While Lawyers for Liberty in principle supports the setting up of the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) on immigration problems in Sabah, it views with concern the escalating rhetoric and demands surrounding the RCI that may have serious repercussion on the lives and human rights of some of the most vulnerable people in Sabah including undocumented women and street children of refugee/ migrant descent. Many live in poverty and a life of exploitation, unable to access basic social services but are also unfairly blamed and easily targeted by politicians for social ills in the state.
It goes without saying that all citizenship matters including grant of citizenship, identity documents and registration in the electoral roll must be conducted properly and in accordance with established laws, regulations and practises and not through corrupt practises, fraud or for improper political gains.The Election Commission (EC) yesterday denied that many foreign workers have been included in the electoral rolls using the identification code of ’71′ which referred to Malaysians born overseas.
Its chairman, Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Yusof, said the matter should not have been disputed as to date only 171,023 registered voters were recorded having identification cards with that code.
Before 2001, code ’71′ was used for Malaysians born abroad and foreigners who had obtained permanent resident status.
However, after 2001, all foreigners who obtained PR were no longer referred with code ’71′ and were in fact using the code for their respective country of birth, such as 66 for Singapore and 61 for Indonesia, he told reporters after launching the ‘EC meets political party leaders and the media session’ here yesterday
Abdul Aziz commented on the matter after certain quarters disputed the use of code ’71′ purportedly to register foreign workers as voters after several names with code ’71′ as the middle number of their identification cards were detected on the electoral rolls.
He said that according to the EC’s master electoral rolls, there were 8,743 registered voters in Sabah and the Federal Territory of Labuan with code ’71′ and Selangor recorded the highest number with 32,485 people.
He added that there had also been requests from voters working in other states in Malaysia to cast their votes in the place they are currently in, for their state, but it is not possible.
“It will be a precedent. Others may make the same request and it would create another problem.
“Besides, it is normal to see many Sabahans or people from other states to be in places like Selangor, as they migrate to seek employment,” he said.
Abdul Aziz explained that for one to continue practising their rights as voters, they may change to their current address.
He also said there was always doubt on the electoral roll despite EC’s daily effort to ‘clean’ it.
“Some claim it is ‘dirty’, but I can assure it is clean. There may be some technical problems, but we will not let it compromise any condition. We too want it to be 100 per cent clean, but how can you do it when a minute later, someone dies or changes his citizenship, this thing is dynamic and change can happen within seconds.
“But there is not much we (EC) can do without the cooperation from the people. EC is bound by the law, we cannot simply make any changes without the request of the owner,” he said.
“We conduct our meeting on a monthly basis and every month, a lot of corrections are done. As of June this year, a total of 2,919 corrections were made, and locality tops the list, followed by names, gender and religion,” he said..
Abdul Aziz added that in the first quarter of this year, a total of 18,412 mistakes were detected, and the number grew during the second quarter to 27,785.
He said it was also beyond their jurisdiction to delete the names of aging voters.
“We cannot classify them as doubtful voters or inactive citizens, unless someone comes and reports to NRD that they have passed away or have changed their citizenship. Meaning, for as long as their names are in NRD, we cannot delete their names and they have the right to vote. Mind you, the oldest voter is from Sabah at the age of 129, followed by a Sarawakian,” he said.
Last year, he disclosed that a total of 68,516 names were deleted after they had been declared deceased by NRD.
He also urged registered voters to check their voting details and status within the third quarter of this year to be eligible to vote in the coming 13th general election.
“Voters must fully utilise the months of July, August and September to check that their details are correct, such as the spelling of their names, locality, gender and identity card numbers.
“If there is any mistake, correction can be done at the National Registration Department and notify the EC immediately for rectification,” he said.
He disclosed that there are four easy methods to check their status and details, namely through their website at www.spr.gov.my, or short messaging system by typing spr(space)semak(space)MyKad number, or visit or contact their headquarters or offices at the respective states.
Since 1957 UMNO has effectively carried out the population engineering of our country to ensure its long-term survival by creating the myth of a two pronged “Ketuanan Melayu” (Malay Supremacy).
“Ketuanan Melayu” for the Malay masses who are lull into a feeling of being superior over the non-Malays because of their numbers and “Ketuanan Melayu” for the UMNO Malay political elites through the accumulation of massive material wealth for themselves and their cronies.
And while UMNO has failed by almost any measure you chose to gauge them – good governance or morality – without question they have succeeded too well in the engineering of the population of this country of ours.
The duplicity of UMNO in proclaiming Satu Bangsa, Satu Negara while all the while undertaking a relentless program to whittle down the numbers of the non-Malays through very precise and focused initiatives is breathtaking in its effectiveness!readmorehttp://themalay-chronicle.blogspot.com/2012/08/equating-sabahs-freedom-and-revolution.html
Consider this:
In 1957:
– 45% of the population are Chinese.
– 12% of the population are Indians.
In 2010
– 25% of the population are Chinese.
– 7% of the population are Indians.
Over 600,000 Chinese and Indian Malaysians with red IC were rejected repeatedly when applying for citizenship and possibly 60% of them had passed away due to old age.
Since 1957:
– 2 million Chinese have emigrated.
– 0.5 million Indians have also emigrated overseas.
– 3 million Indonesians migrated to Malaysia to become Malaysian citizens with Bumiputra status.
Now the non-Malays are well aware of this tinkering and engineering of our population and it would do us Malays no good to say that it was UMNO doing and that we had no hand in what happened. As a Malay I was then comfortable that UMNO was the dominant partner in the Barisan Nasional.
It was comforting to know that Malays controlled four of the five major banks.
Education? Between 1968 to 2000:
– 48 Chinese Primary Schools closed down.
– 144 Indian Primary Schools closed down.
– 2637 Malay Primary Schools were built.
Of the total government budget for these schools 2.5% were for the Chinese Primary Schools, 1% for the Indian Primary School and 96.5% for the Malay Primary School.
Petronas Petrol Stations? Of the 2000 station the Malays owned 99%.
Yes, we Malays were indeed in control. In control of what?
We were in control of the all the business licenses and permits for Taxis and Approved Permits.
We were in control of Government contracts of which 95% were given to Malays.
We were in control of the Rice Trade through Bernas that bought over 80% of Chinese Rice Millers in Kedah.
We were in control of UMBC, MISC and Southern Bank – all previously owned by Chinese.
We were in control of bus companies. Throughout Malaysia MARA buses could be seen plying all the routes. Non-Malays were simply displaced by having their application for bus routes and for new buses rejected.
Every new housing estate built had a mosque or a surau. None, I repeat “no” temples or churches were built for any housing estate!
Still unable to stand tall - why?
So why with control over all these highly visible entities and business opportunities are the Malays still unable to stand tall and with pride over and above the non-Malays? We are unable to so do because it was not the Malays that benefited from these opportunities- UMNO did.
Why must UMNO constantly harp about the need to spoon feed the Malays – about ketuanan Melayu when it is already in place and about Bumiputra status and all the privileges and rights that goes with that status?
And as a Malay I want to ask the non-Malays why do you still choose to live in a country whose government has by its actions and deeds done whatever it could to make you not feel welcome? The non-Malays I know have all told me the same thing – Malaysia is their country – they know of no other country they can call their own. And so they stay and put up with the abuses.
The difference now is that there are enough Malays who are shamed by the antics of this Malay political organization called UMNO. There are enough Malays to tell the non-Malays that we feel your pain. We understand your frustrations and despair at not being treated as equals in a country you call your own.
And enough non-Malays have migrated abroad to cause our country to understand that their loss is another country's gain. A loss, which our country can ill afford to sustain.
Karma at GE-13
And more importantly all this ground swell of disgust and contempt at UMNO has manifested itself in a way these political idiots understand – losing our votes in the 12thGeneral Elections. Amen for that.
And so we wait for the 13th General Election which we hope will dish out the relevant karma for UMNO and its Barisan Nasional partners.
Meantime understand what they have done to us all – not only the non-Malays but also to the Malays and do not allow Barisan Nasional to play the race card and start their divide and rule antics on us anymore.
-
Frontier territory
Sabah like any other bustling frontier territory attracts both short and long term cross border migration, some who have entered and stayed legally, while others illegally. However, in our endeavour to enquire into wrongful past practises, we must be mindful that these are generations of migrants and refugees with varying histories and circumstances, many of whom have permanently settled in Sabah, inter married, born or lived all their lives in the state.
Consequently, these people may have properly acquired citizenship or permanent resident status and all the accompanying rights. They have a relevant and genuine link with Sabah/Malaysia (through birth, habitual residence, descent, marriage or naturalisation) and rights under Malaysian and international law including not to be made stateless, freedom from arbitrary arrest/detention, torture, inhumane and other degrading treatment and right to life.
While the issues at stake are serious and have far reaching consequences, the citizenship and fundamental human rights of persons should not be sacrificed for the sake of political mileage or sensationalism.
Lawyers for Liberty therefore calls for all parties to remain level headed and not let prejudicial, racist or xenophobic sentiments to slant the enquiry which should be conducted objectively and based on all available evidence, testimonies and legal norms.
How much of a difference will it make to the Supreme Court whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney wins the 2012 presidential election? This will depend, of course, on which, if any, of the current Justices step down in the next four years and on whether the president elected in 2012 is successful in filling those vacancies with the kind of nominee(s) he wants.
At the outset, I want to put aside four possible scenarios: (1) Romney is elected and gets no nominations; (2) Obama is re-elected and gets no nominations; (3) Romney is elected and gets to replace Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts, and/or Alito; (4) Obama is re-elected and gets to replace Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and/or Kagan. These scenarios are uninteresting, because they will not bring about any significant change in the ideological makeup of the Court.
The more interesting question is, what happens if Romney is elected and gets to replace, say, the oldest "liberal" Justice (Ginsburg) or if Obama is elected and gets to replace the oldest "conservative" Justice (Scalia)? In such circumstances, Romney would presumably nominate someone similar to the most recent Republican appointee (Alito), and Obama would likely nominate someone similar to the most recent Democratic nominee (Kagan).
We therefore have two scenarios: if Obama is elected Kagan2 replaces Scalia, and if Romney is elected Alito2 replaces Ginsburg. How would these changes affect the future of constitutional law?
Before going any further, I should note that I am using the terms "conservative" and "liberal" rather loosely. In fact, as several scholars have demonstrated, relative to all Justices who have served in the past seventy-five years, the recent "conservative" Justices (especially Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito) have been very conservative. Indeed, they are the five most conservative Justices to serve on the Supreme Court in three-quarters of a century.
By contrast, the "liberal" Justices in recent years (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) have been only moderately liberal. They are nowhere near as liberal as Justices like Brennan, Warren, Marshall, and Douglas. They have not been nearly as extreme in their liberalism as recent conservative Justices have been extreme in their conservatism.
Moreover, the two so-called "swing Justices" in recent years (O'Connor and Kennedy) have in fact been quite conservative, though not as extreme in their conservativism as Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito.
In the rest of this essay I will therefore refer to the "very conservative" Justices (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito), the "moderately conservative" swing Justices (O'Connor and Kennedy), and the "moderately liberal" Justices (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan). Returning now to the possible impact of the 2012 election on the Supreme Court, perhaps the best way to address that question is to look back over the Court's performance since 2000 to see whether any important cases would have been decided differently if Kagan2 had been on the Court instead of Scalia or Alito2 had been on the Court instead of Ginsburg.
To get a handle on this question, I asked several colleagues (without telling them why I was asking) to identify for me the most important constitutional decisions since 2000. They came up with a list of eighteen cases, ranging across the a broad spectrum of issues involving, for example, the 2000 presidential election, gun control, voter disenfranchisement, affirmative action, abortion, habeas corpus, due process for terrorist suspects, takings of private property, the death penalty, campaign finance reform, the freedom of religion, the rights of gays and lesbians, and the Commerce Clause.
For the lawyers among you, the eighteen cases are, in chronological order, United States v. Morrison (2000) Bush v. Gore (2000), Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), Lockyer v. Andrade (2003), Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), Roper v. Simmons (2005), McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union (2005), Kelo v. City of New London (2005), Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No.1 (2007), Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008), Boumediene v. Bush, (2008), District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2009), and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012).
How did the thirteen Justices who participated in these eighteen decisions vote? The moderate liberal Justices voted for the more liberal position ninety-seven percent of the time (seventy of seventy-two votes). The very conservative justices voted for the conservative position ninety-eight percent of the time (fifty-nine of sixty votes). This shows just how polarized the Justices are. The all-important swing Justices cast nineteen of their twenty-nine votes in line with the very conservative Justices. That is, they joined the very conservative Justices two-thirds of the time. The very conservative Justices were in the majority in nine of the cases and the moderate liberals were in the majority in nine of the cases.
With this information, and re-counting votes, we can reasonably infer that if Kagan2 had been on the Court since 2000 instead of Scalia, the moderate liberals would have won eight of the nine cases they lost and seventeen of the eighteen cases. On the other hand, if Alito2 had been on the Court instead of Ginsburg, the very conservative justices would have won seven of the nine cases they lost and sixteen of the eighteen cases.
In sum, then, we can reasonably conclude that given the current makeup of the Supreme Court a change in the ideology of only one Justice will have a profound impact on the course of constitutional law. Let me say it again for emphasis: Had Kagan2 been on the Court in these years instead of Scalia, the moderate liberals would have won seventeen of the eighteen cases, and if Alito2 had been on the Court instead of Ginsburg, the conservatives would have won sixteen of the eighteen cases.
There is no reason to think that the Court's decisions in the future will not be similarly determined by the replacement of a moderately liberal Justice with a very conservative one or the replacement of a very conservative Justice with a moderately liberal one. The implications for such issues as abortion, same-sex marriage, the establishment of religion, affirmative action, the rights of women, voting rights, congressional authority, the death penalty, gun control, and criminal procedure are dramatic.The stakes in the 2010 election for the future direction of the Supreme Court are, in short, are incredibly high.
ndeed the 13th General Election has qualified as the mother of all general elections. And it is no accident hence making the country most vulnerable.
It is an election whose date is the most speculated and highly kept under wraps.
It is a battle deadline that is unprecedented in the history of independent Malaysia - an agenda that is fiercely fought even before the people go to the polls to decide who should be given the mandate to form the next government.
Gutter politicking the worst ever
Never before have Malaysians being subjected to stooping so low to discredit the political opponents. Ranging from alleged and proven corruption to sleaze, sex, race discrimination to religious threats – the run up to the GE13 is by comparison the worst ever in the history of this nation that once many looked upon as the promising Tiger of Asia.
Millions of foreign workers will vouch that Malaysia is a land of milk and honey as they cart away billions of cash back to their homelands to give hope to their families over abject poverty and grueling hardships.
While this post-colonial post-independence raid of the national larder is championed and nurtured by the powers that be in modern times, Malaysians meanwhile have been put on the dole with cash handouts as temporary relief and caring incentives in the run-up to the 13th GE.
Such scenarios were never there in the past five over decades.
Just take a quick inventory of all the unending episodes drummed up by politicians almost on a daily ration these past years: you-sue-me, I-sue-you; you-expose-me, I-expose-you-even-more; cow-heads marches to anger Hindus; pig-ears near mosques; Christian proselytization allegations; unsolved high profile murders; claims of treason; accusations of republic nation status inclinations – in fact the list is unending really.
The question is why? Why are we witnessing a battle preparation that very much sounds like a ‘over our crushed bones and dead bodies’ strategy?
Crushed bones & dead bodies: Refusal to move onto new political system
The easy answer is that politicians are not willing, nor prepared to let the rakyat decide in a democratic manner who they want to vote in as the next political party to form the government. The strategy is an ‘at all costs we must win’. The end in itself justifies all and any means taken – even if those means are crude, unjust, ridiculous, scandalous and merciless.
The question then to go on asking is not why but how come. How come we have arrived at this stage in our political nationhood despite the five over decades of political, social, economic and environmental progress and development that is often the staple, stated claim of the BN-led government (Janji Detepati)?
It certainly has nothing to do with the drummed-up sacking of DSAI. It is not confined to mismanagement nor mere corruption. It is not even about a silent DAP-agenda, nor a PAS-hudud plan.
It is about a failed political system. And the very architect of that diabolic, one-track minded power-consolidation politics is today still fighting with his vintage life to keep a wrong right.
But civilization is dynamic
What worked well for a post-independent nation was not allowed to evolve over the times. We were subjected to a non-negotiable road map cast in concrete with a tunneled view. We were subjected to wear blinkers shielding us from the global transformations taking place quietly.
Drawing on the antiquated formulas of race and religion, the political architecture being locked-in for Malaysia was myopic. As long as it served the political masters well, the scavengers and parasites quickly aligned themselves to provide the much needed fencing and barricades that would ensure permanency to the political agendas of a cartel of single individuals.
But little did the politicians realize that civilization is dynamic. The world is evolving. The transformations are moving on. Humanity was changing in its philosophy, understanding and aspirations. What worked for the post-industrial world was not the panacea for the New Age that was being shaped by information communication technology. Humanity was re-discovering that new independence that the emerging networked society offered.
Unfortunately in Malaysia, politicians are frozen dead in their mindsets. Their attitudes do not in any way reflect the renaissance of humanity sweeping across the planet. They are merely bent in going to battle like the Genghis Khans of bygone eras.
No one is indispensable
Politicians step back. Stop. Think. Reflect.
You are not going to win this ‘war’ by fighting to keep your spoils. You will only see yourself eventually being overwhelmed and swept off by your forced-upon winnings. Remember Suharto? Marcos? Mao?
If you love the country – as much as you preach you do; if you uphold loyalty to King, citizens and nation, then step back and stick to honesty.
If you have delivered, you do not have to spin to convince the voters. If you have failed in the past you do not have to threaten of mayhem and chaos.
Nobody in the world, no one leader in any nation and no single political party in Malaysia is indispensable. There are no absolutes and this the BN must know fast.
The political architecture of thirty over years is failing and incapable of meeting the challenges, requirements and dictates of the New Age humanity. That is the reason why we are today witnessing a perilous future as we witness the hardened battle cries of stubborn, selfish, self-conceited politicians.
We need leadership to overcome the quagmire situation that threatens the nation’s future. It is about a leadership that reflects the very essence of the New Age humanity in Malaysia – one that sees beyond race, religion, color, creed, ability and privileges. And any attempts to kill off that leadership for the sake of party supremacy will spell chaos.
A Pennsylvania judge on Wednesday refused to stop a tough new voter identification law from going into effect, which Democrats say will suppress votes among President Barack Obama's supporters.
Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson said he wouldn't grant an injunction that would have halted the law requiring each voter to show a valid photo ID. Opponents are expected to file an appeal within a day or two to the state Supreme Court as the Nov. 6 presidential election looms. The Republican-penned law – which passed over the objections of Democrats – has ignited a furious debate over voting rights as Pennsylvania is poised to play a key role in deciding the presidential contest in November. Opponents had asked Simpson to block the law from taking effect in this year's election as part of a wider challenge to its constitutionality.
Republicans defend the law as necessary to protect the integrity of the election. But Democrats say the law will make it harder for the elderly, minorities, the poor and college students to vote, as part of a partisan scheme to help the Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, beat Democratic Obama.
"We're not done, it's not over," said Witold J. Walczak, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who helped argue the case for the plaintiffs. "It's why they make appeals courts."
Simpson didn't rule on the full merits of the case, only whether to grant a preliminary injunction stopping it from taking effect.
Votes by four of six Supreme Court justices would be needed to overturn the ruling by Simpson, who is a Republican. But the high court is currently split between three Republicans and three Democrats following the recent suspension of Justice Joan Orie Melvin, a Republican who is fighting criminal corruption charges.
The original rationale in Pennsylvania's Republican-controlled Legislature for the law – to prevent election fraud – played little role in the case before Simpson since the state's lawyers acknowledged that they are "not aware of any incidents of in person voter fraud." Instead, they insisted that lawmakers properly exercised their latitude to make election-related laws when they chose to require voters to show widely available forms of photo identification.
Republican Gov. Tom Corbett signed the law in March after every single Democratic lawmaker voted against it.
At issue is the requirement that all Pennsylvania voters produce a valid photo ID before their ballot can be counted, a substantial change from the law it was designed to replace. That law required identification only for people voting in a polling place for the first time and it allowed non-photo documents such as a utility bill or bank statement.
But some of the people who sued over the law say they will be unable to vote because they lack the necessary documents, including a birth certificate, to get a state photo ID, the most widely available of the IDs that are valid under the law.
The lawyers who provided free legal representation to the plaintiffs also warned that it will be difficult for many others to get a valid ID, and they presented testimony about workers at Department of Transportation license centers who appeared uninformed about the requirement to issue free non-drivers IDs for voting.
In addition, some voters won't know about the law until they get to the polls and long waits will result while untrained election workers struggle to carry out a complicated and unnecessary law amid the traditionally larger turnout in presidential elections, they argued.
Lawyers from the attorney general's office, which defended the law, pointed out that the state is planning to begin issuing a special photo ID card for registered voters who are unable to get a PennDOT-issued ID and lack any other photo ID that is acceptable under the law, such as a passport or active-duty military ID.
In addition, they say the state is rolling out a public relations campaign to make people aware of the law.
The Department of State, which oversees elections in Pennsylvania, has not produced any kind of study or survey that estimates the number of people without a valid photo ID that is required by the law.
Meanwhile, Obama's Department of Justice is looking at whether Pennsylvania's tough new voter law requiring photo identification complies with federal laws and on Monday asked the state's top election official and a chief supporter of the law for a long list of information about it.
A foreigner in possession of a dubious IC was asked by a magistrate in Kota Kinabalu in September 1992 how he had obtained the document.
His answer was: “From a project called Project President Mahathir”.
The foreigner was jailed for two years but upon his release, was not repatriated. Instead, he managed to get registered on the Sabah electoral roll, where his name remains up to now.
Next, in 1998, there was a public hearing to decide if would-be new voters in the Likas constituency should be accepted if there were objections to their registration.
The Election Commission’s registering officer asked how they had obtained their ICs - the answer was “from Project Mahathir”. The registering officer testified to this during the hearing of the 1999 Likas election petition.
Can Sabah repatriate these manufactured citizens now. Yes. They can invoke the Inter-Governmental Committee Report, Chapter III, paragraph 16, sub-paragraphs (f) (ii) and (iii) to ‘expel these new citizens to the peninsula.
After all, this was what it did to activist Harris Ibrahim few months ago, when he was refused entry to Sabah allegedly on security grounds
COMMENT Dr Mahathir Mohamad has long been implicated in the Malaysian identity card (IC) being issued to foreigners in Sabah.
The first indication of this was seen when a foreigner in possession of a dubious IC was asked by a magistrate in Kota Kinabalu in September 1992 how he had obtained the document.
His answer was: “From a project called Project President Mahathir”.The foreigner was jailed for two years but upon his release, was not repatriated.
Instead, he managed to get registered on the Sabah electoral roll, where his name remains up to now.
Next, in 1998, there was a public hearing to decide if would-be new voters in the Likas constituency should be accepted if there were objections to their registration.
The Election Commission’s registering officer asked how they had obtained their ICs - the answer was “from Project Mahathir”. The registering officer testified to this during the hearing of the 1999 Likas election petition.
Sworn testimony at the same proceedings by one Hassnar Ibrahim revealed the fact that deputy home minister Megat Junid Megat Ayub had chaired meetings, at which it was mentioned that Mahathir had approved the ‘Project’.
This had happened in the 1980s. The testimony was not challenged.
When Umno set foot in Sabah in 1991, it set up a task force. Its job was to look for foreigners and help them to get their IC dubiously, and register them as Sabah Umno members as well as in the state electoral roll - the purpose was to deny PBS victory in the next state election.
Do not forget MD Mutalib has written many books on dubious ICs being in the hands of hundreds of thousands of foreigners. He also wrote a book, ‘IC Projek Agenda Tersembunyi Mahathir?’ published in late 2006. There was no response to this from Mahathir.
In 2006, I had submitted before the parliamentary select committee (PSC) on integrity, some detailed background leading to the extraordinary increase in Sabah’s population (see chart), implicating Mahathir in the deliberate issuance of dubious ICs to foreigners.Mahathir was urged to rebut his role in this treacherous act by then Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang who was the PSC deputy chairperson.
To date, Mahathir has not done so - instead he now publicly defends the extraordinary increase in Sabah’s population and citizenship for migrants.
‘Expel them to peninsula’
Mahathir has said these migrants were eligible to become citizens.
If so, the first question is: Why was the Sijil Akuan (letter of affirmation) falsified to state the birth of place as being in Sabah, leading to the code ‘12' being assigned for the MyKad?
Or, if the person is a naturalised citizen, why doesn’t their MyKad number bear the code ‘71', to show they were born outside Malaysia?
There are more than 700,000 ‘Project IC’ citizens in Sabah now, of whom about 200,000 are on the state’s current electoral roll of about 950,000 names.
If they had been properly granted citizenship, when and where did they take their oath of allegiance?Even if the federal government insists that these migrants in Sabah who were granted citizenship are Malaysians now, then the Sabah government still has certain immigration powers backdated to the formation of Malaysia.
It can invoke the Inter-Governmental Committee Report, Chapter III, paragraph 16, sub-paragraphs (f) (ii) and (iii) to ‘expel these new citizens to the peninsula.
After all, this was what it did to activist Harris Ibrahim few months ago, when he was refused entry to Sabah allegedly on security grounds.
DR CHONG ENG LEONG heads Sabah PKR’s security, immigration and electoral reform bureau.
The U.S. immigration system is broken. There is no doubt about it. And it is high time for a reassessment. One of the biggest issues to face immigration policy in recent years has been the difficulty confronted by foreign, skilled workers to obtain visas allowing them to legally reside and work in the US. Private sector visa caps, employer unwillingness and unfamiliarity with the process, and cost rank as the most apparent barriers to hiring foreign nationals.
I am a foreign national. I have spent 10 of my 25 years in this country, first in New York and then in Washington, D.C. I have gone to secondary school, college and one of the top graduate schools in the world, Georgetown -- all in the United States. I am a foreign affairs and international development professional, and I did foreign affairs policy for a Member of Congress. I am NOT illegal. I am an international student. I am soon heading back to Bangladesh to work in development there. But not because that was my first choice.
In the case of international students who emerge from a world-class education system, the challenges associated with finding a job in the U.S. after graduation are exacerbated by the difficulty thousands each year face in finding an employer that is open to hiring non-U.S. nationals. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard, "We would love to hire you, but you're not American." Some argue that foreign students are a threat to the U.S. workforce. A National Association of Foreign Student Advisers (NAFSA) report negates the assertion with the argument that,
Preventing high-skilled foreign nationals from working in the United States will not help U.S. students. It will harm them. Encouraging employers to hire foreign nationals overseas, rather than in America, will push capital from the United States to locations where the foreign talent is allowed to be hired.
Is it not worth it to invest, on the upper end of the spectrum, the roughly $4,000 it takes to sponsor a foreign student's work visa? The U.S. economy benefits from foreign nationals who are part of the workforce. A study conducted by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) shows that the addition of 100 H1-B workers would result in 183 American jobs. Foreign-born workers with advanced degrees pay over $20,000 in taxes per year, contributing significantly to tax revenues.
As it stands now, U.S. immigration policy all but ignores the potential economic benefits of an entire portion of the college educated workforce. Look at it this way: U.S. colleges and universities spend four solid years teaching, influencing and cultivating the intellect of thousands of international students who choose to study here, but the country does not actively harness and embrace their talents. Does this country really want to let someone with my educational background and earning potential go? The rational solution would be to integrate people like me into the U.S. workforce instead of opening the sphere for increased competition from abroad. By making it difficult for these students to become part of the workforce, the U.S. loses out on much needed revenue. After all, by leaving, I will provide my governance and development expertise to organizations abroad. I will pay taxes abroad.
Foreign students who emerge from STEM programs are more likely to obtain higher paying jobs, consequently paying more in taxes. But why stop there? Why not make it easier for students who focus on business, qualitative research, and international development to stay? The residency process in countries like Australia is conducive to allowing Australian-educated students to stay and work. The Australian government recognizes the value of foreign students as productive contributors to their national economy. It is high time the US does, as well.
The Brookings Institution recently published a study on the H1B visa process. The study revealed that employers in metropolitan U.S. cities want more work visas available. If employers want more visas, and foreign students like me have the desire to live, work and pay taxes in the US, shouldn't the mechanisms be simplified so that we are allowed to do so?
No comments:
Post a Comment