森州行动党州委陈丽群文告

英德拉案：未成年改教事件——漫漫八年遥遥无期的等待

英德拉事件的缘起发生于2009年4月3日，当时，两名姐弟，12岁的博拉莎娜和她十一岁的弟弟，被他们的父亲拐带（他在2009年3月11日，利用两姐弟的报生纸张改信伊教）。这起事件，是少数几宗有关改的教案件中，在大马掀开宪政危机。

行动党国会议员古拉在过去，曾无数次的在国会提出这宗改教事件，并阐述未改教的夫妻一方并未获得法定的追诉权，内阁也因为此事，即刻成立了一个高层内阁委员会调查此事。

2009年4月，司法部长拿督斯里纳兹里在国会中表示，一对离异的夫妻，其子女应该跟随父母在结婚时所信奉的宗教，内阁也对此决定发出政令。

担任英德拉的辩护律师的古拉，在2010年三月份再次在国会中再次提出有关单方面改信伊教的所产生的问题，尽管如此，大马警方拒绝执行庭令，以让该对姐弟回归非改教方的母亲抚养。

离开纳兹里发出的内阁政令已经八年，国会终于敲锣打鼓的提呈《婚姻与离婚法令》修正案，以禁止2017年4月6日的单方面改教的事件再度发生。很不幸的是，该法案的辩论环节因哈迪的私人提案《355法令修正案》而被展延，纵使家暴法令修正案也因此而被展延，让路给355法令修正案的辩论。

我们抱着亢奋和惶恐的心情，等待着《婚姻与离婚法》修正案再次被提呈，可是，在8月9日那天，我们惊觉该法案中有关单方面改教的条款被移除，此时，我们仿佛被浇了一盆冷水。《婚姻法》所授予的权力，将会是一大迈进，因为父亲再也无法在躲藏在伊教法庭后面，而这项修正案的巨大影响是全所未见的。

尽管如此，我们有理由相信，内阁中的有些极端人士，反对修正案中的有关单方面改教的条款，最终，他们终于妥协最终的修正案内容。

新闻报道声称这是内阁一致同意的决定，而同一个内阁却也曾发出政令反对单方面改教，一对离异夫妻的子女需以改教前的宗教抚养长大。

首相署部长阿莎莉娜说的对，她说，改教一方如果要离婚，必须面对民事庭，阿莎莉娜说，他们应该『敢作敢当』面对这些问题。

纳兹里还给了一个理由单薄的藉口，他说，在修正单方面改教条款前，需对宪法第12条4款中阐明的“parent”一词需提呈修正，尽管在宪法第160条中阐明：『名词中的单数包含复数，而名词中的复数包含单数。』（words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular）

我建议阿莎莉娜劝告她的内阁成员，尤其是纳兹里和内阁特工队成员，比如说廖中莱、，约瑟雅谷、苏巴马廉、纳兹里和嘉米尔，当个『男子汉』，为英德拉这样的无助妈妈抗争，而不是保护那些像巴马那兰（K Pathmanathan）或改教后改名为李杜安阿都拉（Muhammad Riduan Abdullah）的男子，躲藏在伊庭后面，取得他们子女单方面改教的抚养权。

Nicole Tan Lee Koon

LLB (Hons) London, LLM (Malaya), CLP

DAP Wanita National Executive Committee (NEC) member 

DAP Negeri Sembilan State Committee

Political Secretary to Member of Parliament of Rasah 

HP: 012-3626977

Whatsapp : 019-6532977

Email: loyarbaik@gmail.com

loyarburuk@hotmail.com

Facebook : Nicole Tan Lee Koon（陳麗群）, the social politico 

http://m.facebook.com/nicoleleekoontan?ref=stream&refid=46

Twitter : loyarbaik

 

Sent from my iPhone

Unilateral conversion - 8 years and counting

Indira Gandhi's case - Unilateral conversion of minors : eight years and counting

The saga of Indira Gandhi started with the abduction of a 11 months old Prasana and the unilateral conversion of Prasana, her 12 years old sister and her 11 years old brother on 3 April 2009 by their father (converted to Muslim on 11 March 2009) using their birth certificates. This case was one of a few cases that sparked a constitutional crisis pertaining to unilateral conversion across Malaysia.

