Posts Tagged ‘discrimination’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Madam Nagamah, her children and their religion status

August 24th, 2012
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


Some facts gleaned from newspapers (the facts may change as more details are revealed):

  • Madam M Nagamah passed away on 14 August 2012 at Sg Bakap Hospital. She was 64 years at the time of passing. She was from Byram Estate, Nibong Tebal.
  • Eldest son of the deceased is M Kamasantheran, aged 46 [ meaning he was born when she was 18 years old].
  • Her body was taken back to home by the family for funeral preparation.
  • JAIPP officers came for the body, saying she was a convert. No documents were provided.
  • Family refused to give in. And the officers left [how ridiculous does this sound? You’d think that a such a serious matter would involve some documentation or proof]
  • Family proceeded with funeral (cremation) at Batu Berapit Crematorium.
  • JAIPP officers went to crematorium and took the ashes of the deceased. Family got to know about it from the crematorium staff.
  • According to Penang state Islamic Religious Affairs Committee chairman Datuk Abdul Malik Abul Kassim, the deceased had converted to Islam in November 2006 [Meaning she was aged about 58 at that time].  He said that  initial investigations as reported to him by JAIPP and the state Mufti Department showed that the 64-year-old had converted at the South Seberang Perai (SPS) Islamic Religious Department with registration number 11/06. The conversion was overseen by Ustaz Anuar Ismail.
  • Her name was registered as Nagamah @ Mariah Abdullah when she converted after marrying one Ibrahim Noyan and had nine children who were registered as Muslims by the National Registration Department.
  • Since both family and JAIPP had made police report, the EXCO said will leave it to police investigation.
  •  The family insists that the deceased has been a practising Hindu all this while and there’s not mention about her converting.
  • Family wants ashes back to conduct funeral rites on 14th day.

sources:

http://www.thesundaily.my/news/469470

http://www.thesundaily.my/news/470546

http://www.freemalaysiakini2.com/?p=43085

http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/206890

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2012/08/20/no-dignity-in-life-or-in-death/

http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/206819

http://www.mmail.com.my/story/nagamah-muslim-says-department-27661

If one does a search, can find documents back in 2007 related to the husband Ibrahim Noyan. Below are the facts from 2007:

  • 10 siblings (5 men and 5 women) were seeking to change their religion from Islam to Hindu. These 10 people were born to Ibrahim Noyan and M.Nagamah.  The 10 of them grew up as Hindus and even got married to Hindus.
  • On Feb 16 2007, the 10, all of them with Muslim names and listed as Muslims on their MyKad, submitted individual sworn declarations at the magistrate’s court in Jawi, South Seberang Prai, claiming that they had been practising Hinduism since birth and prayed at Hindu temples.
  • In their declaration, they said that they wanted to change the status of their religion from Islam to Hindu.
  • They also said they were married to Hindus – although none of them had their marriages registered – and took part in Hindu celebrations, including Thaipusam. Their children were also given Hindu names.
  • Their plight was highlighted at Bukit Mertajam MP Chong Eng’s service centre on that day.[ So she should be aware of this case by now as back then she “hoped that the authorities can settle this issue“].
  • Their father, Ibrahim Noyah, 67, said he first married a Muslim woman known only as Sabariah but she died in 1958. He then married M. Nagamah but did not require her to convert. “Nagamah was my neighbour and I fell in love with her when she took care of me after my wife passed away,” he said.
  • Ibrahim Noyan is visually impaired since 3 years old and Nagamah took care of him after his first wife died.
  • Ibrahim and Nagamah, 60, have 10 children and 30 grandchildren. Three of the grandchildren do not have birth certificates, while some have only one parent’s name in their birth certificates.
  • V. Rathiga, 27, an athlete married to Ibrahim’s son, Kamis, 27, said she left out Kamis’ name in the birth certificates of their daughters – three-year-old Prami and one-year-old Sakti – as Kamis wanted them to be recognised as Hindus. [that’s one solution! if the law hinders, then find a workaround.]
  • While the 10 children wanted to be Hindus, the parents didn’t (meaning Ibrahim and Nagamah). According to Ibrahim he was still a Muslim and that his wife M. Nagamah had converted to Islam in 2005 and assumed the name Mariah Abdullah.
  • “I know my children and my grandchildren are facing problems with their identity cards and I don’t mind if they want to change their names from what it is now in their birth certificates,” said Mariah.
  • Ibrahim had said he started following Hindu culture and customs after his marriage to Nagamah although all their children were given Malay names while being raised as Hindus and had never stepped into a mosque.
  • The Penang Islamic Religious Council has recognised the elderly couple as Muslims.
  • However, the council also accepted the fact that the couple’s children are Hindus. “As far as we are concerned, the matter is resolved as the man had returned to the Islamic faith and his wife has embraced Islam,” said religious council chairman Shabudin Yahaya. “The council has built a house for them in Kebun Baru and are living separately from their children.”
  • Shabudin said the couple were considered Muslim as they had married according to Islamic rites.
  • He said Ibrahim Noyah, 67, had returned to the Islamic faith and his wife, M. Nagamah, 60, embraced Islam in August 2004 and her Muslim name was Mariah Abdullah.
  • Their Muslim marriage was solemnised at the religious department on Aug 11, 2004 and had been issued with the relevant documents.
  • The couple’s eldest son, Jamal Ibrahim, 42, said he hoped the authorities would help resolve their problem.

