dan ba-alif-ba-ya’ that was published in Utusan Malaysia on Sept 10, 2008.

The three main questions that the investigation officers asked me were:

  1. whether I have mobilised a group of residents at Bandar Kinrara to present a petition to oppose to the azan at the Bandar Kinrara mosque;
  2. whether I have made a statement that 30 percent of the Selangor Islamic Department (JAIS) allocation is to be given to other non-Islam religious bodies; and
  3. whether I have opposed to the Jawi-wording road signages in Kuala Lumpur.

I denied the first two accusations as I did not do any such things as accused. I also told them that the issue of opposing Jawi road signages in Kuala Lumpur were done in January/February 2008 at the request and following the pressure of resident associations.

The resident associations, particularly in Taman Seputeh, were most unhappy because many of the road signages were changed arbitrarily by DBKL a few months before and changed again soon after, this time with Jawi wordings. They were strongly opposed to this kind of wastage of public funds by DBKL.

I was quite surprised that there were no other questions posed to me besides these few main questions.

The is meant to detain people who threaten national security. The three issues stated above have nothing to do with national security. If the police wanted to carry out investigation on me, they can always ask me to give statements in any of the police station and there was absolutely no need to detain me under the for seven days. This is a phenomenal abuse of the power of police under the .

Besides, it is nonsensical for the police to detain me under the merely based on the unsubstantiated article written by an irresponsible columnist in Utusan Malaysia. How can they regard that article as the gospel truth without investigating the writer in the first place? How can Utusan Malaysia publish it without verifying the facts?

I wish to ask the police whether they have called Zaini and Utusan Malaysia’s editors for questioning before and after my detention.

I know that the imam of Bandar Kinrara mosque has publicly denied that I was involved in the Puchong residents petition against azan of his mosque on Sept 13. I am also quite surprised to read in the New Straits Times dated Sept 19 that the official of the Bandar Kinrara mosque was called by the Dang Wangi police for statement recording only yesterday afternoon.

Why did the police do it so late, one week after I was arrested? Why didn’t they check their facts first before they arrest me and put me behind bars?

I see my detention as a ploy by Umno to try to cover up the embarrassment and the outrage of the racist statements made by (ex-Bukit Bendera Umno division chief) Ahmad Ismail in Penang. I wonder why did they choose an innocent person like me as I have never made any racist statements or racist speeches in the past?

I have lodged the police report on Sept 17, 2008 against Utusan Malaysia, Zaini and Dr Mohd Khir Toyo for criminal defamation. I would therefore urge the police to investigate Utusan Malaysia’s editors, those racist bloggers and Khir Toyo under the Penal Code.

As I have mentioned in my previous lawyer’s visit, I will sue Utusan Malaysia, Zaini and Khir Toyo. I have also instructed my lawyers to sue the Malaysian government for my unlawful arrest and detention.

As I am free from detention today, I also call for the release of Raja Petra Kamarudin, the Five and all other 60 over detainees under the draconian .

I would also like to thank all politicians in the ruling parties as well as in the Pakatan Rakyat, NGOs, churches and all social organisations who have campaigned and prayed for my release.

TERESA KOK
Seputeh MP
Selangor senior exco
Kinrara state assemblyperson

Isn’t it plain fair for the police to call the other parties - Khir Toyo, Utusan columnist and editors as well?

Popularity: 1% [?]

7 responses so far

Sep 16 2008

Buntong ADUN Sivasubramaniam claims trap over laptop



Smart fella this guy. Wasn’t he the one who was tempted with “millions of ringgit” to crossover to BN?

The recent arrests of two executive councillors on corruption charges seem to have caused jitters among Pakatan Rakyat state assemblymen.

In a move to prevent any perception of graft practices, Buntong assemblyman A. Sivasubramaniam lodged a report with the state Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) yesterday over a laptop he apparently received on behalf of a student.

Sivasubramaniam said a man had gone to his Buntong service centre here asking if there were any needy persons he could help.”We informed the man that there was a student who needed a laptop for his further studies in Cuba,” he told reporters here yesterday.He said a laptop was sent over to his office yesterday.

”I got suspicious when the man refused to come forward to personally hand over the laptop to the student,” he said.“The man insisted that I give him a letter confirming that I had received the laptop,” he added.Sivasubramaniam claimed the man also refused to see him despite calls for him to do so.

He said his suspicions that the gift could be a trap grew when he received the laptop with his name printed on the receipt as the person to have received the item.

Buntong rep lodges report

Popularity: 1% [?]

No responses yet

Sep 10 2008

HINDRAF candidates lose in DAP CEC elections



A bit of old news - CEC which happened on the same week as the Permatang Pauh by-election. NST carried an interesting viewpoint - that of being sidelined by . How? By virtue of not electing two of detainees (Manoharan and Ganabatirau - both members) into the CEC. The duo got 38th and 39th placing out of 58 candidates, but only the first 20 are chosen to be in the CEC.

According to NST:

gave the Kota Alam Shah seat in Selangor to detained lawyer, M. Manoharan, in exchange for full backing from to capitalise on Indian sentiments. The NGO also called on its 5,000 members to vote for the opposition in the general election.

It worked. Manoharan won the seat comfortably with a 7,184-majority, despite not campaigning even a single day’s (his wife campaigned for him instead).

But the CEC may indicate that ’s efforts are not appreciated by members. So claims, a person claiming to represent Ganabatirau. K.P. Samy, the main bailor for the 118 members charged with illegal assembly and a friend of Ganabatirau’s and Manoharan’s, had high hopes of the two making it to the CEC.

“They only got 15 per cent of the votes,” he said. “Indians played a major role in the last general election. played a major role. But these heroes of were not recognised. They should be honoured. “We don’t expect victory but 15 per cent of the votes is like total rejection. We must send a strong signal to the party that it has to be racially representative.”

Two of the successful candidates, and Dr Ramasamy disagreed with KP Samy.

However, re-elected party vice-chairman , who had 500 votes, making him the fifth, most popular CEC candidate,said had not been forgotten. “They still got a sizeable number of votes,” he said, adding that members were practical when it came to voting in leaders who could perform for the 90,707-strong organisation.

“In fact, came about with the controversy in late 2005 over Mount Everest climber M. Moorthy’s conversion to Islam. When it first happened, who was the first to take up the case? “It was lawyers, not P. Uthayakumar (another detained leader) and gang.”

Ramasamy, who was elevated from international secretary to deputy secretary-general, said the party had always championed the cause.

“The secretary-general of the party has repeatedly urged the release of the detainees under the Internal Security Act. It is just that the party polls are highly competitive, that’s all,” he said.

A delegate from Kuala Lumpur, K.A. Ramu, also denied was being sidelined. “With the two CEC candidates in detention, of course, it was impossible for them to go to the branches and canvass for votes. At the end of the day, popularity matters,” said Ramu.

KP Samy disagrees: “Manoharan could not go out and campaign in the general election. Yet he won resoundingly. How do you explain that?”

Popularity: 1% [?]

3 responses so far

« Prev - Next »

This blog is nominated for: Best SocioPolitical Blog Most Popular Male Blogger
Read more...