Monday, June 19, 2017




Media statement by M.Kula Segaran MP Ipoh Barat and DAP National Vice Chairman in Shah Alam Court 19th June 2017

Section 61A of the Anti-Trafficking In Persons & Smuggling Of Migrants Act 2007.
is unfair, unreasonable, oppressive and prejudicial and should be truck down

Mdm Vigneswary Murugaiah, a well-known Tamil writer, who frequently writes about the plight of poor Tamilians all around the world, was arrested on the 16th of December 2015 for allegedly smuggling a migrant under Section 26A of the Anti-Trafficking In Persons & Smuggling Of Migrants Act 2007.

However, about 1 year after she was charged, the Prosecution suddenly brought in 2 depositions as evidence pursuant to Section 61A of the Act. This allows deposition to be taken with or without the presence of the accused and it is prima facie evidence.

This is totally unfair and unconstitutional as it deprives Vigneswary of her right to a fair trial as she will not be accorded to opportunity to cross-examine the person who allegedly did the ‘deposition’. To make things worse, we were already lawyers on record but yet the prosecution did not notify us about the deposition taking place.

Thus, we have filed a constitutional challenge in front of High Court Judge Yang Arif Ghazali Cha to refer this particular Section 61A to the Federal Court. We have suggested 3 questions to be referred to the Federal Court, which are:

a. Is Section 61A of the Anti-Trafficking In Persons & Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 contravening the Federal Constitution; and

b. Is the right to cross-examine a witness in a criminal trial a fundamental right of every citizen of Malaysia; and

c. Does Parliament have powers to make laws like Section 61A of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons & Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 which usurps the power of the Judiciary

During the hearing on 16.06.2017, M. Kula Segaran the counsel for Vigneswary argued inter alia that the prejudicial effect of Section 61A outweighs the probative value of the evidence and that it was contrary to Article 8 of the Federal Constitution.

Even for more brutal offences like murder and rape, the accused are entitled to cross-examine the witnesses wherelse in this case the accused isn’t allowed, a clear breach of natural justice. M. Kula Segaran also in detail ventilated the Semenyih Jaya case, and that Judges should jealously guard the judicial powers of the Court.

He further went on and argued that per Article 121 of the Federal Constitution, our judicial powers can’t be taken away or controlled with. We have a written constitution and thus our country is that of a constitutional supremacy unlike the United Kingdom wherein they practice parliamentary supremacy.

It is now upon the Judges to trigger the inner conscience of the Courts which Parliament has to abide. The right to cross-examine is a vested inalienable right to an accused.

The Prosecution led by Tuan Mohamad Abazafree bin Mohd Abbas, argued that cross-examination is a criminal procedure created by Parliament, and is a specific provision. He argues that the weight of the deposition is still to be determined by the presiding Judge. He further went on to say that it is a only a process and has nothing to do with the separation of powers.

Section 61A of the Anti-Trafficking In Persons & Smuggling Of Migrants Act 2007.
is unfair, unreasonable, oppressive and prejudicial and should be truck down

The case has been fixed for decision on the 25th of July 2017.

Saturday, June 10, 2017


 Media statement by M. Kula Segaran MP Ipoh Barat and DAP national Vice Chairman in ipoh on 9th June 2017


Member of Parliament challenge the constitutionality of Section 9(1) of Peaceful Assembly Act 2012
On 14.10.2016, Thomas Su the MP for Ipoh Timur was charged under Section 9(1) and punishable under Section 9(5) of Peaceful Assembly Act 2012. The maximum fine under this section is RM10,000. If found guilty and fined more than RM two Thousand (2000.00) he will be disqualified as a Member of Parliament.

Thomas Su was charged for the same offence in 2013 and subsequently the prosecution withdraw the charge. Late last year he was recharged for the same offence.

After perusing the charge, the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 and our Federal Constitution we are of the opinion that particularly Section 9(1) and Section 9(5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 is unconstitutional. Thus, we have filed an application pursuant to Section 30 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 to refer the constitutionality of this section to the High Court and subsequently to the Federal Court pursuant to Section 84 Courts of Judicature Act 1964.

There are two conflicting decisions in the Court of Appeal, Public Prosecutor v. Yuneswaran [2015] 9 C.L.J. 873 and Nik Nazmi bin Nik Ahmad v Public Prosecutor [2014] 4 M.L.J 157 wherein in the former it was held that the particular sections are constitutional whereas in the latter it was held that the particular sections are unconstitutional.

Our Government has also pledged to the United Nation Human Rights Council that our Government believe is strongly in upholding freedom of assembly but in reality, they do not adhere with it.

The AG was represented by DPP Muhammad Fauzi bin Md Yusof and was presided by Sessions Judge Sessions Judge- NORASHIMA BINTI KHALID

The case was adjourned to allow the AG to file the necessary affidavit in reply before the case is fixed for Hearing proper.

The lawyers whom assisted in this case today were M. Kula Segaran, N. Selvam, Miss P.Kala Malar and A. Vemal.



M. Kula Segaran
MP for Ipoh Barat

Sunday, June 4, 2017





Press Statement by M Kula Segaran, DAP National Vice Chairman and MP for Ipoh Barat in Ipoh on 4th June, 2017


Housemanship training issue: Jayaindran should withdraw his claim or prove with facts that
local medical graduates only have to wait an average of 3 months for posting

The oversupply of doctors and the long wait for housemanship training have been two problems that have been raised for sometime. However, the Health Ministry has not been able to come out with effective short term and long term solution to resolve these problems.

A few days ago, in response to concerns raised by Malaysian Medical Association on the plight of fresh medical graduates who have to wait long to get posting for housemanship, Deputy Health director-general Datuk Dr S. Jeyaindran said that the Health Ministry can absorb up to 5,300 new housemen every year for its facilities nationwide and therefore, the situation is “manageable”.

“Some 4,300 doctors graduate from local medical schools while the rest are from abroad. The situation is not that bad and we still have places for them,” he said.

He further said that those who graduated from local universities only need to wait an average of three months for their posting and only those who graduate from foreign universities have to wait longer.