sources:

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/2/24/nation/16965034&sec=nation

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/2/27/nation/16983857&sec=nation

NST article: Islamic department urged to check family background (25/2/2007)

NST article: Council: Children are Hindus (25/2/2007)

NST article: In a spot over religious status (25/2/2007)

 

So far I can’t find any article reporting the outcome of their application to change religious status.

Interestingly, the conversion date ranges from 2005 to 2006.  Anyway the religious department says the marriage according to Muslim rites were done in 2004,  meaning she converted after marriage.

Back then, these kind of marriages existed and registering them legally wasn’t a big focus, I guess.

Ok back to the issue at hand. The religious department had shown no respect for law and order. No empathy, no sympathy. No sense of respect. No sensitivity. If conversion happened, then should bring the documents and do it properly. They simply came and took the ashes away.

So, did the deceased marry another person? If not, then M Kamasantheran (or is he Johan Ibrahim?), the eldest son should also be a Muslim and his father should be Ibrahim Noyan. Its quite impractical that they don’t know the existence of the other 9 siblings nor of their father/step-father. It feels like the deceased lead a double life with the children not knowing what happened to her.

Maybe she converted but didn’t inform her children about it and continued to live as an Hindu.

There’s no mention about the husband.  Maybe he had passed away and she returned to her Hindu family?

In the above case, if the whole family is following Hindu religion (including the deceased), then might as well leave it to the family to perform the last rites accordingly.

If the families provides proof of the deceased being a practising Hindu (especially after 2006), does it make the conversion void?

I think to safeguard ourselves, a MyDaftar-like campaign should be conducted by government to provide opportunity for non-Muslims to reaffirm their religious status via a official document or statutory declaration.  We don’t want to be victims after passing away and cause misery for the family.

And what happened to the suggestion that future converts-t0-be must inform their families/next-of-kin? All quiet?

The silence from MHS is also deafening.

On a political note, since this happened in Penang, can expect brickbats for the PR government. But I wonder what can be done legislation wise to avoid this issue in the first place. Can the enactment be amended? Would need approval from MAIPP or King?

1 comment »

Posted in BornInMalaysia, Religion

Tags:

Section 114A of the Evidence Act 2012

August 14th, 2012
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


The controversial section 114a of the Evidences Act (2012)

Presumption of fact in publication

114A. (1) A person whose name, photograph or pseudonym appears on any publication depicting himself as the owner, host, administrator, editor or sub-editor, or who in any manner facilitates to publish or re-publish the publication is presumed to have published or re-published the contents of the publication unless the contrary is proved.

(2) A person who is registered with a network service provider as a subscriber of a network service on which any publication originates from is presumed to be the person who published or re-published the publication unless the contrary is proved.

(3) Any person who has in his custody or control any computer on which any publication originates from is presumed to have published or re-published the content of the publication unless the contrary is proved.

(4) For the purpose of this section—

(a) “network service” and “network service provider” have the meaning assigned to them in section 6 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 [Act 588]; and
(b) “publication” means a statement or a representation, whether in written, printed, pictorial, film, graphical, acoustic or other form displayed on the screen of a computer.”

source: http://www.parlimen.gov.my/files/billindex/pdf/2012/DR162012E.pdf

[click for larger view]

In the cartoon above, I think only the second scenario is acceptable. As administrator, you have authority to remove the comment and can do so. But for the other cases, the amended Act will brand the ignorant/unprepared/trusting as criminals.

