Sunday, October 07, 2018

Metamorphoses of Pakatan ministers

FMT - Ending repressive laws should not take 100 days, PH told:

PETALING JAYA: PKR leader and rights lawyer Latheefa Koya said the Pakatan Harapan government should stop telling the public to give it more time before repressive laws can be abolished.

“We can understand if you are still looking for Jho Low. We can understand if you can’t fix the economy within 100 days. With those things, there’s a rationale and we can understand the reasons,” Latheefa, who heads Lawyers for Liberty, told the forum “Law reforms under the new government: Where are we now”, organised in conjunction with the Freedom Film Festival here.

She said it is not acceptable for PH to still keep the Sedition Act.

“Why does it take 100 days?” she asked, in an apparent reference to remarks by deputy home minister Azis Jamman who was criticised for defending the continued use of anti-sedition laws.

“What are you waiting for? You want to research, review and analyse? ‘Let us hear from the police’. ‘Let us hear from the other side’.

“What exactly is the other side you want to hear before you abolish the Sedition Act?” she asked.

She said an argument used by supporters of the present government is that the ministers are new and fresh, and that civil servants are giving them a hard time.

“I am sorry. One hundred days is way too long for a person (under detention) to expect to be freed. It is way too long,” she said at a forum today.

She also criticised those who lodge police reports against their political enemies, saying they were just playing to the gallery.

“Say you lodge a police report against someone you don’t like, such as Lokman Noor Adam,” she said, referring to the Umno Supreme Council member who organised gatherings in support of former prime minister Najib Razak.

“He is not a popular guy. He is from BN and Umno. He is a vile man. We hate him. Let us lodge a police report, because it is popular to do so.

“But is it right? It’s not. Do we actively use criminal defamation against him? No. It does not matter if he is from BN or Umno or PH. You do not use laws we have fought against.”

PH’s election manifesto had promised to abolish repressive laws such as the Sedition Act 1948 within the first 100 days in power.

Home Minister Muhyiddin Yassin said a special committee would look into anti-sedition laws as well as the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, the death penalty, Peaceful Assembly Act 2012, Prevention of Crime Act 1959, Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 and Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015.

Latheefa questioned the about-turn of some government officials who themselves had been punished under the same laws.

“Most of the MPs were victims of these laws. They were arrested and charged. Some had protested against these laws.

“Suddenly you don’t remember these things. Suddenly, you still need to discuss and analyse.”

She said the stand taken by Azis in defending the Sedition Act was similar to the position of the former government who fought attempts to abolish the Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA).

She said she could understand if such a statement came from the police “because they are doing what they have been doing for the past 60 years”.

“But what are you doing, as a minister? What is your job?”

“You tell the police that it is wrong (to use the sedition law). You tell them, you cannot use it. You tell them, you can use a moratorium to stop using an Act that we are going to abolish. That can be done.

“But why say that as long as we have not abolished, we have to actively use it?”

Latheefa said the fact that the sedition law is still being used shows the government is not committed to abolishing it.

“When people start attacking, you turn around. You make a U-turn, you say you are misquoted or misunderstood. These excuses have been used too many times.

“We are not here asking for a miracle. But we want that commitment from you,” she added

Aeons ago, the late Lee Kuan Yew was asked by a Western reporter whether he was worried about the idealistic-socialistic young Singaporean 'rebels' growing up to fill government (including ministerial) positions?

LKY replied that once those so-called 'rebels' were in positions of power themselves, they would be the very ones to defend the status quo they had condemned, wakakaka.

Pakatan ministers are exactly like that, the very ones defending the status quo. Suddenly they become the 'establishment' and thus have to behave like the 'establishment', wakakaka.

Maszlee is an example of the disgraceful volte-face stand, insisting on being President of IIUM despite (a) the Pakatan's manifesto of leaving universities as independent institutions of learning and not for any minister to head them, and (b) vociferous protests from disappointed Pakatan supporters. Mahathir hasn't done anything about it.

What about LGE? I remember when he first became CM of Penang in 2008, he held his first post-election meeting with PAS in MacDonalds, lived in his father's house and travelled 3rd class by air. Sekarang? Mercedes pun ada!

I also recall Mahathir on becoming the new (old) PM voiced his hesitancy about doing away with (1) Anti Fake News Act, (2) GST (saying the government still needed to collect revenue), (3) initially attempting to head two ministries (against Pakatan manifesto) but grudgingly abandoned the Edu-Ministry and bringing Maszlee into the cabinet, and (4) as per his old (1981-2003) inclination, keeping labour cost down to encourage investment (hence minimum wage is RM1050, an increase of only RM50).

now acting dumb like a mute stung by a tebuan regarding Mahathir's unsavoury actions 

He took over Khazanah and now we hear his "justification" for the GLC to fund his National Car No 3 despite humongous objections.

Do you think he is willing to do away with the Sedition Act, when he had been the very man who during his reign from 1981 to 2003 had been responsible for Ops Lalang, strong police ops in Memali, constitutional crisis, and much as he denies it today, the jailing of Anwar, etc.

Stop dreaming, Latheefa, though you have been absolutely correct in your condemnation of the current batch of ministers, not forgetting Lim KS who is now acting dumb like a mute stung by a tebuan regarding Mahathir's unsavoury actions, in total contrast to his constant attacks on UMNO and MCA.

to be re-cycled for GE15


  1. One real attempt at ending a repressive law has already been defeated - by Senate rejection.

    Governing is never simple.
    Yes, actual repeal of controversial laws require proper vetting, ALL stakeholder input ,and DUE PROCESS.

    After all, Pakatan Harapan is NOT BN UMNO,Which many times in the past used its majority in Parliament to ram through unwise measures without proper consultation.

    What PH can do , in the interim, is work with the Attorney General to avoid unjust prosecutions , while the laws are still on the books.

    I am doubtful PH can actually interfere with police power (and authority) to investigate based on existing laws.

  2. Wakakakakakakaka

    Looks like throwing stones at everyone to look good as a Reformist within her party. Her party elected MPs and Ministers must be squirming in their seats to be seen as less active in carrying out the party ideals of REFORMASI.

    Why are elected PH MPs, Ministers so dumb in not doing what she says. Just propose and annulled all these laws in the Dewan Rakyat and then get those BN Senators to failed it in the Dewan Negara.

    Everyone in PH will then be happy and blame it on BN, PAS parties and their Senators for opposing it and it is beyond their faults.

    At least that shows the Reformasi spirit for a New Malaysia is not dead to her and majority of Malaysians who voted for PH as the Govt.

  3. "LKY replied that once those so-called 'rebels' were in positions of power themselves, they would be the very ones to defend the status quo they had condemned" - he is like that so he believe everyone is like him.

    1. Wakakakakaka……

      Including this opportunistic carpetbagger!

    2. i call a spade a spade, u call a hypocrite a pragmatist.

    3. that's your prejudice speaking