Kenyataan Akhbar

PENDIRIAN PEGUAM NEGARA BAHAWA BELIAU BERTINDAK SECARA PROFESIONAL DI DALAM TUDUHAN-TUDUHAN HASUTAN ADALAH SANGAT MERAGUKAN

31 Oktober 2014

Saya merujuk kepada kenyataan Peguam Negara Tan Sri Gani Patail pada 30 Oktober  2014 bahawa beliau tidak mendakwa dengan "sesuka hati" beliau. Ini adalah sebagai jawapan kepada kritikan meluas tentang tuduhan-tuduhan hasutan bertubi-tubi baru-baru ini.

Pendirian Peguam Negara bahawa beliau telah menjalankan kuasa pendakwaannya dengan betul adalah sukar dipercayai. Lebih 30 orang telah didakwa atau disiasat di dalam tindakan keras ala Ops Lalang baru-baru ini -  yang kebanyakannya adalah berdasarkan kepada laporan polis yang dibuat oleh ahli-ahli Umno atau kumpulan ekstremis pro-BN.

Pada 14 Ogos, hanya beberapa hari sebelum tindakan keras hasutan bermula, Peguam Negara telah mengadakan pertemuan tertutup dengan 60 ketua-ketua bahagian Umno. Walaupun terdapat desakan orang awam untuk beliau mendedahkan kebenaran mengenai mesyuarat tersebut, Peguam Negara hanya mendiamkan diri.

Selain itu, pada 10 September, kerana kritikan awam, Peguam Negara telah mengeluarkan kenyataan yang berjanji untuk mengkaji semula tuduhan-tuduhan hasutan baru-baru ini. Tetapi tidak ada tindakan lebih lanjut sama sekali. Sebaliknya lebih ramai orang didakwa di mahkamah untuk disiasat atau didakwa di bawah Akta Hasutan yang zalim.

Peguam Negara mendakwa ada 'konteks' semasa Ibrahim Ali membuat ‘kenyataan membakar bible’ beliau yang kontroversial, dan oleh itu beliau tidak didakwa. Namun Gani Patail jelas tidak peduli dengan 'konteks' apabila beliau mendakwa Ahli Parlimen Khalid Samad bagi pendapat beliau mengenai kuasa MAIS atau peguam dan Ahli Parlimen N Surendran bagi kenyataannya yang mempertahankan anak guam beliau Anwar Ibrahim di dalam kes Liwat II atau Profesor Azmi Shahrom bagi pendapat undang-undang beliau.

Tuduhan-tuduhan tersebut dilakukan di dalam tempoh masa yang singkat dan, kami percaya, sebagai tindak balas kepada tekanan langsung dari pimpinan Umno lapisan atas, menunjukkan tidak ada apa-apa yang profesional tentang cara di mana Peguam Negara telah memutuskan untuk memulakannya.

Tuduhan-tuduhan hasutan tersebut adalah perkara yang sangat membimbangkan untuk rakyat Malaysia dan telah dikutuk di peringkat antarabangsa. Kami mendesak Peguam Negara untuk melakukan perkara yang sewajarnya dengan segera mengkaji dan menggugurkan semua tuduhan-tuduhan hasutan yang telah dibawa ke mahkamah.

Dikeluarkan oleh,

Sivarasa Rasiah
KETUA BIRO UNDANG-UNDANG & HAK ASASI MANUSIA, KEADILAN
AHLI PARLIMEN SUBANG

Press Statement

A-G‘S CLAIM OF ACTING PROFESSIONALLY IN SEDITION CHARGES IS HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE

31 October 2014

I refer to A-G Tan Sri Gani Patail’s  statement on 30 Oct 2014 that he does not prosecute at his “whims and fancies”.  This was in response to widespread criticism over the recent blitz of sedition charges.

The A-G’s claim that he had exercised prosecution powers properly is unbelievable.  Over 30  persons were charged or investigated in the Ops-Lallang style crackdown – most of which were based on police reports made by Umno members or pro-BN right-wing groups.

On 14th August, just days before the sedition crackdown began, the A-G had a closed-door  meeting with 60 Umno division leaders.  Despite public calls for him to disclose the truth about the meeting , the A-G has remained silent. 

Also, on September 10, due to public criticism, the A-G issued a statement promising to review the recent sedition charges. But there was no further action at all. Instead more persons were hauled up to be investigated or prosecuted under the draconian Sedition  Act.