However, Dr Jayaindran’s claim has been rebuked by at least two medical graduates.

According to a Free Malaysia Today report dated June 1, a fresh graduate has said that she had to wait 11 months for her posting.

She said there were graduates from Universiti Malaya who waited 11 months, graduates from Perdana University who waited 12 months, graduates from Universiti Sains Malaysia and the International Medical University who waited eight months, and graduates from Mahsa University who waited nine months.

“These are all facts,” she said. “Half of each university’s graduates are still waiting for a job offer.”

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2017/06/01/ministrys-claim-about-houseman-training-dismissed-as-nonsense/

In a letter to the Editor in the Star today, a medical graduate from subang jaya who wrote using the name disgruntled medical grad has also disputed Jayaindran’s claim that medical graduates of local universities only need to wait an average of three months for their housemanship training.

This graduate described the claim made by Deputy Health director-general Datuk Dr S. Jeyaindran rather far-fetched, to say the least.

His/her letter said “A few friends of mine who graduated in October 2016 from Universiti Malaya, the top public university in the country, began their housemanship just last week”.

http://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/letters/2017/06/02/practising-medicine-isnt-like-riding-a-bicycle-after-many-years/

So how did Jayaindran make the claim that local graduates only need to wait an average of three months when the fact is not so?

How could we expect the Health Ministry to resolve this serious problem faced by the medical graduates when even the deputy director general could be so wrong in his claim?

Jayaindran should withdraw his claim or prove with facts that local medical graduates only have to wait an average of three months for their housemanship posting.

Why do we have a situation of over supply of doctors? Who will accept responsibility that we just should not have allowed the mushrooming of medical colleges?

I warned in my speech in Parliament some 10 years ago that if uncontrolled in the approving of new medical colleges and the ensuing production of doctors a situation of over supply will happen.

The Health Ministry said I was out of tune and we need many more doctors. Statistics were thrown to us to show how shallow and wrong our arguments were.

But now we are are in a "loose loose" situation. Will the oversupply be addressed? Has the Government the will power to address this issue?

0125034346

Wednesday, May 31, 2017




Press Statement by M Kula Segaran, DAP National Vice Chairman and MP for Ipoh Barat in Ipoh on 31st May, 2017


Zakir Naik must have no place in Malaysia and Home Minister must reject his citizenship application.

The Times of India has reported that controversial India-born Muslim evangelist Dr Zakir Naik has applied for Malaysian citizenship but a decision has yet to be made about his application.

After the federal government recently disclosed that Zakir was granted permanent residency a few years ago, there have been much criticisms against the government’s decision.

The Indian community in particular has been angered by the government’s decision.

I have on April 20 this year asked if the government if it has the political will to revoke the PR granted to Zakir. However, till today, it is obvious that the federal government has not had the will to do what is right.

It is puzzling that the government is willing to ignore the people’s justified demands and protect one person whose presence and residency in Malaysia does not help in fostering better religious understanding and relationships among Malaysians.

On April 20 this year, it was reported that at the National Transformation 2050 (TN50) dialogue held with Indian youths held on April 19, MIC president Datuk S Subramaniam said that Dr Zakir Naik has no place in Malaysia.

He gave the reply when asked why the preacher was given permanent residency.

He was also reported to say that Zakir is not going to contribute to the advancement of Islam in the country.

http://www.todayonline.com/world/asia/malaysia-doesnt-need-zakir-naik-mic-president-says

However, Dr Subramanaim did not give any commitment as to what he, MIC or the government would do about the permanent residency (PR) granted to Zakir Naik.

Why he could not give a simple and clear answer as to whether the government will revoke or review the permanent residency granted?

Neither did he say he would bring up the matter in the Cabinet.

When the Indian community are still unhappy about the government’s reluctance and failure to review and resolve the permanent residency issue, it is now reported that Zakir has applied for Malaysian citizenship.

I call on the Home Ministry to declare if it is true that Zakir has made an application as reported and if so, when was the application submitted.

However, what is most important is that the Home Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zaid must declare what is the government’s stand on Zakir’s decision.

I wish to remind the Home Minister that a controversial preacher like Zakir must have no place in Malaysia. There can only be one decision, that is, to reject his application.

In fact, the government must also be prepared to review and revoke the permanent residency granted to Zakir.


M. Kula Segaran

012 5034346

Saturday, May 27, 2017




Statement by M Kula Segaran, DAP National Vice Chairman and MP for Ipoh Barat 28th May2017
.............................................

Mahathir is the main person who could help create the Malay tsunami that is required for a political change
According to media report, the NBC/WSJ poll took place from May 11-13 showed that American President Donald Trump scored an approval rating of 39%. At this point in President Barack Obama's first term, his approval numbers were in the mid 60s. The last Republican president before Trump, George W. Bush, sat with a 56 percent approval rating in May of his first term, and President Ronald Reagan was in the high 60s.
So Donald Trump is an unpopular American president. However, TIME magazine has included Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak in its list of five world leaders who the publication claims are less popular than President Donald Trump
This is certainly a big embarrassment to Najib, the BN government and Malaysia. But Najib does not worry about having to relinquish his Prime Minister’s post. MIC president Dato Subramanaiam will continue to sing praises of him. MCA and Gerakan presidents Dato Liow Tiong Lai and Datuk Ma Siew Kiong will still think Najib is the best BN prime minsiter. Umno divisional leaders who have been recipients of Najib’s controversial RM 2.6 billion fund will continue to be grateful to Najib. 
Does Najib have personal pride? He has certainly mastered well the art of behaving like an ostrich that buries its head in the sand. He won’t care about all the negative talk and adverse criticisms about him. Being in power has become the most important goal in his life now.
If a similar mega scandal like 1 MDB where the prime minister is implicated has happened in UK, Germany, Japan or America, the prime minister will either resign in disgrace or forced to resign. In Japan, may be the prime minister will have to commit hara-kiri even. Of course, we are not asking Najib to commit hara kiri. 
Malaysia cannot have a good future under such a Prime Minister and government. Malaysians cannot hold their heads high when going overseas and when 1 MDB becomes a topic of conversation.
That is why former Prime Minister Tun Mahathir at age 92 has burnt his bridges with Umno and has decided to join forces with the opposition to save Malaysia by toppling Najib and the BN government. Mahathir knows very well that the only way to save Malaysia is via people power in the coming general elections.
There are people who say they can’t forgive Mahathir for the wrongs he did when he was the Prime Minister of Malaysia. There are those who also think that it is unacceptable to work with Mahathir. 
We can find many reasons to justify not working with Mahathir if we want to. Just like we could find many reasons in 1998 if we did not want to accept working with Anwar Ibrahim.
But time has proven that working with Anwar brought about significant political changes and provided hope for a better Malaysia. 
So if our political agenda today is to save Malaysia, we need to win support of the Malay masses who have been traditional supporters of UMNO and BN.  And Mahathir is the main person who could help create the Malay tsunami that is required for a political change. 
Opposition supporters must therefore help spread the right message and ensure that all races including the peoples of Sabah and Sarawak will come together in the next general election and save Malaysia. 
Recently Umno Minister Datuk Nazri Aziz admitted that he had received RM 1 million from Najib Razak’s controversial RM 2.6 billion donation. 
He made the admission during a tell-all session with Umno Overseas Alumni Club members in Kuala Lumpur.
By his admission, Nazri has confirmed the existence of the money. 