DAP MP, Kulasegaran raised this issue of unilateral conversion in Parliament many times as more often than not the non-converting spouse has no legal recourse. A high level Cabinet committee was formed almost immediately. On April 2009,  the then de facto Law Minister Datuk Seri Nazri stated in Parliament that children of an estranged couple should remain in the religion of the parents at the point of marriage and a Cabinet directive was issued to the effect. As a lawyer who has been fighting for Indira Gandhi, Kulasegaran had once again in March 2010 called on the Malaysian lawmakers in Parliament to address the issue of problems resulting from unilateral conversions to Islam. However, the Malaysian police refused to execute the civil court orders to restore custody of the child(ren) back to non-converting parent.

Eight years have passed since the Cabinet directive was announced by Nazri and we were elated to find out that the Parliament was going to table the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) (Amendment) Bill ("LRAA Bill") to ban unilateral conversion in 6th April 2017. Unfortunately, the debate of the said Bill was deferred in order to debate RUU 355, Hadi's Private Member's Bill. Even the Domestic Violence (Amendment) Bill was deferred to give precedence to RUU 355. All the more reason to have more female Members of Parliament. #feminism

We contained our elation and waited in trepidation for the LRAA Bill to be tabled on August 9 and our elation was cut short when we found out that the unilateral conversion clause was removed from the LRAA Bill. Granted that the LRAA Bill is a major step forward in that the father cannot hide behind the Syariah courts anymore and that the Bill has a retrospective effect which is unprecedented. However, we have strong reasons to believe that the ultras in the Cabinet objected to the inclusion of the unilateral conversion clause and a deal was made for the ultras to agree to the adoption of the Bill. It was also reported to be a unanimous Cabinet decision. The very same Cabinet who issued the directive against unilateral conversion i.e children of  estranged couples would be raised up in the religion prior to conversion.

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department AzalinaOthman Said rightly said that those who convert to Islam must face the civil courts if they want to dissolve their marriage. Azalina said that they should be "jantan" enough to face it. 

Nazri came up with a flimsy excuse that the word "parent" in Article 12(4) of  the Federal Constitution needs to be amended first before we can include the unilateral conversion clause even though Article 160 of the Federal Constitution states that the "words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular". 

Can I suggest to Azalina to advise all her cabinet colleagues, especially Nazri and the Cabinet task force members like Liow Tiong Lai, Tan Sri Joseph Kurup, Datuk Seri Dr S. Subramaniam, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz and Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom to be "jantan" enough to defend helpless mothers like Indira Gandhi who are victimised by cowardly husbands like K Pathmanathan aka Muhammad Riduan Abdullah who hide behind the Syariah Court to gain custody of their children by unilaterally converting the religion of  their children. 

Nicole Tan Lee Koon

LLB (Hons) London, LLM (Malaya), CLP

DAP Wanita National Executive Committee (NEC) member 

DAP Negeri Sembilan State Committee

Political Secretary to Member of Parliament of Rasah 

HP: 012-3626977

Whatsapp : 019-6532977

Email: loyarbaik@gmail.com

loyarburuk@hotmail.com

Facebook : Nicole Tan Lee Koon（陳麗群）, the social politico 

http://m.facebook.com/nicoleleekoontan?ref=stream&refid=46

Twitter : loyarbaik

真正的『第一官员』何时站出来？

真正的『第一官员』何时站出来？


我最近读到一则笑死人的新闻，首相的首席化妆师东姑沙里弗丁说，林吉祥才是希盟的真正幕后操手『top dog』。

我必须承认，我不太清楚『top dog』这个英文名词的意思，结果我查了一查，发现这个名词的意思大概是『一群人的领袖』或『一群人中最重要和最有威权的人』。

因此，敦马被称为是希盟的『top dog』一点也没错，因为他是高层会议的主持人，就和纳吉没两样，两者是相似的。可是，却和纳吉不同，敦马并没有在希盟中掌握终极权力。