I can understand the problems faced by authorities in solving cases involving online postings/comments.  And this is not only limited to those “seditious” crimes, but can cover scams, online theft, and other cybercrimes. Its not easy to prove you are the one who did it. Yes, we can trace via IP addresses, mobile phones, cameras, email headers etc. But, the ICT technology evolves fast. Those intent on doing criminal stuff can find ways to circumvent or “hack” their way and hide their tracks.  Its impossible for every person to protect themselves fully.

If this Act comes into play, you can’t claim ignorance easily. You’ll need to protect your internet access, mobile phones, laptops, tablets, PCs from unauthorised use. Not easy. You need to be vigilant and don’t simply borrow your things to others. Don’t share passwords or access codes. Don’t set your accounts to “always logged in” or “remember my password”. There’s so many “don’ts” that you may as well close your internet account and throw away your tablets/laptops!

Perhaps we can find that restaurants and other business may stop providing free Wifi as anything you do may implicate them. Anyone in the chain of providing network service can be charged. Imagine, robbers used your house area to enter another house and rob the owners. Are you an accomplice because robbers made use of facilities provided by you? This may well be the problems faced by kopitiams, for example.

Yes,  these kind of stringent laws can help reduce the fraud and lies, but at what expense?

Do you expect the citizen to be IT savvy? Do you expect him to be ace investigator who can prove he did not do it? By shifting the burden of proof to the accused, the accused is now a policeman who is to find prove of his innocence? Perhaps he need to enrol in ICT Security courses in order to be vigilant.

Do you notice the word “presumed” in the amendments? So, one is presumed guilty instead of presumed innocent. If you retweet or share a FB status that’s deemed a criminal posting, yes, you are part of the criminals. If you forward emails, same too.

DNAs and fingerprints can be used to nail criminals. Are user accounts, IP addresses, MAC addresses, email address etc.  now considered as  DNAs and fingerprints? Are these tamper-proof?

In our overzealousness to solve crimes, hopefully we don’t punish the innocent.

An article in the Star today:

Things looked vastly different Tuesday on several popular websites that had pledged their support to the campaign against the controversial Evidence Act amendment (no. 2).

Black pop-ups on their main pages greeted website visitors, explaining to them about the recently gazetted Section 1114(a) of the Act which presumes guilt on the part of Internet users.

Bloggers such as The Star columnists Marina Mahathir and Niki Cheong also took part in the Internet Blackout Day, posting up the pop-ups and banners which plainly said “Stop 114A”.

News portals Malaysiakini and Free Malaysia Today as well as the Bar Council website also put up the pop-ups on their websites, together with online journal Loyar Burok.

Scores of local Internet users changed their profile pictures on their Twitter and Facebook accounts to a black “Stop 114A” button.

The Internet Blackout Day is coordinated by the Center of Independent Journalism as part of the “Stop 114A” campaign.

It called for Internet users to show their displeasure by blackening out their websites and profile pictures in protest of the amendment, which would automatically presume guilt on Internet users for offensive postings made using their identities or devices.

However, some Internet users opted for a harder approach and going offline completely.

source: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2012/8/14/nation/20120814122218&sec=nation

Comments Off on Section 114A of the Evidence Act 2012 »

Posted in BornInMalaysia

Tags:

Discrimination. What is it?

August 2nd, 2012
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


Discrimination can exist in many forms. US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission lists age, disability, equal pay/compensation, genetic information, national origin, pregnancy, race/color,  religion, retaliation, sex and sexual harassment as types of discrimination at workplaces. (source)

Discrimination is defined as:  prejudicial treatment of an individual based on his or her membership – or perceived membership – in a certain group or category. It involves the group’s initial reaction or interaction, influencing the individual’s actual behavior towards the group or the group leader, restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to a group, leading to the exclusion of the individual or entities based on logical or irrational decision making. (wikipedia source).

The same source above says UN’s stance is that “discriminatory behaviors take many forms, but they all involve some form of exclusion or rejection”.

Can discrimination be good? For example, if KTMB offers discount cards to students and the senior citizens, isn’t it discrimination to the the other commuters who are not students or senior citizens? Can an individual complain or sue KTMB?

