JANUARY 31 — President Donald Trump’s executive order barring the US entry of refugees from seven majority-Muslim countries — while prioritising refugees who are religious minorities, namely Christians — is a shameful display of discrimination against people who are by legal definition innocent and in danger of their lives. It also violates the constitutional value of equal religious liberty.

Whether the constitutional violation could be used by a court to strike down the order is a more difficult question. Classically, the courts haven’t interpreted the Constitution to protect the rights of noncitizens living outside the US To get into court to challenge the order, its opponents will need to argue that it violates the rights of people physically in the US That will take some ingenuity, but it’s a hurdle that could be overcome. The trick will be to claim that visa holders from the seven countries who are lawfully in the US — for example, people on student visas — can sue because the order blocks them from leaving and returning as they would otherwise be able to do.

As for the Constitution, the 14th Amendment prohibits the government  from denying anyone the equal protection of the laws. It was designed to combat racial discrimination. But it also extends to unjust discrimination based on religion.

The First Amendment contains two separate guarantees, both of which the order also violates. The free exercise clause has been interpreted to bar the government from preventing a group’s religious practice out of religious animus.

And the establishment clause prohibits government action that endorses one religion over others. It also bars the government from disfavouring one religion over others.

The executive order invidiously treats Muslims differently from non-Muslims. That burdens Muslims’ expression of their religion, violating both the equal protection and free exercise clauses.

It does so in the first instance by singling out majority-Muslim countries for targeting — without a basis in national security as it claims. And it also singles out Muslims by prioritising Christians.

As written, the order doesn’t reach all majority-Muslim countries or all countries that produce terrorists. It conspicuously omits Saudi Arabia, from which 15 of the 19 September 11 attackers hailed.

It also doesn’t use the word “Muslim” or “Christian,” instead referring to religious minorities in the seven countries.

But the president himself has clarified to the Christian Broadcast Network and on Twitter that he intends the order to give preference to Christians. The government therefore can’t hide behind the order’s text, as seemingly neutral as it is.

Trump’s explanation also shows why the order endorses Christianity over Islam. It would be all right in theory to prioritize persecuted religious minorities for protection. But Trump’s explanations reflect a symbolic preference for Christian refugees.

This is analogous to declaring the US a Christian country. Indeed, the other countries that overtly prefer Christian to Muslim refugees — Poland, Bulgaria and Slovakia, for example — make no bones about saying they are Christian countries with a preference for their co-religionists.

Trump will certainly assert that Congress has full authority over immigration under the Constitution and that it has authorised the president to bar immigrants whose entry he considers to be “against the interests of the United States.” That’s the basis for his whole order.

But this authority can’t override the Constitution or the rights of people who are protected by it.

For these constitutional problems to get before a judge, there must a plaintiff who is within the reach of the US Constitution. And the plaintiff must have standing to sue because he or should would be harmed by the law.

A Muslim visa applicant from Iraq who has been denied access to the US while a Christian Iraqi has been allowed to enter can certainly say he’s been injured by the order. The problem is that because he is a non-US citizen outside the country, he doesn’t (according to the courts) fall under the protection of the Constitution.

The solution is to find someone already in the US who is injured by the order. Even noncitizens have religious liberty and equal protection rights when they are inside the borders.

The best bet would then be for the order’s opponents to bring suit on behalf of a plaintiff who is in the country lawfully but is hurt by the ban. The injury could be the lack of opportunity to leave the country and return. Provided the plaintiff has bought a plane ticket and really plans to travel home and back, not being able to return would count as an injury.

There’s a subtle twist. The order’s ban on immigration from the seven countries is separate from its prioritization of Christian refugees. The latter is supposed to happen only “upon the resumption” of refugee admissions, which the order currently bans for 120 days.

The plaintiff in the US could almost certainly challenge the first part. But the second part is harder to challenge, because the person in this country would be on a lawful visa, not someone being denied refugee status.

One possibility would be to have a plaintiff who was here in the US on a lawful visa who was then also denied refugee status. Another would be for a plaintiff to try to challenge the whole order even though only part of it affects him by saying the whole thing is cut from one anti-Muslim cloth.

