Just wondering.
After coming under fire by Lim Kit Siang, the Biro Tata Negara (National Civics Bureau) is again being attacked – this time by Kit Siang’s protege Kasthuri Patto.
On Friday (June 19), Kit Siang called for BTN’s immediate dissolution over its alleged incitement of “racism, disunity, bigotry and intolerance” (to quote the DAP’s words).
Kasthuri, who is Kit Siang’s former political secretary, today slammed BTN as a “virulent poisonous bureau”, “highly noxious” as well as “a racist tool instilling hatred and suspicion”. See, FMT news report headlined ‘BTN’s own slides proof of racism, says Kasturi‘.
Everything would be dismantled if DAP ever got federal power
The DAP has long considered BTN its public enemy. See Hannah Yeoh’s previous tirade, ‘BTN is destructive!’ (and “divisisve”).
Teeny weeny Christian population but mega churches everywhere
BTN is a federal agency under the aegis of the Prime Minister’s Department.
Not satisfied with the explanation by the authorities on the BTN’s content, Kasthuri retorted, “Razali Ibrahim, don’t be a hypocrite like PM Najib Tun Razak”. (Razali is a Deputy Minister in the PM’s Dept.)
She also trained her gun on the bureau for its remark about “Christians making up 9.1% of the population and granted permission to build a mammoth church”.
The DAP Batu Kawan first-time MP then took the opportunity to challenge Najib Razak – see her tweet below.
Are Christians for Peace and Harmony (CPHM) truly civics conscious?
It is clear that the evangelical party is up in arms against the BTN over some of the bureau’s material to raise awareness about the outsized Christian influence.
Perhaps the new group calling themselves Christians for Peace and Harmony Malaysia (CPHM) that is endorsed by Putrajaya can step up to the plate and mount a defence of the BTN courses touching on the Christians.
This is a splendid opening for the CPHM to prove that they merit the endorsement given them by the Prime Minister.
BELOW: Najib launching CPHM at a banquet in a five-star KL hotel recently
Helen Ang 
re: Christians making up 9.1% of the population and granted permission to build a mammoth church
What is the problem with building a mammoth church as long as all the procedures are adhered to? The church is privately funded if not mistaken. As long as it uses private funding, anyone can build anything he/she wants subject to law.
This is what’s being raised by Batu Kawan MP Kasthuri Patto. She is questioning why the BTN deems it fit to bring up the issue of “mammoth church” vis-a-vis the nine percent Christian population.
I personally did not get a chance to have a look at the BTN material before the web page / slides were taken down.
However, just like YB Kasthuri, I too am curious as to the BTN’s angle on the church’s reputedly meek and mild flock of “only 9 percent” (i.e. small in size). In what way does the bureau consider the church expansion to be a matter of national importance? Or maybe a national security threat?
BTN is a government agency. It should remain bipartisan. If you have attended one of their program/training/seminar, you will know that they are very inclined to the ruling coalition.
re: In what way does the bureau consider the church expansion to be a matter of national importance? Or maybe a national security threat?
You need to draw a line here. If building a mammoth church is deemed to be a threat to national security, then what about building other houses of worship by non-Muslims like temple, kuil and gurdwara?
As long as the building of church and other houses of worship comply with legal requirements, nothing the Muslims can do about it. Look at the Taman Medan church incident. The church is still there and operating.
We cannot allow ‘sentiment’ whether religious or racial to override laws of the country. A legitimate church cannot be demolished just because the Muslims are offended by the sight of the cross. Similarly, the non-Muslims have to ‘endure’ the azan as building mosque in housing estates is a legal requirement.
I wouldn’t know. It’s Kashthuri Patto who managed to have a look at the BTN material before it was taken down. According to her, the matter of “the mammoth church” was raised.
If she’s to be believed, then it appears that it is the church that has been singled out and not Hindu/Buddhist temples or gurdwaras.
Alright. So, what is your take on building the mammoth church? Should the rights of non Muslims to build houses of worship be curtailed by religious sentiments/sensitivities of Muslims instead of legal requirements?
Hmmm.
I think the non-Muslims should be allowed to build their houses of worship, and churches ought to be permitted to openly display their cross on the building.
However, it’s up to the builders to engage with the local community. The Taman Medan case being one example of the fear and suspicion that the cross invokes.
re: The Taman Medan case being one example of the fear and suspicion that the cross invokes.
What is the basis of fear? What is the yardstick to use? Gather 40-50 people to protest and this tantamount to a reasonable yardstick to deny the establishment of a non Muslim house of worship?
If the authorities agreed to this 40-50 people, then next time it will require less (maybe 20-30 people) to deny the establishment of a church somewhere else. Do you want this to be a precedent? I don’t. For me, if the church complies with all legal requirements no reason a small group of people to use flimsy reasons like ‘sensitive’ or ‘easily offended/confused’ should be allowed to overrule the law of our country.
(1) Legality: If the building that wants to be a church complies with the required regulations, then there is no reason for it not to be erected in Taman Medan. I don’t buy the reasoning/excuse that a Muslim-majority housing area is somehow too ‘sensitive’ to houses of worship belonging to other religions.
If this were to be the law (of the jungle), then an 80 percent non-Muslim housing estate might similarly protest a mosque in their area.
(2) Social relations: According to one of the Muslim Taman Medan residents interviewed by J-Star TV, they have no objection to the Hindu/Sikh temples already in the area. For the guy interviewed, it’s only that particular church which is antsy and regarded as an interloper.
Perhaps evangelical Christians have an attitude problem and rub Muslims the wrong way whereas Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists and Sikhs do not.
re: I don’t buy the reasoning/excuse that a Muslim-majority housing area is somehow too ‘sensitive’ to houses of worship belonging to other religions.
This is exactly the reason cited by the protesters.
re: Perhaps evangelical Christians have an attitude problem and rub Muslims the wrong way whereas Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists and Sikhs do not.
Irrespective of how the protesters perceived the ‘attitude problem of evangelical Christians’ and whether they were offended by the way they were ‘rubbed’, rule of law must be respected i.e. if the church complied with all the legal requirement we cannot allow ‘Social relations’ or ‘perception/sensitivity’ of the protesters to overrule the law. Even if the protesters are genuinely offended/harm/aggrieved by the church, street protest is not the solution. Go through the correct channel i.e. complain to the local authorities, file a case to court etc. If all fail, then the protesters have to learn to live with the church in their vicinity.
re: “we cannot allow ‘Social relations’ or ‘perception/sensitivity’ of the protesters to overrule the law”
That’s legally speaking going by the book. The congregation may have to bear with the consequences of mob justice.
re: “street protest is not the solution”
Have you told this to your friends who attended the Bersih demos?
re: ……. consequences of mob justice
I don’t see the church or its congregation suffer such thing. The church operates as usual despite at higher level of caution. In fact, the protesters are the one being investigated. If going by the book, they should be charged under sedition act. But we know the relationship between the leader of the protester and the top gun in the police force.
re: …….. Bersih demo
I am not a supporter of street demo. But I am a supporter of Bersih principles/demand. Despite the massive demo, the ruling government continues with gerry-mandering. I am giving some examples here. Just look at the difference of the largest constituency and the smallest. I trust you would have known that even the Fed Con is being manipulated by way of amendment to remove the maximum allowable difference between the smallest and largest constituencies.
Even the power of the judiciary to review gazetted electoral roll (despite the same contains phantom voters) is removed. Not to mention the scandal of indelible ink. No action is being taken on the supplier. In fact, the whistle blower major Zaidi was tried at martial court and lost his job.
I know you are against the Bersih demo (the method/manner to express the principles). What is your comment vis-a-vis their demands (the principles itself)?
re: “I know you are against the Bersih demo (the method/manner to express the principles).”
Why would you say that? I’d participated in Bersih too but just not the last edition. Nowadays I don’t support the opposition activities, that’s all.
I see Bersih 3.0 as sengaja cari pasal to force the hand of the establishment rather than demanding genuine reforms. They got much of what they wanted but the purpose is not so much gaining concessions but an excuse to spill into the streets as a show of force in the lead-up to the election.
Just like the Blackout mega rally at the Kelana Jaya stadium was without a just cause as there was no blackout in reality. None of the election petitions cited blackout. The unfounded accusation was just to get the oppo supporters all riled up in order to claim that victory was stolen from Pakatan.
re: They got much of what they wanted but the purpose is not so much gaining concessions but an excuse to spill into the streets as a show of force in the lead-up to the election.
What have Bersih gotten so far? I am not aware that their demands were met (either in whole or in part).
http://ww1.utusan.com.my/utusan/info.asp?y=2011&dt=0717&pub=Utusan_Malaysia&sec=Rencana&pg=re_01.htm
http://ww1.utusan.com.my/utusan/info.asp?y=2011&dt=0614&pub=Utusan_Malaysia&sec=Rencana&pg=re_01.htm
http://ww1.utusan.com.my/utusan/info.asp?y=2011&dt=0712&pub=Utusan_Malaysia&sec=Rencana&pg=re_02.htm
http://ww1.utusan.com.my/utusan/info.asp?y=2011&dt=0712&pub=Utusan_Malaysia&sec=Politik&pg=po_03.htm
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2011/07/23/reaksi-positif-spr-terhadap-tuntutan-bersih-2-0/
Good that you have given so many links. I will reply just one due to time constraint.
1. Refer to your link:
http://ww1.utusan.com.my/utusan/info.asp?y=2011&dt=0614&pub=Utusan_Malaysia&sec=Rencana&pg=re_01.htm
2. Specific reference to the para below:
Antaranya tentang desakan supaya dibersihkan senarai Daftar Pemilih sedangkan senarai pengundi berdaftar dibersihkan SPR sepanjang masa.
3. No doubt the above is the responsibility of SPR. Is there a proper check and balance mechanism to rectify any incidence of inaccuracy (whether by fraud or unintentional)?
4. Refer below:
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2013/03/29/court-turns-a-blind-eye-to-justice/
5. Specific reference to the para below:
…………….. Judge Vernon Ong said that the Court was bound by Section 9A of the Elections Act 1958 and cannot review a gazetted electoral roll ……………….
6. This relates to the 1st demand of Bersih i.e. “Clean the electoral roll”. SPR claimed to be doing it. Question here is if a person (voter, politician etc) notices irregularities in the electoral roll, he has no avenue to redress it. He may complain to SPR. SPR can choose not to rectify such irregularity. He could not drag the issue to court as explained in no. 5 above. As such, phantom voters continue to exist in the roll.
7. SPR may be doing its job of cleaning the roll. But its function is limited and lack credibility as it is not open to review by the judiciary. No matter how genuine SPR cleans the roll, it is pointless if there is no legal redress in court whereby the public can scrutinize the roll. Bersih wants real reform, i.e. not in the SPR per se but also in the powers of judiciary, parliament etc.
8. Read more here:
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/wan-ahmad-and-the-election-commissions-electoral-charade#sthash.nU2xsBK6.dpbs
I will now address another Bersih’s demand, i.e. use of indelible ink. Let me refresh your memory of how the ink is easily washable right after casting vote. SPR chairman proudly claimed prior to election that the ink is of good quality and indelible. But we all knew that right after casting your votes, you can wash off the ink easily. Then SPR gave lame reasons like low content of silver nitrate etc etc. Until today the chairman remains in the office with zero accountability and no action is taken on the supplier despite the clear breach of terms in the procurement contract. Even the whistleblower Major Zaidi was punished by martial court for exercising his democratic rights to voice out fraud. Now you tell me, is the demand of Bersih in relation to indelible ink is satisfactorily fulfilled by SPR?
re: “But we all knew that right after casting your votes, you can wash off the ink easily.”
