Perak

Police hunt for suspects in molotov cocktail attack in Pantai Remis

PERAK police are actively searching for three suspects involved in a Molotov cocktail attack at a house in Taman Bintang, Pantai Remis, early yesterday morning.

Manjung District Police Chief, Assistant Commissioner Hasbullah Abd Rahman, said the attack, which occurred at around 3:08 a.m, saw nine Molotov cocktails thrown at the victim’s house.

The attack caused significant fire damage to a Honda HR-V and a Yamaha LC motorcycle parked on the premises.

“Three suspects were seen in a white Toyota Altis wearing face masks during the attack,” he said in a statement today.

He added that the victim’s father noticed the fire and rushed out, shouting at the suspects, who immediately fled the scene. The father managed to extinguish the fire before further damage could occur.

Further investigation revealed five pieces of paper with Chinese writing outside the house, demanding repayment of a debt.

However, the victim denied having any involvement with unlicensed money lending (loan sharks) or holding any grudges.

The case is being investigated under Section 435 of the Penal Code for mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage.

Hasbullah urged anyone with information about the incident to contact the Investigating Officer, Inspector Amir Hafiz Mohd Rosli, at 011-24057360, or the District Police Operations Room at 05-688 6222 to assist with the investigation. – FocusM Oct 6, 2024

GISB

Tun M questions the government over its actions against GISBH

FORMER premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has voiced concerns over the government’s ‘heavy-handed’ actions against GlSB Holdings Sdn Bhd (GISBH), stating that the treatment appears aimed at eliminating the organisation rather than addressing specific wrongdoings.

Speaking in an exclusive interview, Dr Mahathir compared the current situation to his administration’s handling of the Al-Arqam group in 1994.

“We were aware Al-Arqam were deviants. Our actions were to correct their understanding, not to jail them outright. We explained Islam to them, and they accepted our explanations.”

Dr Mahathir suggested that while there may be legitimate issues, such as possible criminal activities, the government should focus on addressing those specific offences.

“Take action against what they do wrong, but do not take action against what they are not doing wrong,” the nonagenarian added.

He noted that GISBH is a successful business operating in 20 countries and warned against punishing those not involved in any crimes.

On the issue of tax arrears, he said, “In the case of income tax arrears, the people are not jailed, but an investigation is launched, and then a decision is made.” – FocusM Oct 5, 2024

Gerakan

Gerakan is in no position to question Malay voting trend considering its own struggles to remain relevant

IN A recent statement, Gerakan president Datuk Dr Dominic Lau expressed concern over the shift in Malay votes towards Barisan Nasional (BN) in the Nenggiri and Mahkota by-elections. He called for Perikatan Nasional (PN) to review this trend ahead of future elections.

But one has to ask: Is Gerakan, a party that has been on the decline for over a decade, in any position to critique its coalition partners?

And does Gerakan even have the credibility to speak on Malay voting trends when it struggles to maintain relevance in any voter demographic?

Gerakan’s failure to secure a voter base, particularly among the Chinese, has been glaring when compared to the overwhelming success of DAP.

Over the years, DAP has solidified its dominance among Chinese voters by positioning itself as a credible alternative to Gerakan or MCA, effectively capitalising on urban discontent and issues affecting minority communities.

To date, what has Gerakan done to rebuild itself? The answer is simple: almost nothing. It has failed to win back seats in Penang and has been consistently sidelined in national politics.

If Gerakan ever hopes to recover, it must first acknowledge that it is no longer a competitor in this crucial demographic.

Lau’s call for PN to review the Malay vote is curious, given that Gerakan has done little to contribute to PN’s success.

The party holds no parliamentary seats and hasn’t made any significant electoral breakthroughs since its fall from grace.

Gerakan’s departure from BN in 2018 did not spark a revival, nor did its entry into PN give it the boost it so desperately needed.

So, what exactly does Gerakan bring to PN? The party’s lack of influence is crystal clear, especially compared to Bersatu and PAS, which have strong grassroots support and electoral machinery.

If Gerakan has been largely invisible within PN, what right does it have to critique the coalition’s performance?

Lau’s sudden focus on Malay voting trends also raises questions. When PN won the Sungai Bakap by-election with a strong margin of votes, there was no mention of the importance of Malay votes from Gerakan.

But after defeats in Nenggiri and Mahkota, Lau is now sounding the alarm. Why the selective outrage? Is Gerakan genuinely concerned about PN’s prospects, or is this an attempt to shift attention away from its own lack of progress?

Gerakan cannot cherry-pick issues to suit its narrative, especially when it has contributed so little to PN’s overall performance.

Dominic’s concerns also oversimplify a complex issue. There is no singular “Malay vote” that can be easily categorised.

Voting behaviours differ across regions and constituencies, influenced by local issues, candidate strength, and control of state governments. Gerakan’s narrow focus on recent losses overlooks the fact that the Malay electorate is, and always has been, divided.

Moreover, the shift towards BN in recent by-elections is not a new phenomenon. Malay voting patterns have always been fluid, and UMNO’s rebuilding efforts, along with PN’s weakened appeal, are key factors behind this trend.

While PAS and Bersatu are working tirelessly on the ground to build voter bases and secure support, Gerakan remains missing in action. It’s easy to critique the performance of coalition partners from the sidelines, but where is Gerakan’s own contribution?

If Gerakan wants to be taken seriously, it needs to do the hard work of reconnecting with voters rather than merely issuing statements from the political periphery.

Dominic’s concerns may hold some merit, but Gerakan is in no position to offer critiques without first addressing its own failures. Since 2008, the party has been on a downward spiral, unable to regain its footing in Penang, national politics, or even within PN.

Dear Dominic, for over a decade, Gerakan has failed to regain any electoral relevance, and your leadership has yet to produce any meaningful results.

Criticising the voting trends within PN is easy, but where is Gerakan in all of this? What exactly has your party contributed?

Instead of pointing fingers, perhaps it’s time to ask: What is Gerakan’s role in PN, and why should anyone care about what your party thinks?

Without clear answers and decisive action to revitalise Gerakan, your party will continue to be viewed as political baggage – a burden that PN may soon find no reason to carry. – Oct 1, 2024

Dr Mahathir Mohd Rais is the Federal Territories Bersatu state secretary.

The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia.

Classifying Cigarettes

A divisive move in classifying cigarettes in non-halal section

I WRITE to express my concerns regarding the recent proposal to place cigarettes in the non-halal section of stores, aligning them with alcohol and pork.

While I understand the importance of accommodating religious beliefs, I find this approach problematic, particularly from the standpoint of the rights and needs of non-Muslims in a multi-religious society.

First and foremost, classifying cigarettes as non-halal creates a slippery slope. If every product is to be classified as halal or non-halal, what does this mean for other goods that are used for medical purposes but may not be considered halal by some religious scholars?

For example, medications like morphine or other opioid-based painkillers are essential in hospitals and pharmacies. Would they too be relegated to a non-halal section, further stigmatising their use despite their critical role in healthcare?

Moreover, the question arises about the rights of non-Muslims in such a system. Cigarettes, though harmful, are legal and widely consumed by adults across the country, including non-Muslims.

By placing them in a non-halal section, are we indirectly imposing religious standards on the entire population?

It is vital that we remain mindful of the diverse makeup of Malaysia, where laws and regulations should reflect the needs and rights of all citizens, regardless of religion.

Additionally, the move seems more symbolic than practical. Cigarettes are already regulated, with age restrictions and health warnings clearly outlined.

They are not marketed as a food product and unlike alcohol and pork, there is no risk of accidental consumption or cross-contamination. Thus, what is the practical benefit of placing them in a separate section?

Finally, this approach could set a precedent for future measures that may limit personal freedoms and choice in a society that prides itself on its diversity and coexistence.

If cigarettes are deemed non-halal, what about other products with controversial or harmful aspects?

