2016 KPRU Internship Programme

2016 KPRU Internship Programme

The KPRU Internship Programme is now open for application. Selected candidates will attach on a full-time basis, and will be paid a monthly stipend (only a very small amount). Candidates will have the opportunity to:

  • Assist and contribute to parliamentary research
  • Gain exposure to parliamentary affairs
  • Coordinate consultative meetings and briefing sessions for members of parliament, etc

Selection Criteria:

  • Youths between age 20-30 (students, fresh grads, post-grads or young working adults)
  • Full-time attachment, minimum period of 1 month


  • Closing date of application: 22nd February 2016
  • Duration of programme: 1st March 2016 to 31st May 2016
  • Successful candidates will be informed via email

Application procedures:

Email resume / curriculum vitae (CV) and cover letter expressing interest to ooiheng(at)gmail(dot)com

Include in your application the following:

  • Preferred duration of your attachment
  • Your education/working background and research interest
  • Your language proficiency
  • Your learning expectation


Why Anwar Ibrahim deserves a Nobel Peace Prize

Nobel Peace Prize 2016 and Anwar Ibrahim, the prisoner of conscience

Former Leader of the Opposition of Malaysian Parliament, Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, is being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 2016. He is currently serving his five-year jail term for his second conviction of sodomy, since 10 February 2015, after the Federal Court upheld the decision made by the Court of Appeal. His nomination is being backed by 10 non-governmental organisations (NGO) in Malaysia so far.

Before arguing on the reasons Anwar Ibrahim deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, we decided to look into the background of Aung San Suu Kyi from Myanmar/Burma, as well as Lech Wałęsa from Poland, who respectively received their Prize in 1991 and 1983. We believed that these two Laureates are similar enough to be compared with Anwar Ibrahim, for they have created a great impact towards their own nations and a certain degree of impact on democratisation.

We do think that Anwar Ibrahim deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, as he is wrongfully convicted for sodomy twice in his lifetime, in the context of a “politically loaded case”, while sacrificing his own freedom for non-violent struggle of democracy, and fighting against injustice and corruption done by an authoritarian regime, making him a prisoner of conscience.

In the past, the Nobel Peace Prize has been won by several figures who were prisoners of conscience, such as Aung San Suu Kyi from Myanmar, Liu Xiaobo from China, Nelson Mandela from South Africa, and Lech Wałęsa from Poland. These political dissidents have sacrificed their own freedom, in order to, either fight for democracy, or fight for the rights of the people, or even both.

This is the second time Anwar Ibrahim is being jailed as a politician, and for both of the jail terms the Amnesty International had declared him a “prisoner of conscience”. During Anwar’s first jail term, Amnesty International had stated that the trial proceedings “exposed a pattern of political manipulation of key state institutions including the police, public prosecutor’s office and the judiciary”. And as for the current jail term, Amnesty International said that the charges and trial were politically motivated. They called for immediate and unconditional release of Anwar Ibrahim. Furthermore, Anwar’s health has been deteriorating in Sungai Buloh Prison, and he is facing difficulties in receiving proper medical attention.

Before this, on 7 March 2014 Court of Appeal overturned the ruling made by the High Court which acquitted him (thus reinstating this second sodomy conviction), disrupting Anwar from contesting in the Kajang by-election on 23 March 2014. Human Rights Watch criticized the court decision for being politically motivated.

Anwar could choose to leave the country just to avoid another jail term, probably seeking for political asylum. Even by doing that, Anwar could still continue leading the opposition forces from abroad, with the advanced telecommunications and internet technologies we have now.

However, Anwar has chosen not to do so. He felt that if he fled the country, he would not be making a good example in our struggles to democratise the country. Anwar has chosen to sacrifice his own freedom and probably even his own life, as his health is deteriorating in prison. For sure, it would also mean separation with his family, though his family members may occasionally visit him in prison, albeit not without problems.

Anwar Ibrahim and Aung San Suu Kyi
This may be comparable with Aung San Suu Kyi, who had chosen to stand with her people by turning down the Burmese military regime’s offer to join her family abroad. The condition of the offer was, she would never be able to return to Myanmar. And after 1995 her husband was denied by the military regime to visit her, who was under house arrest, and he himself died of prostate cancer in 1999. Aung San Suu Kyi’s sacrifice has apparently paid off, as her consistent struggle for her people and democracy has finally helped her party, National League for Democracy (NLD), achieve great electoral victory in the 2015 General Election, winning 86% of the seats in the Assembly of the Union, which is more than 67%, the requirement to have their preferred candidate elected as President and First Vice President. Though the constitution bars Aung San Suu Kyi from becoming President (as her husband and children are not citizens of Myanmar), she declared that she would hold real power in any NLD-led government. In order to amend the constitution, there must be approval from at least one military legislator.

The situation of Anwar Ibrahim and Aung San Suu Kyi are somewhat similar. Both of them have been under political persecution by the ruling regime while their parties achieved electoral success by winning popular support under their leadership. Aung San Suu Kyi was under house arrest for the first time a year before her NLD won the election on 27 May 1990 with 82% of the parliamentary seats and 59% of the popular votes, but the military junta refused to recognise the results. And she remained under house arrest until 10 July 1995. She was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991. And she was placed under house arrest again on 23 September 2000 until 6 May 2002. And she was placed under house arrest for the third time from 2003 until 13 November 2010, being extended a few times, including one illegal extension done on 27 May 2008.

As for Anwar Ibrahim – the Reformasi movement initiated by him, his supporters and civil society after being sacked as Deputy Prime Minister by then-Prime Minister Dato’ Seri (now Tun) Dr Mahathir Mohamad in 1998 – eventually gave birth to Parti Keadilan Nasional, the predecessor of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (KEADILAN). And this party went on forming a new opposition coalition, Barisan Alternatif, together with Democratic Action Party (DAP), Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS) and Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM). This is the first time in history secular DAP had an official cooperation with the hardline Islamist PAS, as there was no other party before KEADILAN that could bring these two parties together. (However DAP withdrew from Barisan Alternatif in 2001 due to their irreconcilable differences with PAS.)

Anwar’s Reformasi movement has created new dimension for democratisation with important legacies. It showed that a cross-ethnic alliance was possible despite the divisive racial politics practised by the ruling regime over the past several decades. It also showed that non-violent struggle of democracy was possible despite the authoritarian regime’s repressive rule against the people and injustice towards Anwar and other defenders of democracy.

Anwar Ibrahim played major roles in leading several demonstrations against the authoritarian regime, such as those during the Reformasi movement, as well as the Bersih rallies in 2007, 2011 and 2012 (demanding for fair and clean elections), and also the Blackout rallies after the 2013 election, protesting against election frauds. Even before Anwar entered politics, he was already an activist during his student years, and was once detained under the controversial (now abolished) Internal Security Act (ISA) for his involvement in a protest against rural poverty and hunger. He was once notable for being the president of Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia (ABIM) before joining the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), the dominant component party of BN, and moved up the political ranks quickly, before being sacked and expelled from the party in 1998.

Anwar Ibrahim and Lech Wałęsa
On the other hand, the Polish trade unionist Lech Wałęsa had also led in several workers’ demonstrations and strikes, demanding the Communist regime for better living conditions and workers’ rights. As a result, he was once fired from his job in the Lenin Shipyard (now Gdańsk Shipyard), though reinstated 6 years later. He was frequently detained by the Communist regime and also underwent surveillance. His actions even earned support from the Roman Catholic Church and the intellectuals. He eventually made his way into negotiations with the authorities which resulted in the Gdańsk Agreement on 31 August 1980, which gave the workers the right to strike and to organize their own independent unions. However his movement, Solidarity, was once banned in December 1981, and later his Nobel Peace Prize was announced in October 1983. Another negotiation he made with the authorities, upon worsened economic conditions, eventually brought to an end of the authoritarian rule and democratized Poland, enabling his Solidarity to win election in 1989 and have himself elected as President in 1990, until his defeat in November 1995.

In the 2008 General Election, KEADILAN won 31 Parliamentary seats and became the largest opposition party in the Parliament. KEADILAN, together with DAP and PAS, formed a new opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat. Back then this alliance had 81 seats in combined, breaking BN’s long-standing two-thirds majority in the Parliament. In the 13th General Election, Pakatan Rakyat obtained 50.9% of the popular votes (while BN had 47.4%) but was only able to win 89 out of the 222 seats in the Parliament (thus BN won 133).

As an opposition leader, Anwar Ibrahim has been critical of the BN government’s distorted policies, notably his problematisation of the New Economic Policy (NEP). He also called for the need of democratic accountability, an independent judiciary and free media, in order to combat corruption.

Though Anwar failed to get BN parliamentarians to defect to his side on 16 September 2008, this nonetheless made the entire nation awaken and began to appreciate the importance of the date 16 September, for it was the date of the formation of Malaysia in 1963 (between Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore). Since then, from 2009 onwards, 16 September, being “Malaysia Day”, became a public holiday for the entire country, as it was previously a public holiday only for Sabah and Sarawak. And politicians from both sides of the political divide began to realise the need to address the rights of Sabah and Sarawak (together called “East Malaysia”), as many people from these two states felt that their rights and interests have been compromised by the federal government based in West Malaysia, up to the extent that the 1963 Malaysia Agreement, an international treaty, is being violated.

Anwar Ibrahim made a revolutionary impact towards Malaysian politics, as he formed the Malay-dominated multiracial party KEADILAN, while previously there was no similar party that could achieve such success. KEADILAN is a party which its racial composition matches the national racial composition the closest, as compared with other major political parties in Malaysia, therefore making it the “most multiracial” party here. Before the formation of KEADILAN, the Malays were mostly divided into UMNO and PAS for several decades, with a mere few years of Semangat 46 (S46), a splinter party of UMNO. UMNO and S46 are restricted to Bumiputera, while PAS is restricted to Muslims.

Before KEADILAN, there was never a Malay-dominated multiracial party that could achieve such great electoral success. Other multiracial parties such as DAP and Parti Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia (a component party of BN) are dominated by Chinese and other ethnic minorities. The emergence of KEADILAN has practically provided a good political platform for the moderate Malays, for UMNO has been based on Malay nationalism, while PAS has been based on Islamism. KEADILAN has practically filled a political gap between UMNO and PAS, which effectively provided an alternative voice apart from the Malay nationalist and Islamist sentiments by UMNO and PAS, and bring the entire nation into attention on democratisation and good governance and cross-cultural issues such as corruption or abuse of power, rising of living cost, and freedom of speech.

With KEADILAN under Anwar’s leadership, there were chances for DAP and PAS to work together as one alliance against BN, though the ideologies of secular DAP and hardline Islamist PAS seem irreconcilable. They formed a formidable force against the authoritarian regime by uniting opposition forces of difference races and ethnicities, and challenge the racist policies of the oppressive regime. And it is evident that without Anwar, DAP and PAS would eventually break apart over their own differences, which other than what happened in Barisan Alternatif in 2001, Pakatan Rakyat has broken apart in 2015, a few months after the imprisonment of Anwar Ibrahim. (Later, KEADILAN and DAP, together with Parti Amanah Negara, a splinter party of PAS, formed a new opposition coalition, Pakatan Harapan)

This is unlike Aung San Suu Kyi who failed (or perhaps unwilling) to defend to basic human rights of the Rohingya people in Myanmar, who have been persecuted by the government. Her NLD even refused to send Muslim candidates for election. She bowed down to the anti-Rohingya or anti-Muslim sentiments in her country. This somehow shows that Anwar Ibrahim is better than Aung San Suu Kyi, who refuses to bow down to the racist sentiments among Malay nationalists, but rather strive for a middle path and bring the people from different races and religions together.

Based on the political success and sacrifices done by Anwar Ibrahim, we do think that he is comparable with at least some of the Nobel Peace Laureates, therefore deserves the Nobel Prize. After all, there were also lesser figures who have won the Prize as well, such as Malala Yousafzai from Pakistan who won in 2014. Additionally, some cases were quite controversial as well, such as Barack Obama who won in 2009 – less than a year being the President of the United States – had been quite controversial.

If they could get the Prize, why not Anwar, who has been tirelessly fighting for democracy – himself an indefatigable defender of human dignity and against injustice – even from prison? Now that the international community’s appeal for releasing him is growing, just as what they did for Aung San Suu Kyi.

Based on the background of Anwar Ibrahim, Aung San Suu Kyi, and Lech Wałęsa, we should be able to notice that these three of them created a massive impact onto the politics of democracy and reform of their respective countries.

Under the leadership of Anwar Ibrahim and Aung San Suu Kyi, their respective political forces managed to win popular support in their respective countries. As for Lech Wałęsa, being a trade unionist, his leadership of the workers’ movements successfully pressured the Communist regime of Poland to bow down to their demands and gave more rights to the workers, and eventually democratising the country upon the end of the Cold War.

Anwar Ibrahim’s involvement in political activities and social movements have been characterised by a determination to solve his country’s problems of democracy through negotiation and cooperation – without resorting to violence. We believe his own sacrificing of freedom and continuing struggle to seek non-violent political change in the years ahead, will eventually democratise the country.

Released by,
Ooi Heng
Executive director
Political Studies for Change (Kajian Politik untuk Perubahan, KPRU)
A parliamentary think tank
15 Jan 2016

The age of the decline of democratisation

The age of the decline of democratisation

On Aug 10, 2015, which was Anwar Ibrahim’s 68th birthday, there were two groups of “big shots” in the international community demanding that the Malaysian government releases jailed former opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim.

On the one hand there were famous politicians, worldwide, urging the Malaysian government to release Anwar from jail unconditionally and immediately, while on the other hand there were intellectuals, academicians and social activists condemning the “politically-motivated” charges against Anwar.

Among them, there was a Japanese American political scientist, Francis Fukuyama, who published his essay, “The End of History?” in the 1980s, which raised heated discussions.

In recent years, Fukuyama came out with his masterpiece, “The Origin of Political Order” and in the next book, “Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy”, it is stated that the three essential elements of modern political order are the state, rule of law and democratic accountability.

“The state” covers various dimensions but basically it includes state-building, state institutions, state capacity, governing ability, efficiency, clean governance, etc.

The comprehensiveness of the “rule of law” would depend on whether the implementation of the law can be easily hijacked by an individual. “Democratic accountability” includes the establishment and consolidation of various accountability and oversight mechanisms.

Concluding the chaos and development of 2015 by using these three elements for analysis, it shows that Malaysia is entering an uneasy situation in 2016.

Whether it is in terms of important fields such as politics, economy, religion or ethnicity, the development in the past year was showing an uneasy, declining situation which I believe would continue to happen in the months and years ahead.

While entering the year 2016, a basic question we need to ask is: was the political idling in the past year to sustain someone’s power and position, or rather destroying the credibility of the country for the sake of someone’s self-protection?

If the answer is the latter one, this country is obviously either stalled or moving backwards, and it means that the political system has been undergoing a non-stop destruction, up to the extent that it severely affects either state-building, the rule of law, or the accountable government. The severe collapse of either one would be disturbing.

In terms of the rule of law, in order to protect someone, as well as a political group, the credibility of this country has been severely damaged.

Among those severely affecting the rule of law would be the introduction of various controversial acts by the federal government, after the abolishment of the Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA).

These include the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma), Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 (Pota), and the National Security Council Bill 2015, which was swiftly passed by both houses of Parliament last year and is yet to be assented into law by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

In the recent years, social movements have been growing strong and in addition, there is the combination of political opposition movements, thus pushing Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to announce the abolishment of draconian laws in 2011, giving people hope that the democratic process would leap forward.

Controversial admendments

However, in the end, many controversial amendments were made to existing laws and new laws were introduced, which are contrary to Najib’s promises of reformation.

In December last year, the Parliament passed the National Security Council Bill in a hurry, which shocked the entire nation, and it is reasonable for the civil society to worry about this new law.

For instance, in 2012, Najib promised that Sosma would not be abused. On April 16, 2012, he promised various protection measures in the Dewan Rakyat, including not arresting anyone under Sosma for involvement in political activities, as well as the establishment of a committee to periodically review the Act upon its enforcement.

Despite these promises, after three years, the former Umno division vice-chief Khairuddin Abu Hassan and his lawyer Matthias Chang, who publicly reported the 1MDB scandal, were arrested under this law.

And since Sosma was gazetted on June 22, 2012, and was scheduled to take effect from July 31, 2012, till date there is still no progress on the committee that was promised – and despite pledges that the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) and the Malaysian Bar president would be invited to join the committee.

At this point, the BN government has lost its credibility. So, how is it going to gain the people’s trust? How is it going to persuade the people not to worry about the National Security Council Bill? Here comes a new controversial law, further destructing the judiciary, giving the prime minister alone the greatest power, together with his power bloc stampeding the rule of law.

Democracy declining

This nevertheless predicts that the democratisation of Malaysia is declining in 2016, moving from a one-party-dominant authoritarian regime to a personal dictatorship.

Besides this, the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill 2015, for which the second reading was delayed last year, cannot be ignored too. Once the original amendment bill is passed, it will further force the court to surrender part of its right of judicial review.

Among the most worrying one is that the police may, without warrant, arrest someone who is involved in an “activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy”; thereby overturning matters that are subjected to court ruling, including, if someone is facing multiple charges and found guilty, the power of the court to decide whether to execute the penalty concurrently.

Many of the recent controversial bills were passed in the Parliament in the name of anti-terrorism, but the logic behind them is to gradually get the court to surrender the relevant rights of judicial review, and in terms of law enforcement, there would be more and more persecutions against detractors in the name of “detrimental to parliamentary democracy”.

And today, while someone is conducting a self-coup[1], the insistence of the entire cabinet and the state organ towards the constitutional spirit and the basic principles of judicial power is abnormally loose.

This political direction, led by the erroneous executive power, is clearly inconsistent with the direction of change and reform produced by the collection and releasing of the civil society forces, and they are full of contradictions and conflicts. Such political direction shows a sign of declination of the democratisation.

The year of 2016 makes people feel uneasy, and in my opinion, it is all because after the year 2015, Malaysia is entering the age of the decline of democratisation.


Released by,

Ooi Heng

Executive director

Political Studies for Change (or, Kajian Politik untuk Perubahan, KPRU)

6 January 2016


[1] https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/323873


NGOs: Witch hunt of Bersih leaders a cynical attack on accountable government

NGOs: Witch hunt of Bersih leaders a cynical attack on accountable government
11 Nov 2015

We, the undersigned civil society organisations, condemn in the strongest terms the witchhunt of Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections 2.0 (Bersih 2.0) leaders, for successfully organising the the historic Bersih 4 rally on 29-30 August, as a cynical attack on the right to dissent and on the very idea of accountable government.

The witch hunt of the two Bersih leaders — and possibly more political activists — is a cynical mockery of Article 10(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution which provides for the freedom of peaceful assembly.

The electoral lobby’s chair Maria Chin Abdullah and its Sabah vice chair Jannie Lasimbang were charged respectively on 3 November 2015 and 21 October 2015 under Section 9(5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 for failure to serve the police a 10-day notice.

When the communication between Bersih and the police not only took place but was even reported widely in the media, when the Bersih rally was amazingly peaceful despite its scale (accumulatively 500,000 participants) and its length (34 hours), these prosecutions are nothing but persecution of those who dare to exercise their constitutional freedom.

The real “crime” that Maria and Jannie committed together with 500,000 Malaysians is demanding an accountable government and believing that citizens have the right to call for a government that betrays their trust to resign.

When demanding an accountable government is a crime, Malaysia is pushed towards worsening economic lethargy and political instability.

Citizens are pushed to either give up on changes or believe that changes can never happen under peaceful means. The former response leads to brain drain and capital flight while the latter makes them susceptible to radical means.

Ironically, the witch-hunt validates the Bersih 4 rally’s demands for institutional reforms, most notably, the right to dissent.

We urge millions of Malaysians who support Bersih 2.0’s cause for democratisation to stand firm with Maria and Jannie, who are now the face of Malaysians’ moral courage and determination for change at the nation’s trying time.

For both the sanctity of the Federal Constitution and political stability, we call upon the attorney general’s chambers to come to their sense and withdraw the charges.

Endorsed by:
1. All Women Action Society (Awam)
2. Anak Muda Sarawak (AMS)
3. Angkatan Warga Aman Malaysia (WargaAman)
4. Council of Churches Malaysia (CCM)
5. Engage
6. Federation of Malaysian Indian Organization (Prima)
7. Green Friends Sabah
8. Himpunan Hijau
9. Institute for Development of Alternative Living, (Ideal, Sarawak)
10. Institut Rakyat
11. Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF)
12. Japan Graduates’ Association of Malaysia (Jagam)
13. Jaringan Orang Asal Semalaysia (JOAS)
14. Jawatankuasa Bertindak Kuala Lumpur Tak Nak Insinerator (KTI)
15. Jihad for Justice
16. Kajian Politik untuk Perubahan (KPRU)
17. LLG Cultural Development Centre (LLG)
18. Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet)
19. Malaysian Indians Progressive Association (Mipas)
20. Malaysian Indian Transformation Action Team (Mitra)
21. Malaysian Physicians for Social Responsibility
22. Malaysian Youth Care Association (Prihatin)
23. Malaysian Youth & Students Democratic Movement (Dema)
24. National Indian Rights Action Team (Niat)
25. Negeri Sembilan Chinese Assembly Hall (NSCAH)
26. Oriental Hearts and Mind Study Institute (OHMSI)
27. Partners in Community Organising (Pacos Trust)
28. Perak Women for Women Society (PWW)
29. Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara (Aliran)
30. Persatuan Bekas Siswazah Univesiti dan Kolej di China, Malaysia (LiuHua)
31. Persatuan Dayak Sarawak (Pedas)
32. Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (Empower)
33. Persatuan Masyarakat Selangor dan Wilayah Persekutuan (Permas)
34. Persatuan Rapat Malaysia (Rapat)
35. Pertubuhan IKRAM Malaysia (Ikram)
36. Projek Dialog (PD)
37. Pusat Komas
38. Research for Social Advancement (Refsa)
39. Rise of Sarawak Efforts (Rose)
40. Sabah Women’s Action-Resources Group (Sawo)
41. Sahabat Rakyat
42. Sarawak Access (Saccess)
43. SAVE Rivers (Sarawak)
44. Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia (SABM)
45. Selangor And KL Hokkien Association Youth Section
46. Sisters in Islam (Sis)
47. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram)
48. United Chinese School Alumni Associations of Malaysia (Xiao You Lian Zong or UCSAAM)
49. Tamil Foundation
50. Teoh Beng Hock Trust for Democracy
51. The Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (KLSCAH)
52. Tindak Malaysia
53. We are Malaysians
54. Women Centre’s for Change (WCC), Penang
55. Women Development Organization of Malaysia, PJ Branch
56. Writers’ Alliance For Media Independence (Wami)

‘Sosma review committee yet another Najib’s unfulfilled promise’

‘Sosma review committee yet another Najib’s unfulfilled promise’
4 Nov 2015

Three years since promising to form a committee to review the Security Offences (Safety Measures) Act 2012, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak has failed to fulfil his promise, think tank Political Studies for Change (KPRU) said.

KPRU executive director Ooi Heng said the Hansard shows Najib promised to do twice in the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara, but three years and three months later, this has yet to happen.

“While tabling the Sosma Bill on April 16, 2012, Najib said the government would form a committee to review the Act from time to time, and to recommend improvements.

“The prime minister also said at a Dewan Rakyat event the same day that ‘the committee will not only be made up of government agency representatives, but also the Malaysian Bar president and National Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) representative’.

“The same guarantee was repeated by the Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Liew Vui Keong on May 8, 2012,” he said.

Ooi said the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on June 18 had consented to the Sosma Bill and the legislation was subsequently gazetted as ‘Act 747’ and came into force on July 31, 2012.

However, the review committee is still nowhere in sight.

Yesterday, Bar Council president Steven Thiru raised the issue during a forum with former attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail.

Gani urged the Bar Council to take up the issue with the government.




Janji Najib Tubuh Jawatankuasa Sosma Luput 3 Tahun 3 Bulan 3 Hari

Janji Najib Tubuh Jawatankuasa Sosma Luput 3 Tahun 3 Bulan 3 Hari

Susulan kenyataan mantan peguam negara Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail pada 3 November 2015, badan pemikir Kajian Politik untuk Perubahan (KPRU) ingin mengingatkan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Razak, bahawa janji beliau menubuhkan sebuah jawatankuasa menyemak Akta Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-langkah Khas) (Sosma) 2012 apabila Akta Sosma dikuatkuasakan telahpun luput selama tiga tahun tiga bulan tiga hari.

KPRU telah menyemak penyata rasmi kedua-dua Dewan Rakyat dan Dewan Negara dan mendapati bahawa pada 3 November 2015, yakni pada hari mantan peguam negara memberikan ucapan dalam forum yang dianjurkan Majlis Peguam bertajuk “Sosma – Serigala dalam badan kambing?” di Kuala Lumpur, jaminan yang dberikan oleh Perdana Menteri semasa beliau membaca kali yang kedua Rang Undang-Undang Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-langkah Khas) (Sosma) 2012, telah luput selama tiga tahun tiga bulan tiga hari.

Pada 16 April 2012, semasa mencadangkan Rang Undang-undang Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-langkah Khas) 2012 dibacakan kali yang kedua, Perdana Menteri telah memberikan jaminan yang berbunyi seperti berikut:

“Lindung jamin keenam ialah apabila akta ini berkuat kuasa, kerajaan juga akan menubuhkan satu jawatankuasa secara pentadbiran untuk menyemak keseluruhan akta ini daripada semasa ke semasa dan jawatankuasa ini akan juga bertanggungjawab untuk meneliti pelaksanaan akta tersebut dan mengemukakan syor untuk penambahbaikan.”

Perdana Menteri juga menyatakan dalam Majlis Mesyuarat Dewan Rakyat pada hari tersebut, bahawa “jawatankuasa ini akan dianggotai bukan sahaja dari agensi-agensi berkenaan tetapi juga oleh Presiden Majlis Peguam dan SUHAKAM.”

KPRU mendapati, jaminan yang sama telah diulang oleh Timbalan Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri pada ketika itu Datuk Liew Vui Keong dalam Majlis Mesyuarat Dewan Negara pada 8 Mei 2012.

KPRU juga menyemak status Akta Sosma dan mendapati bahawa Akta Sosma telah diperkenan oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong pada 18 Jun 2012, diwartakan pada 22 Jun 2012 sebagai Akta 747 dan dikuatkuasa pada 31 Julai 2012.

Dikeluarkan oleh,
Ooi Heng
Pengarah eksekutif
Kajian Politik untuk Perubahan (KPRU)
4 November 2015

Minimum wage should be relaxed for disabled people

Minimum wage should be relaxed for disabled people

Think tank Political Studies for Change (KPRU) welcomes the raise of minimum wage as announced in Budget 2016, however KPRU opines that the current minimum wage system is unable to protect the people with disabilities, also known in Malay as Orang Kurang Upaya or Orang Kelainan Upaya, or OKU in short.

This is because the disabled people are unable to compete with the non-disabled people on a level playing field in the working field, where the same minimum wage is offered to all. This will result in difficulties for the disabled people in getting a job. Therefore in KPRU’s opinion, the minimum wage system should be relaxed or be more flexible, in order to encourage employers in giving more opportunities for the disabled.

By looking into the reality of the working world in our country, with the same pay, if a non-disabled person and a disabled person (which the disability is considered to be affecting his or her work performance or outcome) apply for the same job vacancy, the employer would most probably prefer to hire the non-disabled applicant.

In the Budget 2016 speech, Finance Minister Dato’ Seri Najib announced that an employed OKU will get a monthly allowance of RM 350, whereas an unemployed one will get RM 200 per month.

KPRU wishes to affirm that for an unemployed OKU, the monthly allowance of RM 200 is insufficient for their needs, so they will still have to be funded by their families or whatever donations given to them.

KPRU would like to suggest the National Wages Consultative Council (MPGN) to consider the minimum wage system in countries such as the United States and Australia. In the United States, while the minimum wages is generally USD 7.25 per hour, there are a few specific exceptions. Among these, the employment of people with disabilities is completely exempted from the stated minimum wages, as long as the employer obtained permission from the Department of Labor for doing so. With this, the employer may pay their disabled workers a lower wage, therefore giving more job opportunities for the disabled workers.

As for Australia, while the minimum wage is AUD 17.29 per hour, there are also a few specific exceptions. One who is working 38 hours per week would get at least AUD 656.90 (before tax reduction). On the other hand, under the Supported Wage System, a disabled worker would get a minimum wage of AUD 81 per week.

Under the Australian Supported Wage System, the waging of a disabled person is based on their assessed work capacity, which the assessment must be done before hand. With this, for example, one whose assessed work capacity is 70% will be paid 70% of the normal pay of his or her job.

Therefore, we urge the federal ruling government to review the minimum wage systems in the United States and in Australia, and then consider a leniency of minimum wages for the OKU. This is to encourage the private sector to hire OKU, as they would be able to pay a lower wage, and at the same time “doing a favour” in helping the OKU workers to earn a living.

Prime Minister Najib Razak announced in his Budget 2016 speech that starting from 1 July 2016, the monthly minimum wages will be increased from RM 900 to RM 1000 for Peninsular Malaysia, and from RM 800 to RM 920 for Sabah, Sarawak and Labuan. This involves all private sectors except domestic workers.

Najib also announced that the lowest starting pay for civil servants is RM 1200 per month, which will potentially benefit 60,000 civil servants.

Released by,
Ooi Heng
Executive director
Political Studies for Change (KPRU)