Saturday, April 30, 2016

Urge the IGP to set up a special task force to track down the ex hubby of IndiraGandhi








Press Statement by M. Kula Segaran MP for Ipoh Barat and DAP National Vice Chairman in Ipoh on 30th April 2016

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Urge the IGP to set up a special task force to track down the ex hubby of IndiraGandhi

Yesterday’s Federal Court’s decision brought much long overdue good news to IndiraGandhi and many others who are in her similar predicament.


I got numerous calls from all and sundry both locally and internationally congratulating the decision. People want immediate action and for a closure of this matter. Will this happen or the Inspector General of Police ( IGP) will keep on dragging his feet??

In view of the Federal Court’s directions against the IGP , I urge the IGP to form a Special Task force to oversee the arrest of Indira Gandhi’s ex husband Pathamanathan a/l Krishnan now known as Muhammad Riduan bin Abdullah .The Task force should updateIndira on the progress of the police efforts and progress in locating Pathamanathan a/l Krishnan

During the marriage, Pathamanathan a/l Krishnan used to frequent Thailand and stayedthere for many days. He used to have a lot of friends and connections there according toIndira Gandhi. Thus there is real fear and possibility the child could be abducted to Thailand or other places. In the circumstance, it would be wise for the police to take note of this and ask the immigration to monitor the border exits strictly.

Further, the last known place the said Pathamanathan a/l Krishnan was around was KotaBaru. He had been using the same phone number since 2009 and it would easy for the police to trace his whereabouts.

Indira first obtained an interim custody order and an order ordering the police to assist her. When we served the first order on the police in April 2009, the Police in Ipoh should have immediately acted on it. A good 8+ years of separation of mother and daughter could have been avoided. Due to the inaction of the police, Indira and many others have suffered in silence for many years. Police should act on court orders without questioning it. No body is above the law and that includes the police.


The police should also come with proper reasons/explanations as to why the police did not carry out the 2009 High Court order which was set aside in May 2009. Police had a valid order for a good 14 days and why there was inaction during this time. The sooner the explanation is provided the better before public lose confidence in the police handling the issue.

Thursday, April 28, 2016

malaysiakini new : Apex court to decide if IGP must reunite mum with daughter after 8yrs Hafiz Yatim

M Indira Gandhi's daughter was 11-months-old when her ex-husband, who converted to Islam, took the child. The teacher has not seen her for eight years.
Eight months have also passed since she turned to the courts to compel inspector-general of police Khalid Abu Bakar to look for her daughter as she and her ex-husband K Pathmanathan, who now uses the name Mohd Ridhwan Abdullah were embroiled in a custody battle over their three children.
Tomorrow, the Federal Court will deliver its verdict on whether the top cop has to abide by the order of the High Court.
On Sept 12, 2014, the Ipoh High Court issued a mandamus order compelling Khalid to find and arrest Ridhwan and return their youngest daughter to Indira.
Three months later, the Court of Appeal in a majority 2-1 decisionoverturned the High Court order as Justices Abdul Aziz Abd Rahman and Ahmadi Asnawi allowed the police chief's appeal while Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat dissented.
Following this, Indira, who is represented by Aston Paiva and DAP lawmaker M Kulasegaran, took her case to the Federal Court.
Paiva had argued that Ridhwan only possesses a custody order from the Syariah Court, and not from the civil courts.
Furthermore, he said Ridhwan had failed to appear in court for the past six or seven years.
However, senior federal counsel Suzana Atan told the apex court that the matter is a private dispute and should not involve the police and government.
The judiciary's number two, Court of Appeal president Justice Md Raus Sharif, is leading the five-member bench.
The verdict, however, might only be delivered by four judges since Justice Abdull Hamid Embong retired from the Federal Court early this year.
Meanwhile, Indira is also challenging the unilateral conversion of her three children by her former husband and the matter is fixed for leave to appeal on May 19.
Eight questions of law have been posed for this purpose and although the questions are not known, they are expected to be on the issues of:
- Malaysia's position in international convention like the United Nations convention on the rights of a child, of which Malaysia is a signatory
- Jurisdiction between the civil and syariah courts and
- Whether children born out of a marriage from civil law must comply with the Administration of the Religion of Islam enactment of the respective states.

Monday, April 25, 2016

Will issues of unilateral conversion of minor be ever resolved?








Speech by M. Kula Segaran, MP for Ipoh Barat and DAP National Vice Chairman in Kuala Kubu Baru on 24th April 2016.