I challenge Najib to publish a full list of the recipients of his controversial RM 2.6 billion donation that was credited into his personal account.  Let’s see how much MCA, MIC, Gerakan and other BN component parties had received

Friday, May 5, 2017

Press Statement by M Kula Segaran, DAP National Vice Chairman and MP for Ipoh Barat in Ipoh on May 4, 2017


Let me remind Subramaniam and the BN government that what they should produce to win the support of the Indian community is results and not blueprint


After attending the ‘MIC Retreat: Gearing Towards the 14th General Election’ programme at Aimst University , MIC president, Datuk Seri Dr S. Subramaniam had told reporters that MIC aims to win at least seven parliamentary and 14 state seats in the coming 14th General Election (GE14).
He said MIC has identified its chances of winning six out of the nine parliamentary seats to be contested in the 14th General Election and, if possible, will try to secure seven seats.

“At the state level, although in the last general election we only contested in 18 seats, this time however, we will contest all 19 seats and aim to win at least 13 or 14 seats,” he said.

He also said he was confident of the matter based on the current work on the ground carried out by the party machinery, such as encouraging new voters to register as well as carrying out activities with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to help the people.

It is good for a leader to have confidence and I congratulate Subramaniam for having the confidence that MIC can do well in the coming general election though I don’t think he should be so optimistic.
I wish to remind him that to win voter support, he should produce results and achievements by the BN government since the last general election and not by mere talk only.

Could he explain to the people especially the Indian community, 4 years after the last general election, what has MIC and the BN federal government done for the Indian community?

Could he say that he is satisfied with what that has been done to address and resolve the many long standing issues faced by the Indian community in economic, education, employment, social, and civil service sectors?

The Special Implementation Taskforce on the Indian Community (Prime Minister's Department) was established in June 2010 to ensure that Malaysian Indians are able to access the services, programs and projects of the Federal government in a just, fair and equitable way.

Could he explain that after being chairman of this Task force, how much has achieved? Why has this Task Force become a disappointment in terms of delivering results?

Surely if MIC has done well in serving the interest of the Indian community and has achieved much worthy of boasting, Subrmaniam will have no reason to be silent about its performance.
Speaking at the opening of MIC's 70th annual assembly on Oct last year, the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib said an Indian blueprint was necessary because his past initiatives for Indians had not effectively trickled down to the community's grassroots.

Hence, when Najib recently launched the Blueprint for the Indians, it basically means that the government has not been effective in helping the community.
Actually, the launch of the Blueprint is a reflection of MIC’s failure as a political party which claims to champion the interest of the Indian community.

BN has been in power for decades and if it is sincere, committed and serious about helping the Indian community, many long standing issues would have been resolved.

Lets be frank nothing much is going to change unless there is a change of Government at the federal level.

Let me remind Subramaniam and the BN government that what they should produce to win the support of the Indian community is results and not blueprint.




Media statement by M. Kula Segaran MP Ipoh Barat and DAP National Vice Chairman in Ipoh 6th May 2017

HIGH COURT DECIDES THAT TWO MP’S LEAVE APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW TO CHALLENGE THE ELECTION COMMISSIONS REDELIENATION PROCESS IS ‘FRIVOLOUS’

The Election Commission had on the 8th of March published in the main news print that the 2nd enquiry on the delimitation will take place all over the country except for Selangor.

But in the notice above the “effect” of the delimitation as set out in Section 4(a) of the Thirteenth Schedule of the Federal Constitution was not provided.

This prompted me to write a letter to the Election Commission (EC) asking for the factors which were or were not taken into account when the Ipoh Barat voters attended the first inquiry on 01.11.2016. The EC replied immediately without providing any answers to the matters I asked but said the 2nd inquiry process will commence soon. Thus the EC failed and neglected to give a reply!

By reasons of the above Ipoh Timur MP Thomas Su and I filed an application to review the decision of the EC. The matter was heard in full on the 18th April 2017.


Today, 05.05.2017, the Ipoh High Court, presided by Y.A Che Ruzima Ghazali, decided that the two applicants, namely the Ipoh Barat and Ipoh Timur MPs’ application for leave for Judicial Review to challenge the Election Commissions’ Redelienation process as unconstitutional was frivolous and that there isn’t an arguable case for the applicants


In the meantime the Malacca High Court presided by Y.A Vazeer Alam Mydin had heard a similar JR and had allowed it on the basis that the court felt there are cogent grounds to challenge the EC.

We had even given the Malacca High Courts application for JR which was similar to ours to the Judge in the Ipoh High Court as it was of persuasive value when the Ipoh judge delivers his decision. To our utter shock and disappointment the Judge dismissed our application for JR basically that our application was frivolous.

