Preaching is common among religion, but need to be careful on how its done. Not at expense of insulting other religion, or worse still providing wrong information. He is also in danger of being sued by those companies mentioned here for defamation, and even by JAKIM for questioning its halal status.
The crux of his speech is basically saying must support Muslim products and businesses to best of ability, as doing otherwise may be haram; directly/indirectly supporting non-Muslims; stifling Muslim business. Not sure if this strict view is their religious teaching or just a liberal interpretation.
Since MIC had its protest today and many police reports has been lodged, this guy now made an apology. Video below from his FB:
1. the speech was in a closed function, for muslim only. [maybe acceptable in the pre-internet era. however God still exists in closed areas right?]
2. was uploaded without his consent, maybe (“mungkin”) with bad intention. [or maybe with good intentions to share his superb speech with other followers. Pls dont pre-judge the uploader and qualify it with “mungkin”].
3. his speech based on his knowledge [well, this is unacceptable. if not sure, then can check with authorities or the people concerned. Why deity got tongue sticking out? go ask Hindu Sangam…or would that shake your belief? or you think its perfectly acceptable to make a joke of it?]
4. some words maybe (“mungkin”) cause unhappiness among Indian community. [ yeah right, maybe will create unhappiness.]
5. Hopes this issue is not prolonged. [of course, you are busy person, got many speech sessions to do, souls to save.]
6. will ensure this thing won’t be repeated. [what “thing” won’t be repeated? recording and uploading of speeches or insulting other religions?]
According to this FB page, he is also running a religious school and is known for giving speeches, so imagine how many “majlis tertutup” would have been conducted, spreading lies and hatred. “Mungkin” kan. Need to also investigate his school. “Mungkin” got training for creating terrorists. See, I also can use “mungkin”.
Let’s see how the police investigation turns out.
If you think this is first time incident, then refer to this video:
I’m not sure how many branches there are in Klang, but I guess around 30. And 8 of them reject Ganapathi Rao. With incumbent Manoharan Malayam almost confirmed to be left out, it is interesting to see who are the potential replacements.
Ganapathi Rao is Selangor DAP’s legal bureau chief and is involved with the Malaysian Indian Voice (MIV) group as advisor. And yes, he was projected into the limelight due to Hindraf. He also holds position as a director in the state-owned Kumpulan Semesta Sdn Bhd and is an aide to Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim.
Being voter in that constituency, hopefully I’ll get to see suitable candidates.
Meanwhile, Ganapathi replied as follows and another DAP official said the candidate list is not finalised:
Selangor DAP official V Ganabatirao today admonished those calling on the party not to field him for the Kota Alam Shah state seat, saying they were jumping the gun.
Reacting to statements by eight DAP branch leaders in Selangor, he said the objection was premature because the party had yet to announce the names of candidates for the coming election.
“I myself do not know whether I will be fielded to contest in Kota Alam Shah,” he told FMT. “Candidacy is decided by the central executive committee. It is too premature to speculate.”
He rejected his detractors’ claim that members of the eight Selangor branches were against his candidacy in Kota Alam Shah, saying the branch leaders were had their own agenda and were expressing their personal opinions.
“The objections are individual opinions of people with their own agenda,” he said. “The objections are not resolutions from the branches.”
Another DAP official confirmed that the party had not finalised its candidates’ list for Selangor.
Eight DAP branches here have called on the party leadership not to field V Ganapathirau (photo) as candidate in Kota Alam Shah state seat in the next general election.
The branches, all from the state constituency, warned the party leadership that the DAP would lose the seat if Ganapathirau, a former detainee of now repealed Internal Security Act, was fielded.
The DAP eight branches, with collectively some 500 members, openly opposed Ganapathirau are Taman Gembira, Klang, Teluk Pulai, Bayu Tinggi, Taman Chi Liung Indah, Southern Klang, Persiaran Raja Muda Musa and Ehsan.
The group spokesman Ivan Ho said they were all against Ganapathirau because he was not a local familiar with the party grassroots leaders and members, or constituents in the area.