How about denying entry into an educational institution based on race or ethnicity? Is that discrimination? Perhaps no, if the educational institution is funded by groups with their own funds.

If a education institution selects students based on “status”, is that discrimination? If there’s quota, is that discrimination? Can it be justified by using economic status or lack of opportunities for some? If there are more females than males in universities, would a quota for female students be discrimination?

Have you seen vacancies asking for “Mandarin speaking” applicants? Isn’t that discrimination based on language? Or can the employer justify it by saying the position requires the knowledge of that particular language? Is Mandarin restricted to any one group only? Is it a workaround to hire Chinese candidate? Possible.

If we were to post “BM speaking applicants only”, would be discriminatory towards foreign workers who may not be fluent or certified in BM?

How about saying that only Muslims can be Syariah court lawyers? Is that discrimination based on religion? Or is it a requirement by the religion?

Can you choose not to hire a disabled person? Perhaps can, if the work involves physical activities that is hindered by the disability of the applicant. You can hire a visually challenged person to be a telephone operator, right?

Can you deny a disabled person the right to drive a vehicle? Possible, if it can be proven that providing the license may endanger the person or others due to the incapability of the disabled person to drive correctly.

By not having disabled friendly facilities in buildings, are the building operators/management being discriminatory?

When the salesperson chooses to ignore you, and approaches a “more realistic” potential customer, is that discrimination? (happens to me often, which can be a good thing after all!).

When Tamil drama is shown at 3.30am in national TVs, is that discrimination? When no programs for other communities are shown, is that discrimination? Can lack of budget be an acceptable excuse?

When provision for places of worships for some groups are not provided, is that discrimination?

When your colleagues seems to be drawing higher salary even though you are equally or more qualified, is that discrimination? Maybe yes, maybe no. Perhaps they negotiated well?

Not hiring married women because “they may get pregnant” is discrimination? How about penalising pregnant ladies by pressuring them, so that they will resign? Is that discrimination?

If the bus seat is not big enough, is the bus company discriminatory towards large-sized persons?  If the large size is due to genetics, then would it be discriminatory?

Wonder how its related to racism. Is racism a subset of discrimination? Seems to me its part of discrimination. Is discrimination same as marginalisation? Can discrimination be unintentional? It certainly can be institutionalised, made into laws.

Comments Off on Discrimination. What is it? »

Posted in Others

Tags:

3000 Indian students applied for matriculation

June 18th, 2012
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


According to MI President, about 3000 students applied for matriculation (contrary to popular belief that not many Indian students apply) and 750 places have been taken up.  So, it won’t be difficult to pick 1500 students, right? I mean if you can pick students with 4As from the other race, there’s no excuse to do the same here, right? Have a quota la – 20% top students (300 seats), 60% average students (900 seats), and 20% weak students (300 seats) like you do for the other race.  So easy maa, I’ve even calculated the number of seats for you. I can even volunteer to help pick students 🙂

BTW, those that didn’t get a place can make an appeal and don’t forget to send a copy to MIC (and also MIETA – Arivu Ananthan – 012-3993710 or Elangovan Annamalai – 017-7081946)

More than 3,000 Indian students have applied for matriculation courses in government colleges, said MIC president Datuk Seri G. Palanivel.

Palanivel, who is also Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, said the 1,500 seats allocated for Indians would be filled by the end of the month.

“Generally, only 500 seats are allocated for Indians, but Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has acceded to MIC’s request for an additional 1,000 seats,” he said yesterday.

Palanivel said Indian students with excellent results but failed to obtain places in colleges could appeal to the Education Ministry and forward a copy to MIC.

source: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2012/6/17/nation/11497488&sec=nation

According to MIC President as well, the full list of students will be released by MOE by end of June. Refer video below:

I strongly suggest that the list contains name, school, location (to identify rural/urban) and the student’s qualifications.  If not, MIC will get another round of bashing for not being transparent, practising nepotism, or unable to get MOE cooperation etc. Either way it looks bad on MIC if they not able to deliver what the PM pledged because community expectation is high now. We want to know details and not just be told off with some token answers.  And MIC being self-appointed guardian of Indian community have a hard time living up to the new expectations.

Which brings me to another issue – should we have a Indian deputy Education Minister?

