1. Union of Catholic Asian News (http://www.ucanews.com)
Muslim protests can’t stop Salman Rushdie’s India trip, 11 January 2012
by Dipanjan Roy Chaudhury and Naziya Alvi
The Muslim world declared a fatwa on the writer Salman Rushdie in 1989 and he has still not been forgiven, but they cannot stop him from attending a literary festival in India this month.
The ground beneath Salman Rushdie’s feet will remain firm, at least while he is in India.
The government is unlikely to stop Rushdie from travelling to India despite the demand made by Darul Uloom Deoband vice-chancellor Maulana Abul Qasim Nomani to cancel the author’s visa.
Nomani had said on Monday that the government should cancel his visa as Rushdie, 65, had hurt the sentiments of Muslims the world over.
“I call upon all the Muslim organisations of the country to mount pressure on the Centre to withdraw the visa and prevent him from visiting India, where crores of community members still feel hurt owing to the anti-Islamic remarks in his writings,” Nomani had said.
Rushdie, however, does not need a visa to travel to India as he holds the Person of India Origin (PIO) card.
Official sources said a person holding the PIO card cannot be prevented by the government from travelling to India unless he posed serious threat to national security.
Since the PIO card allows trouble-free travel without any document, Rushdie is not required to apply to any authority for permission for his proposed visit to attend the Jaipur Literature Festival this month’s end, sources added.
(Source: India Today)
2. India Today（http://indiatoday.intoday.in）
Salman Rushdie holds PIO card, doesn't need a visa to visit India, 11 January 2012
The ground beneath Salman Rushdie's feet will remain firm, at least while he is in India.
The government is unlikely to stop Rushdie from travelling to India despite the demand made by Darul Uloom Deoband vice-chancellor Maulana Abul Qasim Nomani to cancel the author's visa.
Nomani had said on Monday that the government should cancel his visa as Rushdie, 65, had hurt the sentiments of Muslims the world over.
"I call upon all the Muslim organisations of the country to mount pressure on the Centre to withdraw the visa and prevent him from visiting India, where crores of community members still feel hurt owing to the anti-Islamic remarks in his writings," Nomani had said.
Rushdie, however, does not need a visa to travel to India as he holds the Person of India Origin (PIO) card.
Official sources said a person holding the PIO card cannot be prevented by the government from travelling to India unless he posed serious threat to national security.
Since the PIO card allows trouble-free travel without any document, Rushdie is not required to apply to any authority for permission for his proposed visit to attend the Jaipur Literature Festival this month's end, sources added.
With the controversy acquiring a political hue vis-a-vis the upcoming elections in Uttar Pradesh, the Congress on Tuesday chose to play safe by saying that it was up to the government to take a call on the matter.
"Why should the Congress stop Rushdie?" Union law and minority affairs minister Salman Khurshid asked.
He added that "whatever step is taken should be taken within legal framework not outside it".
Responding to queries about opposition to Rushdie's proposed visit, AICC spokesperson Rashid Alvi said decisions on visa are taken after careful deliberations.
He, however, added that no one should be allowed to play with the sentiments of people.
"We feel that the sentiments of people of any religion should not be hurt. Nobody can be given permission to play with the religious sentiments of people," Alvi said.
BJP spokesperson Nirmala Seetharaman charged that there was "a very big game behind the visa row" and accused the Congress of being behind it.
Samajwadi Party's Shahid Siddiqui said the government's approach revealed its double standards on the issue as on the one hand it allowed Rushdie to travel to India but on the other denied permission to the late painter M. F. Husain.
Nomani, though, chose to distance himself from the furore created by his remark, saying that his appeal must not be looked upon as a political gimmick.
"We have always raised voice against him (Rushdie) and it should not be connected with the upcoming elections. We have no intentions of targeting any political party, whether Congress or BJP. All we want is that the government should look into our appeal," Nomani said. He added that not only Darul Uloom but Muslims across the country have always protested against Rushdie's visits.
Maulana Ghulam Mohammad Vastanvi, former V-C of the Uloom who was sacked because of his liberal and 'modernist' views, is also believed to be on the same page with Nomani on the issue.
Although Vastanvi was not available for comments, people close to him said he had extended support to the new V-C on the statement issued by him.