Will issues of unilateral conversion of minor be ever resolved?

1. Background of Indira Gandhi’s interfaith case
-----------------------------------------
Indira Gandhi married her husband Patmanathan in 1993 according to Hindu rites. They have 3 children. On 11th March 2009, the husband converted to Islam and adopted his new name as Muhammad Riduan Bin Abdullah

On 2nd April 2009; three children of the family were also converted into Islam by their father Patmanathan at the Bahagian Dakwah, Jabatan Agama Islam, Ipoh, Perak. The conversion was without the knowledge and or consent of the children's mother.



There after the family got separated and the husband took the youngest child of the family and went missing. He is still hiding at an undisclosed location.
On 30th December 2015, the country was shocked when the Court of Appeal by a majority overruled the Ipoh High Court’s decision to nullify the conversion into Islam certificate issued by the Perak Islamic religious authority.

1. Cabinet Committee on Unilateral Conversions
---------------------------------------------------
After the above decision, the Prime Minister announced a 5 man Cabinet committee to address the issues of unilateral conversion of minors.

In 2009, a similar cabinet committee was formed but only a directive was issued namely “in unilateral conversion cases, when one spouse converts to Islam, the children to follow the faith of the parents at the time of their marriage”. This cabinet directive became useless as being only a directive, it was unenforceable in law. Later another Cabinet was formed in 2013 and its existence was hardly known as it was functionless.

On 28th January this year, during the Parliamentary sitting to discuss TPPA, Indira Gandhi met up with 3 members of the 5 man committee, namely Culture and Tourism Minister Datuk Seri Nazri, Transport Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai, and Minister in the Prime Minister‘s Department, Datuk Joseph Kurup in Parliament House.



All 3 gave her assurances that the necessary laws were being drafted to prevent unilateral conversions and they would be tabled for adoption in March parliament sitting. In March de facto law Minister Nancy Sukri asserted to questions raised by me that the laws would be tabled in the coming June sitting. To date I have not heard any updates on this issue. My concern is that it will thus be further delayed as there seems to be no political will and urgency by the Government.






The government has dragged its feet long enough on this issue which has brought great injustice and sufferings to Indira Gandhi. There can be no reason whatsoever for any delay.
I will continue to raise and push for the necessary legislation to prevent unilateral conversion in Parliament.

2 Case against IGP
-----------------------------
The Inspector General of Police (IGP) refused to act on the orders of the Ipoh High Court to retrieve the last child of Indira on the grounds there was a similar order from the Syariah Court. The High Court gave leave to force the IGP to act. From this decision, the Court of Appeal by 2-1 majority disagreed and said the IGP needs not act on the High court order. On further appeal to the Federal Court, the matter was argued last August in 2015. Now the matter has been fixed for decision on the 19th of May 2016.

This matter has been in and out of court since 2009. A finality must come about. The necessary laws to prevent unilateral conversion must be tabled to bring about religious harmony without further dragging of the issue. The failure to date on the promised laws shows the government’s inability as well as lack of political will to address sensitive issues affecting the people of the country.

3) Hindu Sangam should play a more active role on Hindu religious matters.

i further urge the Hindu sangam to play a prominent role to activate religious and spiritual classes in all Hindu Temples in Malaysia. many Hindu temples can be center of propagation of the Hindu religion especially to the young. In this regard i have earlier reminded and spoken the Hindu Sangam President Dato Mohan Shan pn this issue. The Hindu sangam should visit each and every temple and urge the temple committee to sponsor and run hindu clases and keep the temples the never center for Hinduism.


The BN government has definitely failed Indira and her daughter. How could a government that shouts the “People first” slogan allow a mother to be forcibly separated from her child for so long?
A responsible government would not have allowed this issue to prolong for such a long time.
A quick resolvement is overdue to help many who are caught in the above situations. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet must do what is right urgently.

Thursday, April 21, 2016

From Malaysiakini News : Multi stream education system is not a cause of racism

Press Statement by M Kula Segaran, MP for Ipoh Barat and DAP National Vice Chairman in Ipoh on 21st April 20, 2016

Multi stream education system is not a cause of racism


Principal Fellow at UKM’s Institute of Ethnic Studies Professor Teo Kok Seong’s call for the implementation of a single stream education system to combat racism in the country is wrong and unacceptable. ( http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2016/04/19/ukm-don-single-stream-schools-will-boost-unity/)

His argument is flawed right from the start as the cause of racism in Malaysia is not due to the existence of multi stream education system . Single stream education is therefore is not the solution.