纳吉的权力是通过买通党内派系所获得，纳吉花了26亿令吉才有办法抓紧权力，如果不是瑞士银行家贾斯勒索沙地石油而东窗事发，国人还被蒙在鼓里。

纳吉买通了巫统领袖才得以苟存，沙里尔就收了一百万令吉，一些人士收到的钱更多。因此，当纳吉革除总检察长时，调走反贪委主席和向前央行总裁洁蒂施压退休是，国阵内部噤若寒蝉。

那些持反对声音的领袖，比如慕尤丁、慕克里和沙菲益被纳吉一一对付，纳吉通过斩杀异己，巩固了他在政府中的权力。

全国总警长是纳吉的头号捍卫者，在司法方面，对纳吉友好的法官，尽管违宪，依旧升官发财。纳吉的巫统控制了国会中的86席，纳吉的滥权无所不用其极，控制了司法、行政和立法。

通过对党内的贿赂，纳吉的阿谀者对这些滥权行为充耳不闻，这些拍马屁的支持者不愿正视全球十国正在找机会干掉纳吉，这些人忘了，美国司法部的报告和全球超过十国的控状，直指纳吉，除了拉曼达兰公开说出，『第一官员』就是纳吉！

为了转移如滚雪球般的一马丑闻的焦点，第一官员只能躲在虚假新闻的背后，指林吉祥操控希盟。

敦马已经说过，林吉祥从来未想过要当官，何况是担任首相？毫无疑问的，林吉祥是『大马人的大马』后的藏镜人，他在从政之初已在为这个理念而奋斗，林吉祥舍去了钱财、权力和自由，只为了大马人的大马！因此，林吉祥是马来西亚人的马来西亚的幕后操手。

如果根据沙里弗丁的逻辑，行动党持有37席，确是希盟真正的操手，那我们可以确定，巫统是国阵的幕后操手，因为它拥有86席。纳吉对党内的贿赂，让他成为这个游戏中的最高操手。

纳吉的政治化妆师忙着制造假消息，却无法回避一个现实问题：真正的『第一官员』何时站出来？

Mental problem does not mean craziness

I refer to a news (http://www.chinapress.com.my/?p=997322) dated 30th June 2017 of a female student in Penang who apparently committed suicide due to pressures of pre-university studies. 

Unfortunately,  this news was not reported in the English language papers. The deceased who scored 10 As in her SPM exams aspired to be a lawyer. She was studying in a pre university course and her family members, friends and teachers noticed that she was not her normal self of late. It was believed that her inability to handle the growing pressures of studies that drove her to commit suicide by jumping from the balcony of an apartment on the 7th floor in Penang. 

I remember when I was in school, my favourite teacher, Mrs Tan drew a picture of a dolphin on the black board using chalk. Yes, I'm that old! 

Mrs Tan then asked us what was it that she drew in Bahasa Melayu of which we answered in unison "Ikan lumba lumba "! Mrs Tan said that in studies, we need to be like the dolphins and asked us to inculcate a healthy competition or "semangat berlumba-lumba".

My friends and I were indeed very competitive when it came to studies that we would cry if we got anything less than an "A"!! Nothing wrong with that if we can use that experience to improve ourselves. 

However, the problem starts when we dwell on the disappointments and cannot pick ourselves up. 

According to the National Health and Morbidity Survey 2015, about 4.2 million Malaysians aged 16 years and above, or 29.2 per cent of the population, suffered from various mental problems. 

The number is alarming as it shows that one out three Malaysians suffers from mental problem. According to the survey, there is an increase of 11.2 per cent since 2006. That means there are many of our closed ones or even ourselves who are silently suffering from mental problem. Nobody knows until something serious like suicides happen.  

I believe that in everything that we do, there needs to be a balance. It's excellent to have a competitive nature but we need to have a healthy competitive nature.

First step is to identify and admit there's a problem. Next step is to seek help. The taboo of mental problem being . 

The stigma over mental health cannot be ignored and must be addressed. Awareness must be created in schools, through education and campaigns. 

Government must introduce guidelines in promoting mental health at schools or workplaces and to encourage campaigns to create awareness of the issue to  provide both prevention and early intervention for students/employees affected by stress, emotional and mental health issues.