3. Malaysian Insider(http://www.themalaysianinsider.com)
Judiciary still in winter of emasculation, 12 January 2012
by Bob Teoh
JAN 12 — Let’s not be beguiled by Prime Minister Najib Razak’s claim of the judiciary’s independence following the High Court’s full acquittal and discharge of Anwar Ibrahim from the charge of sodomy. As succinctly put by an international civil liberties watchdog, the Opposition leader should not have been charged in the first place.
Anwar’s three trials over 20 years were simply an abuse of due process; nothing more than Umno’s dirty and sordid politics to rid itself of its arch nemesis involving all three prime ministers in a row.
Don’t be misled, a swallow doth not a summer maketh. We are still deep in the winter of an emasculated judiciary frozen since the Mahathir ice age. We need more evidence of courage and boldness from our judges before we can hope to thaw into a new spring.
But credit must be given to where it’s due. Recent judgments indicate some judges are willing to go into early retirement or be put into the cold storage by going the extra mile in their adjudication. The High Court’s judgment against the government in the Allah case is a case in point. There are a few others that are noteworthy.
The Najib administration must undo what Dr Mahathir Mohamad has done to the judiciary for the 23 years he was prime minister. Najib’s predecessor, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, made a feeble attempt by apologising to the former Lord President Tun Salleh Abbas and other judges sacked by Dr Mahathir in the late 1980s when they didn’t deliver the judgment that Mahathir wanted. Abdullah didn’t survive the wrath of Mahathir over this, among other things. In stepped Najib, Dr M’s original choice as successor.
But Najib must stand on his own now. One of Dr Mahathir’s muzzles on the judiciary was the removal of the power of judicial review of executive action. One by one, new legislations were introduced or existing ones amended by taking away the court’s inherent power. From the Internal Security Act to the Industrial Relations Act, this phrase was inserted: The minister’s decision shall be final and shall not be challenged in any court of law. Thus began our slide into a judiciary dictated by the whims and fancies of an increasingly autocratic executive branch of His Majesty’s government.
Najib must restore to the judiciary what is rightly theirs to act as check and balance in a parliamentary democracy by removing all anti-judicial review clauses from the country’s laws soonest possible.
Najib must also bite the bullet by reviewing the controversial amendment to Article 121 of the Federal Constitution curtailing judicial power in that “the (civil) courts shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts.”
The bone of contention is that this amendment impairs the sanctity of the Federal Constitution as in Article 4 (1) in that “This Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day (31 Aug 1957) which is inconsistent with the Constitution, shall to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”
This constitutional amendment has posed a serious problem to those seeking conversion and apostasy hearings to the extent that it infringes on their rights regarding fundamental liberties like freedom of religion provided under Article 11.
The Syariah amendment known as Article 121(1a) has served as a convenient escape clause for some judges to avoid hearing such cases and to hide behind the judicial sarong of their cowardice.
An increasingly arrogant and powerful Attorney-General adds to the maladministration of justice through selective prosecution and manipulation of due process like delaying or expediting hearings to suit the establishment’s convenience.
Take, for instance, the Catholic Herald’s Allah case, in which the High Court ruled against the government, saying it had no inherent right to prohibit others from using the word “Allah” to refer to God. There are two other similar cases filed much earlier than the Herald case but these have been held in abeyance because the AG has filed an application to the Court of Appeal for a review. But it has been more than two years now since the Herald judgment and yet the AG is in no hurry. This robs plaintiff of their judicial victory. Justice delayed is justice denied.
In the interim, people of other faiths, particularly Christians, are still prevented from using the Allah word. This is a travesty of justice considering that two thirds of the Christians in Malaysia are Bumiputeras who use the Alkitab or Malay Bible where God is referred to as Allah. Dr Mahathir banned the Alkitab in 1981 five months upon coming to power as PM. He claimed that it posed a threat to national security. It is still under a restricted ban through various extra-judicial decrees and even under Najib’s ludicrous 10-point solution to the Alkitab problem. The Alkitab remains a threat to national security.
Make no mistake about it; the judiciary is still in the winter of emasculation. But my prayer and hope is for a new spring. I remain optimistic it will come — sooner than later.
・Bob Teoh reads The Malaysian Insider.
・This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.
(End)
