Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Court clears 21, including DAP’s Pua and Catholic priest, in Bersih vigil case

This photo was taken on 9th November 2008 in Petaling Jaya Police District headquarters showing me after assaulted by police shortly after the incident.

Me posing with Father Paulino Miranda, a priest who was charged for participating in an illegal assembly on 9th November 2008.

Taken from Malaysia Insider.
UPDATED @ 03:09:25 PM 18-09-2012 By Nomy Nozwir September 18, 2012

PETALING JAYA, Sept 18 — Twenty-one people, including several opposition lawmakers and a Catholic priest, were acquitted by a Sessions Court today for taking part in a Bersih anniversary candlelight vigil held four years ago.

Sessions Court judge Hayatul Akmal ruled this morning that the prosecution had failed to prove a prima facie case against the individuals, who were earlier charged with participating in an “illegal assembly” under the now-repealed section 27 of the Police Act.

Speaking to reporters outside the courtroom here, lawyer and DAP MP Gobind Singh Deo urged the prosecution not to appeal the matter to a higher court.

“The prosecution clearly did not have strong evidence to prove that the organisers had committed any wrong. Therefore, I hope the Attorney-General’s Chambers will not appeal the matter.

“This is a great victory for us, particularly since this case has been going on for almost three years now,” said the Puchong MP.

The 21, including Catholic priest Rev Father Paulino Miranda, Petaling Jaya Utara MP Tony Pua, Selangor DAP state assemblymen Ronnie Liu (picture) and Lau Weng San, and Petaling Jaya city councillor Tiew Way Keng, were charged with taking part in an illegal assembly in front of the Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) building on October 9, 2008 between 9pm and 10.10pm.

They were accused of refusing a police order to disperse under section 27(5)(a) and section 27(4) of the Police Act 1967 which has since been amended and replaced with a new law allowing for peaceful public rallies.

All the 21 accused, whose ages ranged between 25 and 62, had earlier pleaded not guilty to the charges, which carry a maximum fine of up to RM10,000, and a maximum one-year jail term.

“In the first place, this is not even an offence. So I hope the AGC (Attorney-General’s Chambers) will accept the court’s decision and not appeal,” DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang told reporters today.

Pua, who is also the DAP’s publicity secretary, agreed, saying the vigil participants should not have even been detained as the event had not been violent.

Miranda had said he would rather go to jail than spend a single sen on a fine for his participation in the vigil. — File photo

“We merely gathered, sang ‘Negaraku’, and burned a candle to commemorate the occasion. We did not use violence.

“The Malaysian government should respect every individual’s constitutional right to freedom of assembly,” he said.

In June, Miranda, who is the parish priest of the Catholic church in Shah Alam, told The Malaysian Insider that he would rather go to jail than spend a single sen on a fine for his participation in the vigil.

“Paying the fine would be conceding that what I did was wrong,” he had said.

The vocal priest had also asked his lawyer, Francis Pereira, to write in to the Attorney-General’s Chambers in September last year asking for the charges against him to be dropped following the change in law. It was to no avail.

The public prosecutor wrote back three months later, in November 2011, rejecting his application.

“I’ve decided, simply because as far as I am concerned, I did not do anything wrong.

“The whole thing was a candlelight vigil calling for the abolishment of the ISA,” Miranda said, referring to the recently repealed Internal Security Act, which had been criticised as an outdated law used to clamp down on dissent against the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) government.

The case has been linked to the two Bersih rallies on July 9 last year and the more recent April 28 assembly in Dataran Merdeka, putting the spotlight on the government’s use of laws to clamp down on dissent, despite having repealed the controversial ISA.