I will advise Professor Teo not to think from his ivory tower but to take a bold look at what is causing the rise of racism in this nation.
Cannot he see that the major causes of racism in this nation are due to racial politics , racial policies and racial speeches?

Why is he targeting the vernacular and religious schools when he should be targeting the real and major causes ?

He must be aware that many of the nation’s past and present government and opposition political leaders went to vernacular schools and I therefore challenge him to point out who among them are racists as a result of their education background.

Language does not make one a racist and language does not divide the people. Proponents of single stream schools like Professor Teo should stop blaming the vernacular schools as the cause of lack of unity or as the cause of racism in the nation.

There are many reasons why many non Malay parents send their children to vernacular schools and there are many reasons too why the national schools are not these parents’ preferred choice. I don’t have to teach a professor like Teo , what he needs is the preparedness to look at the issues with a bold and critical mind.

Teo should realise that the right to learn and study one’s mother tongue education is protected by the Malaysian constitution and he should respect the people’s rights.

Secondly, he should know too that abolition of the vernacular schools which is actually not a cause of disunity and racism, will in fact lead to more disunity in the nation.

Monday, April 18, 2016

From Malaysiakini news

Don't be daft, Al-Jubeir has not cleared Najib!

 Kee Thuan Chye     Published Today 8:00 am     Updated Today 8:45 am      1 comments
  
COMMENT | Has Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir settled Najib Razak’s RM2.6 billion scandal and cleared the prime minister of wrongdoing by merely saying, “We are aware of the donation and it is a genuine donation with nothing expected in return”?
I certainly don’t think so. And I’m sure neither would any individual with grey matter in their brain.
Al-Jubeir said that in response to a question by a Bernama reporter at the 13th Summit of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation in Istanbul on April 15. But I think the reporter asked the wrong question.
She asked Al-Jubeir, “Are you aware of the background and the details regarding the donation to the prime minister of Malaysia?” (I may not have got it exactly word-for-word because the sound quality of the video I saw of the press conference is not all that clear, but I think my rendering of it is pretty close.)
Of course he would be aware! Unless he was someone who had his head stuck in the sand. So, what a question to ask!
Besides, he had just come from a meeting with none other than Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak on the sidelines of the summit. He would probably have been suitably briefed. So what could the reporter expect him to say?
Well, apart from saying he was aware of the “donation”, he added, “We are also fully aware that the attorney-general (AG) of Malaysia has thoroughly investigated the matter and found no wrongdoing. So, as far as we are concerned, the matter is closed.”
Speaking as a former journalist, I would have posed the question differently to Al-Jubeir. I would have asked him, “Can you confirm that a donation of US$681 million was made to Najib by Saudi Arabia and that it came from the Saudi royal family?”
His answer to such a question might get us somewhere. Would he then say yes, the donation was from the royal family?
If so, I would proceed to ask him how he could demonstrate conclusively that the donation did come from the Saudi royal family, and why they did not issue a public statement when the scandal broke out to affirm this donation - in order to save Najib from embarrassment.
I would also ask him why he was now saying something different from what he had said more than two months ago to the New York Times, which reported on February 5:
“In Saudi Arabia, Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said that he accepted the attorney general’s opinion that there had been no wrongdoing, but he also said that he did not think that the money had come from the Saudi government or that it was a political donation.
“‘It is a private Saudi citizen, I believe, and the funds went to an investment in Malaysia,’ he said in an interview on Thursday.”
From “investment” to “donation” - that’s a big leap. And notice that in February, he said he believed that the money came from a private citizen, not the Saudi government.
Where does the truth actually lie? Why is the Saudi minister flip-flopping like the Malaysian government tends to do?
More grilling needed
It’s obvious that for us to be convinced, we need to further grill Al-Jubeir to get the important answers and elaborate, truthful information from him. Until we achieve that, we cannot possibly jump to the conclusion that his statement has cleared Najib.
And yet we have Youth and Sports Minister Khairy Jamaluddin promptly declaring on April 16 that Al-Jubeir’s statement has resolved the RM2.6 billion donation issue involving Najib.
He said, “The Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister has confirmed that the donation is a contribution that does not expect anything in return. So it is valid and the issue is settled.”
How shallow that is! Just because of the say-so of the Saudi minister, the case is “settled”? Can a billion-ringgit scandal be settled so easily? Does Khairy lack grey matter?
How can Al-Jubeir’s statement be “valid” when it contradicted what he said in February?
In February, why didn’t Khairy accept Al-Jubeir’s word as gospel (as he does now) and announce that based on it, the AG must be wrong in declaring that it was a donation and that it came from the Saudi royal family? Why didn’t Khairy demand then that the AG investigate the case further to get at the truth?
Reacting as he does now, Khairy comes across looking like he’s involved in a scheme to cover things up.
So does the AG himself, Mohamad Apandi Ali. On April 17, he responded to Al-Jubeir’s statement in a similarly addlepated fashion.
He said he was “relieved” by Al-Jubeir’s confirmation that the donation to Najib came from Saudi Arabia.
“For me the issue is settled,” he told Utusan Malaysia. “There have been calls for further investigation, but I don’t feel that it is necessary. There is already a statement from the donor, so what is there left to be investigated?”
In Apandi’s case, the response appears to be a convenient one as well.
Because, to be sure, Al-Jubeir has confirmed only half of Apandi’s declaration about the “donation”. Al-Jubeir did not confirm that it came from the Saudi royal family. But Apandi conveniently overlooks that.
He is also wrong in saying that Al-Jubeir’s statement came from the donor. It does not. Al-Jubeir does not represent the donor, and he was not conveying an official communiquĂ© from the Saudi government.
His response to the Bernama reporter was off-the-cuff. It was not a statement that had been officially issued by the Saudi government. How much clout does an off-the-cuff statement have?
Is it enough to dismiss a huge scandal without providing any evidence to back up what was said?
Questions unanswered
On top of everything else, there are still so many questions left unanswered.
Why did Najib keep the “donation” secret from even his fellow Umno leaders? Isn’t Khairy himself peeved that he knew nothing about it until the scandal was exposed? How can he still defend Najib after the fact? Why does he not instead question the whole issue rigorously?
And what about the deposits other than the RM2.6 billion allegedly made to Najib’s account? Is that aspect of the scandal “settled” too?
I reiterate, Al-Jubeir has contributed nothing conclusive or even significant to the scandal surrounding Najib. The case is not closed. If our officials entrusted with the integrity of our nation do not probe it further to arrive at nothing but the truth, if all they want to do is to protect their master, they are committing the worst sin of public office.
Meanwhile, they should stop looking like dimwits and ass-kissers. It does not become such trustees of the nation’s well-being.