POSTSCRIPT : http://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/letters/2017/07/11/competition-and-mental-health/

THE PERFECT JUDGE

THE PERFECT JUDGE

I refer to the Bar Council EGM fixed on August 3rd 2017 to discuss the motion pertaining to the appointment of the Chief Justice and the President of the Court of Appeal, Malaysia, who are appointees as additional judges in the Federal Court pursuant to Article 122(1A) of the Federal Constitution.

I am reminded of the time when I attended my first Opening of the Legal Year with all its pomp and grandeur, the  Chief Justice advised all the judges to touch their hearts before delivering their judgements. 

My mind was racing with what might be in the minds of those judges when they touched their hearts. Would it be about making decisions that can facilitate their elevation to higher office or would it be about making decisions in the interests of justice. 

I humbly opine that  all judges must aspire to be the perfect judge as envisioned by Dworkin, Judge Hercules, who's extremely erudite and who's legally omniscient. Acting on the premise that the law is a seamless web, Hercules is required to construct the theory that best fits and justifies the law as a whole in order to decide any particular case. Hercules, Dworkin argues, would always come to the one right answer. It is imperative for a Herculean judge to hold in high esteem the values of justice as integrity, fairness and due process. 

Hence, the only thought that would be in the minds of all judges when they touched their hearts is to aspire to come up with the right decisions and not the decisions would curry favour with the big boss. 

If the laws have to be bended in order to appoint the current Chief Justice then this does not augur well for the judiciary as a whole. Appoint the right man and in accordance to the constitution and based on merits. Appoint Richard Malanjum. I agree with DAP Parliamentary Leader, Lim Kit Siang that Malanjum is more qualified and more senior than both Raus and Zulkefli. Malanjum has been outstanding  and innovative in improving the judiciary by being the first to implement the electronic case management system which includes the E-Filing System and E-Judgment.

Malanjum showed great leadership and dedication in operating the Mobile Court which has reached the most remote areas in Sabah and Sarawak to ensure that the rural population does not miss out on the basic services of the judiciary.

I call on all lawyers to attend the upcoming Bar Council EGM on August 3rd to voice out our strong objections and to pressure the government to appoint the right judge. 

Nicole Tan Lee Koon

LLB (Hons) London, LLM (Malaya), CLP

DAP Wanita National Executive Committee (NEC) member 

DAP Negeri Sembilan State Committee

Political Secretary to Member of Parliament of Rasah 

HP: 012-3626977

Whatsapp : 019-6532977

Email: loyarbaik@gmail.com

loyarburuk@hotmail.com

Facebook : Nicole Tan Lee Koon（陳麗群）, the social politico 

http://m.facebook.com/nicoleleekoontan?ref=stream&refid=46

Twitter : loyarbaik

Will the real MO1 please stand up?

WILL THE REAL MO1 PLEASE STAND UP?

I read with great amusement, Tengku Sariffuddin’s (Prime Minister’s spin master) latest spin that Lim Kit Siang is the actual top dog  (https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/389101). I must confess that I am not that familiar with the term “top dog” so I had to look it up. It is defined inter alia as “leader of the pack” and “the most important and powerful person in a group”.  Therefore, Tun Mahathir was not wrong to say that he is Pakatan Harapan’s “top dog” due to the fact that he chairs all presidential council meetings, just like Najib. This is where the similarities end. Unlike Najib, Tun M does not possess absolute powers in Pakatan Harapan.

Najib’s absolute powers was bought by moolah or “dedak”. Najib’s absolute powers were funded by the RM2.6 billion that was initially brought to our attention when Justo’s blackmail against PetroSaudi went awry.

With the “dedak” Najib managed to get the UMNO leaders to toe his line. Some received RM1 million like Shahril Samad and some received more. Hence, when Najib removed the Attorney General, transferred the top dogs (pub intended) of the MACC and pressured Zeti (Bank Negara governor) to quit; no one from Barisan Nasional dare to oppose him. The leaders who voiced their objections like Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, Dato’ Seri Muhkriz Mahathir  and Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal were “removed” by Najib. Najib controls the executive by removing the above individuals. The IGP was retained for being the number one defender of Najib. In the judiciary, judges friendly to Najib were extended and elevated in contravention of the Federal Constitution. Najib’s party UMNO controls the parliament or legislature as they have 86 seats. Najib’s absolute powers corrupts absolutely as we can see that Najib controls all the branches of powers i.e., the judiciary, executive and legislature.