The  A-G claimed that there was a ‘context’ when Ibrahim Ali made his controversial ‘bible-burning statement”, and therefore he was not prosecuted.  However Gani Patail clearly  did not bother with the ‘context’  when he charged MP Khalid Samad for his opinion on the powers of MAIS or  lawyer and MP N Surendran for his statement defending his client Anwar Ibrahim in the Sodomy II case or Professor Azmi  Shahrom for his legal opinion.

These charges done in a short span of time and, we believe, in response to direct pressure from UMNO upper echelon leaders, show there was nothing professional about the manner in which the A-G had decided to initiate them.

These sedition charges are a matter of grave concern for Malaysians and have been internationally condemned. We urge the A-G to do the right thing by urgently reviewing and dropping all the sedition charges now pending in the courts.  

Issued by,

SIVARASA RASIAH
HEAD OF LEGAL & HUMAN RIGHTS BUREAU, KEADILAN
MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, SUBANG

Sedition charges against N Surendran

> The Government and the Attorney General (AG) must break silence on intimidation of Anwar Ibrahim's legal team by sedition charges

> I refer to the sedition charges brought against N Surendran, who is a counsel for Anwar Ibrahim in the Fitnah 2 appeal in the Federal Court on 28 and 29th October 2014.
>
> On 7th October, Anwar's legal team had called for an end to the intimidation of the legal team, which amounts to an outright denial of a fair trial for Anwar. Any interference with legal counsel  puts in jeopardy the entire appeal, and is grossly unfair to Anwar as the accused person. The legal team had therefore called for the withdrawal of the sedition charges before the hearing of the appeal on 28th October.
>
> However there has been no response or action today by the government or A-G to the call of the legal team. Their silence and failure to act reinforces the public perception that Anwar is being denied a fair hearing in his final appeal. How can the legal team be expected to prepare and argue their case, with sedition charges hanging over the head of counsel merely for repeating Anwar's legal defence?

> Further, on 10th Sept,  the AG himself had promised a review of the sedition charges, in reaction to public outrage at the sedition blitz.
>
> With only days to go before the appeal, we demand that the Government and A-G do the right thing by allowing Anwar to have a fair hearing in his appeal. The pending sedition charges against lawyer Surendran must be withdrawn, and there must be no further interference or intimidation against Anwar's defence counsels.
>
> Issued by,
> SIVARASA RASIAH
> HEAD, KEADILAN LEGAL BUREAU
> MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT (SUBANG)
>
>

Deepavali 2014

Program Santai Bersama

Semua dijemput bersama YB Sivarasa dan Sdr Razlan, Penyelaras DUN Kota Dmsara di Kpg Melayu Subang Tambahan
AHAD 12hb Okt jam 4:00ptg.
Jumpa di sana!

Press Statement by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's lawyers

7 October 2014

We refer to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's appeal against conviction in the Fitnah 2 case, which is fixed for hearing in the Federal Court on 28th and 29th October 2014. 

As members of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's legal defence team, we are very concerned by recent developments in relation to the appeal. 

Two sedition charges have been recently brought against N Surendran who is a member of the legal team. 

Shockingly, the charges are on statements made by Surendran directly on our client Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's appeal. 

The subject-matter of both the sedition charges include matters which form part of our client Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's defence which we will be raising in arguments before the Federal Court during his appeal.

In the first case, Surendran is alleged to have merely criticised the Court of Appeal's judgment convicting Datuk Seri Anwar. In the second, he is alleged to have repeated Datuk Seri Anwar's defence to the press after attending a case management session in respect of the appeal.

We believe it is unprecedented for legal counsel to be charged for sedition merely for repeating his client's legal defence. These charges are a form of pressure upon the entire legal defence team of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. 

Under our justice system, every person has a right to a fair trial. Interference or intimidation of legal counsel would amount to a serious denial of Anwar Ibrahim's right to a fair trial. 

We must be allowed to prepare for and argue the appeal without any undue pressure. We therefore call for the immediate withdrawal of the sedition charges against Surendran. 

Anything short of this may have very serious repercussions on the propriety of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's appeal and may even render the entire proceedings tainted form the very beginning itself. 

