Saturday, September 30, 2017












Media statement by M. Kula Segarahn MP Ipoh Barat in the High Court of Ipoh on 29th September 2017


AG should consider to drop charges against YB Thomas Su

Charged in Sessions Court

On 14th October 2016 Ipoh Timur member of parliament Thomas Su Keong Siong was charged again in the Sessions Court in Ipoh with organising an illegal rally, four years ago.

He claimed trial to the charge under Section 9(1) of the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) 2012, punishable under Section 9(5) of the same Act, which carries a fine of not more than RM10,000, on conviction.

Su, 50, allegedly failed to submit the 10-day notice as required under the PAA 2012, to the Ipoh District Police chief prior to the rally held on May 9, 2013 at Dewan Wisma Chin Woo in Ipoh at about 7.30pm.

Prior to this On May 27, 2013, Su was charged in the Ipoh Sessions Court with a similar offence.

On May 5, 2014, he applied for the charge against him to be dismissed.

On May 16, 2014, the Ipoh Sessions Court granted him a discharge not amounting to an acquittal.

The Sessions Court in Ipoh had fixed the illegal rally case for Hearing for the 6th October 2017.

Case in Ipoh High Court

Today was fixed for an hearing application wherein we filed a Notice of Motion to set aside/ quash and/or stay the proceedings of YB Thomas Su Keong Siong at the Sessions Court on a charge under Section 9(1) & 9(5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012.

Counsel YB Gobind Singh Deo argued that because there were 2 conflicting decisions in the Court of Appeal i.e. Nik Nazmi and Yuneswaran where in the former it was held that the said provisions are unconstitutional and it the latter it was held that it was constitutional.


Thus YB Thomas Su who was initially charged in 2013 had his case dropped because of then Nik Nazmi’s decision. However after Yuneswaran, he was subsequently charged again.

The reasons we put forward was that Yuneswaran’s decision does not have a retrospective effect and thus YB Thomas Su should not have been re-charged again.

Sessions Court Proceedings are to kept on hold until disposable of the High Court Case

The DPP Pn Nur Qistini requested for time to reply and thus our application for stay on YB Thomas Su’s case in the Sessions Court Ipoh until the final disposal of this application was granted by the High Court Judge YA Dato Che Ruzima. The Court has fixed November 17 for the hearing of this matter.

In view of this I urge the government to withdraw all the charges under the Peaceful Assembly Act.

Lawyers who represented YB Thomas were M. Kula Segaran, Gobind Singh Deo, Michelle Ng, Joanne Chua, Dexter Mah, Suresh & Vemal Arasan. YB Cheong (Bercham) YB Chang Lih Kang( Teja), YB Tan Kar hing(Simpang Pulai) and a host of supporters turned up to show support tot YB Thomas Su
In view of the latest developments I urge the AG to drop the charges against Thomas Su. What he did in 2013 was a political rally and the charges against him are unreasonable and unwarranted.



012-5034346

M.Kula Segaran

Thursday, September 28, 2017




Media statement by M.Kula Segaran MP Ipoh Barat and DAP National Vice Chairman in Ipoh on 28th September 2017



Police must be forthcoming on terrorist threat to Better Beer Festival


I would like to congratulate Inspector General of Police Tan Sri Mohamad Fuzi Hassan on being awarded Singapore's top award, the Meritorious Service Medal.

The republic said the award was for reasons of “substantive intelligence exchanges and extensive cooperation in areas of mutual security interest, particularly against the terrorism threat.”

Presumably, these exchanges took place when the IGP was Special Branch head, a post he held before his recent promotion to IGP.

Tan Sri Fuzi Hassan should excuse me if I said that since becoming IGP he has been rather puzzling when it comes to sharing information with the Malaysian public about the terrorism threat.

Needless to say, protection of the Malaysian public against the dangers of criminal and terrorist conduct is of course his paramount duty.

Therefore by saying the cancellation of the Better Bear Festival 2017 by Kuala Lumpur City Hall was motivated by concerns to avert terrorist threats and then leaving the matter at that without substantive explanation is puzzling.

The IGP ought to be more fortright and open with justificaions for the claims made by the police with respect to the refusal of Kuala Lumpur City Hall to allow the festival to go ahead.

Merely saying that threats from religious extremists factored in the cancellation of the event is not enough.

Would future threats to the opening of Parliament or the holding of the annual Merdeka Parade prompt the response of cancellation by the authorities? And that, too, without adequate explanation?

The IGP has to be as substantive as he has apparently been with the Singapore authorities in respect of the terrorist threat.

We understand certain information must necessarily be kept secret. But not when they involve apparent threats to events that are considered normal by the standards of civil society.

The public wants to know if suspects been detained in connection with the threat against Better Bear Festival and are charges being mulled against them?

The public has a right to know as otherwise they will think that the police force is being used to further the agenda of certain political interests of opponents of Better Beer Festival.

The festival was scheduled to have been held in a controlled public space and in that sense it would have been entitled to protection by the police in the normal course of its operations in the interest of public security.

We can think of many events that would be exposed to threats from terrorists if it is said that a beer festival planned to be held in a controlled public space can be refused permission to go ahead on the basis of unsubstantiated threats from religious extremists.

Aren't we here opening up a can of cancellations the end of which we cannot envisage?

I urge the police to be more open and fortright and not content themselves with inexplicable justifications that invite more questions than provide answers.

Threats from terrorists and extremists are no small matter. And combatting them requires public awareness and vigilance which are not helped by an attitude of the police that makes all decisions on public security dependent on assessments that are not subject to public scrutiny and appraisal.

The threat from terrorism cannot be contained within an environment denuded of clarifying information and the cooperation of an aware public.