Not off my finger. The reports are exaggerated, like blackout and 40,000 Bangladeshis.
re: reports are exaggerated……
Put aside whether the ink can be washed off easily or not whether on your finger or mine. What important is the official position of SPR.
Refer below:-
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/ec-insists-indelible-ink-contained-silver-nitrate-not-just-food-dye#sthash.gPPZk46Z.dpuf
“EC chairman Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof had admitted recently that the indelible ink was a “failure”, as he expressed disappointment with widespread reports of the ink being washed off easily with as little as soap and water in the 13th general election.”
Questions:
1. Why SPR chairman did not take responsibility and resign?
2. Why no action taken on the supplier?
3. Why penalise the whistleblower, Major Zaidi?
Ultimately, is the demand of Bersih in relation to use of indelible ink being reasonably fulfilled?
1. Bersih is no longer credible. They’re clearly very, very partisan – the same fault they’re pointing their finger at the EC for but three fingers pointing back. (Pak Samad joined the DAP, Wong Chin Huat is a fellow in Lim Guan Eng’s think-tank.)
2. Did you try washing off the ink with a little soap and water?
3. He breached army regulations.
re: 1. Bersih is no longer credible………
Credible or not may be measured in many ways. While I agree that credibility is tarnished by the association with PR, I don’t see that their demands (i.e. clean electoral roll and use of indelible ink) are being undermined by such association. The demands are reasonable based on the points that I have pointed out.
2. Did you try washing off the ink with a little soap and water?
Yes. Because I understood that the ink shall remain indelible for few days despite being washed whether with or without soup or other form of cleaning liquid.
3. He breached army regulations.
Yes. He did. What about the SPR chairman? Did he not breach his fiduciary duty? Or the ink supplier? Did he not breach the terms in the procurement contract? Why only Major Zaidi ‘kena’?
re: “Because I understood that the ink shall remain indelible for few days despite being washed whether with or without soup or other form of cleaning liquid.”
How much washed off and were there traces of stain remaining?
re: “Why only Major Zaidi ‘kena’?”
Since Pakatan are so noisy, what are they doing about the ink supplier? After all, they have 88 YBs in Parliament.
re: How much washed off and were there traces of stain remaining?
Helen, let us not discuss “much washed off” and “traces of stain remaining” on our personal basis. As pointed out, the Chairman of SPR admitted the fiasco. Hence, the ‘lame’ reasons given by SPR like food colouring, low content of silver nitrate, staff did not use the ink properly etc etc. This is the official position, i.e the ink is a failure.
re: Since Pakatan are so noisy, what are they doing about the ink supplier? After all, they have 88 YBs in Parliament.
Yes. They are YBs only. They made noise in Parliament and media, lodge police reports etc. They cannot go beyond these. They have no power to arrest, investigate, prosecute and punish the culprit. What are the authorities (under the BN influence) doing? You should demand BN instead.
re: “Helen, let us not discuss “much washed off” and “traces of stain remaining” on our personal basis.”
From your reluctance to answer, I take it that you could not get all your traces of ink stain off.
And you prefer to conveniently latch on to what you claim to be “the official position” in order to portray the worst case scenario, or in this case, the ink’s least effectiveness even tho’ with regard to your own as well as my experience, it was not as bad as its detractors (who dominate/control the media) have made out.
It’s as much Pakatan being sneaky bastards in the perception game.
re: “As pointed out, the Chairman of SPR admitted the fiasco. Hence, the ‘lame’ reasons given by SPR like food colouring, low content of silver nitrate, staff did not use the ink properly etc etc. This is the official position, i.e the ink is a failure.
Where is the empirical data that the ink is a “failure”?
If Pakatan wants to lontar tohmahan, at least line up 50 case studies showing that the ink washes off. This should have been the simplest thing to do. After all, Selangor alone had 1.76 million voters, 60 percent of whom supported Pakatan.
re: From your reluctance to answer, I take it that you could not get all your traces of ink stain off.
Who can get 100% of the ink stain off? Can you? I can’t. There will be some ink stain in the ‘celah kuku’. But I can say the ink is easily washed off (despite not 100%) on the voting day itself.
Why you apply an absolute high standard of 100%? If this is the standard, then the SPR is easily absolved as no voter can washed off the ink stain 100% on the voting day.
re: “the official position”
Didn’t the SPR chairman admitted to the failure/fiasco/ineffectiveness. This is not an allegation by me. His statement is recorded in mass media. He has yet to clarify that he was being misquoted. Neither he took action against the media that published his statement. If you don’t call that as “official position” despite it being made by the SPR chairman, then what do you call it? Personal opinion of Tan Sri Abdul Aziz and has no relation with SPR at all?
The indelible ink scandal may started off initially as a perception. But it became confirmation when SPR gave reasons like food colouring, low silver nitrate etc, refuse to name the supplier. If the ink is really indelible by SPR standards, SPR should just maintained its stand and need not admit the ‘failure’ and give reasons to explain the why the ink is not indelible. Just keep quiet and the issue will go away.
re: Where is the empirical data that the ink is a “failure”
I refer to the statement made by SPR Chairman published by mass media. Why not you tell me your empirical evidence that the ink is not a failure? Do you have 50 case studies? After all, Selangor has 40% voters that voted for BN. Not to mention your blog has millions of readers. Maybe you can run a poll in your blog?
Question: Indelible. What the word means?
1. Indelible as long as you don’t wash your hand;
2. Remains indelible (for few days) irrespective of how you wash your hand.
My understanding is the 2nd. But SPR took the 1st. How can a person not wash his hand on the voting day? At least he needs to use the washroom or wash hand before eat. As such, the ink should remain indelible at least for few days after voting and withstand washing.
re: “Who can get 100% of the ink stain off? Can you?”
I’m not the one disputing the efficacy of the ink.
re: “But I can say the ink is easily washed off (despite not 100%) on the voting day itself. Why you apply an absolute high standard of 100%?”
I’m not the one applying the standard of must-wash-off-100%. You’re the one applying the standard of cannot-allow-to-wash-off-100%.
re: “If this is the standard, then the SPR is easily absolved as no voter can washed off the ink stain 100% on the voting day.”
So what’s the permissible percentage of wash-off by your yardstick? Even if there is some ink stain in the ‘celah kuku’ (your least ink scenario), the election officer will still be able to detect the voter who is purportedly trying to vote twice or multiple times.
re: “tHis statement is recorded in mass media. He has yet to clarify that he was being misquoted. Neither he took action against the media that published his statement.”
You have yet to provide us with any quote – within quotation marks – of what you’ve imputed to him as saying.
re: “If you don’t call that as ‘official position’ despite it being made by the SPR chairman, then what do you call it? Personal opinion of Tan Sri Abdul Aziz and has no relation with SPR at all?”
Why don’t you give us the supposed quote and its url link in the source media so that we can assess the context and degree of ‘official-ity’ to his statement?
re: “The indelible ink scandal may started off initially as a perception.”
You people call it a “scandal”. It doesn’t mean that we people agree with all the perception labels that you hurl at your opponents like “racist”, “extremist”, “bigot” and “hate-spewing, divisive, race-obsessed ignoramuses”.
re: “But it became confirmation when SPR gave reasons like food colouring, low silver nitrate etc, refuse to name the supplier.”
SPR bagi penjelasan, didakwa badan tersebut mengaku bersalah. SPR taki beri penjelasan, dituduh badan tersebut terbabit dalam skandal. You all want heads you win, tails your opponent loses.
re: “If the ink is really indelible by SPR standards, SPR should just maintained its stand and need not admit the ‘failure’ and give reasons to explain the why the ink is not indelible. Just keep quiet and the issue will go away.”
For more than half a dozen years, Chua Soi Lek’s sex video did not go away. Instead the Dapsters used it to mock his son as well. Considering the kind of ultra kiasu people who are supporting Bersih, kalu memang takde isu pun pasti kekalutan akan dicipta. Matlamat halalkan cara, bukan?
re: “Why not you tell me your empirical evidence that the ink is not a failure?”
You are the one asserting, you must bear the burden of proof.
re: “Do you have 50 case studies? After all, Selangor has 40% voters that voted for BN.”
The voters who pangkah dacing do not have an issue with the ink or even see any need for it to begin with. Since you’ve asserted that the ink is a “failure”, then just trot out a convincing number of voters showing how the ink easily washed off their finger.
Oh really? Show us the news report where SPR purportedly said “don’t wash your hand” and the ink will remain indelible.
re: “How can a person not wash his hand on the voting day? At least he needs to use the washroom or wash hand before eat.”
We BN voters don’t have issues. Are you telling me that voters who pangkah Roket made it a point not to wash their hands the whole day through on 5 May 2013?
re: “As such, the ink should remain indelible at least for few days after voting and withstand washing.”
It certainly withstood washing for at least 24 hours insofar as I can recall.
Helen,
I summarise my point on Bersih’s Demand, i.e.clean the electoral role rather than having you to read the links that I provided.
1. SPR is tasked to maintain the roll, i.e. update details, remove dead voters etc etc.
2. Anyone may lodge complaint to SPR if they find irregularities in the roll.
3. Once a roll is gazetted, the roll is deemed to be final despite it may contain irregularities.
4. The power of the court to review the roll is removed. A complainant may have solid proof of a defective roll but the judge is not empowered to review and order SPR to rectify the roll
5. A complainant has no legal recourse as SPR may proceed to gazette a defective roll. Eg. names of dead voters will continue to appear in the roll thus allowing phantom voters.
Question: Do you think the demand of Bersih (i.e. clean the electoral roll) is satisfactorily fulfilled by the government?
I stand corrected for any mistakes above.
Read this one link for more info:
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2013/03/29/court-turns-a-blind-eye-to-justice/
Go by a case-by-case basis, i.e. by specific constituency.
If any opposition candidate is dissatisfied, then specify the name/address of the phantom voters (un’clean’ electoral roll) in his election petition. The court will have to look into the complaint.
re: Go by a case-by-case basis, i.e. by specific constituency.
If any opposition candidate is dissatisfied, then specify the name/address of the phantom voters (un’clean’ electoral roll) in his election petition. The court will have to look into the complaint.
The fact remains that the judiciary has no power to review the allegedly tainted roll, order the SPR to clean up the defects and reissue/regazette the roll. This is what happened to the case initiated by Klang MP. Refer here:
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2013/03/29/court-turns-a-blind-eye-to-justice/
To save your time, I quote the relevant paras:
1. “It was very disappointing that Judge Vernon Ong said that the Court was bound by Section 9A of the Elections Act 1958 and cannot review a gazetted electoral roll…………”
2. “………….Court could not compel the Election Commission (EC) to respond to the queries of the MP as there was no provision in the Act for it to do so.”
3. “Section 9A states: “After an electoral roll has been certified or re-certified, as the case may be, and notice of the certification or re-certification has been published in the Gazette as prescribed by regulations made under this Act, the electoral roll shall be deemed to be final and binding and shall not be questioned or appealed against in, or reviewed, quashed or set aside by, any court.”
Power of the judiciary was ousted. The administrator (i.e. SPR) has unfettered power in relation to electoral roll. No one has power to review whether SPR perform its job. Fraud, defects and mistakes committed by SPR are not rectifiable. Do you still call this a free and fair election?
The case you cited was heard before the general election.
An election petition is filed post-GE results and deals or looks into the constituency specific to the petitioner. So why not bring the matter of the disputed electoral roll before the court then?
Helen,
You have yet to reply to my comment dated “June 22, 2015 at 8:42 pm”.
2nd reminder:
Helen,
You have yet to reply to my comment dated “June 22, 2015 at 8:42 pm”.