Ho said Ganapathirau does not have close rapport with party grassroots in the constituency, a winning factor so crucial for a potential candidate.
He urged the party leadership to respect grassroots sentiments and not to force in parachute candidates like Ganapathirau in Kota Alam Shah.
“DAP members and constituents don’t know him much.
“The party should not push us to accept Ganapathirau.
“We don’t want him,” Ho, the Taman Gembira branch head, told FMT.
Kota Alam Shah incumbent assemblyman is M Manoharan, a protégé of DAP national chairman Karpal Singh.
It’s learnt Selangor DAP leadership under Teresa Kok planned to replace Manoharan, also a former ISA detainee, with Ganapathirau.
Ganapathirau is a staunch confidant of deputy secretary general and Penang Deputy Chief Minister II P Ramasamy.
Not an Indian hero
Taman Chi Liung Indah head K Yogasigamany reminded the state party leadership that time had lapsed to promote the Ganapathirau as a former ISA detainee and his so-called involvement in Hindraf Makkal Sakti.
He said DAP grassroots members and constituents know that Ganapathirau, who now leads NGO Malaysian Indian voice, was not a Hindraf leader.
“Constituents have realised that Ganapathirau was never the Hindraf leader or Indian hero.
“He is no more relevant for Indian community.
“It will be futile and fatal for party leadership to field Ganapathirau in Kota Alam Shah.
“The leadership should drop the idea altogether,” Yogasigamany told FMT.
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.
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.
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?
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.”
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.
MP Kubang Kerian YB Salahuddin (PAS) during a debate on the Public Assembly bill with Deputy Higher Education Minister YB Saifuddin (shown live on Astro Awani. Caveat: I DID NOT watch it), mentioned about Thaipusam (along with Maulidur Rasul festival) as example of procession or demonstrasi jalanan. He mentioned perarakan Thaipusam and also said “secara separa sedar” (semi conscious” and “walaupun ada Kavadi” (even though got Kavadis), and also tanpa perlu gas pemedih mata (without need of tear gas). The clip below extracted the part about Thaipusam statements.
These statements were picked up by YB Kamalanathan and blogged at his website:
I think saying that the participants are semi conscious is not appropriate and lacks sensitivity. In fact its a bad example as in our social climate, we can easily misunderstand and get angry. Most of the devotees walking along the chariot or at Batu Caves are perfectly conscious! He should apologise for this wrong statement, possibly due to his ignorance. Next time invite him to join Thaipusam festival as observer to see how things are. Anyway, this coming from PAS is expected. They aren’t really into understanding all faiths.
The YB tried to justify and explain, but I think he should just apologise and move on:
“The point that I was making was not about religion.
“I was talking about Article 10 of the Federal Constitution. I highlighted Thaipusam to make a point about how Malaysians throughout the years, even before independence have gathered and organised themselves in large numbers.
“This was part of a list of other examples that I used to put my point across,” he said.
The Kubang Kerian MP stressed that he had no intention to insult the religious event which is a major Hindu celebration here.
Salahuddin, who met with Kamalanathan, to explain his comments on the matter said that to drive his point across, he used the examples of the gathering against the Malayan Union led by Onn Jaafar (1946), the Perarakan Kerandah 152 (2009) which demanded for the importance of the Malay language, Thaipusam and Maulidur Rasul celebrations to commemorate the prophet’s birthday.
“I did not mean to insult any religion. Why then did I bring up the example of Maulidur Rasul?” he asked.
Kamalanathan, who is the Hulu Selangor MP, took Salahuddin to task yesterday for his comments on Tuesday during a debate entitled “Street demonstrations: Does it build or destroy democracy?” organised by Malay daily, Sinar Harian.
Salahuddin reportedly said that thousands of Hindus gathered during Thaipusam peacefully without the intervention of the authorities.
The PAS leader was also alleged to have said that some Hindus carrying kavadi were semi-conscious and yet they do not need tear gas to keep the situation calm.
Calling Salahuddin “naive”, Kamanathan said his comments were both “insulting and hurting” to the Hindus.
