Thursday, March 9, 2017



Mahathir would have voted “no” – Kula on Hadi’s Bill




KUALA LUMPUR, March 9: DAP’s Ipoh Barat MP M. Kula Segaran said that Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad would have voted a “no” against PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang’s Private Member’s Bill, if the former premier was still a member of Parliament

“If Mahathir was there (in Parliament), he would vote against it (Hadi’s Bill),” the Ipoh Barat MP told The Malaysian Times (TMT) today, when asked to comment on Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (PPBM) leader Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin’s statement that he is yet to be certain on his vote for the Bill.

Kula, who is also DAP vice president, said that it is highly likely the government would bring up the Hadi Bill to amend Syariah laws in parliament to garner support for the 14th general election (GE14).

“I think it is highly likely for political reasons in view of yesterday, the Election Commission (EC) announcing the second stage of the display of addition or reduction of voters or new constituencies and all that.

“So that shows that the government may bring the necessary amendments this June or July sitting and elections will be called in September.

“So they (BN) want to win this and get the support of people and say that they are in favor of this.

“They don’t want to defeat Hadi’s bill, otherwise they will shown as though they are not concern of the Muslims, I am quiet confident it will be debated,” said Kula.

He said that the motion is already in place , so after the MP have finished debating the Yang di pertua Agung’s speech until next Thursday.

“The following week for the three days the minister will reply on all these issues. That means until the end of the following week,the bill wont come up.

“Then after that there is every possibility that the government will bring it up anytime,” said Kula.

Hadi’s Bill is currently listed at No. 7 in the Order Paper behind several government Bills.

Hadi had tabled a motion on the last day of Parliament sitting in May 2016 after the Government allowed it to take priority over government Bills.

Hadi had, however, deferred debating the Bill and had it re-tabled after submitting an amended version in November 2016.

Among the proposed amendments to the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 or Act 355 are to increase the maximum penalty to 30 years imprisonment, fine of up to RM100,000 and 100 lashes of the rotan. —TMT

Saturday, March 4, 2017



"Illogical System cause of undocumented children"


Lawyer-cum-MP says the present law gives too much discretion to those in power granting citizenship, causing the rise of undocumented children

KUALA LUMPUR: The present law gives a lot of discretion to the Home Ministry in granting citizenship, and this has contributed to the problem of undocumented children, said lawmaker M Kulasegaran.

He said that the extensive discretion given somehow supersedes Article 15A of the Federal Constitution which clearly says if there are special circumstances then the child can be given citizenship.

The four considerations specified in the Court of Appeal Order to guide the Home Ministry when evaluating an application made under Article 15A of the Federal Constitution are – the person is under the age of 21 years who has no parents; the person who has a connection with the country; cases that would result in hardship; the best interest of the child.

Therefore, the ‘little Napoleons’ in the National Registration Department (NRD) who overlook Article 15A in the process of granting citizenship are complicating matters, said Kulasegaran, who is also a lawyer.

“Basically it is a very unfair, illogical system.. the discretion is used very easily and extensively without logic and reason,” said Kulasegaran when asked to comment on the status of abandoned babies and babies of unverified origin adopted by Malaysians.

He said more people were getting caught in this arbitrary process.

“Don’t have to go very far. I am the only one out of 222 MPs who was bestowed a red IC when I was 12 years old and only got a blue IC when I was 15 years old. I was a non-citizen for three years of my life,” said the Ipoh Barat DAP MP.

He said being born in the estate, he fought through the system and was lucky enough to come out a success story, but there are still so many who are not as lucky.

“My parents left the estate, worked hard and fought for me that I was able to leave the country and study law in London, come back and work then become an MP. Many of my friends are still languishing away in estates, jobless, who may not have even voted once in their lifetime. That’s the system we have,” he said.

Article 15A gives discretionary powers to the Home Ministry but unfortunately this is not used to the best advantage and in a civilised manner to do justice to that particular article, he added.

“I would say the little Napoleans in the various departments are frustrating (the system) and making it difficult, if not impossible, for these people to be granted citizenship papers,” said Kulasegaran.

He said that when these blunders on citizenship go to the courts, they were dealt with in an “inhumane” manner.

“The discretion given to them (NRD, Home Ministry) should be exercised judiciously, not at their whims and fancies. The courts also are sometimes inhumane. They will only show humanity if they go through what I went through. It was three years of uncertainty, being neither here nor there. It is worse than being an illegal immigrant.

“When you are not a citizen, you cannot sit for exams, can’t get hospital treatment, no EPF, can’t be legally employed or married, can’t get properties,” said Kulasegaran.

He was, however, thankful that in his case, it was an error that was corrected in three years, unlike so many more left in limbo.

He said what is worse is that abandoned babies are being deprived of citizenship although Article 15A was enacted for special cases who cannot prove citizenship.

“The government has gone ‘senile’ because when you go and adopt a baby, after the amendment was done in 97-98, the new birth certificate will not divulge that the child is adopted. Before the amendment it used to say anak angkat (adopted child) on the birth cert, now that is dropped, biological parents’ names also withdrawn so it looks natural and the child does not grow up in a different environment, doesn’t feel dejected, rejected.

“Now what these little Napoleans are doing is – if you adopt a child that is stateless or whose birth is suspicious or when the parents can’t be located, they provide birth certificate but it says ‘non-citizen’. I got that kind of cases now and I think it’s absolutely rubbish,” said Kulasegaran.

He said the process of granting a birth certificate without mentioning ‘adopted child’ and then including ‘non-citizen’ defeats the purpose of why the adoption law was amended in the first place, which was to avoid mental anguish, suffering and pain of the child that was not asked to be born in the first place.

“What are the authorities up to? If you can empower and give blue ICs in Sabah, Sarawak and to Indonesians who came yesterday, why not to our children? Where is the humanity? These kids are worse off because they can’t go to school at all. I have cases where children don’t go to school because of this. Don’t punish these children. I don’t know what’s the point. It is very unfair,” lamented the DAP national vice-chairman.

He further decried the mockery of giving blue ICs to senior citizens now, “when many of them have one leg in the grave at 75 and 80”.

“They have never voted, are at the dying stage, in wheelchairs and now they get recognised as citizens? That is not empowerment,” said Kulasegaran.

Early last month, Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said that the state NRD will gather information on the stateless Sarawakian Chinese and make the necessary recommendations on those who meet the criteria to be citizens.

He gave his commitment as home minister to address the matter without delay, and urged the Chinese community to help the NRD on the issue, adding that those born and bred in the state already qualify for citizenship, as granted under the Federal Constitution.