KEE THUAN CHYE is the author of bestsellers ‘Unbelivably Stupid!’ and ‘Unbelievably Stupid Too!’
Related stories


Sunday, April 17, 2016

From Malaysiakini news---

Manifestations of religious intolerance worries woman behind G25

27

 Alyaa Alhadjri     Published Today 12:00 pm     Updated Today 1:15 pm      0 comments

  
MALAYSIANS KINI At the height of her career, G25 founder and retired diplomat Noor Farida Ariffin was wearing three different hats for Malaysia at the world’s legal capital - The Hague, Netherlands.
She was appointed as ambassador to The Hague in 2000 and represented Malaysia as co-agent at the International Court of Justice in the trials for claims on Pulau Batu Putih, as well as Sipadan and Ligitan.
This was aside from being the Malaysian permanent representative to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, also based in The Hague.
Her journey with the judiciary, however, started with in 1971 when she joined the Attorney-General’s Chambers.
She was a Sessions Court judge in 1988 when the government seconded her to London for five years as the Commonwealth Secretariat’s Director of the Women and Development Programme.
This was to be the turning point for her diplomatic career after being appointed in 1993 to head Wisma Putra’s newly established Legal Division of the Ministry.
Nowadays, Noor Farida shares her home with eight cats, while at the same time continues to travel and offer legal consultancy services.
One of her eight cats, named Jasper, was a gift from a friend and came along with her all the way from Holland.
In her own words, Noor Farida shares her life experiences that eventually led to formation of G25.
I WAS BROUGHT UP IN TAIPING. I have six siblings - three boys, three girls. I went to school at the Treacher Methodist school and I did my Form 6 at King Edwards Science School. After that I went to Inns of Court and did my law degree in London.
During my time, we mixed freely. Until now I am still in touch with my classmates of all races because we never looked at skin colour, we never looked at religion.
We even had pyjama parties. We visited each other’s homes.
One thing about us Malaysians is that we are so respectful of each other’s religion.
I find that even to this day. Except that now Muslims are more concerned about halal haram issues than they are about corruption.
I AM SINGLE BY CHOICE. Once you reach a certain stage, you get too independent to want to share your life with somebody. To clutter up your life.
Of course during your youth you have all the relationships but it never made me want to give up my singlehood.
In fact many of my friends who are in this line of work, people doing civil society work, activists, many of them are single by choice. So it is nothing unusual now.
You have other interests and you value your independence. That is the main thing. If you have God to celebrate, causes to fight for… you lead an interesting life. And you have financial independence as well.
You can travel when you like, as you like.
I TRAVEL EXTENSIVELY. I still go about twice a year to Europe because my family has a house there. My family has a townhouse and my niece lives there.
My sister is in Australia, I have nieces, nephews and grand-nieces in Australia. I will be visiting them next month.
So basically we are very cosmopolitan people, that is how it has shaped my world view.
THROUGH IT ALL I REMAIN A DEVOUT MUSLIM. But people will always judge you on whether you cover your hair or not and that is such a shame.
Islam in this country - and I have been talking to foreigners and foreign diplomats - they say, our emphasis is more on rituals. More on form rather than substance.
Many people, especially some of our religious authorities, have forgotten that the main message of Islam is justice and mercy, and compassion.
We begin every prayer by invoking the name of Allah SWT the merciful and most compassionate but you look at Kelantan’s proposal for public caning in stadiums.
A stadium is for recreation and sports. It is not for punishment. And why? Where is the emphasis on mercy and compassion?
I CONSIDER MYSELF A LIBERAL BUT I AM A FAITHFUL MUSLIM. I am a practising Muslim. I don’t just pray five times a day, I pray more than that. I take my religious obligations very seriously.
But the problem is, they just judge you by your exterior. I don’t go around exposing my bosom and all that. I dress modestly, except that I don’t wear the tudung. Which is a conscious decision.
But to them you are murtad, you are deviant.
THEY NEVER DEFINE WHAT IS A LIBERAL. What is a liberal? For us being liberal means respecting other point of views. And being pluralists means respecting people of other faiths.
I respect, for example a Christian, but that does not mean that I believe in the Christian religion.
As a Muslim I believe that my religion is the truth. But let’s just learn to respect each other’s differences. Basically it is all about respect.
These people have such a distorted interpretation of the word liberal and the word plural.
IT WAS AN INFORMED DECISION. I don't wear the headscarf because I have read enough and I'm convinced it is not mandatory.
There are many views, except in this country, only one view prevails.
Through the Golden Age of Islam, differences of views, except on matters of faith like the five pillars of Islam, were welcomed.
That is why we have the four mazhabs (school of thoughts). Differences of views on minor things.
Just not on the five main pillars of faith. Those are matters which cannot be questioned.
I AM VERY PROUD TO BE A FEMINIST. People who look down on feminists don’t understand the meaning of the word. We are just making sure that women are not abused.
To fight for what is right, for men or women, for me that is the right thing to do because you have an innate sense of justice.
Even if men were abused, I would be very concerned because we also fight for human rights.
To be a feminist is to fight for women’s human rights.
MOST PREJUDICES ARE BORNE OUT OF IGNORANCE. If people are racially prejudiced, it is because they have never mixed with others. And because of basic insecurities, they think only their race and their religion is perfect.
But if you were to mix with others, you will see that they are just the same as you.
SNOOPING AND SPYING INTO PRIVATE SINS IS AGAINST THE AL-QURAN. I was a founding member of Sisters In Islam. To us, Islam is a merciful religion. Islam is a religion that gave so much rights to women at a time when Europe was still living in darkness.
And yet you have people accusing me of being murtad and a deviant just because we (G25) question the administration of Islam and we are against moral policing.
As I said, so much ignorance. What I discovered from this episode, when I have been so maligned and defamed, is that a lot of Muslims in Malaysia are ignorant about the religion.
WE AT G25 WILL CONTINUE TO SPEAK UP. What has struck me is that because our composition is mainly very senior retired civil servants, we’ve got eight former secretary-generals, eight former ambassadors, directors-general and also members who are still working… people are emboldened to speak up.
People are saying that if G25 who are basically establishment figures, if they can speak up, they too can speak up.
We are very perturbed at the manifestation of religious intolerance in this country. At the breakdown of good governance in this country.
So its not just religious issues that we are focusing on but also good governance, upholding the Federal Constitution, and reforms.