Will we start dividing goods based on subjective religious interpretations, rather than science, law and public health?

While the health risks of smoking are well-established and should be mitigated through public health campaigns, taxation, and education, categorising cigarettes as non-halal is neither a practical solution nor a fair one.

It risks creating division and confusion in a society where inclusivity and respect for all beliefs should remain at the forefront.

I urge the government to consider the broader implications of such a move and to prioritise policies that respect the rights of all Malaysians, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

Thank you and Selamat Hari Malaysia! – Sept 13, 2024

 

Jeganathan Munusamy

Kuala Lumpur

The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia.

Draconian

PKR member says DNS redirect order is draconian

THE Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) has defended its instructions to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to redirect Domain Name Service (DNS) traffic that uses third-party DNS servers back to their own DNS servers.

But some political figures from the PKR are raising their objections to the DNS redirection.

Altimet or Syed Ahmad Syed Abdul Rahman Alhadad, the Selangor State Legislative Assembly member for Lembah Jaya tweeted that the instruction is draconian.

He added that there are other ways to protect vulnerable groups from online content, signalling possible significant adverse effects to the digital economy.

“We as a nation are trying to cultivate further.  This is not the best way forward. I disagree with this decision,” he wrote.

Nevertheless, the MCMC stated today that the claims of the measures being draconian were false.

“It is falsely claimed that this is a draconian measure. This is for the protection of vulnerable groups from harmful content.”

MCMC also said it is inaccurate to claim that it is a blanket ban.

Some sources are saying that legitimate websites have been made inaccessible because of DNS redirection.

“Websites are only blocked when they are found to host malicious content,” added MCMC.

As a commitment to protecting the safety of Internet users, MCMC has blocked a total of 24,277 websites between 2018 to Aug 1, classified into various categories, which are online gambling (39%), pornography/obscene content (31%), copyright infringement (14%), other harmful sites such as unregistered product sales, incitement and defamation crimes (12%), prostitution (2%) and unlawful investments/scams (2%). – FocusM, Sept 7, 2024

Derhaka

Sedition charge against Muhyiddin: Has PH forgotten about 'Karpal derhaka'?

We refer to the sedition charge brought against former prime minister and opposition leader Muhyiddin Yassin today for allegedly insulting the Agong.

The charge is based on his statement questioning the Agong's exercise of constitutional power in the appointment of the prime minister after the last general election.

This is a clear failure of Pakatan Harapan and a betrayal of its previous promise to repeal the draconian Sedition Act. 

Have they forgotten how the late Karpal Singh was branded as "derhaka" for questioning the Sultan of Perak in 2008? 

Or how it was accused of disloyalty to the Agong for questioning the decision to call for emergency in 2021?

It is not sedition to question or criticise the exercise of constitutional power by the Agong. 

In this country, the king is a constitutional monarch, and not a feudal ruler. His exercise of his power can thus be debated, questioned or criticised. This is the very bedrock of our system of constitutional monarchy. 

Those who have been agitating for Muhyiddin to be charged are tainting the very basic structure of our constitution by importing into it feudalism. Regrettably, PH and Umno politicians from the Madani government have been at the forefront of this politically motivated campaign.

Now that they hold federal power, they ruthlessly wield the same weapon they deemed oppressive when it was used against them.

Nothing has changed since then to justify the PH-led government's continued use of the Sedition Act. 

This colonial-era legislation is an affront to democracy and the freedom of speech and expression under article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution. 

Its legislative history is replete with the suppression and oppression of dissenting voices to protect those in power. It essentially puts them above reproach and criticism, making a mockery of the Constitution and the rule of law.

We urge the government, especially PH, to refrain from the use of the Sedition Act and take immediate steps to repeal it. It must be put to rest and not be allowed to haunt our nation any longer.

Zaid Malek is director of Lawyers for Liberty. -  August 27, 2024.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of MalaysiaNow.