I do not see that there is anything to be replied to. What is it that you’re “second reminding“ me to respond? Why don’t you read all the links first.
Your comment below reproduced below:
“Good that you have given so many links. I will reply just one due to time constraint.
1. Refer to your link:
http://ww1.utusan.com.my/utusan/info.asp?y=2011&dt=0614&pub=Utusan_Malaysia&sec=Rencana&pg=re_01.htm
2. Specific reference to the para below:
Antaranya tentang desakan supaya dibersihkan senarai Daftar Pemilih sedangkan senarai pengundi berdaftar dibersihkan SPR sepanjang masa.
3. No doubt the above is the responsibility of SPR. Is there a proper check and balance mechanism to rectify any incidence of inaccuracy (whether by fraud or unintentional)?
4. Refer below:
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2013/03/29/court-turns-a-blind-eye-to-justice/
5. Specific reference to the para below:
…………….. Judge Vernon Ong said that the Court was bound by Section 9A of the Elections Act 1958 and cannot review a gazetted electoral roll ……………….
6. This relates to the 1st demand of Bersih i.e. “Clean the electoral roll”. SPR claimed to be doing it. Question here is if a person (voter, politician etc) notices irregularities in the electoral roll, he has no avenue to redress it. He may complain to SPR. SPR can choose not to rectify such irregularity. He could not drag the issue to court as explained in no. 5 above. As such, phantom voters continue to exist in the roll.
7. SPR may be doing its job of cleaning the roll. But its function is limited and lack credibility as it is not open to review by the judiciary. No matter how genuine SPR cleans the roll, it is pointless if there is no legal redress in court whereby the public can scrutinize the roll. Bersih wants real reform, i.e. not in the SPR per se but also in the powers of judiciary, parliament etc.
8. Read more here:
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/wan-ahmad-and-the-election-commissions-electoral-charade#sthash.nU2xsBK6.dpbs
bnm is spinning the facts. you are not sensitive to the sentiments of others. it is a majority muslim country. why do you want it sooo big, without the occupants. it does not suit any purpose other than known to yourselves.
Pls tell us how to measure sensitivity. We are indeed a Muslim majority country. Does that mean anything that is unislamic such as church cannot be built in any part of Msia? What is the point of having freedom of religion then?
40-50 people?????? it does not matter. you want the whole nation to go there, like the herds that gather during bershit?
50 pendemo Taman Medan tu orang Taman Medan mereka ada hak untuk nyatakan ketidakpuasan hati mereka dengan gereja haram Taman Medan yang nak display salib besar merah tanpa permit.
Kalau penduduk kawasan lain boleh protes pasla durian stall atau bangunan komersil yang bakal dibina, Taman Medan folks berhak menyatakan bantahan terhadap salib tanpa permit yang nak diletakkan oleh sebuah gereja haram!
re: You have yet to provide us with any quote – within quotation marks – of what you’ve imputed to him as saying.
Links:
1. http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/election-commission-chairperson-admits-failure-of-indelible-ink#sthash.7lG2OPhd.dpbs
“If people ask me now, what is the saddest thing in my life, I would answer: ‘Indelible ink’,” said Abdul Aziz during an interview with Malay daily, Sinar Harian.”
Why feel ‘sad’ if the ink is not a failure? He should feel happy if the ink is a success.
2. http://www.theborneopost.com/2013/05/22/election-commission-sets-up-team-to-probe-indelible-ink-issue/
“The Election Commission (EC) yesterday set up a special team to find out why the indelible ink used to mark voters in the 13th general election could be easily removed, said EC chairman Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof.”
Why bother to set up special team to find out the reasons of the ink being “easily removed” if the ink is indeed indelible?
3. http://english.astroawani.com/election-news/ec-officials-failed-comply-proper-use-indelible-ink-13227
“The Election Commission (EC) believes the allegation about the indelible ink used during the early voting process yesterday, which can be rubbed off easily was because some of its officials failed to comply with the proper procedure on how to use it.”
Isn’t this an admission of failure to use the ink properly?
4. http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/ec-insists-indelible-ink-contained-silver-nitrate-not-just-food-dye
“EC chairman Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof had admitted recently that the indelible ink was a “failure”, as he expressed disappointment with widespread reports of the ink being washed off easily with as little as soap and water in the 13th general election.”
Why admit failure? Should have denied all the reports and reiterate the ink was a success.
5. http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/ec-deputy-denies-link-to-indelible-ink-supplier
“Wan Ahmad has explained that the election ink failed to stick for a week because the level of silver nitrate — needed to give the ink its permanence — had been kept at just one per cent following the Health Ministry’s recommendations and to meet halal requirements for Muslims.”
Isn’t this an admission of “failed to stick for a week”?
My links are all Internet news. Why not you also reproduce Internet sources to show that the ink is not a ‘failure’ but a ‘success’?
re: “(TMI) If people ask me now, what is the saddest thing in my life, I would answer: ‘Indelible ink’,” said Abdul Aziz during an interview with Malay daily, Sinar Harian.”
Aiyoh, why don’t you read the source article? Tajuk – ‘Dakwat kekal: Berduka DALAM KEBENARAN‘
http://www.sinarharian.com.my/wawancara/dakwat-kekal-berduka-dalam-kebenaran-1.172130
re: “Why feel ‘sad’ if the ink is not a failure? He should feel happy if the ink is a success.”
He said he felt sad “dengan kisah dakwat kekal”, i.e. with THE STORIES created by the opposition about the ink in order to badmouth the EC.
re: “Why bother to set up special team to find out the reasons of the ink being ‘easily removed’ if the ink is indeed indelible?”
Why are you splitting hairs over semantics? What if I said we should set up a special team to find out the reasons of BNM being ‘EASILY conned’ by opposition propaganda?
(1) The truth could be that you’re not conned at all and the investigation by the special team will exonerate you.