Issued by,

Gobind Singh Deo
Sangeet Deo 
Sivarasa Rasiah
Eric Paulsen
Latheefa Koya

Kenyataan Media Isu Pengubahan RTPJ

KENYATAAN AKHBAR

Ahli majlis MBPJ adalah betul untuk menangguhkan dan mengkaji semula cadangan pindaan kepada RTPJ1 dan RTPJ2

Kami sebagai Ahli-Ahli Parlimen dan Ahli-Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri di kawasan-kawasan yang berada di dalam bandaraya Petaling Jaya menyokong keputusan ahli majlis MBPJ yang diambil oleh undi majoriti di mesyuarat khas mereka semalam untuk menangguhkan cadangan pindaan kepada rancangan-rancangan tempatan RTPJ1 dan RTPJ 2 sementara menunggu kajian semula sepenuhnya oleh MBPJ.  Kajian semula ini akan dilakukan melalui perundingan dengan kerajaan negeri dan mengambil kira maklum balas yang diberikan setakat ini dalam publisiti yang diterima setakat ini di bawah seksyen 13 Akta Perancangan Bandar dan Desa 1976.

Beberapa pindaan yang dicadangkan telah menjadi sangat kontroversi untuk mengatakannya yang paling kurang.

Kami terkejut melihat cadangan untuk mengeluarkan semua garis panduan terperinci yang sedia ada untuk kawalan merancang dari kedua-dua RTPJ1 dan 2. Ini adalah amat susah dipersetujui.

Syarat-syarat kawalan perancangan terperinci tersebut telah diusahakan selama bertahun-tahun dengan input terperinci daripada orang ramai dan memberikan kestabilan kepada perancangan bandar di Petaling Jaya.

Jika MBPJ berpendapat bahawa beberapa garis panduan kawalan perancangan perlu pembaikan, maka peningkatan khusus boleh dikemukakan untuk input awam, bukan penyingkiran keseluruhan seperti yang disyorkan pada masa ini.

Cadangan-cadangan untuk meningkatkan nisbah plot maksimum daripada 4 kepada 6 dalam tujuh kawasan "pembangunan berorientasikan transit" atau TOD di sekitar stesen-stesen MRT dan LRT memerluan pemikiran semula memandangkan kesan kepada keadaan trafik semasa, kemudahan awam dan kualiti hidup di PJ. Syarat-syarat sedia ada di dalam cadangan kelihatan tidak mencukupi untuk memastikan bahawa pembangunan kepadatan tinggi seperti itu akan disepadukan sepenuhnya ke dalam stesen-stesen pengangkutan awam dan tidak mewujudkan beban lanjut dan kemerosotan persekitaran kehidupan di PJ.

Cadangan untuk menjalankan lebuh raya DASH melalui kawasan-kawasan perumahan yang padat dengan penduduk dan kawasan-kawasan komersial di Mutiara Damansara dan Damansara Perdana telah menimbulkan lebih seribu bantahan bertulis. Jajaran lebuh raya yang dicadangkan ini melalui kawasan-kawasan tersebut memerlukan kajian.

Kita perhatikan bahawa keseluruhan tanah RRI di PJ yang terdiri daripada kira-kira 1600 ekar kini yang dicadangkan sebagai "pembangunan bercampur" tanpa sebarang susun atur yang terperinci. Ini tidak boleh diterima dalam mengformulasikan suatu rancangan tempatan di mana orang ramai mengharapkan untuk melihat cadangan terperinci pihak berkuasa perancangan tempatan mengenai penggunaan tanah, nisbah plot, kepadatan, kemudahan awam dan lain-lain untuk memberi pandangan mereka. Kami berpendapat bahawa keseluruhan cadangan RRI perlu dikeluarkan dan satu rancangan kawasan khas disediakan untuk tanah RRI di bawah seksyen 16B Akta tersebut yang telah dilakukan sebelum ini untuk bahagian seksyen 13 di PJ. Rancangan untuk RRI perlu proses yang berasingan dengan sendirinya memandangkan saiz tanah untuk dibangunkan adalah besar dengan kesan yang setanding.

Kita juga perhatikan bahawa terdapat cadangan untuk menukar syarat guna tanah di tapak Filem Negara di seksyen 12 (yang merupakan tanah kerajaan Persekutuan) daripada penggunaan institusi awam untuk komersial dengan kemungkinan nisbah plot enam (6). Jikapun kerajaan Persekutuan memutuskan untuk memindahkan Filem Negara ke tempat yang lain, tanah tersebut harus dikembalikan kepada kerajaan negeri atau pihak berkuasa tempatan untuk kegunaan awam yang berterusan. Kemudahan awam yang berguna boleh dibina di atas tanah tersebut daripada membangunkannya sebagai satu lagi tapak komersil kepadatan tinggi.

Oleh itu, kami bersetuju bahawa pindaan yang dicadangkan dibatalkan. Seperti yang dicadangkan oleh ahli-ahli majlis MBPJ, satu jawatankuasa khas perlu ditubuhkan untuk mengkaji semua cadangan dengan mengambil kira semua maklum balas dan mengemukakannya sekali lagi dengan mengambil kira kepentingan awam sebagai pertimbangan utama.