 Footnote: MIC says will ask for more place next year. My question: why not ask to streamline STPM/Matriculation first. Saves lots of headache and cost, and provide a level/just/fair platform for all.

The MIC will request that the quota of Indian students in government matriculation colleges be increased next year, its president Datuk Seri G. Palanivel said today.

He said the number of Indian students in matriculation colleges nationwide has increased from 500 to 1,500 for the 2012/2013 session.

“This year we will ask for additional (quota) for next year,”

source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/mic-wants-bigger-quota-for-indians-in-matriculation-colleges/

Comments Off on 3000 Indian students applied for matriculation »

Posted in BornInMalaysia, Indian

Tags:

MIC President clarifies 1000 extra matric seats will be in govt centres

May 31st, 2012
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


We can breathe easier now as MIC President issued press statement clarifying the allocation of the extra 1000 seats will be in government matriculation centres, and not in any IPTS. This is in response to earlier questions and uncertainties after video emerged on the allocation.  I’ve blogged about it about 3 weeks ago.

With that issue considered settled, the next is about how to fulfill the extra 1000 seats. According to the statement below, about 700 seats has been filled, leaving another 800 or so vacant. The problem is how to get these places filled up.

 

Previously I’ve commented on a post by Mahaganapathy Dass (MIC Higher Education Bureau) on his FB wall:

i think the 1000 extra places should not be limited to those with all As. as you very well know, the 90% places is given to those with even 4/5/6As. with that in mind, we should be firm in our stand that applicants with minimum 5As to be allowed under the 1000 extra seats. in this way, you’ll have a much bigger pool of students.

instead of waiting for matriculation dept to settle the application procedure, why not start a separate “registration process” to fill the 1000 seats (assuming we don’t have enough applicants in the first place). You can collect the applicants and pass to matric dept to process – save their time.

and i think the 1500 matrics place should not include the bursary recipients. that’s unfair and unethical. let bursary be bursary and extra 1000 place to be EXTRA 1000 place. i hope the PM, JPA and MOE understands this. [note: Bursary refers to JPA Bursary for SPM top scorers]

if matric dept says got enough indian applicants to fill the 1500 seats, then just fill it up la. can relax the entry requirements if not able to get 1500 students. those rules are manmade, not law of God. if you can relax for the “others”, why not for us. We must be firm in our stand. this year MUST have 1500 seats filled (excluding bursary recipients). no excuse from matrics dept will be accepted.

and another comment:

 it will be good if matric dept reopen their registration if not enough candidates. maybe for 2 week period. and we can get our promotion machinery to inform as much students as possible – facebook, THR, MIC branches, MP/ADUN office, Astro Vanavil, Minnal FM, RTM news, newspapers etc.

I’m sure the 800 places can be easily filled up if the requirements are not purposely stringent. We should allow those with 4/5/6/7As to enter matriculation as well. A short 2 or 3 weeks exercise would be sufficient to get the SPM leavers to apply, provided we are able to make use of the promotion and publicity channels mentioned above.

However, a rather disturbing email reached me this morning. Its about a parent of a matric student that is unhappy (distressed actually) over the treatment of her daughter.  I think if such negative news is spread, parents will be angry and scoff the offer to study at matriculation. OK, more on that later once I get more info.

 

PRESS STATEMENT BY MIC PRESIDENT DATUK SERI G PALANIVEL 

KUALA LUMPUR, 28 May (MIC) — All the 1,500 matriculation seats allocated to Indian students this year will be conducted at government colleges and no private institutions are involved.

There should be no confusion on the matter. Some people are saying that the 1,000 extra seats allocated for Indian students will be conducted at private colleges.

That is not true. All the students who have been successful will be placed in government colleges

In the MIC assembly last year I had asked for extra 1,000 seats to add to the existing 500 seats.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin had agreed to the request and said the courses will be conducted in government institutions.

I had raised the issues with Tan Sri Muhyiddin, who is also the Education Minister, that to date only 700 places have been offered.

I also raised the issue that some Indian students with 11A+ were also not offered matriculation places.

Tan Sri Muhyiddin assured me that all deserving cases would be offered a place and that all 1,500 places for Indian students will be filled.

–MIC

SOURCE: http://mic.org.my/mic_news.php?id=220

Comments Off on MIC President clarifies 1000 extra matric seats will be in govt centres »

Posted in Indian

Tags: