Habeas Corpus is not dead

Definition: The writ of habeas corpus serves as an important check on the manner in which state courts pay respect to federal constitutional rights. The writ is "the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action."

Malaysian blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin, fondly known as RPK, was release last week after the Malaysian High court granted his habeas corpus application and ruled that the Home Ministry had acted outside of its powers.

But RPK trials are not over and his Sedition hearings continue today.

Nonetheless, the ruling was a victory for Malaysian society as a whole as it sends a strong message that the government does not hold absolute power. The ruling may also mark the beginnings of a successful movement to abolish the ISA once and for all. Such a move may have ripple effects on our shores.

Blogger Raja Petra freed
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Saturday/National/2396279/Article/index_html
By : Rita Jong
8 Nov

SHAH ALAM: The High Court yesterday ordered the immediate release of Raja Petra Kamarudin from his two-year detention under the Internal Security Act.

This followed the decision of judge Datuk Syed Ahmad Helmy Syed Ahmad to allow the Malaysia Today editor's habeas corpus application, which was filed on Sept 31.

Syed Ahmad held that the home minister had issued the order outside the scope of Section 8(1) of the Internal Security Act 1960.

He also allowed the application by Raja Petra's counsel, Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, to order that he (Raja Petra) be brought from the Kamunting detention centre to the Shah Alam court before 4pm for his release.

Syed Ahmad said he found there was no merit for the applicant's counsel to state that Section 8 was unconstitutional, as it fell within the ambit of Article 149 of the Federal Constitution.

(Article 149 allows action to be taken against anyone who threatens national security even if it violates his fundamental liberties.)

"But in issuing the order, the minister can only do so based on grounds provided under the ambit of the act. The minister cannot simply detain someone. He must be confined to the circumstances stated."

He said based on the grounds given by the minister for the detention, "I found that it did not fall within the scope of Section 8 (1) of the ISA."

On the grounds that the order was made in bad faith, he said that this was not a matter for review by the court as "mala fide is not procedural and non-compliant."

Raja Petra was arrested on Sept 12 as he was deemed a threat to national security and the order to detain him under the ISA was issued on Sept 22.

He was detained on the grounds that he:

- owns and operates the Malaysia Today website;

- intentionally and recklessly published his articles as well as readers' comments on Malaysia Today that were critical of and insulted Muslims, the purity of Islam and the personality of Prophet Muhammad; and,

- that he published his articles concerning national leaders that were defamatory and false with the intention of undermining confidence and inciting public hatred against the government, which could affect public order and prejudice national security.

In filing the habeas corpus application, Raja Petra named the home minister as the respondent.

Senior federal counsel Abdul Wahab Mohamad and Dusuki Mokhtar appeared on behalf of the minister. Malik Imtiaz was assisted by Azhar Azizan Harun, Ashok Kandiah, J. Chandra, Sreekant Pillai and H.K. Neoh.

After Syed Ahmad delivered his decision, Raja Petra's supporters clapped with joy, only to be ticked off by the judge who reminded them that they were in a court of law.

Raja Petra's wife, Marina Lee Abdullah, and their two daughters, Suraya and Sarah, were in tears.

Later, Marina said: "No words can describe how I am feeling right now. I am just glad everything went the way I hoped. This is fantastic."

Raja Petra arrived at the court in a white van, escorted by five warders, at 3.15pm to a hero's welcome.

When he got out of the van, the blogger, clad in a brown T-shirt and jeans and looking tired, gave the thumbs-up sign as some 100 supporters chanted "RPK! RPK!" He hugged and kissed his wife.

He was then led into the courtroom and Syed Ahmad ordered his release at 3.20pm.

After the court stood down, a supporter placed a garland on him.

"I am quite surprised that I am released.

"Not many people who challenged the ISA detention succeeded. So I didn't give it too much hope."

He added that the fight to abolish the ISA must continue.

Raja Petra had to jostle his way past some 50 photographers to get into a maroon-coloured Rolls Royce with Marina, before leaving the court compound at 3.35pm.

Changi Airport Corporatisation: from the hand that swipes the ass to the hand that digs the nose

It was recently announced that Changi Airport will be ‘corporatised’ by July next year in a bid to boost its status as a leading aviation hub. In this move, “a new company will undertake the operational functions of managing Singapore's airport, including its emergency services and investments in foreign airports.”

These functions are currently handled by entities that are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS). CAAS, the regulator of the aviation industry, is a statutory board under the Ministry of Transport.

In this ‘corporatisation’, we will see the creation of two entities – a regulator and an airport operations company.

Notice I keep using air quotes for the term corporatisation. I do this because this development seems more like governmental restructuring rather than corporatisation as is generally understood (the transfer of the running of state apparatuses to the private sector). I say this because:

a) This “new company” is in fact a segment of the business that has changed ownership from a statboard (CAAS) to a sovereign wealth fund (Temasek) whose sole shareholder is the Minister for Finance.

b) Soon, the company that manages the airport and invests in foreign airports will be fully owned by a company (Temasek) that is the parent company of Singapore Airlines.

c) The current chairman of CAAS (Mr Liew Mun Leong ) will move across to helm this “new company”.

d) Taking his place will at CAAS will be Mr Lee Hsien Yang (brother of our Prime Minister who recently stepped down from his post at Singtel). He is also the brother-in-law of Temasek head, Ho Ching, who now owns the company that has split from the regulator.

e) The Government assures all that these steps are not part of a cost-cutting measure. “Instead of lay-offs, the combined entities will be hiring more staff. Furthermore, one key reason for corporatisation is to allow the company greater flexibility in paying its top talents more.”

So all-in-all what really has changed?

The company was moved from the left to the right hand of the government. Perhaps there are more conflicts of interests now, not to mention nepotism rearing its ugly head again. Oh and of course, potentially million dollar salaries for these million dollar talents.

Can someone tell me how are these moves going to improve our status as a leading aviation hub?

In Memory of JBJ

~~

Great man don't come by often. And when they come, they often go too quickly.

He was the epitome of resilience and steadfastness. A titan of man whose return to the political fray brought such optimism, and whose passing leaves so much grieving.

Our prayers are with this family.

~~

Share your thoughts, give your tributes and post your messages on this Facebook group set up to honour the man who taught us tenacity, perseverance and compassion.

Join the “In Memory Of JB Jeyaretnam” group.

Lawyer by training, he was a former district judge and graduated from the University College London with Bachelor of Laws. He was widowed when his wife Margaret Cynthia Walker passed away in 1980, and has two sons of which the elder, Kenneth, is a successful hedge fund manager who has worked in London, Tokyo and Hong Kong and recently returned to Singapore and the younger, Phillip, is a Senior Counsel, former President of the Law Society Singapore and author of various novels.

New Media more than blogs

The Malaysian experience with politician entry into the New Media realm is somewhat echoed in the Singapore cyber-scape. Notwithstanding the fact that the Malaysian opposition's Internet strategy is far more robust than Singapore's, many of points brought up in this article, and others, are very relevent to your situation.

Thursday September 18, 2008
New Media more than blogs
Wikimedia
By OON YEOH

The Internet has become such a key component in the political battleground that any party which ignores its importance is likely to find itself handicapped.

RIGHT after the March general election, there was a sense of urgency amongst Barisan Nasional politicians to get aboard the New Media bandwagon.

There was talk of requiring current and aspiring MPs to set up their own blogs.

But harnessing the power of New Media takes more than just setting up blogs. It requires a sound understanding of how public opinion is shaped through online means and how political news and views are disseminated in cyberspace.

“The Barisan’s attitude towards bloggers, blogging and the blogosphere has been reactionary, erratic and inconsistent,” says political analyst Ong Kian Ming, who recently did a study comparing the use of New Media by Barisan and Pakatan Rakyat.

Barisan did get off on the right footing after the election, Ong notes. Information Minister Shabery Cheek declared that the Government would engage with bloggers and he even went as far as to invite some bloggers to appear on a TV interview show.

One of the first online personalities on this programme was none other than Raja Petra Kamarudin, whose website, Malaysia Today, was subsequently banned and then later reinstated.

Currently, he’s being detained under the dreaded ISA for stuff found on his website. “RPK’s case demonstrates the schizophrenic nature of the Barisan Government’s attitude towards bloggers,” says Ong.

Six months after the election, how much have the Barisan representatives responded to the call to set up their own blogs?

Not much, says Ong who found that of the 85 Barisan MPs in Peninsular Malaysia, only 13 of them currently have their own blogs (15%).

In contrast, 59 out of the 79 Pakatan MPs from the peninsula (almost three quarters of them) have their own blogs.

Note that he did not include independent MP Ibrahim Ali in his survey as he is neither with Barisan nor Pakatan.

Nor did he include East Malaysian MPs in his survey because blogs are not so important there.

In the past, the Barisan could rely on the mainstream media not to report or under-report any offensive remarks that may have been made by a Barisan politician.

Now, it is likely that such remarks would be picked up by online news sites or observant bloggers. Once such news leaks into cyberspace, the fallout is instantaneous.

And the mainstream media, which has already been emboldened since the election, will pick it up too. We’ve seen this phenomenon of blog scoops trickling into mainstream news happen in the United States and now it’s starting to happen here.

The Barisan is not used to playing the role of the underdog in the political sphere. But it is clearly outmanned and outgunned in cyberspace.

The number of independent blogs which can be categorised as anti-Barisan significantly outnumber the blogs which are supportive of the Barisan, says Ong, who adds: “It’s hard to name a single influential blogger who can be categorised as pro-Barisan.”

Barisan cannot overcome this disadvantage in cyberspace by throwing money at the problem. Even if it paid a whole army of bloggers to set up pro-Barisan blogs, it wouldn’t work as their credibility would be suspect straight away.

Mercenary bloggers just can’t match the passion of the ones who do it as a labour of love, who do it as a matter of personal commitment.

This is not to say that New Media is a lost cause for the Barisan. Even if it can’t get the blogosphere to support it immediately, it can set a good example by having its MPs and senior leaders maintain good websites or blogs.

They can start by emulating DAP stalwart Lim Kit Siang who began embracing the Internet in the mid-90s.

He even bothered to learn HTML just so his party could have its own website and was one of the key drivers in continuously upgrading the party website, publishing the press statements and also encouraging its MPs to start blogs of their own.

Anwar Ibrahim’s website is very comprehensive and it has sections where one can make financial contributions, request Anwar to speak at events and view his past speeches and op-eds.

He also has a blog which has his public schedule, YouTube videos, related news items as well as press releases.

Even Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has joined the blogosphere with over six million visits to date, a remarkable achievement by any standards.

In stark contrast, no senior Barisan leader can claim to have the same kind of Internet presence or traffic.

The most vilified person in the Malaysian blogosphere, Khairy Jamaluddin, does have his own website and it includes a blog.

It will take more than having his own online presence to counter all the negative postings about him but Khairy did garner some attention recently when he criticised the MCMC’s decision to block access to RPK’s website.

Perhaps other Barisan MPs can follow his lead and be willing to express their views frankly and openly through blogs.

The online advantage that Pakatan enjoys does not guarantee them electoral success.

There is no replacing the ‘offline’ activities that are part and parcel of what political parties and politicians need to do – the constituency servicing, the face-to-face meetings, the ceramahs, and so on, says Ong.

“But the Internet has become such a key component of the political battleground that any party that ignores its importance is likely to find itself handicapped,” he adds.

Reporters without Borders on Gopalan's Sentence

Blogger Gopalan Nair gets three months in prison for insulting judge

Reporters Without Borders condemns the three-month prison sentence which a Singapore court imposed yesterday on blogger Gopalan Nair for insulting a high court judge in a blog entry. A Singaporean lawyer who became a US citizen in 2005, Nair plans to file an appeal on 20 September, the day he is due to begin serving his prison sentence.

“This sentence is disproportionate,” Reporters Without Borders said. “Nair was given the severest sentence possible under the criminal code for insult. We urge the judicial authorities to be reasonable and to reverse this decision to send a blogger to prison.”

Nair’s trial under article 228 of the criminal code began on 10 September. He defended himself.

During the first hearing, Nair denied allegations that he had sent emails to Belinda Ang, the high court judge he was accused of insulting, and to another judge. “What I wrote on my blog is addressed to the whole world,” he said. He also accused the police of taking his notebook containing the password to his email account and blog.

Nair, 58, was arrested in Singapore on 31 May under article 13 (d) of the Miscellaneous offences Act) and was charged four days later with “sedition” (http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/) for criticising Ang and another judge, Lai Siew Chiu, for their handling of a defamation case that resulted in Chee Soon Juan, the head of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party, spending 12 days in prison (and his sister, Siok Chin, spending 10 days in prison).

Nair was freed on bail on 5 June pending trial. His blog is still accessible in Singapore.

How Good News Becomes Bad Press

A recent Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) survey has place Singapore as having one fo the best judicial systems in Asia; only second to Hongkong.

If only we could say the same about our press.

This is the article as found in the CNA website.

HK, Singapore voted having best judicial systems in Asia
Posted: 15 September 2008 0334 hrs

SINGAPORE: Regional financial centres Hong Kong and Singapore have the best judicial systems in Asia, with Indonesia and Vietnam the worst, a survey of expatriate business executives showed.

The judiciary "is one of Indonesia's weakest and most controversial institutions, and many consider the poor enforcement of laws to be the country's number one problem," said the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC).

Some court rulings in Indonesia have been "so controversial that they have seriously hurt confidence of foreign companies," said PERC, without giving specific examples.

In the PERC survey, Hong Kong's judicial system topped the vote with a score of 1.45 on a scale that has zero representing the best performance and 10 the worst.

Regional rival Singapore was in second place with a grade of 1.92, followed by Japan (3.50), South Korea (4.62), Taiwan (4.93) and the Philippines (6.10).