“Belittling the practices of another religion and calling the devotees semi-conscious street demonstrators show lack of understanding and respect for the Hindu devotees,” he added.
‘Just stating facts’
Salahuddin, however, stressed that he was not insulting but merely stating facts about how the public could organise themselves.
“It was only to show that the public is capable of organising themselves. We have the devotees who are semi-conscious but still controllable,” he said.
“Then I also mentioned the large crowds that march during the Maulidur Rasul. You don’t need to use tear-gas to control the crowd.
“That is the point I was making that as long as excessive force is not used, the gatherings have always been peaceful,” he added.
Note: YB Kamalanathan forgot to mention about the Maulidur Rasul part on his blog. In spirit of 1Malaysia, he should also stand up for fellow Muslims and demand apology from the YB for insulting/desecrating/slighting/hurting their feelings.
Now, the part about Thaipusam being street protest or street demonstration (demonstrasi jalanan).
“assembly” means an intentional and temporary assembly of a number of persons in a public place, whether or not the assembly is at a particular place or moving;
“counter assembly” means an assembly organized to convey disagreement with the purpose for which another assembly is organized, and held at the same time, date and place or approximately at the same time, date and place as the other assembly;
“simultaneous assemblies” means two or more assemblies to be held at the same time, date and place, but which have no relationship to each other;
“participant” means a person intentionally or voluntarily present for the purpose of an assembly;
“street protest” means an open air assembly which begins with a meeting at a specified place and consists of walking in a mass march or rally for the purpose of objecting to or advancing a particular cause or causes;
“prohibited places” means— (a) the protected areas and protected places declared under the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act 1959 [Act 298]; and (b) the places as may be specified in the First Schedule;
These are the locations specified in First Schedule:
Dams, reservoirs and water catchment areas
Water treatment plants
Electricity generating stations
Petrol stations
Hospitals
Fire stations
Airports
Railways
Land public transport terminals
Ports, canals, docks, wharves, piers, bridges and marinas
Places of worship
Kindergartens and schools
And this is the Third Schedule:
ASSEMBLIES FOR WHICH NOTIFICATION IS NOT REQUIRED
Religious assemblies
Funeral processions
Wedding receptions
Open houses during festivities
Family gatherings
Family day held by an employer for the benefit of his employees and their
families
General meetings of societies or associations
Para 11: Consent of owner or occupier of place of assembly
11. The organizer of an assembly, other than a religious assembly or a funeral procession or an assembly held at a designated place of assembly, shall obtain the consent of the owner or occupier of the place of assembly for it to be used for the purpose of the assembly.
Reading the above extracts from the Act, some questions arise:
1. What is the difference between assembly and street protest? Street protests is defined to be an assembly that is “open air” and for purpose of a cause (for or against). Assembly can be stationary or moving, while street protest involves marching (moving la..). So, if its (i) indoor or (ii) assemble for no reason or (iii) assemble and don’t move, its assembly. Quite ridiculous. Even people want to assemble to lepak also got reason or cause – melepak.
2. Note the phrase “street protest”. If you take basically any event involving thousands of people, it will fall into the “street protest” category. The definition doesn’t mention that “not including religious activities”. Example, gathering of million youths at certain location, people marching during uniformed bodies activities, event parades, religious events, and yes, even funeral procession (you are support the cause of sending of the person on his last journey).
The only exemption given is that religious event or funeral need not provide notification to authorities. That’s all. It doesn’t say its not street protest. Yes, common sense will tell you obviously a religious parade or funeral procession is not a protest. But this law doesn’t specifically state so? So does that mean a religious procession can be a street protest per the definition above?
3. Why is place of worship is prohibited? Does it mean we can’t “assemble” at Batu Caves or the local shrine any more? Need to get approval? Sounds contradictory to the “no notification needed” clause.
Conclusion: If you don’t know what you are talking about, better don’t talk about it. Give other example that you really know of. If not, end up like this la.
Comments Off on Thaipusam, Street Demonstration and Peaceful Assembly Act »
| 
Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email 