The dedak can make Najib’s sycophantic supporters turn a blind eye to his blatant abuses of powers. The dedak can even caused the contention that more than ten countries in the world are conspiring to topple Najib sound believable. The dedak also caused the identity of the MO1 (which is clear if we just connect the dotted lines in the DOJ reports and the various legal cases in more than ten countries in the world) to be so elusive amongst the dedak takers, except for Rahman Dahlan who announced to the whole world that Najib is indeed MO1! 

In order to divert attention from the 1MDB scandal which is snowballing from one country to more than ten countries, MO1 has to hide behind the fake news that Lim Kit Siang is controlling Pakatan Harapan. 

As Tun M said, Kit never wanted to be a minister,  what more as a Prime Minister ? Kit is undoubtedly the top dog of Malaysian Malaysia as he has been fighting to achieve that since the day he started as a politician. Kit was willing to sacrifice money, power and freedom so that Malaysian Malaysia ! Hence, Kit is the top dog of Malaysian Malaysia. 

If we use Sarifuddin’s logic that DAP with 37 seats is the actual top dog in Pakatan Harapan, then we can be sure that UMNO with 86 seats is the top dog of Barisan Nasional. Najib’s dedak has made him the “toppest” dog in the whole equation. Hence, his spin masters are busy spinning stories to deflect from the real issue here : will the real MO1 please stand up?

Nicole Tan Lee Koon

LLB (Hons) London, LLM (Malaya), CLP

DAP Wanita National Executive Committee (NEC) member 

DAP Negeri Sembilan State Committee

Political Secretary to Member of Parliament of Rasah 

HP: 012-3626977

Whatsapp : 019-6532977

Email: loyarbaik@gmail.com

loyarburuk@hotmail.com

Facebook : Nicole Tan Lee Koon（陳麗群）, the social politico 

http://m.facebook.com/nicoleleekoontan?ref=stream&refid=46

Twitter : loyarbaik

TO PRAY OR NOT TO PRAY?

TO PRAY OR NOT TO PRAY ?

As a wide eyed external London law student, I was told to leave religion out of legal studies because law is secular. 

Zaid Ibrahim's statement a few days ago (http://m.thesundaily.my/node/456109) sparked so much of lively debates amongst the netizens, intellectuals and pseudo intellectuals. 

As a law student  I was also taught that the best way to answer an exam question is to weigh the pros and cons and that there are always exceptions to the general rule. Meaning there's no outright wrong or right. The favourite word used by practising lawyers  in court is "walaubagaimanapun". 

Hence, I was quite amused at how netizens argue over some issues. How friends can turn into foes because of differences in opinion. How a liberal minded person can be so steadfast in an opinion until he/she becomes the very extremist minded person that he/she so detest. How difficult is it to agree to disagree? 

After watching the interesting talk, to paraphrase "Dissecting 1MDB" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZABOpi68HY), I feel like dissecting this issue. After asking the passengers to pray twice, the pilot's exact words were "Our survival depends on your cooperating. Hopefully everything will turn out for the best.” As a law student also, we were told to use the objective test and not the subjective test. As a pilot of an international airline, one would be obligated to subscribe to the international norm. There's nothing wrong in asking passengers to pray. In fact, in Islam this would be the most logical thing to do. However, we are dealing with a group of 359 individuals of different faiths. We need to use the objective test and not the subjective test. 

Same goes for Syariah laws in Malaysia. Malaysia is a multi ethnic and multi religion country. Muslims are undoubtedly the majority in Malaysia but if we allow Syariah laws to coexist with civil laws, then to be fair to the Malaysians of other faiths, we need to have Christian and Hindu laws to coexist too. Where do we draw the line? Hence, there should be only one set of laws to govern all Malaysians, irregardless of religions. 

It is nothing wrong to be pious. In fact,  it is a beautiful thing. It is also a very private thing. Just don't superimpose that piety on non believers. We need to come to a middle ground or else there can be no equitable harmony. 

Nicole Tan Lee Koon

Sent from my iPhone