The High Court Judge summarized that there were 6 issues to be dealt with which were :

1. Selangor’s exclusion from this whole process;

2. Whether the Election Commission adhered to Section 4(a) of the 13th Schedule of the Federal Constitution;

3. Whether the Notice and/or Proposed Recommendations were issued without jurisdiction;

4. Whether the Notice and/or Proposed Recommendations were unconstitutional;

5. Whether the First Local Enquiry on 01.11.2016 for Ipoh Barat was unlawful; and

6. Whether the First Local Enquiry on 01.11.2016 for Ipoh Timur was unlawful.

He held that all the 6 issued were frivolous in nature and that there isn’t any arguable case of whatsoever to be heard at the Judicial Review trial proper. He further held that the Applicants can ventilate all the above issues in the Second Local Enquiry, yet to be held and that this is premature.

Selangor’s exclusion does not make it unconstitutional as the 2 year period for the whole redelienation process has not been completed.

The Judge held that he was bound by the Court of Appeal case of See Chee How and Nurul Izzah and that it is binding per the doctrine of stare decisis.

Although we have lost in this application we still feel there is hope to succeed if this application is taken up to be argued in the Court Of Appeal. Discussion amongst lawyers and other stakeholders would be held soon to decided on this matter

Also I would like to thank the team of lawyers who assisted us in this fight namely Surendra Ananth, Suresh, N.Selvam and A. Vemal. The Respondents were represented by Senior Federal Counsels, Suzanna Atan, Azizan Md Arshad. Shamsul Bolhassan and Nik Azrin Zainun.

The Court should have questioned the EC when it refused to give reasons on why matters we had argued before the tribunal was not divulged to us. By not questioning or by saying not all is lost as we have another opportunity at the 2nd enquiry shows that the court has missed a golden opportunity to right a wrong done by the EC.

The Court should be the guardian of our Federal Constitution. Any thing less is unacceptable. It should be bold like in the case in Malacca to haul up the EC and instruct them to act at the behest of the voters of our country.

The failure of the EC to adhere to one man one vote as stipulated by the Federal Constitution, wherein the number of electors within each constituency in a State ought to be approximately equal pursuant to Section 2(c) of the Thirteenth Schedule of the Federal Constitution should have jolted the Court to its core. A great judicious act was missed today.




M. Kula Segaran
Member of Parliament for Ipoh Barat
012-3054346

Wednesday, April 26, 2017


Press Statement by M Kula Segaran, DAP National Vice Chairman and MP for Ipoh Barat in Ipoh on 25thApril, 2017


The Indian community certainly has every reason to doubt that the Blue print launched on Sunday is but just a political eyewash

The Prime Minister Najib Razak launched the federal government’s Blueprint for the Indians last Sunday. He described the blueprint to uplift Indians in Malaysia, with an allocation of more than RM1 billion, as a serious document and not just “empty talk”.


He also said that the launch of the blueprint was not related to the general election.
But with BN government’s record of only announcing nice to hear measures whenever election approaches, the blueprint is definitely launched to woo voter support for the BN which may face its worst ever electoral debacle in the coming general election.


If the BN government had been sincere, committed and effective in helping the Indian community, the Indian community will not still face so much long standing issues in the economic, educational , social , housing employment sectors. The stateless Indians issue could have been resolved long ago.


In fact, in 2000, TIME magazine has carried an article about the Malaysian Indians, describing them as a "disgruntled underclass" with many of them feeling like "third-class citizens" in the country and the "real losers" since the introduction of the New Economic Policy in 1970.
17 years later, are the Indian community better off and what has the government done?


If the government wants the support of the Indian community, it should be able to produce results and achievements that it has helped them since the last election.
Be that as it may, how can the Prime Minister ensure that the Blueprint can really be effectively implemented to benefit the Indian community?


Speaking at the opening of MIC's 70th annual assembly on Oct last year, Najib said an Indian blueprint was necessary because his past initiatives for Indians had not effectively trickled down to the community's grassroots.


So does not this mean that the launch of the Blueprint is a reflection of the government’s past failures to help the community?


A blue print should be an outcome after a parliamentary select committee had been commissioned. This would have been comprehensive and holistic as inputs from a wide spectrum of the society would have been obtained. Subsequently thereafter a report of the progress and achievements made should be tabled to Parliament annually. This would ensure a check and balance on what has or has not been done and would be made available to all and sundry!


Najib said that the blueprint’s implementation would be watched over by an executive committee chaired by MIC president Dr S Subramaniam.
Such announcement does not inspire confidence. We had the Special Implementation Task Force (SITF) under him for 4 years. What's the outcome? Nothing tangible has trickled down to the community.


The Indian community certainly has every reason to doubt that the Blue print launched on Sunday is but just a political eyewash. This is definitely nothing more then an election gimmick!!

Thursday, April 20, 2017




Press Statement by M Kula Segaran, DAP National Vice Chairman and MP for Ipoh Barat in Ipoh on 20thApril, 2017
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Zakir Naik’s PR: Does the government have the political will to revoke the PR granted?

It was reported today that at the National Transformation 2050 (TN50) dialogue held with Indian youths yesterday, MIC president Datuk S Subramaniam said that controversial Indian Muslim preacher Dr Zakir Naik has no place in Malaysia.

He gave the reply when asked why the preacher was given permanent residency.

He was also reported to say that Zakir is not going to contribute to the advancement of Islam in the country.
http://www.todayonline.com/world/asia/malaysia-doesnt-need-zakir-naik-mic-president-says

I find Subramaniam’s answer unsatisfactory as he did not give any commitment as to what he, MIC or the government will do about the permanent residency (PR) granted to Zakir Naik.

He should know that what the people and the Indian community want is action and not mere words or explanations.

Why he could not give a simple and clear answer as to whether the government will revoke or review the permanent residency granted?

I have three questions for Subramaniam:-

1. When thousands of stateless and red IC holders have been denied the privilege of PR and then leading to citizenship, why was Zakir given the privilege
2. Has MIC expressed its unhappiness on the PR issue to the Prime Minister and the Home Minister?
3. Will Subramaniam raise the issue in the Cabinet and ask that Zakir‘s PR be revoked?

On April 15, India’s Enforcement Directorate filed a charge sheet against Naik’s company Harmony Media Ltd and his colleague Aamir Gazdar for alleged money-laundering.

It was reported that leaders from both sides of the political divide in Sarawak do not want controversial Islamic preacher Zakir in the multi-religious state.
I congratulate the Sarawak political leaders for taking a clear and correct stand on Zakir Naik not being one who will help in Malaysia’s harmony.
Last month, in welcoming the BN Supreme Council’s decision not to push for the Shariah Bill, MIC treasurer S Vell Paari paid tribute to the late Sarawak chief minister Adenan Satem for his “heroic act’ in objecting to the PAS-sponsored bill.

https://www.beritadaily.com/bn-stand-on-act-355-credit-to-late-adenan-satem-says-mic-man/


He had said : “Let us not forget also the effort, commitment and firm stand of the late Adenan Satem who during his time as Sarawak CM opposed the implementation of hudud in Sarawak by taking into consideration the various ethnic composition of the state. The heroic act by the late Adenan gave strength to all the component party presidents to continue the fight in opposing the amendment of RUU355 by the government.”

MIC is clearly again one step behind the Sarawak BN leaders on Zakir Naik’s PR issue. Now that the Sarawak leaders have provided the strength, will MIC raise the issue in Cabinet and bring a finality to this issue?

Wednesday, April 19, 2017







A Joint Judicial Review against SPR's Redelination exercise for Ipoh Barat & Ipoh Timur.

Matter adjourned to 5th/May/'17 for decision.

Tuesday, April 18, 2017


Media statement by M. Kula Segaran and Thomas Su at Ipoh High Court on 18th April 2017
Urge Malaysian Courts to uphold the spirit of Federal Constitution without fear of favour!!

Today was the leave application for Judicial Review by M. Kula Segaran and Thomas Su Keong Siong , Member of Parliaments for Ipoh Barat and Ipoh Timur respectively against the Election Commission for an order of Certiorari to quash the Election Commission’s:-

1. Notice dated 08.03.2017 entitled “Notice of Proposed Recommendations for the Federal and State Constituencies in the States of Malaya (Except the State of Selangor) as Reviewed by the Election Commission in 2017” ; and/or

2. Proposed Recommendations for Federal and State Constituencies for the State of Perak as Reviewed by the Election Commission in 2017; and/or

3. A declaration that the Notice and/or Proposed Recommendations were issued without jurisdiction;

4. A declaration that the Notice and/or Proposed Recommendations are unconstitutional;

5. A declaration that the First Local Enquiry for the Federal and State Constituencies of P.065 Ipoh Barat, N.28 Bercham, N.29 Kepayang and N.30 Buntong held on 01.11.2016 in Aman Jaya Convention Centre, Bulatan Meru Raya, Bandar Meru Raya, 30020, Ipoh, Perak, was unlawful; and/or

6. A declaration that the First Local Enquiry for the Federal and State Constituencies of P.064 Ipoh Timor and N.26 Tebing Tinggi, held on 01.11.2016 in Aman Jaya Convention Centre, Bulatan Meru Raya, Bandar Meru Raya, 30020, Ipoh, Perak, was unlawful.


Issues raised in Ipoh High Court today

The case was presided by Yang Arif Dato' Che Mohd. Ruzima Ghazali at the Ipoh High court. The Applicants were represented by M. Kula Segaran, Su Keong Siong (Applicants themselves) and Surendra Ananth of Malik Imtiaz Sarwar wherelse the Election Commission was represented by the Attorney General’s Chambers headed by Senior Federal Counsel Suzanna Atan.
Counsels for the Applicants argued that :


a. The Notice and Proposed Recommendations were issued without jurisdiction.
b. The Notice and Proposed Recommendations were illegal.
c. It was inconsistent with Section 2(c)&(d) of the 13th Schedule of the Federal Constitution.
d. It was inconsistent with Article 8 of the Federal Constitution.
e. The Notice and Proposed Recommendations were irrational and disproportionate.
f. The Local Enquiries were unlawful as they were procedurally improper.
g. The Election Commission has failed to provide any reasons for objections made during the local enquiries.

The AGC’s only replied that they rely on the case of V.K. Lingam which was decided in the Federal Court that tribunals or quasi-judicial bodies are not bound for Judicial Review because their decisions are not final.


Counsels for the Applicants replied that the matter will be deemed academic if the Proposed Recommendations are forwarded to the Prime Minister who will then table it in Parliament.


The Judge has set 05.05.2017 as the date for decision for this leave application.

M. Kula Segaran
012-5034346

Monday, April 10, 2017

Press Statement by M Kula Segaran , DAP National Vice Chairperson and MP for Ipoh Barat in Ipoh on 10thApril, 2017
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Was there a BN consensus principle to defer amendments to the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976

On 25th last month, I had issued a statement expressing my worry and fear that the amendments to the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 might not be debated in the Parliament. In my statement on the Bill to amend the Act, I had said:-

“The above Bill was to be debated this week as it was listed as no.4 in the Order Paper of Parliament for the last two 2 weeks. Now in the 3rd week of the parliamentary session, has been pushed down to no 8. This clearly indicates there is no priority in getting this Bill passed”.

It is most sad , unfair and irresponsible that the Bill which was tabled in November last year and meant for debate in the just concluded parliament sitting was confirmed deferred on April 6.

Unilateral conversion of minors has inflicted many mothers and children for many years and it has taken the government seven long years to finally come up with the necessary amendments after the 2009 Cabinet’s decision to ban unilateral conversion of minors.

When the government tabled the amendment Bill last November, there was overwhelming support. Yet now the Bill has been deferred.

The BN government has failed M Indira Gandhi and others who have suffered so much trauma and injustice for so long, how could it now defer the amendments?

Isn't totally unfair and even heartless for the government to defer the Bill.

What could be worse from the deferment is that the Bill may not even be tabled in the next Parliament meeting.