Regardless, the legal goal for opponents will be to find a way to get a court to rule on the religious liberty dimensions of the order. It’s not an open-and-shut case by any means. But vindication of the American tradition of religious liberty is a high-stakes proposition — and courts should be prepared to consider the rights of any valid plaintiff to make that happen. — Bloomberg

– See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/opinion/bloomberg/article/trump-travel-ban-is-an-attack-on-religious-liberty-noah-feldman#sthash.0XRihC1W.dpuf

FEBRUARY 2 — It was quiet in Kuala Lumpur yesterday. Just like any other Federal Territories Day since there was a territory dedicated to the federal government. Residents are, as ever, clueless about this special zone’s designation and purpose, which is wholly consistent with the federation in general.

Yet, it is apt. That the wealthiest portion of the richest state was carved into a new artificial state in order to silence its people.

Federal Territory of the 1970s, before Labuan and Putrajaya were added belatedly to the exercise of political castration, was impassionate and colourless, and remains so today.

Little wonder the only person on my Facebook timeline who made any mention of Kuala Lumpur’s anniversary, was a son of a former MIC Kuala Lumpur youth chief!

Kuala Lumpur was born on the banks of the Gombak and Klang Rivers as the heart of an economically-vibrant Selangor, so the retelling of it as a federal territory in 1972 is about as attractive as watching the paint dry on the side of the riverbank past Central Market.

There was no clamour from the citizens to be a separate state. It was a novel stratagem to remove the city from voting the next Selangor government — as it almost did in the 1969 general election.

As a result, no more state seats for the 11 parliamentary seats. They stripped the city of an elected mayor seven years prior in 1965, and with the stroke of the sultan’s pen they rid it of power over the Selangor assembly.

What is left is observed through the giving of holiday to those working and studying in the city. There is no identity, no relevance, no shared memory, no nothing. Which is best highlighted by the negligible support for the city’s football team. What is Kuala Lumpur as a state to those designated since to live in it?

No clue.

Instead, the recognition of statehood is limited to distinctions with Selangor which envelopes it. It is about non-coinciding holidays, when some family members work or study and others are on leave. Or if shoppers cross Melawati to Hulu Kelang, supermarkets charge for plastic bags on some days, and in contra, the other state expects recyclables to be separated from general waste.

But hope finds a way to re-entangle the states.

Selangor and KL share the water.

Politics separate the people, but water, the lifeblood courtesy of the Selangor Water Board courses through both states, almost to remind those too tired to remember that the fates of both peoples are locked in a common destiny.

I lived in Selangor and everyone in the home went to work and study in the city, so it got surreal in the Ganesan household. Thaipusam was then not a holiday so it was the one day in the year I missed school — I hate to miss school.

It is sausage making

The political reality never shifted for city folks, which is why I suppose the people observed a strict culture of not caring about it.

Even as it stands, nine of the 11 states constituting Kuala Lumpur are under either DAP or PKR, but the mayor is a public servant appointed by the prime minister and he by convention cares very little about what the nine parliamentarians feel about the city.

It is not only the two Umno MPs that the mayor is interested in, it is the 11 Umno division chiefs in the city. The cruel reality of the system is that the votes of Umno members in Segambut matters more than what the overwhelming voters in Segambut supported in the last general election.

Which reduces the value of votes, worst, it reduces the interest of voters in their system.

I understand this is far too complex a situation than the average Umno division chief’s suited to digest, but it creates apathy and broad disillusionment among the people.

A city that has so many of its residents disinterested in its administration leads to a reduction of meaningful citizen-administrator engagement which is critical to the realisation of liveable cities.

We won’t be Melbourne or London by skipping the step of resident engagement. Selangor is envied because its suburban zones have undergone rigorous voter examination through the interplay of NGOs, local councillors and information sharing.

The cities and local councils have been shamed, exposes threatened and performances slammed, and the outcome has been not rebellion but better cities and towns. Urban dwellers need to feel like they are on their local authorities’ backs. That’s how they breathe.

