Democracy or democrazy?

Cyber assault: Chua Lai Fatt’s MyKad as posted and circulated on Facebook.

The Sunday Star

by Roger Tan

Democracy is about accepting finality through the ballot box and due process of law.

IN the 2000 United States presidential election, despite Al Gore having won the popular vote, he did not get to become President.

He received 266 votes and George W. Bush obtained 271 at the Electoral College due mainly to the vote recount fiasco in the state of Florida. The matter went all the way up to the US Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 in favour of Bush. This was by far one of the most divisive and controversial US presidential elections, so much so that Bush was described as the President elected by the US Supreme Court.

Even though Gore strongly disagreed with the apex court’s decision, he was nevertheless gracious in defeat. Indeed, it took a big man like him to admit defeat. I remembered his concession speech almost moved me to tears.

Gore said: “Almost a century and a half ago, senator Stephen Douglas told Abraham Lincoln, who had just defeated him for the presidency, ‘Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism. I’m with you, Mr President, and God bless you.’ Well, in that same spirit, I say to president-elect Bush that what remains of partisan rancour must now be put aside, and may God bless his stewardship of this country. Now the US supreme court has spoken. Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court’s decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome ... And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession. I know that many of my supporters are disappointed. I am too. But our disappointment must be overcome by our love of country.”

This is what democracy is all about – accepting finality through the ballot box and due process of law.

Alas, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim refused to do so. He has vowed to move on with a “fierce movement” by holding protest rallies throughout Malaysia to challenge the 13th general election results. This is not democracy. If I may coin a new word for the Oxford’s English dictionary, it is democrazy!

If we want to indulge in an orgy of rhetorics that Barisan Nasional won by massive fraud, then I say Pakatan must have won by massive lies spread over the social media such as that:

> 40,000 foreigners were flown in from east Malaysia to vote in the peninsula;

> a bomb planted by Barisan supporters had exploded at the Johor Baru immigration terminal in order to frighten Malaysians working in Singapore from coming home to vote;

> new ballot boxes were added or exchanged when there was a blackout in Bentong in order to enable Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai to win.

GE13: Do not politicise the pulpit

The Sunday Star

by Roger Tan

 

When spiritual leaders start to use the church to make fun of the government or endorse a particular political party or candidate, this is wrong.

ON April 15, Roman Catholic Bishop Dr Paul Tan Chee Ing lambasted the government for holding the 13th general election on a Sunday. Tan warned, as reported in a Malaysiakini article, “Bishop says Sunday ballot a bane to Christians”, that for this reason, he would urge Catholics in his diocese to consider carefully before voting.

It is surprising that this Bishop of the Diocese of Malacca-Johor who was also someone who had helped found the Catholic Research Centre could have got his facts so wrong. In this respect, I could not have agreed more with Austin Gonzales’ response to Tan’s unwarranted outbursts (see “Is Bishop Paul Tan being insensitive and callous?”, The Star, April 18) except to reiterate that, firstly, it is not the government but the Election Commission that fixed the election date. Secondly, the 7th, 8th and 11th general elections were all held on a Sunday – Aug 3, 1986, Oct 21, 1990, and March 21, 2004.

If Tan feels so strongly that Catholics in his diocese should not be inconvenienced on a Sunday because it is a holy day, then all the more he should urge them to consider carefully before voting for PAS as the weekly holiday may well be changed to a Friday should they come into power!

I am sure Tan’s sentiments are not shared by many Christian Malaysians. In fact, I am rather concerned that lately the pulpit has been misused for political purposes. Just last Sunday, one woman pastor in an established Kuala Lumpur church purportedly said over the pulpit without any substantiating evidence that thousands of foreigners would be voting in this election.

In the Facebook Group of the Anglican Diocese of West Malaysia, someone was even allowed to post that Sunday had been chosen in order to enable phantom votes to take place in the morning when Christians are worshipping in church! This is indeed a colossal exaggeration. There was also another posting there heaping praise on PAS for fielding Hu Pang Chow, a Christian, in this coming election.

To my mind, what Tan and the woman pastor did was to sow hatred and make their believers angry. They have obviously forgotten the Prayer of St Francis of Assisi to become instruments of peace so that where there is hatred, may they sow love, and where there is injury, pardon.

Tan, in particular, should be reminded by what Pope Francis said recently that hypocrisy has undermined the church’s credibility. In the pontiff’s words: “Inconsistency on the part of pastors and the faithful between what they say and what they do, between word and manner of life, is undermining the Church’s credibility … Those who listen to us and observe us must be able to see in our actions what they hear from our lips, and so give glory to God.”

GE13: Abiding by the nomination process

The Sunday Star

by Roger Tan

 

Vital step: File picture of the nomination for the Berapit state seat in 2008. If any nomination paper is rejected, the decision of the returning officer is final and shall not be called in question in any court.

The nomination process for the coming general election is bound by the Elections Regulations (1981) which have stringent rules.

COME this Saturday, at least a thousand candidates will present their nomination papers for the 13th general election. They will vie for the 191 parliamentary seats and 505 state seats in peninsular Malaysia and Sabah, and 31 parliamentary seats in Sarawak.

However, their nomination papers can be rejected by the returning officer if the candidates are not capable of or are disqualified from standing in the election or their nomination papers are not in compliance with the Elections (Conduct Of Elections) Regulations 1981 (ECER) made under the Elections Act, 1958.

Under Article 47 of the Constitution, a candidate must be a citizen of not less than 21 years old resident in Malaysia.

Article 48 then provides that he is disqualified if he:

> is of unsound mind; or

> is an undischarged bankrupt; or

> holds an office of profit; or

> has failed to lodge any return of election expenses unless this disqualification is removed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or five years have passed from the date on which the return was required to be lodged; or

> has been convicted of an offence by a court of law in Malaysia and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than one year or to a fine of not less than RM2,000 and has not received a free pardon unless this disqualification is removed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or five years have passed from the date on which the person convicted was released from custody or the date on which the fine mentioned was imposed on such person; or

> has voluntarily acquired citizenship of or exercised rights of citizenship in a foreign country or he has made a declaration of allegiance to any other country; or

> has resigned from the Dewan Rakyat less than five years ago.

Time to prosecute negligent parents

Responsible parenting: 
Hold on to your children to keep them safe.

The Sunday Star

by Roger Tan

It is incomprehensible why some parents and guardians continue to fail or refuse to appreciate the severity of their actions by causing children to eventually become victims of neglect.

LIKE many Malaysians, I was heartbroken to learn that the decomposed body found near the Kampung Sungai Sireh jetty in Port Klang on Jan 24 was that of the missing six-year-old William Yau Zhen Zhong.

William will now join the list of highly publicised cases of missing children who were either found dead subsequently or are still missing such as Ang May Hong (1987), Chai Sieu Chi (1995), Tin Song Sheng (1996), Nushuhada Burak (2000), S. Maniarasi (2001), Nurul Huda Abdul Ghani (2004), Haserawati Saridi (2004), Nurin Jazlin Jazimin (2007), Sharlinie Mohd Nasha (2008), Mohd Asmawi Jalaludin (2008), Harirawati Saridi (2009), Nisha Chandramohan (2010), Nurul Nadirah Abdullah (2012) and Satishkumar Tamilvanan (2012).

Personally, I can commiserate with William’s parents over their loss. In my case, my beloved father Tan Sue Yong, who disappeared in 2000, is still missing. The sorrow, grief and agony experienced by those who are left behind are simply indescribable.

It is sad really that despite our nation’s conscience being shaken each time a high profile case like William’s is highlighted, we continue to have reports of missing children.

According to the official portal of the Royal Malaysia Police (www.rmp.gov.my), 4,804 persons were reported missing between January and October last year. Of these, 2,332 have been found, but 2,472 persons are still missing. Of the 2,472 missing persons, 1,177 of them are children, that is, those aged below 18, and 896 of them are girls. This statistic is indeed alarming as it means an average of 16 people are reported missing daily nationwide!

Hence, if we, as a society, are to be judged by how we protect our children who form the most vulnerable component of it, then we may have failed miserably. This begs the question whether the majority of these cases could have been avoided if the person having care of the child had exercised due supervision and diligence.

Eulogy delivered by Roger Tan for the Revd Dr. George Hood at the Sunday Worship Service of Holy Light Church (English) on 20 January 2013

Members of this congregation, it gives me great honour and yet sadness to deliver a eulogy for the Revd Dr. George Hood who passed away peacefully in his sleep in the early hours of the morning of Wednesday, January the 9th at his home in Alnwick, Northumberland, England. According to his daughter, Catherine, George was normal the night before when she helped him to the bed. He was 95. 

This Church remembers him as the one instrumental in restarting this English Service on the evening of the first Sunday of August, being 3rd of August, 1952 after it had ceased shortly with the passing of Dato’ James Meldrum in 1904.

George was a veteran missionary and Church historian. Born on Friday, April 27, 1917, he graduated in history at Oxford and studied at Cambridge for the ministry of the Presbyterian Church of England (now known as the United Reformed Church). In 1943, he was ordained at Trinity Presbyterian Church, Newcastle to serve as a missionary. He first served at the English Presbyterian Mission in Lingdong Synod of the former Church of Christ in Shantou (or historically known as Swatow), China, between 1945 to 1950. This was also the area in which his wife, Elizabeth’s parents and grandparents had worked from 1869 onwards. Elizabeth passed away on October 7, 2010.

New beginning in strata management

Act for peace: An effective and efficient dispute resolution mechanism will help promote peace and good neighbourliness in stratified buildings.

The Sunday Star

by Roger Tan

With more and more people living in stratified buildings, the new Strata Management Act is timely in helping to reduce animosity among residents and owners during dispute resolutions.

LAST Sunday, I attended the annual general meeting (AGM) of the management corporation of an upmarket condominium as a proxy for my wife. Its last AGM was held in September last year.

This AGM was by far the most heated and disorderly since the management corporation was set up some six years ago. A fight almost broke out despite the presence of representatives of the Commissioner of Buildings (COB) and the police.

Let me now share with you my personal thoughts about the AGM, before examining whether the new Strata Management Act (SMA), when it comes into force, will help minimise and remove such animosity which appears to be rather prevalent and common among occupants living and undertaking business in stratified buildings.

In fact, trouble was already brewing before the AGM. In the AGM notice sent to owners of all the 170 parcel units, all the three outgoing 2011/2012 Council (CM2012) members – in their 30s (let’s call him CM1), 60s (CM2) and 70s (CM3) – jointly signed and attached a three-page letter containing allegations of impropriety against the previous Council (CM2011) members.

The CM2011 members, through their lawyers, demanded that their written explanatory response also be circulated to all the parcel owners before the AGM. This was refused.

Drama-charged

The situation was aggravated when CM2, the outgoing CM2012 chairman, used his welcoming speech, delivered in Mandarin, to reply to CM2011 members’ written explanatory response, which was also not circulated during the AGM. He also attempted to make more allegations of impropriety against CM2011 members until I intervened because the latter had not first been given any opportunity to be heard. Procedurally also, this should not have been done before first electing the chairman of the AGM.

I also observed that each time someone spoke up against any resolution proposed by CM2012, CM3 would shout and try to interrupt and intimidate the speaker. A fight almost ensued when some parcel owners confronted CM1 and CM3 during the break. They wanted to know why their parcel unit numbers had been displayed on the notice board as not having settled a one-time payment of RM400 for upgrading work, approved in the 2010 AGM. The parcel owners felt aggrieved that they had been publicly shamed, claiming and showing proof that at the time the notice was put up, CM1, CM2 and CM3 as Council members themselves had failed to pay maintenance charges for a few months, but their parcel unit numbers were not mentioned in the said notice. CM3 then raised his walking stick cum foldable chair, wanting to strike his fellow septuagenarian CM2011 member who questioned him until he was restrained by police and the former’s wife.

(Interestingly, I was informed by the COB that a fight virtually broke out before him during the extraordinary general meeting of a nearby condominium on Oct 28 when chairs were also thrown! Fortunately, goodwill prevailed when the injured decided not to press any criminal charges.)

It's time to end the death penalty

Anti-death penalty campaigners staging a demonstration in Los Angeles. Even in other countries, people are protesting against the death penalty. AFP pic

New Straits Times
By Datuk Sri Dr Muhammad Shafee Abdullah 

ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: Malaysia should rethink holistically and practically and take the lead and be the proponent in Asean countries to implement this.

THE death penalty is prescribed for several offences, ie murder and waging war against the King (offences under the Penal Code), kidnapping for ransom (an offence under The Kidnapping Act 1960 as opposed to simple kidnapping under the Penal Code), drug trafficking (offences under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and other related drug statutes), certain scheduled offences for activities in relation to possession of firearms and ammunition or explosives [offences under the Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971(FIPA)] and under the Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA) the latter of which was repealed recently.

Most of the death penalties are mandatory upon finding of guilt. This means the trial judge has no discretion in sentencing to consider a range of possible sentences such as life imprisonment or a prescribed jail sentence which could run up to the maximum sentence, being the death penalty, which of those is most suited to be handed down on a convicted person after considering the myriad circumstances in relation to the commission of the offence and/or the offender.

The Malaysian legislature used to entrust judges with this important discretionary function. For instance, we used to give this sort of discretion to the High Court judges in drug trafficking matters. But a previous attorney-general was frustrated with the fact that judges were opting to sentence certain drug trafficking convicted offenders to life imprisonment rather than mete out the death penalty.

Those judges had good reasons in most cases for opting out of the death penalty. In any case, if the judges were wrong there was always the appellate process which the prosecution could resort to press their point for the capital sentence.

But immaturity and myopic considerations seemed to have prevailed then. We have been stuck with this knee-jerk culture of our legislature, a legislature that is not well advised by the parliamentary draftsman and other relevant authorities. As a result amendments made were jaundiced and lack cohesion with the general scheme of the system.