控方无法证明参与黄潮日集会 潘俭伟刘天球等21名被告获释

这是我在2008年11月9日晚上在八打灵再也警局总部所拍下的照片。警方在逮捕我的时候抓伤我。

这是我在今天上午法官作出判决之后在庭外和另一位被告保利诺神父在庭外合影。

摘自《当今大马》
高嘉琪
2012年9月18日 上午11点22分

经过近4年的审讯,八打灵再也地庭今早裁决,21名被控参与2008年11月黄潮日一周年纪念烛光会的在野党议员与社运人士表面罪名不成立,当庭释放。

21名被告年龄介于28至65岁,其中19人是男性,2人是女性。

其中有3人是行动党代议士,分别是八打灵再也北区国会议员潘俭伟、雪州行政议员刘天球与雪州甘榜东姑州议员刘永山。

其余被控的人士包括沙亚南天主教会的神父保罗力诺(Paulino Miranda)、社运人士黄文强、行动党八打灵再也市议员张菲倩及律师阿索(Ashok Kandiah)。

无法证明违反警方指示

承审的地庭法官哈雅都(Hayatul Akmal)判决时表示,控方没有足够证据显示,被告们涉及非法集会及违反警方指示。

法官指出,控方传召的证人彼此供证不一,出现空隙(gap)。所以在这种情况下,疑点利益归于被告。

法官也说,被告被指在八打灵的东部草场(Padang Timur)一带非法集会,但控方没有证据显示这是一场经过策划的集会。

自动集会不需要准证

哈雅都在判决时表示,警方原本禁止他们在八打灵再也市政厅公民礼堂集会,也封锁了现场,之后怀疑同一批人转去了东部草场与Ampcorp广场,因此在东部草场逮捕被告们。
 
惟哈雅都表示,控方没有证据显示被告有策划地在东部草场举行非法集会,他们充其量只是自动聚集(spontaneous),而不是经过策划的集会。

衣着不一非策划集会

她续说,若是这种自动集会,就无需申请警察准证。

哈雅都也以被告们当时不一致的穿着,力证其看法。她说,这些人士身穿红衣、黑衣、黄衣,以及写着“反对内安法令”字眼的衣服,显示这不是一个有策划的集会。

哈雅都也把矛头转向警方的口供不一致,尤其是警方指示驱散的时间。

抓被告却无法解释原因 

哈雅都也逐一唸出各被告获释的原因,当中包括没有证据显示他们在集会扮演的角色,还有警方证人无法解释其中一名被告被捕的原因,以及也有被告是在离场时才被捕。

她指出,尽管被告被控违抗警方的驱散指示,但警方证人供词时所说的警方指示驱散的时间却有所不同 ,包括10点、10点15分等。

“为此,(若)只为了要他们解释这些疑点,法庭的看法是无需喻令被告抗辩;若(此案)有疑点,疑点(利益)应归于被告,我喻令释放被告们。”

希望总检察长不会上诉

哥宾星在休庭后向媒体表示,其当事人案等了4年才盼到审讯结果,过程冘长。

“政府废除警察法令第27条文后发生了很多事,地庭今日下达的是强而有力的判决,我认为总检察署应该好好研究地庭所提出的判案理据。”

“我希望,总检察长不会进行上诉。”

另一方面,现身为被告们打气的行动党国会领袖林吉祥也说,“我欢迎地庭的裁决,但事实上总检察署一开始就不应该提控他们,总检察长也应该更改其思维。”

刚洗脱罪名的潘俭伟则表示,地庭的判决是让集会自由运动取得一次胜利。

这些集会者也在法庭宣判后也在庭内欢呼骚动,令庭警被迫喝止他们,他们随后在庭外开心的举起胜利V手势与竖起姆指。

案件去年开审传21证人

此案是在2011年3月开审,控方共传召21名证人,今年8月14日才审结与陈词。

21名被告是参加于2008年11月9日在灵市公民礼堂的“黄潮日”一周年庆烛光会时被捕。这场活动由净选盟举办,以纪念2007年11月9日为争取选举改革与废除内安法令而发起的第一场净选盟大集会.