In summary, while Selangor has no elections yet, the willingness to increase engagement has resulted in resuscitation not strait-jacketing. The opposite is true in Kuala Lumpur. City Hall is opaque, appointments are clandestine and operations at the mercy of the Federal Territories Minister.

This is not to say I don’t welcome local council elections in Selangor tomorrow.

Disengagement has had the opposite effect. Like resulting in the city inheriting an equestrian squad, fat men riding their horses about with no value to the people.

The way cities and towns are run tell us about larger things. If there is no democracy at our lowest levels, then all the veneer of democracy paraded at the highest echelons are just hollow and public exercises of window dressing.

A radio presenter said a few days ago that he was always going to vote by weighing all parties’ policies, and said about the joy of voting in the UK’s local elections by virtue of being a resident — many countries allow residents along with citizens to vote in their city elections.

I was perplexed. It was cognitive dissonance in its most evil twist.

He wanted us to always weigh the sides based on their policies? Policies are important, but so is the cornerstone of modern democracies which is that policies are the product of public discourses at all levels. It is the synthesising of our best and worst ideas, with the belief that if there is enough oxygen great things will be produced.

Local governments are the manifestation of the most organic form of generating policies/ideas from the commoners. When local governments themselves are opposed, as they are in Malaysia, let alone the progressive allocations of letting foreign residents vote, then those who are in admiration of policies should be opposed to those who oppose local elections.

And there is only one side that openly opposes local elections, they are incidentally the same side who believe in more participation of the people, the voters, in the system is bad for both policies and outcomes.

Returning to the theme of the city, this city whose spirit has been doused with prejudice for decades is crying for a reroute; the answer is about rejecting those opposed to granular origins within a democracy.

The city is the lifeblood, but for more than just Selangor. As the capital, it is the heart that pumps blood to Malaysia, freeing its spirit is not a political possibility, it is a survival necessity, if Malaysia is to fulfil its potential as a beacon of hope for those at home and beyond.

– See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/opinion/praba-ganesan/article/a-chained-city#sthash.cM7fomAZ.dpuf

FEBRUARY 3 ― It’s surprising how some Malaysians seem to care more about Donald Trump’s ban on seven Muslim-majority countries and refugees, than on decades-long discrimination in our own country.

Of course, Trump’s 90-day ban on visitors from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia ― which conveniently excludes Muslim-majority nations like the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia and Turkey where his family does business in ― and his 120-day suspension of the US refugee programme are discriminatory and reprehensible.

The Malaysian government, after all their rah-rah about the plight of the Rohingyas, is strangely silent about Trump’s immigration ban, while leaders from Germany, France and even Indonesia have criticised it. The least our government could do is issue a statement expressing concern.

On the other side of the political fence, Pakatan Harapan is organising a rally today at the US embassy to protest Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban.”

Liberal Malaysians have also been up in arms on social media about Trump’s ban and his firing of US acting attorney general Sally Yates for not defending his immigration order.

As deplorable as Trump’s ban is, why are we Malaysians paying so much attention to it, to the extent of organising a rally?

If we really cared about the safety of refugees, why don’t we pressure our government to sign the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention and to open our shores up to them, instead of asking the US to open theirs up?

It’s because not many of us actually care about refugee rights, which is why political parties here are mostly silent on the issue. But we have the gall to ask another country to accept the refugees that we disdain.

If we’re upset about the discriminatory nature of Trump’s ban, why are we not equally upset about state discrimination in Malaysia? Of course, discrimination against Malays happens in the private sector too, which is why we need anti-discrimination laws to protect all citizens, whether they work in the private or public sector. But the government must first acknowledge the problem and refrain from perpetuating discrimination themselves.

Pro-Bumiputera policies, remnants of the New Economic Policy (NEP) that was supposed to have officially ended almost three decades ago in 1990, are still in place even though we’re supposed to be a developed nation by 2020.

The International Trade and Industry Ministry said last December that Bumiputera companies should be allocated at least a whopping 50 per cent of the value of large-scale contracts by the government and by government-linked companies (GLCs).