(2) Tagging tjust he qualifier ‘easily’ around the act of being ‘conned’ is the parameter set to put you in a spot. The question to be investigated could easily be – To what degree is BNM culpable to being persuaded by opposition propaganda?
The crux of the matter is to find out how much of the ink can be removed. The angling of the story is the way the news providers choose to frame the issue. If the EC is willing to investigate the complaint, then good on them. Even when they oblige, they are bashed.
re: “Isn’t this an admission of failure to use the ink properly?”
Aiyoh. The EC said its officers didn’t shake the bottle. I dunno about indelible ink but if we’re talking about a bottle of cordial, the contents should be shaken if the sediment has sunk to the bottom.
re: “Why admit failure? Should have denied all the reports and reiterate the ink was a success.”
I’m not sure that he did admit failure or it was just words put into his mouth like several of the Cabinet ministers have been loudly complaining about wrt TMI‘s track record of fitnah.
(Side note: Plus a clear-cut case of doctoring was TMI‘s use of a picture showing PAS protesters carrying a banner that said “Undur Hadi” when the real wording was “Undur Rosmah”. And yes it was deliberate manipulation as TMI apologized after the then PAS information chief Mahfuz Omar complained.)
So if the oppo portals are capable of Photoshopping demo placards to put words that were not there, I wouldn’t put it past them to spin the EC chairman’s words to translate into admitting “failure”.
Furthermore the EC is more impartial than the taksub giler Chinese tsunami flers who truly believed that they could have taken Putrajaya in GE13, and the EC is willing to investigate the issue.
To be precise, here are his words:
re: “Wan Ahmad has explained that the election ink failed to stick for a week because the level of silver nitrate — needed to give the ink its permanence — had been kept at just one per cent following the Health Ministry’s recommendations and to meet halal requirements for Muslims.” / Isn’t this an admission of “failed to stick for a week”?
As long as it can stick for a little less than a day, isn’t it good enough? I’m not excusing the ink for performing at less than optimal level but the opposition is merely exaggerating its impact. Can they produce any evidence of ‘phantoms’ who had tried to vote for a second time and seen with traces of ink in their celah kuku?
re: “My links are all Internet news. Why not you also reproduce Internet sources to show that the ink is not a ‘failure’ but a ‘success’?”
Why should I be coerced into playing your game? You’re the one who asserted that the ink is a failure so the onus is on you too prove your assertion.
I’ve never asserted that the ink was a “success”. I said all these accusations are part of the oppo modus operandi in the battle of perception like ‘blackout’ and 40,000 Bangladeshis.
And in the second place, it is not me who introduced the topic of indelible ink which you’ve popped out like a rabbit from a magician’s hat. Dan itupun saya masih layan.
The title of this post, if you’ll note, is about the Biro Tata Negara and not about the Suruhanjaya Pilihanraya.
Now imagine if I posted about about topic A, and then you drag in a totally unrelated topic B and demand that I must do do Net research to produce links to Internet sources to a thread that YOU INTRODUCE from out of the blue, and even then the engagment in the thread is because I answer your query after you harass me with REMINDER 1 and REMINDER 2 to respond to you.
Then you rinse and repeat when I blog about topic C and you drag in topic D to distract me and take up my time, and burden me with disproving YOUR assertions and allegations on issues that I’m not discussing in my post proper.
You’re displaying the tactics of a DAP Super CyberBully.
Yes. I did brought up a different topic under this post. Nobody ask you to reply (especially in a lengthy manner). In fact, you can even choose not to publish my comments. This is your blog after all. Even if you want to reply, you can put in minimal effort and need not ‘stress’ yourself.
I maybe a Super Cyberbully. But can I come from PKR but not DAP? Or even PAS? I can understand if you allege “Super Cyberbully”. But how do you know whether I am from DAP or otherwise?
re: “Nobody ask you to reply (especially in a lengthy manner).”
When I don’t reply, then you will harass me as below by issuing “reminders” @ 2015/06/24 at 11:12 pm.
re: “In fact, you can even choose not to publish my comments.”
Refusing to publish comments is what the DAP people like Hannah Yeoh do (she has blocked scores of Twitter users from her time line). Pro-establishment people, on the other hand, are democratic and allow challenges, criticisms and even personal abused.
re: “This is your blog after all. Even if you want to reply, you can put in minimal effort and need not ‘stress’ yourself.”
Again this is the difference between pro-DAP and pro-BN people.
You know that I’ve never withheld even one of your comments nor censored a single word. Despite that you get on my nerves sometimes, I acknowledge that your comments are usually valid and have stayed within boundaries and as such, I will take the effort to reply (you know this also).
re: “I maybe a Super Cyberbully.”
Oh yeah! Most certainly.
re: “But can I come from PKR but not DAP? Or even PAS? I can understand if you allege “Super Cyberbully”. But how do you know whether I am from DAP or otherwise?”
Okay, I take it back.
“DAP Super CyberBully” is a phrase coined by MCA Beliawanis treasurer Jessica Lai way back before I started this blog and one which I’ve borrowed often. I really have no way of knowing that you’re DAP. I just repeated the phrase in toto from sheer force of habit.
‘ I can understand if you allege “Super Cyberbully”. But how do you know whether I am from DAP or otherwise?’
BNM,
‘DAP because they work hard’
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/pas-man-quits-party-for-dap-says-more-opportunities-to-shine-there
‘I think the non-Muslims should be allowed to build their houses of worship, and churches ought to be permitted to openly display their cross on the building.’
Helen, itu Taman Medan church takdak lesen wor? Itu cross tak apply permit wor?
As a general principle, let them display their cross openly. The symbol is what marks out their building as a church.
Senang lor itu macam buat bisness RM2 church. Buka mana-mana tak payah lesen punya. Mahu display apa-apa pun tak payah lesen wor. Kebal undang-undang maa. Lagi boleh kutip derma juta-juta. Manyak untung lor ini macam!
Itu church kena ada lesen meh? Eli Wong sudah kata tak payah lesen. Cukup hanya bagi notis kat PBT. Sampai ini hari, church masih buka. Tak kan pbt dan polis tak ambil action kalau itu church langgar undang2?
Cross display kena mau permit meh?
‘Eli Wong sudah kata tak payah lesen.’
BNM baca ni
*CLJ condemns the statement of Elizabeth Wong in this regard as it misleads the public, particularly in relation to the contents of Article 11 of our Constitution. CLJ would like to remind Elizabeth Wong that as an elected officer of the state, she is duty bound to uphold the rule of law, in particular the Federal Constitution and must not misrepresent the same. Even a cursory glance of Article 11 would reveal that freedom of worship and the right of religious organisations to own and manage any place of worship is not absolute but must be done in line with the law. Article 11(3)(c) in particular states that every religious group has the right to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with law.
CLJ would also like to bring to the attention of Elizabeth Wong the applicable law in this regard, namely Subsection 70(12) of the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 which reads as follows:-
“Any person who uses any building or part of a building for a purpose other than which it was originally constructed for without the prior written permission from the local authority shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand ringgit and shall also be liable to a further fine not exceeding five hundred ringgit for every day during which the offence is continued after a notice to cease using for other purpose has been served on such person.”
http://concernedlawyers.org/2015/04/26/press-statement-elizabeth-wong-and-selangor-state-committee-on-non-islamic-affairs-are-wrong/
* Secara umumnya, di bawah S.109 Kanun Tanah Negara mensyaratkan, sesuatu bangunan yang ingin didirikan di atas sesuatu tanah itu mestilah mematuhi syarat-syarat nyata dan syarat-syarat kegunaan tanah yang ditetapkan dalam suratan hak milik tanah tersebut.
Sekiranya ia disyaratkan untuk kegunaan Bangunan Komersial misalnya, maka ia hanya boleh digunakan untuk tujuan komersial sahaja seperti untuk digunakan sebagai kedai atau pasar raya dan sebagainya.
Sekiranya ia digunakan untuk tujuan selain daripada bangunan komersial, maka ia boleh dianggap menyalahi syarat-syarat nyata dan syarat-syarat kegunaan tanah sebagaimana yang ditetapkan dalam Kanun Tanah Negara dan kesannya, Pihak Berkuasa Negeri berhak untuk “merampas” tanah tersebut di bawah S.127 hingga S.131 kanun yang sama.
Maka, berdasarkan peruntukan tersebut, jelas difahami , mana-mana bangunan komersial yang digunakan sebagai rumah ibadat bolehlah dianggap sebagai menyalahi syarat nyata dan syarat kegunaan tanah, justeru bertentangan dengan peruntukan Kanun Tanah Negara itu sendiri.
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/rencana/article/isu-gereja-taman-medan-dari-sudut-perundangan-salkukhairi-abd-sukor#sthash.19OpvLkK.dpbs
*Pengamal Undang-undang, Aidil Khalid menempelak Pengerusi Christians for Peace and Harmony Malaysia (CPHM), Wong Kim Kong apabila mendakwa penganut Kristian, Hindu dan Budha di Malaysia boleh membina rumah ibadat mereka di mana-mana, termasuklah membuka gereja di lot kedai.
Menafikan perkara itu tegas Aidil, kenyataan yang dibuat Wong sama sekali tidak benar. Mereka perlu mendapatkan izin bertulis terlebih dahulu.
“Sesuatu bangunan itu hanya boleh digunakan untuk tujuan yang telah ditetapkan ketika dibina. Bererti bangunan yang dibina sebagai lot komersial hanya boleh digunakan untuk tujuan komersial, dan tidak boleh ditukar menjadi gereja.
“Hal ini seperti yang diperuntukkan dengan jelas dalam seksyen 70(12) Akta Jalan, Parit dan Bangunan 1974 (Akta 133).
http://www.ismaweb.net/2015/06/tidak-boleh-bina-gereja-sesuka-hati/
‘Sampai ini hari, church masih buka. Tak kan pbt dan polis tak ambil action kalau itu church langgar undang2?’
Saya pun HAIRAN??! Mungkin ini kut??
…Kristian Dilayan Istimewa
http://www.bangkit.info/2015/06/peguam-jill-ireland-mahu-kristian.html
‘Cross display kena mau permit meh?’
Yes. Ingat UMNO punya logo kat Penang???
‘“Shoplots that are converted into places of worship or meditation centres must comply to Act 133 Section 70(12) and a written application with the activities described must be submitted for approval. We need these compliance as to ensure safety of the people using the building,” she said.
She added that all places of worship intending to display a logo or symbol on the building must comply with the council’s permit.
“Be it a lotus, trident or a cross, a council permit is needed,” said Zainun.
http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2015/04/21/Cross-protest-Taman-Medan-no-licence/
‘Papan tanda: Semua parti kena patuh undang-undang’
http://www.sinarharian.com.my/politik/papan-tanda-semua-parti-kena-patuh-undang-undang-1.403309
Harap BNM boleh lebih jelas akan isu ini. Hoh?!
re: Subsection 70(12) of the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 & Kanun Tanah Negara
You are right to cite the law. But bear in mind these are Acts of Parliament. The licensing, permit etc of buildings are under the jurisdiction of local authorities. The Acts provide for general law, i.e. building must be used as designated. However, the implementation is at local authorities. Different authorities may have different rules. MBSA may require written approval. MBPJ may waive such requirement and needs notification only. I admit I do not have the fine prints of MBPJ regulations for building and operating church. I rely on the statement of Eli Wong as below:
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2015/04/22/selangor-govt-advises-church-to-restore-its-cross/
“She described the statement on Tuesday by the Public Relations Officer of MBPJ, as reported in The Star, that Churches in office blocks needed to apply for permits as inaccurate. “There was no such policy put forward by the state committee HESI. A notification to HESI committee suffices. If any local council has any issues or questions, they are to refer back to the HESI committee.”