黄潮周年活动遭警镇压

当时,警方强行镇压烛光会现场,事先封锁所有进入活动地点的公路,更以粗暴手段逮捕23名人士,包括3名行动党议员和1名《当今大马》录影记者苏克里(Shukri Mohamad)。

2009年1月23日,21名集会者在警方法令第27条文下被控非法集会与违抗警方指示两项罪名。

首控状指他们在2008年11月9日晚上9点至10点10分,在八打灵市政厅广场参加非法集会,抵触警察法令第27(5)(a)条文。

第二项控状指他们违抗警方的解散指示,触犯警察法令第27(4)条文。

这两项的控状刑罚一样,即可在警察法令第27(8)条文下,罚款2000至1万令吉,或最高监禁1年。

此案主控官为莱拉娃蒂(Lailawati Ali),而辩方代表律师则是哥宾星。

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

以不实数据误导媒体和读者,黄冠文须检讨从政态度






马华新古毛州议员黄冠文日前针对一则民生问题以不确实的数据发表文告谴责乌雪县议会是非常不负责任的行为,也显示马华领袖在大选将近缺乏议题之际竟然铤而走险,以不确实的数据误导媒体和广大读者。

黄冠文日前发表一则文告,谴责乌雪县议会去年接获一名居住在新古毛退休花园(Taman Pesara)的居民投诉,即他住家外面的一颗树过于茂盛,希望县议会能够派员把大树砍掉。

黄冠文说这位居民虽然致函向县议会投诉,但是县议会回函说有关树木并不处于县议会的管辖范围之内,因此无法派员砍掉这棵树木。结果在这个月,这个大树倒下来,破坏其屋子和车镜。

黄冠文也借此机会抨击县议会和本人,没有尽责处理民生问题。

本人在新闻简报之后立即向县议会和负责处理新古毛区县议员杨赞喜接洽,结果所获得的资料和黄冠文在报章所言相差甚远。

该居民确实在去年曾经向乌雪县议会投诉,而乌雪县议会确实回函表示无法协助砍除该颗大树,原因是该树位于私人土地上。这点正是黄冠文故意避开不谈的重点。

县议员杨赞喜更表示,她在事发当天就已经接获投诉者古玛先生的电话,并且在第一时间前往事发地点巡视,她现场拍色的照片已经贴上她本人的面子书(https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.441798915865285.101896.100001055425117&type=1)

根据杨赞喜,附近的居民怀疑这棵树被雷电击中倒下,并挡住古玛先生门前的道路,进而砸坏他的住家部分屋顶和车镜。根据居民的消息,部分居民的家电相信遭雷电击中无法操作。消防队当时已经前来把树桐锯断,让道路通车。

从杨赞喜所拍下的照片,很明显地看到这棵树位于古玛先生住家的斜对面的一个丛林。县议会是基于这片土地是私人土地,因此无法清理该地。

所谓冤有头债有主。我想请教黄冠文,假如有一天他的邻居面对同样的问题,但是这棵树是种在别人的土地上,但是这位邻居反而向黄冠文索取赔偿,请问黄冠文愿意赔偿吗?不是黄冠文种的树,树木也不是种在黄冠文的土地上,怎么可能由黄冠文来赔偿?

同样的道理也适用在这问题,应该赔偿的是那片土地的地主。可惜的是,这片私人土地其实已经荒废多年。其地主下落已无迹可寻。

其次,黄冠文的文告似乎表示乌雪县议会完全没有协助处理这个问题。这是不正确的。乌雪县议员杨赞喜去年就已经和该投诉者接洽,也向他解释县议会无法处理其投诉的理由。杨赞喜甚至还建议他致函本人办公室以寻求援助。可是该投诉者过后并没有这么做。

在这情况下,黄冠文怎么可能诬赖县议会呢?我奉劝黄冠文在处理民生问题上秉持专业的态度。尤其是在处理个人的文告,决不能假手于人,要不然肯定错误百出。

孔子有言:“知之为知之,不知为不知,是智也”。令人遗憾的是,黄冠文选择把这句话倒转来念,变成“知之为不知,不知为知之,是痴也”!希望黄冠文能够悬崖勒马。

Conmen targets elderly ladies in Sungei Way


By The Star Metro

ELDERLY ladies in the Sungei Way new village in Petaling Jaya are being targeted by conmen who take advantage of their vulnerability.

Ooi Lea Choo, 63, said that she received a call about a week ago from a man who claimed that her 38-year-old son had been kidnapped and beaten up.