Zahid

How Zahid Hamidi shot himself in the foot and accidentally exonerated Muhyiddin

In the latest episode with regard to the brouhaha about Bersatu president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin and his 115 statutory declaration (SDs), UMNO president Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi has entered into the fray to give his two cents worth about the matter.

Previously, the Barisan Nacional (BN) chairman has been silent, content to just let his lieutenants do the talking.

But I suppose the issue regarding Muhyiddin and his 115 SDs has exploded to such an extent that now the UMNO chief himself is feeling compelled to step in and quell the kerfuffle.

So how did the UMNO chief fare? In my humble opinion, Zahid has fumbled very badly in handling the matter because at the very outset itself, he looks like he has scored an own goal.

So how did Zahid shoot himself in the foot as he took aim at Muhyiddin?

To put it simply, while aiming to discredit and dismiss the Perikatan Nasional (PN) chairman’s claim that he had the support of 115 MPs at the aftermath of the 15th general election (GE15), Zahid has inadvertently verified Muhyiddin’s claim instead.

How did Zahid do that? Well, he started off by saying that although Muhyiddin had 115 SDs as he claimed, 10 of the SD’s cannot be counted, hence the latter only had 105 MPs supporting his bid to form the next government which was insufficient.

In other words, Zahid himself has agreed that Muhyiddin indeed had 115 SDs of support from 115 MPs just like he had earlier claimed.

Zahid scoring an own goal?

To make things even worse, when Zahid explained why 10 of the SDs that Muhyiddin had cannot be counted, his explanation could have actually made a reasonable man believe that the 10 SDs should have actually been counted instead of discounted from Muhyiddin’s tally.

This is so because according to Zahid, there are three reasons why the 10 SDs from UMNO and BN MPs shouldn’t have been counted in favour of Muhyiddin.

His reasons are that prior to the election, each BN parliamentary candidate had three documents which (1) grant full authority to the BN chairman to form the government or create a coalition; (2) state that the seat that the candidate won belongs to the party; and (3) highlight the RM100 mil penalty if the candidate defect or support another party.

“These three documents were signed with video recordings in front of a commissioner for oaths and three lawyers. So, how can anyone dispute the actual situation when the numbers are insufficient?” Zahid then asked.

Well, to answer Zahid, just because something is signed with a video recording in front of a commissioner of oath and lawyers, that doesn’t make it legal.

For example, if I can find a dodgy bunch of  lawyers and a commissioner of oath who will agree to witness me signing an agreement with you on terms that if you are unable to pay me the RM100 that I loaned you by next month, you must be my slave for a year, that agreement cannot be considered valid because it infringes on a higher law, which says that slavery is illegal in the country.

Counter arguments

In the same manner, our Federal Constitution, which is the highest law in the country, has clearly stated that it is up to the 222 MPs in the Dewan Rakyat to choose the Prime Minister who is fit to govern the country, not any party leader.

Considering that, Zahid cannot just usurp the rights and powers of the MPs which is granted by the Federal Constitution to the MPs just by making them sign an agreement before some lawyers and a commissioner of oath.

The second agreement which says that the seat that a candidate won belongs to the party instead of the MPs is likely null and void even at face value because it really should be self-evident that the seat that that a MP wins in an election belongs to the MP, not the party or the president of the party that he/she belongs to.

The third agreement, which says that an MP must pay a RM100 mil fine if they defect or support another party – as despicable as it is in – does not mean that the MPs cannot support the candidate of another party as the PM.

It just means that they have to pay a RM100 mil penalty if they support another party’s bid to form the government.

In other words, the 10 MPs’ support for Muhyiddin should have still been considered as valid even if their action puts them at risk of having to pay a RM100 mil to UMNO and BN later on.

Thus far, those who have taken an offensive stance against Muhyiddin in the 115 SDs’ case is likely just shooting themselves in the foot.

Muhyiddin, on the other hand, is likely revelling in the controversy. He is gaining relevance and credibility the more that this issue becomes hot. – FocusM Aug 23, 2024

Nehru Sathiamoorthy is a roving tutor who loves politics, philosophy and psychology.

The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia.