NUCC HARMONY BILLS & PUBLIC CONSULTATION

RTD on Harmony Bills hosted by Proham & GMM (June 5, 2014)

The NUCC Working Committee on Law & Policy, headed by YB Dato Dr Mujahid Yusof Rawa and its deputy Mr Lim Chee Wee have drafted a set of three harmony bills:-

These are:

1. Racial & Religious Hate Crime Billl;

2. National Harmony & Reconciliation Bill; and

3. National Harmony & Reconciliation Commission Bill.

These draft bills were tabled at the Third NUCC full council meeting held on May 17, 2014. It was agreed that this is still at a draft stage and should be presented to various stakeholders both in government and civil society for feedback and input. It is important to state that these draft bills are not the final version and still is in the working committee stage at the NUCC end. It has not been deliberated and agreed upon at the NUCC full council.

When deliberated by the NUCC full council and if agreed upon it will be part of the NUCC report and NUCC Draft Blue Print for National Unity which will be presented to the Prime Minister.

The NUCC Working Committee has been holding discussion sessions and a third such public discussion was hosted by Proham and Global Movement of Moderates (GMM) on June 5, 2014 where draft copies were circulated and where Mr Lim Chee Wee made a presentation. This discussion was well attended and over the past few days a number of comments and concerns were aired in the media arising from this open discussion.

The NUCC Working committee welcomes the comments and recognises that this is a consultative process and that the work of the working committee is open for review and deliberation.

NUCC as a whole has adopted an open policy and has hosted public dialogues in a town hall approach called Dailog Perpaduan in 18 major towns throughout Malaysia. 5,491 people participated of whom 512 spoke and 1,159 people submitted their views in writing. They represent a cross section of Malaysian society especially the grassroots.

NUCC is therefore not an elitist organisation and continues to engage with all individuals and groups. Circulating the draft bills and holding public discussions even at the drafting stage is illustrative of our participatory and transparent approach.

In this context a number of key questions were raised and the NUCC Working committee on Law and Policy has found it necessary to provide some initial responses.

First, it has been said that the bills have been drafted with no consultation with wider Malaysian society.

Yes, the bills were drafted by NUCC members in the NUCC Working Committee on Law & Policy. But it is not a final document but in draft stage and therefore is circulated for feedback and comment both from agencies, civil society & the general public. It is not a final document and the NUCC full council has not deliberated on this. The public therefore has the opportunity to review the bills and make suggestions.

Second, there could be some confusion on this matter as there were news reports that the draft bill have been presented to Cabinet by Minister Nancy Shukri.

Cabinet is aware of the draft Bills but no decision has been made on the draft Bills.

Third, there was a call for a White Paper to be issues with justifications for why such laws are needed.

We recognise that this is a good suggestion however the responsibility is with the Federal Government and this approach has not been the way the current Federal administration has introduced new bills. This was not the case when the Suhakam bill was introduced, nor when the EAIC was established or when the ISA and EO were replaced by the a new security law.

However NUCC recognises that there is a need for a background paper providing the need and justification on why these bills should be introduced and how these laws will enhance inter racial harmony and address the current issues related to hate speeches and acts by certain parties.

Fourth, some have indicated that the proposed bills have questioned the position of the Malay rulers-Article 37 (1), and some fundamentals in the Federal Constitution such as Article 3, Article 153 as well as erode the position of the judiciary

NUCC Working Committee categorically disagrees with this interpretation and affirms that none of the core fundamentals of the Federal Constitution such as Articles 3, 8, 37, 152 and 153 are questioned, derogated from or interfered with. In fact the proposed bills will enhance these provisions and provide greater protection in the public space for this. The NUCC Working Committee is prepared to have a discussion with the Malay Consultative Council on this matter so as to clarify this position.

Fifth, there have been a number of questions pertaining to the usefulness of the draft bills and its impact on democratic freedoms

Among these questions are, why the need for three new bills to replace the Sedition Act. Is the Penal Code not sufficient in addressing the current problems pertaining to hate speech and action? Concerns were expressed that more laws will adversely affect freedom of speech and curtail civil society advocacy. It was also suggested that the three bills be made into one bill. Others have asked if these new laws will really be able to stop rising polarisation in Malaysia society.

It is important to note that any legislation in its self is not a magic wand and a solution to all our inter-ethnic issues, however legislation can serve to be an instrument to contribute towards greater protection for harmony. NUCC Working Committee in its deliberation found that the Penal Code was insufficient however we will review this point. It must however be complemented by public awareness and education on the one hand and with the political will and leadership in resolving conflict.  

NUCC is open to comments and criticisms and encourage more stakeholder discussion and input. We welcome you to visit the NUCC website to read the draft bills: www.nucc.my

Issued by:

YB Dato Dr Mujahid Yusof Rawa (Chairman) and Mr Lim Chee Wee (Deputy Chairman)

NUCC Working Committee on Law and Policy

June 10, 2014

Stop raids & establish a new permanent mechanism for inter-religious conflict resolution

Proham calls for a stop to raids & find a new permanent mechanism for inter-religious conflict resolution in order to foster greater mutual respect and harmony in accordance with the Federal Constitution

The recent raid by Jais at a Hindu Temple has once again put into public discussion the role of this and other Islamic enforcement agencies in Malaysian society. These agencies have in the name of religion acted in a way that has displayed total disrespect to other religions and cultural practices.

These agencies have raided non-Muslim funerals and removed the dead at the point of grief; they have raided a non-Muslim wedding at a point of celebration and taken away the bride. Both funerals and weddings are major cultural and religious events and at the heart of family and community life. Such insensitive acts create great pain, hurts and impact ethnic and religious relations in Malaysian society.

These Islamic agencies have raided places of worship, be it a Church or Christian institution seeking out Muslims or confiscating the Malay language Bibles. Invading a place of worship is a culturally and religious insensitive act which displays total disrespect and disregard for another place of worship and religion.

Undertaking such acts in the name of religion brings great disrepute to Islam, the religion of the Federation. Furthermore, it can also be misunderstood as acts of aggression of a majority community on minorities in matters pertaining to religious and cultural freedoms as protected by the Federal Constitution.  These acts by religious enforcement agencies have created confusion, anger and distrust among the communities and are threating the peace and harmony of Malaysian society.

The methods of investigation of these religious enforcement agencies are now being questioned, as they seem “to raid and then investigate” similar to the notion of “arrest first and then investigate”. The past raids of Damansara Utama Methodist Church and the Bible Society have not result in any charges being filed by the Islamic authorities.

Raiding places of worship, funerals & weddings will require a higher level of justification and these agencies must first meet the religious leaders of the other religions and work in peace, harmony and mutual respect. The authorities must apply caution and display humility and mutual respect and act in accordance to cultural norms and behaviour.  

Proham is of the opinion that mediation might be the best way forward and that the Mediation Act 2012 could serve as a useful piece of legislation. Mediation provides for conflict resolution and this is urgently needed to resolve the inter-cultural, religious and ethnic conflicts. New provisions could be made to mandate affected parties to come before mediation. The Malaysian Mediation Centre provides a useful model and a similar community mediation centre could be established.

Proham is of the opinion that both Federal and State government leaders must in the interest of the nation, meet to resolve these issues and not allow this to further destroy inter-ethnic and inter-religious understanding. We call on the political leaders in public office to put aside their political differences in the interest of the nation and do the honourable thing to resolve this matter.

Proham proposals that both Federal and State government of Selangor establish an inter-religious panel of Muslims and non-Muslims to study the situation especially the SOP of JAIS and formulate conflict resolution mechanisms so as to build trust and confidence, as well as enable all the religious communities to live in peace and harmony.