Friday, April 15, 2016

Colonisation argument 'specious' says Kula


Malaysiakini news:



  
The credence Malaysians give foreign media reports on the prime minister’s culpability in the 1MDB affair is less an effect of colonisation than a reflection of the loss in credibility of local institutions.
DAP national vice-chair M Kulasegaran termed as “specious” the argument by Umno lawyer Hafarizam Harun that some Malaysians’ inclination to believe the reports of the Wall Street Journal and other foreign media on Najib Abdul Razak’s culpability over the findings of local investigative agencies which have exculpated the PM as “colonisation”.
“As well claim that the option being offered by some schools to their pupils that they can choose English as their medium of instruction is an effect of the colonisation of the mind of some Malaysian parents and their offspring,” said the MP for Ipoh Barat.
“Just as English is a more efficacious vehicle for the transmission of knowledge, the tendency of Malaysians to believe in the reports of foreign media such as Wall Street Journal is a reflection of those outlets' higher credibility compared to that of local investigative agencies whose independence and findings have been rendered suspect,” remarked Kulasegaran.
“Linguistic efficacy and institutional credibility are not matters that are acquired through ready means,” he asserted.
“These are the effect of solidly gotten gains made over a long period of time and subscription to them cannot be disparaged as evidence of mental colonisation,” argued the federal legislator.
Kulsasegaran said the surest way for the PM to uphold his integrity was to sue foreign media outlets that have run reports undermining the credibility of his claims that he had done nothing wrong in his handling of the 1MDB issue.
The state wealth fund has been immersed in debt and controversy for more than a year, with critics urging the PM’s resignation.
Though attorney-general Apandi Ali has absolved the PM of wrongdoing in the affair, reports in Wall Street Journal and other foreign media continue to cast a pall over the handling of the wealth fund, which has incurred debts close to RM50 billion.
“There is no other recourse than for the PM to sue his detractors in the foreign media,” observed Kulasegaran.
“He has seen fit to sue some of his interlocutors on the home front but thus far has refrained from suing his foreign accusers. This has left him open to suspicion he is unwilling to retrieve his reputation in arenas where the adjudication may not be susceptible to influence,” he maintained.


Read more: https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/337956#ixzz45sCBLaR9

Thursday, April 14, 2016

Is Socso in jeopardy of becoming the next 1MDB?




Opposition lawmakers are concerned that recent amendments made to the Employees' Social Security Act may be too risky

Beritadaily
S Neishasa


KUALA LUMPUR: Two DAP members of parliament (MP) today reiterated their nagging concern over recent amendments made to the Employees' Social Security Act 1969.

Both Ipoh Barat MP M Kulasegaran and Klang MP Charles Santiago voiced out their unease over two of the twelve amendments made to the Act in the last Parliament sitting.

The first amendment that they were not all too pleased about was the introduction of Section 74A to the Act which now allows the Social Security Organisation (Socso), with the approval of the Human Resource Minister and the Minister of Finance, “to establish or take over any company” and to carry out, administer, conduct and manage any project, joint venture, privatisation programme, scheme, enterprise or any other matter which has been planned or undertaken by Socso.

“First of all the minister's (Human Resources Richard Riot) reply in parliament was most unsatisfactory as he did not elaborate and explain in detail as to why these amendments are necessary.

“His argument in reply was MPs took six hours to debate therefore there is nothing much to explain and he read out his reply in 29 minutes without giving us any opportunity to intervene.

“In the process he has opened up more cans of worms because it is becoming blur, unclear and our concern for workers are why is there a necessity for Socso to be involved in taking over companies, managing companies, setting up companies and all this more or less points to a new business direction," said Kulasegaran when contacted.

He said that it must not be forgotten that Socso was set up for workers and workers' issues must be of utmost importance.

Unfortunately, it looks like there are other plans by those managing Socso of entering into the new risky business ventures, he added.

"I say it is a no-no because almost invariably all government linked companies (GLC) in this country are either not doing well or on the verge of bankruptcy," said Kulasegaran.

He argued that it is unwise for the government to be involved in business as it diverts from the priority of ensuring the people's well-being.

Kulasegaran further said that he and other MPs he spoke to about the matter did not rule out the possibility that Socso would be used in the future to takeover problematic companies.

"No question about it (taking over problematic companies), this is one of the things that we MPs spoke about. We suspect these are all legalising attempted take-overs and all that.

"My worry is this will be another, if not properly supervised and controlled, potential 1MDB in the future. You must not forget the total assets of Socso is much bigger than all these amounts - (RM) billions," said Kulasegaran.

Socso's 2014 annual report states that the value of its current assets was RM11 billion and its non-current assets stood at RM11 billion.

The Ipoh Barat MP was also highly critical of another amendment to the Act which seeks to remove the representative from Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) as a member of Socso's Investment Panel.

Kulasegaran said the move by BNM to pull out was "totally illogical, unreasonable and unfair" to the workers.

According to Human Resources Minister Richard Riot at the Parliament, BNM had requested not to sit on the panel due to conflict of interest.

"What conflict of interest can there be? Now the eagle eye of the BNM is shut and it is left to ordinary government servants to run and manage huge pension funds, which are worth billions. This is very risky," said Kulasegaran.

Blanket scope

Similarly, fellow party member Santiago also raised concerns over the "blanket scope" afforded to Socso by including Section 74A to the Employees' Social Security Act.

"Socso has a lot of money available to them, they get something like RM1.5 billion per month from all the contributors which is quite substantial and then they have something like RM20 over billion in assets. So, I think this is an opportunity they feel they can use to diversify the operations.

"Now, I can understand if Socso want to invest in hospitals in order to provide rehabilitation services or medical services for its contributors, that's very understandable and that is in line with pursuing the interest of Socso's mandate to cover employees hurt in the line of duty.

"But now you have given them a very blanket scope meaning they can take over, start businesses, go into joint ventures in any kind of economic activities in the country as long as you have the support and permission of the Minister of Finance as well as the Minister of Human Resources. This raises a lot of questions because Malaysia does not have a good record when it comes to governance and spending government money," said Santiago when contacted.

He added that in the last few years, as a result of 1MDB and other controversies, the institutions of government have come under severe criticism and attack by Malaysians and also the larger international community.

"So, I think the fear is that this money (Socso's) would be used to support ventures like 1MDB and ventures that potentially go outside of the interest of workers and bailout companies and so on and so forth because there is so much of money sitting there," he said.

Like Kulasegaran, Santiago also said that Riot did not respond to any of these issues that were raised by them in Parliament.

"Either he (Riot) is not convinced himself or he is doing the bidding of the Minister of Finance, who is also PM. This really raises a lot of questions about the way they might use the money in the future," said Santiago.

He also opined that BNM, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and Transparency International be considered as part of the panel to ensure that there is financial integrity involved.

"The PKFZ scandal went on even with Ministry of Finance people sitting there. They were of no use because they didn't stop any kind of financial manipulations or cheating.

"That's why I think the government should consider bringing in Transparency International, BNM, MACC to sit on some of these panels because people don't really trust the gov that much," said Santiago.

If the Prime Minister Najib thinks he has been defamed, it is his responsibility to sue Wall Street Journal to clear his name and Malaysia’s image. Nothing less will do!





Press Statement by M Kula Segaran, MP for Ipoh Barat and DAP National Vice Chairman in Ipoh on 14th April, 2016

If the Prime Minister Najib thinks he has been defamed, it is his responsibility to sue Wall Street Journal to clear his name and Malaysia’s image. Nothing less will do!


The Prime Minister Dato Najib Tun Razak‘s lawyer Datuk Mohd Hafarizam Harun has said that Najib has not decided whether to sue or not to sue Wall Street Journal.
He has given various reasons which I shall not dwell on all of them.

However, I find his “continued colonialization” argument strange, unfair and even ridiculous.

He has said that the more important issue is the Malaysians’ own thoughts, noting that reports and statements from local authorities such as the Attorney-General and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission have cleared the prime minister.

“If you say you do not believe because the international media are saying otherwise, nothing much I can do,” he told reporters yesterday, adding that it would show a mindset of continued colonization with the belief that “the Americans, the British, the whites are far superior” than Malaysians.

Does Mohd Hafarizam seriously think that Malaysians believe that the reports and statements from the local authorities have cleared the prime minister?

If he seriously thinks so, then I suggest to him to propose to the Prime Minister to commission an independent opinion survey and find out how many percent of Malaysians believe that the prime minister has been cleared.

It is wrong and unfair too for Mohd Hafarizam to accuse others of not believing the statements and reports of local authorities as having a mindset of continued colonialization.

The fact that Malaysians do not believe in local reports and news is not simply due to international media reports. If Mohd Hafarizam cares to read the various statements issued by Opposition politicians, social activists as well as the social media comments on why they do not think that the Prime Minister has been cleared, he will surely know the reasons why.

There is therefore no need and no justification for him to invoke the ridiculous “continued colonialization” argument.

He should also know better that Wall Street Journal is no ordinary paper but is a well respected international media organization. What it says carries weight and impact in the international community.

Najib is also not an ordinary Malaysian citizen but the Prime Minister. If he thinks he has been defamed, it is his responsibility to sue Wall Street Journal to clear his name and Malaysia’s image. Nothing less will do.

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Call upon the AG to withdraw the appeal to High Court from Seremban Session court to save time and money








Press Statement by M. Kula Segaran, MP for Ipoh Barat and DAP National Vice Chairman in Seremban on 12 th April 2016

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Call upon the AG to withdraw the appeal to High Court from Seremban Session court to save time and money
Subbarau Kamalanathan, 37, is a graduate teacher from Seremban. He was charged under the Official Secrets Act (OSA) for being in possession of UPSR examination questions for the year 2014. He was charged for 5 offences and if found guilty for each charge, he could be sentenced for a minimum of one year to a maximum of 7 years.

After hearing the prosecution case, he was acquitted on 16thApril 2015. From this decision of the Sessions Court Judge Dato Jagjit Singh, it has been appealed to the High Court of Seremban.



One Uma a teacher was similarly charged for UPSR leakage of questions under the OSA in Kuala Kangsar (KK) Sessions Court. The witnesses were the same in both cases. But in KK court, two principal witness testimonies contradicted from what they had testified in Seremban.

Malaysian Examination Certificate Director Dr Na'imah said that she classified the UPSR papers as 'secret' with her signature. But later she had signatured it again as some UPSR questions were amended. Thus due to the amendments, she had to re-sign. But while giving evidence in KK court, she said the re-signing was not for amendments but was for the re sitting of the UPSR papers which had leaked. She said she only realised it after April 2015 and after refreshing her memory.


As regards the Investigating officer ASP Irwan, he said he could not remember if he had said the re-signs were for amendments. But when shown the Seremban Court notes of evidence, he said he could not remember. But he asserted it was not for amendments of the questions but for the re sitting of the leakage UPSR exams papers.

Both witnesses’ statements strongly contradicted from their earlier statements. Thus
an application has been filed for leave (permission) to use the evidence given by two principal witnesses in KK Court in the appeal in Seremban High Court.


The testimonies of KK court will show the inconsistency and goes to the credibility of the witness.


The High Court Yang Ariff Datin Mariam binti Hj Othman today decided:

1) To allow our application. With this new set of evidence the court should have a clearer picture of the character and credibility of the witness.


Further although the accused was acquitted last April (2015) yet to date the government teacher accused is yet to be reinstated to his former job. He is on half pay since last year and he has suffered enough.



In view of the decision by the Judge in public interest I urge DPP Nik Azhan (Head of prosecution ) Negeri Sembilan to consider withdrawing their appeal of acquittal. Much time and public money will be saved in the process as the charges are very technical in nature.



Thursday, April 7, 2016

Malaysiakini :- Kula: This insult must not be allowed to stand



Parliament must reassert its inviolability in the face of the arrest of MP for Pandan Rafizi Ramli within its precincts.


“It matters little whether Rafizi was arrested within the grounds of Parliament or just outside it; the very gesture represents a gratuitous insult to democracy and must not be allowed to stand,” said M Kulasegaran, MP for Ipoh Barat.

The DAP national vice-chair said he was heartened that speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia wants to investigate the arrest but he observed that the point about where exactly the arrest took place - within Parliament's grounds or just beyond it - was not germane to the issue.

“A Member of Parliament exiting Parliament after a day's work should not be apprehended,” argued Kulasegaran, a four-term parliamentarian and practising lawyer.

“If he is apprehended for reasons other than national security concerns, it conveys the notion that Parliament’s sanctity as an institution is precarious,” he continued.

“I urge speaker Pandikar to reassert Parliament's inviolability in the face of this insult to its traditions,” he said.

PKR secretary-general Rafizi was arrested by police last Tuesday just outside the main gate to Parliament's grounds as he was leaving after the day’s sitting.

Police later announced that he was being investigated under Section 8 of the Official Secrets Act. Yesterday, Rafizi was remanded for three days on a magistrate’s order.

Rafizi’s arrest is related to his expose last month of a document that purports to show a link between controversy-ridden state wealth fund 1MDB and Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera.

In protest of the arrest, a delegation of MPs, led by opposition leader Dr Wan Azizah Ismail, is expected to march to Bukit Aman to demand for Rafizi’s release.

“A ruling by speaker Pandikar on the matter is urgently needed to reassert Parliament’s inviolability,” said Kulasegaran.