Half of the MRT project value was set aside for Bumiputera companies, with the prime minister saying that 50 per cent of the tenders in the first phase of the project was awarded to them due to their competitiveness even though the original target was 43 per cent. This begs the question of why quotas were necessary in the first place.

A minister who once told Malays to boycott Chinese businesses remains in government, while government leaders keep silent over racist insults hurled by the Red Shirts and do nothing to reassure the non-Malays that they are valid citizens of the country.

Incidents of religious discrimination, like the unilateral conversions of children to Islam and the confiscation of Christian bibles, continue to be an issue.

Tens of thousands of people held demonstrations in the US to protest against Trump’s ban. American citizens rallied because they cared about what was happening to their country.

But do we Malaysians care enough to do something about issues in our own country like racial and religious discrimination?

Politicians on both sides of the fence here are too cowardly to stand up on matters of race and religion if it affects their vote bank.

On PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang’s private member’s Bill to amend the Shariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 (Act 355), for example, only DAP from Pakatan and MCA/ MIC/ Gerakan from Barisan Nasional (BN) have spoken up against it.

Muslim-majority parties PKR and Amanah have remained ambivalent on the Bill that may further erode the rights of non-Muslims here, even though they saw it fit to issue strong statements against Trump’s ban that has nothing to do with Malaysian citizens.

When I invited a friend to join the February 18 BEBAS rally in Padang Merbok against Hadi’s Bill, he asked me: “This may be a stupid question, but does Shariah law affect non-Muslims?”

It wasn’t a stupid question because ordinarily, the simple answer should be “No.” Unfortunately, the religious authorities had investigated and confiscated items from Ninja Joe, a pork burger chain run by non-Muslims, during the “P. Ramly burger” fiasco. This disturbing episode clearly illustrates the encroaching powers of Islamic authorities on non-Muslim affairs and businesses. Yet, none of our politicians, not even those from predominantly Chinese parties, said anything.

One of the worrying things to non-Muslims about Hadi’s Bill is precisely this: that it will embolden religious authorities and those in power to intrude into our private lives and dictate how we should run our businesses, how we should dress and what we should (or shouldn’t) eat or drink.

Personally, I don’t care much about refugees. It would be great if Malaysia signed the UN Refugee Convention. But the issue doesn’t anger me to the point that I would organise a rally because, well, I care more about Malaysian citizens and making our country world class first before we share our luxuries with refugees.

An advertisement for “Malay buyer only” RM310,000 condominium units in Taman Tun Dr Ismail, for example, angers me more than Trump’s ban, since I don’t know any refugees nor anyone from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya or Somalia. I’ve never even been to America.

I slogged for years to buy a 15-year-old sub sale apartment unit in the outskirts of Subang Jaya for RM350,000, denying myself the pleasure of ridiculously priced coffee at hipster cafes.

Then I see discriminatory ads that prohibit me from buying a nice new condo in the place I grew up (and still live) in because of my skin colour.

Malaysians can fight for the rights of Muslims to enter America if they want to (although people might be better off in another country that’s isn’t on a path to self-destruction).

But I wish that we cared more about what’s happening in our own backyard.

The Holocaust might not have happened if the Germans themselves ― who did know about the deaths of Jews in concentration camps because these places were prominently reported in German media then, according to Professor Robert Gellately’s “Backing Hilter” ― had done something.

I’m not comparing the discrimination in Malaysia or in the US in any way to the Holocaust.

What I’m saying is that it’s imperative for Malaysians to speak out about issues affecting fellow citizens, instead of just jumping on the Trump-hating bandwagon because it’s convenient.

– See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/opinion/boo-su-lyn/article/why-do-we-care-more-about-america-than-malaysia#sthash.WewkVP0z.dpuf

NEW YORK, Jan 31 — Rosanne Bloom and her family had just settled into their seats on a flight from Philadelphia to Turks and Caicos Islands on Christmas morning when two airline employees ordered Bloom, her husband and two boys off the plane. Their luggage had been removed.

The problem? Bloom had informed the crew that her teenage sons had severe nut allergies.

“I said, ‘We have our medicine. We brought our own food, and we’re comfortable staying on the plane.’ I offered to sign a waiver,” said Bloom, an orthodontist in Clarksville, Maryland. “We were off the plane in two minutes.”