Issued on behalf of Proham by:-

Datuk Kuthubul Zaman (Proham Chair)

& Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria  (Proham Secretary-General)

Hentikan serbuan dan mencari mekanisme baru dan kekal untuk penyelesaian konflik antara agama - Proham

6 Jun - Serbuan baru-baru ini oleh pihak JAIS di sebuah Kuil Hindu sekali lagi menjadi perbincangan awam tentang peranannya dan agensi-agensi penguatkuasaan Islam yang lain dalam masyarakat Malaysia. Tindakan agensi-agensi ini di atas nama agama telah dipaparkan ketidak-hormatan terhadap agama dan amalan budaya lain.

Agensi-agensi ini telah menyerbu pengebumian bukan Islam dan telah memindahkan si mati dari upacara dalam kehibaan; mereka telah menyerbu sebuah perkahwinan bukan Islam dalam suasana keraian dan diambil pengantin perempuan. Kedua-dua pengkebumian dan majlis perkahwinan adalah peristiwa-peristiwa budaya dan agama yang besar dan di kalangan keluarga dan kehidupan masyarakat. Apa-apa perbuatan tidak sensitif mewujudkan kesakitan, kelukaan dan kesan hubungan etnik dan agama dalam masyarakat Malaysia.

Agensi-agensi ini Islam telah menyerbu tempat-tempat ibadat, sama ada institusi Gereja atau Kristian, mencari orang Islam atau merampas  Alkitab bahasa Melayu. Menceroboh tempat ibadat adalah perbuatan tidak sensitif dari segi budaya dan agama yang memaparkan penghinaan dan tidak menghormati tempat ibadat dan agama lain.

Menjalankan perbuatan demikian atas nama agama membawa nama buruk kepada agama Islam, agama Persekutuan. Tambahan pula, ia juga boleh disalah anggap sebagai tindakan agresif daripada masyarakat majoriti ke atas minoriti dalam hal-hal yang berkaitan dengan kebebasan agama dan budaya sebagaimana dilindungi oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Tindakan oleh agensi-agensi penguatkuasaan agama ini telah menimbulkan kekeliruan, kemarahan dan ketidakyakinanan di kalangan masyarakat dan mengancam keamanan dan keharmonian masyarakat Malaysia.

Kaedah-kaedah penyiasatan agensi-agensi penguatkuasaan agama kini dipersoalkan, kerana mereka seolah-olah "serbu dan menyiasat kemudian" sama dengan konsep "tangkap dulu dan menyiasat kemudian". Serbuan lalu ke atas Gereja Damansara Utama Methodist dan Persatuan Alkitab tidak mengakibatkan pendakwaan difailkan oleh pihak berkuasa Islam.

Menyerbu tempat-tempat ibadat, upacara pengkebumian dan majlis perkahwinan memerlukan justifikasi tahap yang lebih tinggi dan agensi-agensi ini mesti harus bertemu pemimpin agama daripada agama-agama lain dan bekerja dengan aman, harmoni dan saling menghormati. Pihak berkuasa perlu lebih berhati-hati dan saling hormat menghormati serta bertindak mengikut norma-norma budaya dan tingkah laku.

PROHAM berpendapat bahawa proses pengantaraan mungkin cara terbaik ke hadapan dan bahawa Akta Pengantaraan 2012 boleh menjadi asas yang berguna. Pengantaraan membolehkan penyelesaian konflik dan ini amat diperlukan untuk menyelesaikan konflik antara budaya, agama dan etnik. Peruntukan baru boleh dibuat untuk mmensyatakan pihak yang terlibat untuk menggunakan proses pengantaraan. Pusat Pengantaraan Malaysia menyediakan model yang berguna dan pusat pengantaraan masyarakat yang seumpamanya boleh ditubuhkan.

PROHAM berpendapat bahawa pemimpin-pemimpin kerajaan Persekutuan dan kerajaan Negeri demi kepentingan negara, bertemu untuk menyelesaikan isu-isu ini dan tidak membiarkan persefahaman antara kaum dan antara agama dimusnahkan. Kami menyeru kepada pemimpin-pemimpin politik yang memegang jawatan awam untuk mengetepikan perbezaan politik mereka demi kepentingan negara dan melalukan tindakan yang mulia untuk menyelesaikan perkara ini.

Cadangan PROHAM supaya kerajaan Persekutuan dan kerajaan Negeri Selangor menubuhkan sebuah panel antara agama terdiri dari umat Islam dan bukan Islam untuk mengkaji keadaan terutama SOP pihak JAIS dan merangka mekanisme penyelesaian konflik supaya dapat membina kepercayaan dan keyakinan, serta membolehkan semua komuniti agama untuk hidup dengan aman dan harmoni.

* Datuk Kuthubul Zaman merupakan Pengerusi Persatuan Promosi Hak Asasi Manusia (Proham), Malaysia.

** Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria adalah Setiausaha Agung, Persatuan untuk Promosi Hak Asasi Manusia (Proham), Malaysia

No need for new laws to prosecute hate crimes, say critics at public forum

At the June 5, 2014 RTD

 

BY ELIZABETH ZACHARIAH Published: 6 June 2014 |(Malaysianinsider)

 

The National Unity Consultative Council's (NUCC) proposed National Unity Bills came under scrutiny in a forum last night, where many questioned the need for more laws to replace the draconian Sedition Act that is due to be repealed.

 

In the "Discussion on National Unity Bills" organised by the Association for the Promotion of Human Rights (Proham) and the Global Movement of Moderates (GMM), many expressed concern over the proposed three new laws, one of which would replace the Sedition Act.

 

The first draft of the bills – the Racial and Religious Hate Crimes Bill, the National Harmony and Reconciliation Bill and the National Unity and Reconciliation Commission Bill – was presented to the cabinet last week.

 

Proham chairman Datuk Kuthubul Zaman, who was one of the speakers, said he disagreed with the proposed laws, adding that the Penal Code was more than sufficient to replace the Sedition Act.      "We do not need new laws to substitute the Sedition Act. The Penal Code covers criminal intimidation among others and is more than enough to cover hate crimes," he said at the discussion at the GMM office in Kuala Lumpur.

 

Earlier, NUCC Working Committee on Law & Policy deputy chairman Lim Chee Wee said that the committee had felt that the Penal Code was not sufficient to deter and punish hate crimes should the Sedition Act be repealed. He said the new bills would be a "better mechanism" for conflict management, adding that it would criminalise incitement of racial and religious hatred. "In the UK, hate speech is also criminalised," he added. However, Kuthubul said in the UK, there was no Penal Code, hence there was a need for its Race Relations Act.

 

Jerald Joseph, director of Pusat Komas and another speaker at the discussion, said the bills were essentially to put a stop to the "free space" given to hate speeches by all sides of the divide. "This is a start. We have an A-G (attorney-general) who is selective in cases he wants to prosecute, we have a police force who does not know if it should take action... there is enough grounds for the bills," he added.

 

Kuthubul shot back: "If you say the A-G uses the Sedition Act to prosecute the opposition, then he can also use these new laws to do the same. "If you say the police don't know what to do with the old laws and so we need more laws to get them to act, that is also not true." Stressing that these were wrong intentions to come up with the new laws, he said the people should instead put pressure on the A-G to be fair in prosecuting.

 

Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (Ideas) head Wan Saiful Wan Jan also expressed concern about the unity bills, saying that repealing one law does not justify the introduction of three new laws. "It is worrying that we need these laws to replace one. It is not justifiable and I do not agree with it," he said.

 

Also raising questions about the proposed national unity bills was Lawyers for Liberty executive director Eric Paulsen, who said that the country was more in need of political leadership instead of laws. "I am concerned that we keep looking at laws as a way to resolve things. "But what is more needed is political leadership from our prime minister rather than more laws," he added.

 

A member of the public Siti Kassim said instead of proposing new laws to deter hate crimes, the NUCC should look into the root causes of such problems, such as education. "Students in schools are being taught to be racist at a young age and teachers are being brainwashed right from training colleges. "It all starts with education and I feel the NUCC should look into tackling this rather than proposing new laws," she said, adding that the country already had enough laws to prosecute hate crimes.

 

GMM chief executive officer Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah and Proham secretary-general Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria, who are both also NUCC members, were the moderators of the discussion, which was attended by more than 40 members of NGOs and the public. – June 6, 2014 -

 

See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/no-need-for-new-laws-to-prosecute-hate-crimes-say-critics-at-public-forum#sthash.71361wAL.dpuf

 

Consultation on

PROMOTION & PROTECTION OF FREEDOM

OF RELIGION & BELIEF IN ASEAN

Hendrik (German Embassy), Marcel (EU), Saifuddin (GMM), Denison (Proham) & Asrul (GMM)
Planning Meeting held on May 23, 2014 at GMM, KL

Dates:               July 2 (Wednesday evening) & July 3 (Thursday), 2014

The ASEAN region made up of 10 nations with a population of about 585 million is a region with diverse ethnic, cultural and religious communities. ASEAN 2015 target of an integrated community with a charter of human rights seem promising.

Recently in Jakarata, Indonesia from Feb 19 and 20, 2014, there was a Regional Consultation on Promoting the Freedom of Religion or Belief in ASEAN which was organised by the Human Rights Working Group (HRWG) and the Indonesian Representative to the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR)

This consultation adopted a Policy document on Human Rights for the promotion and protection of freedom of religion & belief in ASEA. This is still a document in the drafting process and in due time will be presented to AICHR for this reflection, consideration and adoption.

Therefore it is proposed to host a Consultation to review this document and note our reflections and also discern its suitability to Malaysia.

This Consultation is jointly organised by PROHAM & the Global Movement of Moderators. Its co organisers are SUHAKAM, the Institute of Ethnic Studies, UKM, Bar Council Human Rights Committee, Department for National Unity and Integration, Prime Minister’s Department and the European Union.

Objectives

Review the draft ASEAN Guidelines for Promotion & Protection of Religious Freedom

Ascertain comparability and relevance for the Malaysian context 

Drawing out guidelines and framework from the Malaysian experience and perspectives

Provide input to guideline drafters from Malaysian perspective

Consultation Methodology

In each session a number of speakers are invited to provide their reflections on the theme between 7 to 10 minutes. All participants will have ample opportunities to share their input and reflections on all the themes through a 3 to 5 minutes intervention. Written submissions are most welcomed. We hope to publish the notes of discussions, submissions as a report emerging from the Consultation.

We like all speakers, commentators and participants to study thse two HRWG reports and make comments, observations and assessments 

The Consultation is a closed door event and participation is strictly by invitation. A media release will be issued jointly by Proham & GMM after the event.

The Consultation is jointly moderated by Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah (CEO GMM) & Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria (PROHAM & KITA-UKM)

Two reports prepared by HRWG (Indonesia) as documents for the Consultation are:-

Policy Paper 1 –            Promotion & Protection of Freedom of Religion & belief in ASEAN (Baseline study, 2014)

Policy Paper 2-              Research Report Freedom of Religion in Southeast Asia, Legal framework, practices & international concern (2012)

Participation is by invitation only

Two ideas for the Election Commission – Rama Ramanathan

I would like to offer two ideas on how the Election Commission (EC) can respond to Bersih 2.0/Delineation Action and Research Team (DART) and Tindak Malaysia’s ongoing efforts to show Malaysians the oddities of EC-set electoral boundaries.

Six weeks ago, I wrote about the EC after attending a forum at the Malaysian Bar. In that article I mentioned Tindak Malaysia’s nationwide recruitment of scrutineers.
Two weeks ago, at a Proham-Global Movement of Moderates Foundation (GMMF) meeting, I watched Dr Wong Chin Huat and Thomas Fann of Bersih 2.0’s DART present strong evidence of gerrymandering and malapportionment.

 

The DART team displayed the sizes and shapes of several constituencies in West and East Malaysia. They pointed out oddities such as boundaries which divide local councils and communities. They pointed out instances where boundaries run along the middle-lines of roads and even divide homes.

The DART team explained the “Provisions Relating to Delimitation of Constituencies” contained in the Thirteenth Schedule of the Federal Constitution.

The DART team showed how they have taken the constitutional provisions, Malaysian historical practices, and insights gleaned from the EC to develop a “Constitutional Compliance Checklist” which can be used as a tool to evaluate whether the boundaries of any constituency show signs of malapportionment or gerrymandering.

Malapportionment means giving some constituencies a greater voice in legislation and policy-making than is warranted by their numbers. Malapportionment is evidenced by the relative sizes of constituencies, for example, 144,159 voters in Kapar have one MP, while 37,318 voters in Sabak Bernam also have one MP. That’s one of many examples of malapportionment.

Gerrymandering means taking account of how voters are likely to vote when drawing the boundary of each constituency. Gerrymandering results from a policy of creating politically like-minded groups of voters rather than the constitutionally prescribed policy of recognising communities who live together due to natural-geographical boundaries. Gerrymandering results in odd-shaped constituencies such as the present constituencies of Tebrau (Johor), Seputeh (Kuala Lumpur) and Alor Setar.

On gerrymandering, one member of the audience said the shape of the Subang Jaya constituency is now like a snake, going up to Sungai Buloh. A dignified and respected community leader, he noted that since 2008, citizens have become more alert to constituency delineation.

Those assembled learned that the EC has begun work to review the boundaries of each constituency. Though many well-informed persons were present, none knew of any timelines released by the EC to indicate when they will publish proposed changes and solicit public comment – as required by the Federal Constitution.

The EC is publicly funded to ensure fair representation, yet appears to have taken no initiatives to engage a willing public in its activities.

Conversely, Bersih 2.0, which receives no public funds, has, through DART, developed a process utilising information gleaned from the EC, Google Maps, and spreadsheets to work on redelineation of constituencies.

DART has developed and deployed a non-partisan training programme to enable ordinary Malaysians to develop and propose constituencies with natural boundaries. Within the next month, DART will be ready to display, in several states, maps of some of the proposed redelineated constituencies.

Those who have created and deployed DART are Wiki-members of the Wiki-minded: they work voluntarily work for the common good, using computers collaboratively.

Attendance at DART training shows the public are eager to participate. Their eagerness indicates a keen sense of responsible citizenship among Malaysians across ages, ethnicities and other associations. Their eagerness indicates inclusiveness and tolerance.

Idea #1: If you pro-actively engages the eager public, you could win public confidence.
Increasing the number of MPs. I was surprised to learn that previously, Parliament did not use criteria for cost (for example, salary, perks, staffing, office) and contribution (for example, number of hours participating in debates in the House or attending committee meetings) of MPs to determine the number of constituencies prior to delineating their boundaries.

It appears Parliament, with the complicity of the EC, put the cart before the horse, for it is effective representation which should come first. The EC should explain why such a decision was made previously, and say whether a similar decision will be made in the next redelineation exercise.

Idea #2: "The reason to retire is to try to avoid embarrassment; you ought to do it before people are dropping big hints. You want to be the first to come up with the idea. You don't want to wait until you trip and fall off the stage.” (Garrison Keillor). – May 31, 2014.

* Rama Ramanathan blogs at write2rest.blogspot.com.

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/two-ideas-for-the-election-commission-rama-ramanathan

Proham calls on the Elections Commission to be transparent and collaborative

Proham calls upon the Elections Commission (EC) to explain the process used to define the boundaries of electoral constituencies.

Proham notes with concern the overwhelming evidence of gerrymandering and malapportionment during GE13.

On 15 May 2014, Proham organized a Roundtable Discussion (RTD) to discuss the delineation of electoral constituencies. The RTD was held at the Global Movement of Moderates Foundation (GMMF). The RTD was moderated by Mr Rama Ramanthan and Datuk Kuthubul Zaman (Proham Chairman) gave the welcome address.

At the RTD, Dr Wong Chin Huat and Mr Thomas Fann of Bersih 2.0’s Delineation Action and Research Team (DART) presented strong evidence of both gerrymandering and malappropriation displayed in the present sizes and shapes of electoral constituencies in West and East Malaysia.