Eli Wong corrected the statement made by MBPJ public relations officer Zainun Zakaria as stated in the link below:
http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2015/04/21/Cross-protest-Taman-Medan-no-licence/
Between the 2, who should prevail? I say Eli Wong as she is the Exco. Zainun is her subordinate. As for the statement by lawyer group CLJ, they are right to cite the laws at federal level. But they didn’t delve deeper into the actual regulation at local authority level.
‘Between the 2, who should prevail? I say Eli Wong as she is the Exco. Zainun is her subordinate.’
Going by this logic, Exco boleh pijak mana-mana undang-undang wor? In the case of Eli Wong and HESI, existing PBT laws as clarified by Zainun Zakaria of MBPJ and the hell with public safety wor??
Exco kuasa lagi tinggi daripada undang-undang lor itu macam!
The slide with the remarks about the church is part of the argument under the subtitle “ADAKAH MALAYSIA NEGARA RASIS?”
The slides are available in upload sites, if you have not seen them, here is a cached copy from google, minus the graphics. The slide in question is near the end. No mention of temples or gurdwaras…
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Zc5vELV4A0sJ:www.btn.gov.my/files/PerkongsianDokumen/Penerbitan/isu_semasa/RASIS.pdf+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk
In the cache link you gave – “Bangsa terpilih- Yahudi, Cina …”.
Huh? In what context?
I am not sure, I think the author meant that one of the negative items that led to racism is the idea of a chosen race…
However, scroll to page 12, you will see the “9.1 % Kristian , dibenar bina kompleks gereja yang besar” remark.
Oh I see.
With the Chinese, BTN highlights the existence of SRJK (C) and with Christians, it’s their mega churches.
Well, I suppose I must be thankful that Buddhist temples are not mammoth and in general not ostentatious.
When the game the play, is getting ABSURD everytime…
The answer should be plain and straight forwards , “this is my house ,it’s goes by my rule ” . wait till LKS and DAP become the government ,then it’s goes by theirs .
Masuk Askar liat
Masuk Polis talak suka
Masuk Bomba takut kena api
Anak2 masuk PLKN 3bulan pun mengelabah
BTN pun kalut takmau juga
GST 6% pun banyak bising
Tibet sana ada Shangrila.
Sana pigi duduk boleh buat apa lu suka.
“”””bnm is spinning the facts. you are not sensitive to the sentiments of others”””
Talking about being not being sensitive, please remember the Hindu Temple and the cow head protest in Shah Alam .Not much of sensitivity shown there towards the hindus.If they were against the temple so be it , find ways to resolve the issue through the right channels.
What point do you want prove about bringing the cow head into the issue.
And you dare say “you are not sensitive to the sentiments of others”
Oh and by the way wawe no spinning of facts about this issue.
Just the plain truth !!!
My guess Kasturi is probably having issues with some of these slides:-
(1) Rasis
(2) Perkembangan, Cabaran Politik Semasa Dalam Negara
(3) Malaysia: Penguasaan Politik dan Persepsi
According to FMT, Kasturi’s complaint is on 6 particular slides with one titled “Racism” which I think is (1).
Almost at the end of that slides, it asked “Adakah Malaysia Negara Rasis?”
Then it continues to point out 4 points
“Kedudukan Negara Rasis”
(1) Ekonomi (note: something is missing in the index, probably a chart or graph)
(2) Pendidikan (note: SJKC 1293 , SJKT 523)
(3) Kebudayaan (Dasar Kebudayaan Kebangsaan, Pertubuhan kebudayaan dibenar ditubuh melalui ROS)
(4) Agama (9.1 % Kristian , dibenar bina kompleks gereja yang besar, note: this point is one of Kasturi’s complaints.)
Other than that, I don’t see any other mention about Christians, unless there’s some cache deleted.
Interestingly BTN pretty much removed all the pdf links, but there’s always Google cache. However the Google bots only index the text in the pdf into html formats, leaving out some of the elements like charts or graph, so you can’t see the slides in their original formats.
BTN also seems to do a lot of electoral results analysis (ie seats that were won marginally by either PR & BN)
What do you make of BTN’s “Bangsa terpilih- Yahudi, Cina …” ?
Iain Buchanan in his book Sang Nila Utama & The Lion Of Judah does mention that the evangelical Christians see the Chinese as the “Chosen” ones due to the Pacific Millennium, the position of China having the world’s biggest Christian population (by 2030) and carrying out missionary work with the most zeal in the footsteps of the South Koreans.
I take the point to mean that the Chinese has superiority complex? RPK highlighted a comment by one Chinese dude in one of his writings by cheekily commented that if “we had a Chinese instead of Najib Tun Razak as Finance Minister we would not have had any problems with issues such as 1MDB, PKFZ, Perwaja, MOIC etc..” Some of your readers like to refer to Singapore as success story compared to Malaysia (Singapore- lead by Chinese; Malaysia- lead by Malays).
As for the “chosen one” in the context of evangelical Christianity, I’ve no freaking idea here. I read Mr Buchannan’s book 2 weeks ago and found the book is too much loaded with names, characters and associations that I lost interest in reading it till the end.
Ekonomi – graphics showing Mkini’s table of 10 richest men in Malaysia
Pendidikan – shows photo of Chinese school entrance
Kebudayaan – photo of Indians girls in festive pose
Agama – photo of the big church
Yeah. Like I’ve been pointing out to the reader calling himself ‘BNM’, the Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist and Sikh temples don’t seem to get the goat of the Malay religious bureaucrats so much.
Postscript:
It’s the carpetbagging quality of the nouveau riche, like Hannah and the Lim family.
I was a product of BTN before I was shipped abroad.
I can confirm the entire BTN syllabus and material are factually and historically accurate. Only insecure delusional simpletons would call it racially divisive because they can’t accept the harsh reality.
Note, an insecure delusional simpleton could be of any colour.