Thursday, September 14, 2017



Update : S.9(1) Peaceful Assembly Act 2012


Despite no affidavit in reply filed and consent by DPP, the Session Court Judge dismissed the application to refer the case to High Court to decide whether to refer to Federal Court under S.30 of Court of Judicature Act on point of constitutionality of S.9(1) PAA 2012.

Hearing date of this case had been fixed to Wednesday, 20th Sept 2017.

Meanwhile, we will file an appeal against the Session Judge's decision and apply for a stay pending the appeal.








Tuesday, September 5, 2017





An unwarranted attack on Tamil Malar owner and staffs in KL on 5th September 2017
---------------------------


Alleged gangsters today visited a Tamil news daily office and beat up their staff over a expose made about an MIC leader.

Tamil Malar, had exposed MIC Wilayah state chairman Datuk M. Saravanan for stealing from the rental collection of the state MIC building.

This infuriated the MIC leader who is also Deputy Youth and Sports Minister was at the scene.

Minutes after arriving Saravanan, the gangsters and some MIC CWC members went to Tamil Malar and assaulted the General Manager Saraswathy with punches and slaps.

The gangsters then directed their violence towards the owner of the paper, Oms Thiagarajan.

The chaos left a bloody situation where both the GM, owner and some staff were left bleeding, injured and even suffered some broken teeth.

The incident is a major blow to the credibility of Barisan Nasional, where a woman reporter cum General Manager of a daily newspaper was attacked mercilessly by the politician and his goons.

Drastic and immediate action should be taken for such a heinous attack on a media practitioner and their staff.

I urge National Union of Journalists Malaysia (NUJ) to also bring this up and call for immediate action as this is blatant physical attack due to a media expose.

This also serves as a U-turn to any ground made in the country for press freedom and the protection of media practitioners.

Barisan Nasional should also take action against this leader as he is bringing shame to the party and coalition.

I Met lawyer Saras at the Dang Wagi Police HQ. Mr. Peri the General Manager was then giving a statement to the police.

Mr Oms the owner and well philanthropist was injured and has been rushed to Hospital.


Media Statement by M Kula Segaran MP for Ipoh Barat and DAP National Vice Chairman in Ipoh on 5th September 2017


A PM LICENSED TO DECLARE AS HE PLEASES
If Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak can declare a public holiday shortly after the courts have declared that he is not a public official, what is the country in for?

It did not take long for the rakyat to find out where and what this anomaly can lead to.

When holding forth at the Transformasi Nasional ( TN50) dialogue session over the long weekend, the PM implored women in the audience to vote BN strongly so that recovery of its two-third majority in Parliament will ensure constitutional changes enabling passage of amendments, known as 88A, to the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976.

Last November, while shaping to make the promised changes to the Act, the government introduced 88A, which states, "Where a party to a marriage has converted to Islam, the religion of any child of the marriage shall remain as the religion of the parties to the marriage prior to the conversion, except where both parties to the marriage agree to a conversion of the child to Islam, subject always to the wishes of the child where he or she has attained the age of eighteen years."

The above proposal was unveiled in 2009 as a cabinet directive after the controversy flared in the public arena following an estranged husband's conversion of three children, who were minors, to Islam.

This was the infamous Indira Gandhi case where the three minor children of this kindergarten teacher were unilaterally converted to Islam by her estranged husband without her say so.

Four cabinet committees were tasked over the last eight years to see how the cabinet directive of 2009 to prevent this travesty of natural justice from repetition be framed as law.

This task was accompanied by much hemming and hawing until the public were told before the last parliamentary session that the 88A proposal was to materialize in the overall amendments to the 1976 Act.

The omens were not hopeful because of reported opposition by some MPs that 88A constituted a violation of the constitution.

In the event, 88A was withdrawn at the last minute when the 1976 Act came up for second reading in Parliament last month.

The Government held that 88A was unconstitutional as apparently it contravenes Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution that states "the religion of a person under the age of eighteen years shall be decided by his parent or guardian.”

This stance of government does not hold water for the following reasons:-

1) If it was good law in 2009 why suddenly it became unconstitutional in 2017?

2) The government is buckling to pressure from Islamists and PAS whom Umno wants as an ally in the coming elections

3) Umno wants to leverage the issue to gain support from Malay/Muslim voters

4) From 1957 the interpretation of the word “parent” was ibu dan papa in Bahasa but after 2002 it became “ibu atau bapa”. Clearly the little Napoleons are inserting their own administrative interpretation to the words in the Federal Constitution.

Let us not overlook the authoritative text of the Federal Constitution which in law is the English text.

5) And, in any case, if the 88A were adopted by Parliament, it would be overrid any administrative orders as were decisions of civil courts, including the ones from the Federal Court, as earlier demonstrated in the sorry saga of the case of the children of Indira Gandhi.

By withdrawing 88A, the BN government ignored the rights of minorities and allowed these to be superceded by the majority.

Finally, we in the DAP, as the responsible opposition in Parliament, could have been approached by the government to support what would have been a superfluous constitutional amendment, in the event such an amendment were deemed to be necessary.

To overcome their lack of two-third majority in Parliament, the BN could have had the support of us in the DAP, ever eager supporters of 88A.

Why the DAP, which has 36 parliamentary seats, were not consulted to garner this support?

We were more than eager to see 88A to go through the legislative process and would have been steadfast in supporting it unconditionally.

PM Najib should not pull wool over people's eyes.

We know anomalies abound under Umno-BN governance but when accompanied by absurdities such as them wanting a two-third majority to legislate what they promised to enact but then absconded from lack of political will, the people must draw the line against duplicity that takes them to be stupid.


M.Kula