The DART team displayed a high level of understanding of the “Provisions Relating to Delimitation of Constituencies” contained in the Thirteenth Schedule of the Federal Constitution.

The DART team showed how they have taken the constitutional provisions, Malaysian historical practices and insights gleaned from the EC to develop a “Constitutional Compliance Checklist” which can be used as a tool to evaluate whether the boundaries of any constituency show signs of malapportionment or gerrymandering.

Malapportionment means giving some constituencies a greater voice in legislation and policy-making than is warranted by their numbers. Malapportionment is evidenced by the relative sizes of constituencies, e.g. e.g. 144,159 voters in Kapar have one MP, while 37,318 voters in Sabak Bernam also have one MP. That’s one of many examples of malapportionment.

Gerrymandering means taking account of how voters are likely to vote when drawing the boundary of each constituency. Gerrymandering results from a policy of creating politically like-minded groups of voters rather than the constitutionally prescribed policy of recognizing communities who live together due to natural-geographical boundaries. Gerrymandering results in odd-shaped constituencies such as the present constituencies of Tebrau (Johor), Seputeh (KL) and Alor Setar.

On Gerrymandering, Datuk Vaithilingam (Proham) observed that the shape of Subang Jaya constituency is now like a snake, going up to Sungei Buloh and that since 2008, citizens have become more alert to constituency delineation.

The RTD learned that the EC has begun work to review the boundaries of each constituency, but has not released any timeline indicating when they expect to publish any proposed changes and solicit public comment as required by the Federal Constitution. The EC is publicly funded to ensure fair representation, yet appears to have taken no initiatives to engage a willing public in its activities.

Conversely Bersih 2.0, which receives no public funds, has, through DART, developed a process utilizing information gleaned from the EC, Google Maps and spreadsheets to work on re-delineation of constituencies. DART has developed and deployed a non-partisan training program to enable ordinary Malaysians to develop and propose constituencies with natural boundaries. Within the next month DART will be ready to display, in several states, maps of some of the proposed re-delineated constituencies.

Those who have created and deployed DART are members of the Wiki-generation, persons who believe in voluntarism for the common good, especially through using computer technology collaboratively.

Proham is gladdened by the interest the public have shown in DART. This indicates a keen sense of responsible citizenship amongst Malaysians across ages, ethnicities and other associations. This is an excellent indicator of inclusiveness and tolerance.

Proham is disappointed that there has been no formal meeting between the EC and Bersih 2.0/DART to work collaboratively. This is of course partly to be expected because of the delible ink and other fiascos for which no one at the EC has taken responsibility.

Yet, Proham is eager for the common good and the will of moderates to triumph.

Proham therefore urges the EC to share broadly the processes and the constraints it will use to conduct the re-delineation process. Proham urges the EC to begin a series of consultations with the public.

Proham believes the adoption of a pro-active stance by the EC will smoothen the acceptance of whatever decisions the EC will recommend in the coming months. Early and frequent Public Consultations will strengthen Public Confidence and National Unity.

Increasing the number of MP’s. The RTD was surprised to learn that previously Parliament did not use criteria for cost (e.g. salary, perks, staffing, office) and contribution (e.g. number of hours participating in debates in the House or attending committee meetings) of Members of Parliament to determine the number of constituencies prior to delineating their boundaries.

It appears Parliament, with the complicity of the EC, put the cart before the horse, for it is effective representation which should come first. The EC should explain why such a decision was made previously, and say whether a similar decision will be made in the next re-delineation exercise.

Therefore Proham also calls upon the EC to explain the logic behind that sequence of events, and whether the EC plans to do the same in the future.

Proham reiterates its commitment to participate in the process of ensuring fair and effective representation and willingness to mediate between all parties.

Issued on behalf of Proham by:-

Datuk Kuthubul Zaman (Proham Chairman) and Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam (Proham Exco Member) June 1, 2014