Malaysia was in seventh place with a grade of 6.47, followed by India (6.50), Thailand (7.00) and China (7.25). Indonesia got the worst score of 8.26 after Vietnam's 8.10.

The Hong Kong-based consultancy said 1,537 corporate executives working in Asia were asked to rate the judicial systems in the countries where they reside, using such variables as the protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) and corruption.

Transparency, enforcement of laws, freedom from political interference and the experience and educational standards of lawyers and judges were also considered.

"Year after year our perception surveys show a close correlation between how expatriates rate judicial systems and how they rate the openness of a particular economy," PERC said.

"Better judicial systems are associated with better IPR protection, lower corruption and wealthier economies."

The less favourable perception of China's and Vietnam's judicial systems are rooted in political interference, PERC said, adding that the Communist Party "is above the law in both countries."

Despite India and the Philippines being democracies, expatriates did not look favourably on their judicial systems because of corruption, PERC added.

Malaysia's judicial system has suffered a "serious reputation damage due to political interference", while expatriates in Thailand "have serious doubts" that moves to expand the judiciary's powers will be good for the country, it said.

PERC noted the survey involved expatriate business executives, not political activists, so criteria like contracts and IPR protection were given more weightage. - AFP/de

Now these are the closing paragraphs that was conveniently left out by CNA.

"This bias is possibly most obvious in Singapore," it said, noting that the city-state's top rating in the survey is not shared by political activists, who have criticised the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) for using the judiciary to silence critics.

"In Singapore, the general perception of expatriates is that local politics has not compromised the way commercial and criminal law is conducted," PERC said.

Source: http://asia.news.yahoo.com/080914/afp/080914181252business.html

There you go. In terms of business protection and fostering a stable business environment, we are top notch. And in the view of big business, as long as the impartial dispense of justice vis-a-vis political opponents is concerned, they don't really care as long as it does not effect their business.

No wonder the PAP always repeats the point that the economy will crumble when they go. Blaaa

For another point of view on Singpaore's judiciary and press freedoms, you can download the report by the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI).

P.s. At least I’m glad to say that the Today paper has far more editorial integrity than their big brother press. The above closing paragraphs were included in their website.

Two Hats, Same Story

Why WP didn't get permit for event
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_276601.html

I REFER to last Thursday’s letter by Mr Tan Ghee Gay, ‘Why ‘no’ and ‘yes’?', regarding police decisions with respect to the Workers’ Party’s (WP) proposed mass cycling event last year, and the carnival on Aug 31.

Police do not issue permits for outdoor political events in public places due to the potential for disorder and unruly behaviour. This applies to events organised by all political parties. For this reason, police rejected WP’s application to hold a mass cycling activity in East Coast Park, to commemorate its 50th anniversary in September last year.

The event on Aug 31 was very different. The permit was issued after taking into account the organiser and the nature of the event. It was organised by the PAP Community Foundation, which is a registered charity and not a political party. The event was not assessed to have the potential for disorder and unruly behaviour. It was a carnival that involved children and families from various kindergartens and educational institutions. The Prime Minister, as guest of honour, and a few other guests, made their entrance by cycling a short distance. During the event, a sum of $664,000 (which had been raised earlier) was distributed to 17 charities, including Beyond Social Services, Children’s Aid Society and Chung Hwa Medical Institution.

DSP Paul Tay
Assistant Director (Media Relations)
Singapore Police Force

This latest public relations announcement is frustrating to read.

In essence, the response is that events organized by political parties will promote disorder and attract unruly behaviour, therefore all such events will be denied permits. This is an excuse we are now all familiar with.

Our instinctual response then would be to wonder why PAP events get special concession. Reason is, since the PAP is the incumbent government, all their outdoor activities, no matter how obviously party-related, are rewarded permits on the basis that they are wearing their ‘government hat’ and not their ‘party hat’. Or better yet, they are merely invited guests to ‘non-political’ outdoor events.

I understand the rationale for taking into account the organisers’ antecedence when considering permits. Groups (political parties, NGOs, charities… etc) known to be rowdy or aggressive in their campaigning should rightly have their subsequent requests for permits rejected. But to issue a blanket ban on political groups from organizing outdoor events (other than rallies during election time), is absolutely ridiculous.

Does that mean opposition parties (who apparently have only one hat – the ‘trouble-maker hat’) have no chance of organising outdoor events beyond the confines of the ‘yellow-boxed’ Speakers’ Corner?

One Country, Two Hats, Two systems indeed.

P.s
Let us not forget:

Banned National Day Pink Picnic
Banned Indignation Pink Run
Disrupted Tak Boleh Tahan protest
Approved 5000 strong Case Consumer Rights Day protest march on 16 March 2008.
Approved Expatriate Women gathering for Myanmar