Hee Loy Sian  Ahli  Parlimen  Petaling Jaya Selatan
Tony Pua Ahli  Parlimen Petaling Jaya Utara
Sivarasa Rasiah Ahli  Parlimen  Subang
Wong Chen Ahli  Parlimen Kelana Jaya
Rajiv Rishyakaran Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri Bukit Gasing
Haniza Talha Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri Taman Medan
Lau Weng San Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri  Kampung Tunku
Yeo Bee Yin Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri  Damansara Utama
Elizabeth Wong Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri  Bukit Lanjan
Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri  Seri Setia

1 Oktober 2014

Untuk sebarang penjelasan, sila hubungi Peter Chong  (pembantu peribadi kepada Sivarasa Rasiah) di 012 905 9948.

Press Statement re RTPJ ammendments

PRESS STATEMENT

MBPJ councilors are correct to put on hold and review the proposed amendments to RTPJ1 and RTPJ2

We the undersigned Members of Parliament and State Assemblypersons whose constituencies include areas within the city of Petaling Jaya support and endorse the decision of councilors of MBPJ  taken by majority vote at their special meeting yesterday to put on hold  the proposed amendments to the local plans RTPJ1 and RTPJ 2 pending a full review by MBPJ. The review will be done in consultation with the state government and taking into account the feedback given so far in the publicity conducted so far under section 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976.

Some of the proposed amendments have turned out to be very controversial to say the least.

We were surprised to see proposals to remove wholesale all the existing detailed guidelines for planning control from both RTPJ1 and 2.  This is wholly unacceptable. These detailed planning control conditions have been worked out over the years with detailed input from the public and are provide stability to town planning in Petaling Jaya.  If MBPJ is of the view that some of these planning control guidelines need improvement, then specific improvements can be presented for public input, not a wholesale removal as currently suggested.

The proposals to increase maximum plot ratios from 4 to 6 in seven “transit oriented development” areas around MRT and LRT stations needs rethinking given the impact on current traffic conditions, public amenities and quality of life in PJ. The current conditions in the proposals appear inadequate to ensure that such high-density developments will be fully integrated into the mass transit stations and not create further burdens and deterioration to the living environment in PJ.

The proposal to run the DASH highway through densely populated housing and commercial areas in Mutiara Damansara and Damansara Perdana  has evoked over a thousand written objections. The alignment of this proposed highway through those areas needs review.
We note that the entire RRI land in PJ consisting of about 1600 acres is now being proposed as “mixed development” with no detailed lay-outs whatsoever. This is simply not acceptable in the formulation of a local plan where the public expect to see the local planning authority’s detailed proposals on land use, plot ratios, densities, public amenities etc in order to give their views.  We are of the view that the entire RRI proposal should be removed and a special area plan prepared for the RRI land under section 16B of the Act as was done previously for the section 13 part of PJ.  The plan for RRI should be a separate process in itself considering the huge size of land to be developed with its corresponding impacts.

We note also that there is a proposal to convert the land use of the current Filem Negara site in section 12 ( which is Federal government land ) from public institutional use to commercial at a possible plot ratio of 6. Even if the Federal government decides to move Filem Negara to another site, that plot should be returned to the state government or the local authority for continued public use. Useful public amenities can be built on that land rather than develop it as another high density commercial site.

We therefore agree that the proposed amendments be revoked.  As proposed by the MBPJ councilors, a special committee should be set up to review all the proposals taking into account all the public feedback and present them again taking into account the public interest as the prime consideration.

Hee Loy Sian  Member of Parliament for Petaling Jaya Selatan
Tony PuaMember of Parliament for Petaling Jaya Utara
Sivarasa RasiahMember of Parliament for Subang
Wong ChenMember of Parliament for  Kelana Jaya
Rajiv RishyakaranState Assemblyman for DUN Bukit Gasing
Haniza TalhaState Assemblywoman for DUN Taman Medan
Lau Weng SanState Assemblyman for  DUN Kampung Tunku
Yeo Bee YinState Assembly woman for DUN Damansara Utama
Elizabeth WongState Assemblywoman for  DUN Bukit Lanjan
Nik Nazmi Nik AhmadState Assemblyman for  DUN Seri Setia

1st October 2014

For any further clarifications, please contact Peter Chong  ( pa to Sivarasa Rasiah ) at 012 905 9948.