“The call came at about 1pm. The man spoke in Cantonese and asked for RM30,000. I could hear screaming over the phone and I immediately panicked because I really thought that they had beaten my son,” said Ooi.

Fortunately for her, she immediately called her son and found that he was in fact safe and unharmed.

Kampung Tunku assemblyman Lau Weng San said that at least five ladies living along the same road in Sungei Way had received the same call.

“We suspect that the man making the calls know these ladies well because he knew a lot about their family background. I tried calling back the number and a lady answered the phone saying she had no idea what I was talking about,” said Lau.

Another resident, who only wanted to be known as Mrs Chong, 69, said that she received a similar call telling her that her 38-year-old son working in Singapore had been kidnapped by Ah Longs (money lenders) and was beaten up.

“They also asked me for RM30,000. My husband was not around at that time and I was just distraught. I told them that I would meet them at the cinema to hand them the money but they immediately knew that the cinema was in front of the police station.

“Thankfully, one of my neighbours helped me call my daughter. She immediately contacted my son in Singapore and he was actually sleeping at home,” she said.

Lau said that these cheating cases was quite rampant in Sungei Way.

“Some people would offer residents goods at discounted prices provided that they commit a certain amount of deposit. One lady was cheated off her life savings of about RM70,000.

“I urge those who have come in contact with these conmen or were cheated to lodge a police report. Young adults working away from their hometown should communicate regularly with their elderly parents and update them of their whereabouts so that they do not fall prey to these conmen,” he said.

假阿窿骗说儿子欠钱被打 2妇女镇定没上当


摘自《中国报》

(吉隆坡11日讯)又是电话诈骗案!两名妇女分別接获自称“阿窿”的男子来电,指儿子欠债不还,被人带走殴打,幸两人临危不乱,及时获知儿子仍安全才没上当。

 首名妇女黄丽珠(63岁)是于本月3日下午1时许,接到一名口操粤语的陌生男子来电,告知其大儿子因欠下阿窿多达3万令吉,如今遭人带走及殴打。

不让盖电话

 她今日在甘榜东姑区州议员刘永山陪同召开记者会时说,该名男子要她立即还钱,电话里更传来与其儿子声音相当神像似的求救声音,让她一度真的以为儿子欠债被人打。

 她当时要求对方不要再打儿子及答应付钱,並告知对方身上只有几千令吉,唯对方不让她盖上电话,几乎不让她致电给其他人求助。

 “我最终选择盖上电话,拨电给大儿子確定他正在工作且安全也较安乐,不再接听诈骗者电话。”

 另一名妇女张太太则说,她也在两、三个月前曾遭遇类似经歷,有人拨电指儿子欠债3万令吉,也不让她盖电话,由於儿子身在新加坡,让她极紧张。

 “我告知对方必须致电亲友筹钱,对方警告我勿向亲友透露详情,我则要求邻居帮忙致电女儿,瞭解儿子真正情况。”

 她说,当她发现儿子仍在睡觉才放下心头大石也没上当。”

刘永山:遇骗案速报警

刘永山说,如今有不少诈骗手法出现,居民必须提高警愓。

 他也促请民眾一旦面对诈骗案等,必须向警方报案。

 他指出,电话诈骗者不让事主盖电话,不给机会他们向家人求证,所幸两名妇女皆精明和保持清醒,才有机会求证孩子安全。

 “相信该行骗者来自同一个集团,他们也清楚诈骗对象的情况,希望孩子们应经常与父母保持联繫,让父母了解本身情况。”

Monday, September 10, 2012

RFID由一家公司垄断——蔡智勇是否活在诺奥玛的淫威下?

正当燕窝业者针对装置无线识别视频(RFID)尚未采用一致的立场之前,且大部分燕窝商和燕农反对农业部一意孤行强制燕窝加工厂和出口商装置RFID,蔡智勇和诺奥玛领导的农业部应该抚顺民意。

尽管首相承诺诺在即将签署的马中燕窝出口协议下不会出现强制装置RFID的条文,可是在8月20号燕窝业者和农业部长诺奥玛的对话之中,发现协议之中的第8和第9条文强制要求装置RFID。

蔡智勇身为副农业部长也一度开腔表示强制性装置RFID的要求是中方提出,非马来西亚农业部要求,可是燕窝业者揭发印尼政府最近和中国签署的燕窝出口协定却没有提及RFID,为何马来西亚的燕窝却必须装上RFID?