According to Bernama report, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid has said the postponement was to ensure that the bill would not be in conflict with the fatwa (edict) issued on the matter and the Federal Constitution.

He said the amendments to Act 164 would be submitted to the Attorney-General for review with views obtained from religious experts, non-governmental organisations, political parties and individuals.

Bernama also reported that when asked on the time to be taken to review the amendments to the Act, he said it depended on the Attorney-General to study the legal aspects with views from various people committed to seeing the Act amended.

The government took 7 long years to finally come up with the decision to do the necessary amendments. Cabinet committees were formed and consultation with NGOs was carried out. It is therefore not convincing that the need for further consultation is the real cause for the Bill’s deferment.

The least Zahid could have done was to commit that the Bill will be retabled for second reading (debate) in the coming parliament sitting. But he did not do so and if the government could take 7 long years to come up with the amendments after the 2009 Cabinet’s decision to ban unilateral conversion of minors, who knows how long will it take for the amendments Bill to be re tabled? Or need another 7 more years?

When the BN supreme council recently decided against government‘s taking over Hadi Awang’s Private Member’s Bill to amend Act 355, BN component parties hailed the coalition’s consensus principle.

So the question is – was there a BN consensus principle to defer amendments to the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976?

Monday, April 3, 2017



Representasi Membantah - Cadangan SPR untuk membataskan (delimitation) sempadan-sempadan daerah mengundi.



Kepada:
Pengarah
Pejabat Pilihan Raya Perak
Blok A Tingkat 1, Bangunan Persekutuan 
Jalan Panglima Bukit Gantang Wahab
30000 Ipoh, PERAK                                                                          AMAT MUSTAHAK
3rd April , 2017
Tuan,
 Representasi Membantah dalam perkara “Notis Syor-Syor Yang Dicadangkan Bagi Bahagian-Bahagian Pilihan Raya Persekutuan Dan Negeri dalam Negeri-Negeri Tanah Melayu (Kecuali Negeri Selangor) Sebagaimana Yang Telah Dikaji Semula Oleh Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya Dalam Tahun 2017”, yang diwartakan di bawah Seksyen 7, Jadual Ke-13, Perlembagaan Persekutuan Dan Dalam perkara “Syor-Syor Yang Dicadangkan Bagi Bahagian-Bahagian Pilihan Raya Persekutuan Dan Negeri Bagi Negeri Perak Sebagaimana Yang Telah Dikaji Semula Oleh Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya Dalam Tahun 2017”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Merujuk kepada perkara di atas, kami adalah sekumpulan pengundi lebih daripada 100 orang di Bahagian Pilihanraya P065 Ipoh Barat, N28 Bercham, N29 Kepayang, N30 Buntong, seperti mana kami dinyatakan dalam lampiran “A” senarai nama untuk representasi ini.
 Meujuk kepada perkara di atas saya, M. Kula Segaran, seorang pengundi berdaftar dan Ahli Parlimen P.065 Ipoh Barat berserta...... pengundi berdaftar yang lain dengan ini membantah terhadap Noties Kedua pihak Tuan bertarikh 08.03.2017. Saye telah memfailkan satu semakan kehakiman di Mahkamat Tinggi Ipoh pada 30.03.2017 untuk membantah terhadap Notis Kedua ini dan Siasatan Tempatan pihak Tuan pada 01.11.2016.
Saya tidak mengaku terhadap jurisdikasi dan kebetulan pengendalian siasatan ini. Selanjutnya saya tidak mengaku atau bersetuju dengan tindakan pihak tuan dengan memfailkan petisyen ini.
 ( do not admit to your jurisdiction or agree or consent with this inquiry in what so ever manner by filing. This representation is done under protest.)
Cadangan SPR untuk membataskan (delimitation) sempadan-sempadan daerah mengundi akan ada kesan terhadap ketenteraman dan kemakmuran negara kita, akibat daripada penyusunan semula kawasan Parlimen dan kawasan DUN untuk menyenangkan  Barisan Nasional memerintah negara kita dengan berkuasa. Pembahagian tidak sekata (Malapportionment) dan ‘Gerrymandering’ kawasan pilihanraya akan mengakibatkan ketidaktenteraman awam jika isu-isu pilihanraya berasaskan perkauman dan bukannya prinsip kewarganegaraan yang serupa.
Keutamaan yang diberikan untuk memperkasakan golongan warga luar bandar berdasarkan kaum akan secara terus menyebabkan golongan warga bandar terpinggir dengan ketidaksamaan perwakilan antara kedua-dua golongan tersebut. Di sini merupakan isu-isu substantif yang bukan hanya melanggar Perlembagaan Persekutuan kita, tetapi juga prinsip-prinsip demokrasi universal persekutuan dan kesaksamaan yang termaktub dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan kita.
Pembahagian Tidak Sekata melibatkan penyempadanan yang merangkumi pengundi-pengundi yang tidak mempunyai hubungan tempatan dan ini tidak adil kepada masyarakat apabila mereka menghadapi sebarang masalah. Juga terdapat pendekatan kewajaran luar bandar yang memastikan kaum Melayu mendominasi sistem politik negara. Proses penyempadanan semula pada tahun 1994 mewujudkan kawasan luar bandar yang lebih kecil berbanding kawasan bandar. Sebagai contoh, kawasan Hulu Rajang yang merupakan satu kawasan luar bandar dengan populasi orang Melayu yang tinggi di Sarawak, mempunyai 16,085 bilangan pengundi manakala kawasan Ampang Jaya, sebuah kawasan bandar yang berada di Kuala Lumpur mempunyai 95,954 pengundi tetapi masing-masing menghantar satu wakil ke Dewan. Penyingkiran had 15% oleh Kerajaan Barisan Nasional membenarkan  percanggahan yang amat ketara.
‘Gerrymandering’ merupakan satu proses di mana penyempadanan kawasan dilakukan supaya satu parti mendapat kelebihan tanpa mengira saiz kawasan. Pertukaran yang sedikit pun di satu kawasan boleh menolong kawasan yang dimenangi dengan majority yang ‘marginal’. Pertukaran pengundi daripada Riffle Range kepada Pasir Pinji merupakan satu contoh di mana ia akan memberikan kelebihan kepada kerajaan Barisan Nasional.
Prinsip satu orang, satu undi (‘one man, one vote’) perlu diberikan keutamaan. Ini untuk memastikan bahawa representasi yang sama diberikan kepada semua rakyat Malaysia.
Bantahan-bantahan ini difailkan tertakluk kepada dan tanpa menjejaskan hak kami untuk bergantung kepada isu-isu awal berikut yang hendaklah ditentukan dalam forum yang betul: -
1.       Bilangan pengundi purata di Perak merupakan 59 064 dan purata Negara merupakan 61,200. Oleh hal yang demikian, dengan cadangan untuk menambah bilangan pengundi kepada 82,041 merupakan 138.90% daripada purata di Perak.
2.       Semangat Jadual 13, Perlembagaan Persekutuan dipinggirkan dalam percadangan penyempadanan semula ini.           
3.       Bahawa syor-syor oleh Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya [SPR] bertarikh dan diterbitkan pada 15 September 2016 dan persempadanan semula tersebut adalah bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan bertentangan dengan undang-undang.
4.       Bahawa notis bertarikh 15 September 2016 tidak menzahirkan kesan syor yang dicadangkan dan gagal untuk memberikan pendedahan penuh semua maklumat yang diperlukan bagi kami untuk membentangkan kes kami sepenuhnya dan secara berkesan.
5.       Bahawa terdapat masa yang tidak mencukupi bagi kami untuk menyediakan bantahan-bantahan kami kerana kekurangan maklumat dan kesukaran yang dihadapi untuk melayari laman web Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya.
6.       Bahawa terdapat kegagalan keadilan asasi.
7.       Mana-mana isu penting yang lain yang mungkin timbul sebelum, pada atau selepas siasatan tempatan tersebut.
1. Bantahan Atas Pembahagian Tidak Sekata (Malapportionment)
Berdasarkan prinsip yang dinyatakan dalam Sub-Seksyen 2(c) Jadual Ketiga Belas Perlembagaan Perseketuan bahawa
“bilangan pemilih di dalam setiap bahagian pilihan raya di dalam sesuatu Negeri patutlah lebih kurang sama banyak kecuali bahawa, dengan mengambil kira kesulitan yang lebih besar untuk sampai kepada pemilih di dalam daerah desa dan kesukaran lain yang dihadapi oleh bahagian-bahagian pilihan raya di luar bandar, ukuran pewajaran bagi kawasan patutlah diberikan kepada bahagian-bahagian kawasan pilihanraya”,
kami membantah pembahagian tidak sekata (Malapportionment) di kalangan
1.1        bahagian-bahagian pilihanraya persekutuan di Perak di mana
(a)    Bahagian pilihanraya persekutuan yang dicadangkan P065 Ipoh Barat mempunyai pengundi seramai 82,041, yang merupakan 1.40 daripada saiz purata di Perak. Sebagai perbandingan, bahagian pilihanraya persekutuan yang terkecil P061 Padang Rengas yang cuma mempunyai pengundi seramai 28,727. Dalam lain kata, bilangan pengundi P065 Ipoh Barat adalah 2.86 kali bilangan pengundi P061 Padang Rengas. Pembahagian ini melanggar Sub-seksyen 2(c) Jadual Ketiga Belas Perlembagaan Perseketuan kerana 2.86 tidak boleh jadi “lebih kurang sama banyak” dengan 1 dan harus diperbetulkan.
(b)    Malahan, bahagian pilihanraya persekutuan yang terbesar P063 Tambun mempunyai pengundi seramai 96,437 sedangkan bahagian pilihanraya persekutuan yang terkecil P061 Padang Rengas cuma mempunyai pengundi seramai 28,727. Dalam lain kata, bilangan pengundi P063 Tambun adalah 3.36 kali bilangan pengundi P061 Padang Rengas. Pembahagian ini melanggar Sub-seksyen 2(c) Jadual Ketiga Belas Perlembagaan Perseketuan kerana 3.36 tidak boleh jadi “lebih kurang sama banyak” dengan 1 dan harus diperbetulkan.
1.2        bahagian-bahagian pilihanraya negeri di Perak di mana
Kepayang
(a)    Bahagian pilihanraya negeri yang dicadangkan N29 Kepayang mempunyai pengundi seramai 21,458, yang merupakan 0.90% daripada saiz purata di Perak. Sebagai perbandingan, bahagian pilihanraya negeri yang terkecil N04 Kota Tampan yang cuma mempunyai pengundi seramai 11,990. Dalam lain kata, bilangan pengundi N29 Kepayang adalah 1.79 kali bilangan pengundi N04 Kota Tampan. Pembahagian ini melanggar Sub-seksyen 2(c) Jadual Ketiga Belas Perlembagaan Perseketuan kerana 1.79 tidak boleh jadi “lebih kurang sama banyak” dengan 1 dan harus diperbetulkan.
Buntong
(b)    Bahagian pilihanraya negeri yang dicadangkan N30 Buntong mempunyai pengundi seramai 26,675, yang merupakan 1.12% daripada saiz purata di Perak. Sebagai perbandingan, bahagian pilihanraya negeri yang terkecil N04 Kota Tampan yang cuma mempunyai pengundi seramai 11,990. Dalam lain kata, bilangan pengundi N30 Buntong adalah 2.22 kali bilangan pengundi N04 Kota Tampan. Pembahagian ini melanggar Sub-seksyen 2(c) Jadual Ketiga Belas Perlembagaan Perseketuan kerana 2.22 tidak boleh jadi “lebih kurang sama banyak” dengan 1 dan harus diperbetulkan.

Bercham
(c)     Bahagian pilihanraya negeri yang dicadangkan N28 Bercham mempunyai pengundi seramai 33,908, yang merupakan 1.42% daripada saiz purata di Perak. Sebagai perbandingan, bahagian pilihanraya negeri yang terkecil N04 Kota Tampan yang cuma mempunyai pengundi seramai 11,990. Dalam lain kata, bilangan pengundi N28 Bercham adalah 2.83 kali bilangan pengundi N04 Kota Tampan. Pembahagian ini melanggar Sub-seksyen 2(c) Jadual Ketiga Belas Perlembagaan Perseketuan kerana 2.83 tidak boleh jadi “lebih kurang sama banyak” dengan 1 dan harus diperbetulkan.
(d)    Malahan, bahagian pilihanraya negeri yang terbesar N23 Manjoi mempunyai pengundi seramai 50,812 sedangkan bahagian pilihanraya negeri yang terkecil N04 Kota Tampan cuma mempunyai pengundi seramai 11,990. Dalam lain kata, bilangan pengundi N23 Manjoi adalah 4.24 kali bilangan pengundi N04 Kota Tampan. Pembahagian ini melanggar Sub-seksyen 2(c) Jadual Ketiga Belas Perlembagaan Perseketuan kerana 4.24 tidak boleh jadi “lebih kurang sama banyak” dengan 1 dan harus diperbetulkan.
2.       Bantahan Atas Pengabaian Hubungan Tempatan Tanpa Mempertimbangkan Kepentingan Bersama
Berdasarkan prinsip yang dinyatakan dalam Sub-Seksyen 2(d) Jadual Ketiga Belas Perlembagaan Perseketuan bahawa
perhatian patutlah diberikan kepada kesulitan yang akan timbul dengan perubahan bahagian-bahagian pilihan raya, dan kepada pemeliharaan hubungan tempatan.”
kami membantah pengabaian hubungan tempatan di mana
bahagian pilihanraya persekutuan yang dicadangkan P065 Ipoh Barat menggabungkan komuniti-komuniti tempatan yang tidak mempunyai kepentingan bersama dan hubungan tempatan sungguhpun berada dalam kawasan pentadbiran pihak berkuasa tempatan yang sama, yakni
2.1   Penukaran daerah mengundi 0652910 Jalan Dato Maharaja Lela dan 0652911 Jalan Sultan Yusof yang merupakan teras Old Town Ipoh ke Ipoh Timur akan menjadikan kawasan itu bersifat perkauman bukan menggalakkan perpaduan kaum.
2.2   Penukaran daerah mengundi 0653008 Jalan Tun Perak ke Ipoh Timur akan memberi satu identiti yang tidak lansung mempunyai hubungan tempatan.
2.3   Kemasukkan daerah mengundi 0642607 Jalan C.M. Yusof ,0642608 Jalan Raja Ekram, 0653108 Falim dan 0663115 Desa Rishah ke Ipoh Barat juga tidak menyokong sebarang hubungan tempatan.
2.4   Penukaran pengundi dan pengundi pos dikeluarkan dari Jalan Dato Maharaja Lela untuk menjejaskan kestabilan di Tebing Tinggi. Ia akan menukarkan satu kawasan munasabah yang bercampur dari segi perkauman kepada satu kawasan dengan kadar percampuran kaum yang tinggi.
3.       Rayuan untuk menukar nama kawasan pilihan raya
3.1  Nama sesuatu kawasan pilihan raya harus menjadi salah satu di mana kebanyakan pemilih-pemilih di dalamnya boleh dikaitkan dengan, bukan satu yang kurang kaitan atau tiada kaitan dengan mereka.
3.2  Dengan prinsip ini, kita nak cadangkan nama untuk bahagian pilihanraya persekutuan ditukar dari P065 Ipoh Barat ke Ipoh. Ini kerana secara awal lagi, kawasan utama yang dibangunkan di bandar Ipoh, juga dikenali sebagai Old Town berada di bahagian Ipoh Barat. Oleh itu, memang wajar untuk P065 ditukar nama kepada Ipoh.
4.       Cadangan
4.1  Semasa penyempadanan kawasan mengundi, perhatian khas patut diberikan kepada pembolehubah geografi kawasan tersebut dan faktor-faktor demofrafik seperti kepadatan populasi dan ruang kawasan tersebut.
4.2  Baru-baru ini, Negara India menggunakan peta GIS (Geographic Information Systems) untuk mengatasi perwakilan yang tidak seimbang. Sebelum pembaharuan penyempadanan satu kawasan Parlimen merangkumi populasi sebanyak 350,000 manakala satu kawasan lagi merangkumi 3,400,000. Selepas penyempadanan sekarang, kesemua 7 kawasan di Delhi diubah semula dengan representasi yang sama rata dengan variasi hanya +/- 10 %.
4.3  Oleh hal yang demikian, dicadangkan agar 1 kerusi Parlimen atau lebih lagi ditambah untuk bahagian Ipoh Barat dan secara kolektif 2 kerusi Parlimen atau lebih untuk Ipoh Barat, Ipoh Timur dan Tambun. Juga dicadangkan penambahan 4 kerusi DUN atau lebih untuk ketiga-tiga kerusi Parlimen di atas.
Kami di sini memohon untuk suatu pendengaran lisan untuk membolehkan saya menerangkan dan melanjutkan bantahan-bantahan saya di atas dan juga untuk memberi bukti bagi menyokong kepada yang sama dan untuk membuat mana-mana bantahan yang selanjutnya.
5. Mengecualikan negeri Selangor
Notis Pertama dikeluarkan untuk kesemua negeri-negeri di Semenanjung Malaysia. Bagaimanapun, Notis kedua ini dikeluarkan dengan mengecualikan negeri Selangor. Pihak Tuan tidak mempunyai jurisdikasi untuk mengeluarkan notis menurut Seksyen 7, Jadual Ke-13, Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang mengecualikan sebarang negeri daripada Semenanjung Malaysia;
Saya menyimpan hak-hak saya untuk membangkitkan isu- isu dan lain-lain selanjutnya pada siasatan tersebut jika diperlukan.
Sila akui penerimaan representasi membantah ini. Sekian, terima kasih.
Bagi pihak nama-nama dalam Lampiran “A” bersertakan tandatangan mereka dan telah bersetuju untuk membenarkan penama di bawah untuk mewakili mereka dalam menyampaikan representasi ini,
Yang benar,