另外,农业部在装置RFID 的规定上虽然放松了,即从强制性要求燕屋、燕窝散户代理、燕窝收购公司、燕窝储存中心、燕窝加工厂到燕窝出口商都必须装置RFID,放松到只是燕窝加工厂和出口商须装置RFID,但是研发和代理里出售RFID的公司只有一家由农业部制定的公司。

农业部让一家公司垄断RFID的研发和代理权,我惊叹身为专业会计师的蔡智勇竟然可以在这事上保持沉默?还是蔡智勇其实也是活在诺奥玛的淫威之下,完全不敢出声?

除了农业部强制要求装置RFID,燕窝业者(即从燕农、代理、收购公司、加工厂到出口商)还面对其他问题,如毛燕不能完全出口到中国以及过于严格的亚硝酸盐含量。

蔡智勇曾说强制装置RFID是中国的要求,可是东协商务理事会中方秘书处常务副秘书长许宁宁在9月8号的2012年马中企业家大会中表示“中国不会为了保护国内企业,而蓄意设定条件限制大马的产品”。

这是否意味着,中国方面的政策基本上是开放的,出口到中国的燕窝是否须装置RFID也不是中方强制要求的?

因此,蔡智勇应该告诉我们,到底这家获得农业部授权独家垄断RFID研发和代理的公司是否和农业部高层人士有关联?农业部为何只批准一家公司研发和代理RFID?为何蔡智勇在这个课题上一直保持沉默?

Friday, September 07, 2012

Kempen Pendaftaran Pemilih 周末设选民登记柜台 市民赶紧登记


Tarikh: 8-9 September 2012
Masa: 9pagi-12petang
Tempat: Dewan MBPJ Sungai Way, SS 9A,Jalan SS9A/1, Sungai Way 46300 Petaling Jaya.
(Di depan Pasar Seri Setia)

新选民登记:2012年9月8日
新选民登记和更换选举地址:2012年9月9日
时间:早上九点至中午十二点
地点:双溪威新村八打灵再也市政厅礼堂(Seri Setia巴刹对面)

(八打灵再也7日讯)雪州甘榜东姑区州议员刘永山将在9月8日(星期六)和9月9日(星期日)早上9点到中午12点假双溪威新村村委会礼堂举办选民登记运动,欢迎村民和其他地区尚未登记成为选民的马来西亚公民前来登记。

另外,雪州选举委员会也将在9月9日(星期日)当天前来双溪威新村礼堂处理更换投票地点的申请。对此,任何欲转换投票地点的选民也可以在周日当天前来选委会的柜台提出申请。

刘永山也提醒市民,不管是申请成为新选民,还是申请更新投票地点,申请者必须亲自携带本身的正版身份证前来申请。

他说:“选委会将会根据身份证上的地址为选民登记,因此选民必须确保身份证的地址是最新和正确的地址。”

目前,部分想要更换投票地点的选民担心,如果现在提出申请更换投票地点,如果这期间举行选举,恐怕名字将不会出现在选民册。

刘永山呼吁选民不用担心,根据法律,如果这样的情况出现,选民还是回到旧有的投票地点投下神圣的一票。

“虽然首相最近暗示今年11月可能举行全国大选,但是如果选举不在11月进行,反之在明年2月以后举行,那么现在登记投票的选民可能还有机会在明年可能举行的选举投票。”

根据选委会的数据,我国还有332万符合资格的国民还未登记成为选民,其中雪兰莪州就占58万为全国榜首。

因此,甘榜东姑州议员刘永山呼吁双溪威新村和附近花园的居民尤其是年轻人踊跃响应这项选民登记运动。以便能够在大选时能够进行国民义务,选出自己想要人民代议士和政府。