Matt Miller, a spokesman for American Airlines, said such decisions are left to the pilot. “The pilot determined it would be best for the family not to travel based on the severity of the allergy and the need to divert the airline if anyone were eating nuts,” he said.

Airline carriers have a long tradition of serving peanuts on flights, and often serve little else. But the practice also presents a challenge to travellers with severe nut allergies, who can suffer a reaction simply by touching a surface that has been exposed to nuts.

But tensions between passengers with food allergies and airline staff members have risen in recent years, as airlines have begun to enforce stricter rules related to pre-boarding passengers. In the past, parents of young children could board the plane early, giving them a chance to wipe down seats, trays and armrests to reduce exposure to allergens. But today many airlines have stopped letting families with children board before other passengers.

When families request permission to pre-board — or pose another request, such as asking whether nuts will be served — they risk being taken off the flight or threatened with removal, said Mary Vargas, a lawyer whose family was almost kept off a plane from London back to the United States in December because of a nut allergy.

Families with nut allergies are waging a legal challenge against such policies. Two formal complaints filed with the Department of Transportation in the last month accuse American Airlines of discrimination against passengers with allergies. The complaints cite the airline’s pre-boarding policy, which prohibits pre-boarding specifically for people with allergies, and not for others.

“This is about being allowed to fly like everybody else in the United States,” said Vargas, the lawyer representing the families.

Although nobody tracks medical emergencies on airplanes, studies show that in-flight medical emergencies are relatively uncommon and affect only a fraction of the estimated 3.6 billion passengers who fly each year. Chest pain and cardiovascular events are the most common reason planes are diverted for a medical emergency. Allergic reactions make up fewer than 4 per cent of all in-flight medical emergencies, according to a 2013 study published in the Western Journal of Emergency Medicine.

PHNOM PENH, June 12 — Unprecedented new details of medieval cities hidden under jungle in Cambodia near Angkor Wat have been revealed using lasers, archaeologists said today, shedding new light on the civilisation behind the world’s largest religious complex.

While the research has been going on for several years, the new findings uncover the sheer scale of the Khmer Empire’s urban sprawl and temple complexes to be significantly bigger than was previously thought.

The research, drawing on airborne laser scanning technology known as lidar, will be unveiled in full at the Royal Geographic Society in London tomorrow by Australian archaeologist Damian Evans.

“We always imagined that their great cities surrounded the monuments in antiquity,” Evans told AFP.

“But now we can see them with incredible precision and detail, in some places for the very first time, but in most places where we already had a vague idea that cities must be there,” he added.

Angkor Wat, a Unesco World Heritage site seen as among the most important in South-east Asia, is considered one of the ancient wonders of the world.

It was constructed from the early to mid-1100s by King Suryavarman II at the height of the Khmer Empire’s political and military power and was among the largest pre-industrial cities in the world.

But scholars had long believed there was far more to the empire than just the Angkor complex.

‘Entire cityscape’

The huge tranche of new data builds on scans that were made in 2012 that confirmed the existence of Mahendraparvata, an ancient temple city near Angkor Wat.

But it was only when the results of a larger survey in 2015 were analysed that the sheer scale of the new settlements became apparent.

To create the maps, archaeologists mounted a special laser on the underneath of a helicopter which scans the area and is able to see through obstructions like trees and vegetation.

Much of the cities surrounding the famed stone temples of the Khmer Empire, Evans explained, were made of wood and thatch which has long rotted away.

“The lidar quite suddenly revealed an entire cityscape there with astonishing complexity,” he said.

“It turned out we’d been walking and flying right over the top of this stuff for ten years and not even noticing it because of the vegetation.”

Among the new scans already published are a detailed map of a huge city complex surrounding the stone temple known as Preah Khan of Kompong Svay, a series of iron smelting sites dating back to the Angkor era and new information on the complex system of waterways that kept the region running.

The new data also maps out the full extent of Mahendraparvata, information that will make future digs much more accurate and less time consuming.

“What we had was basically a scatter of disconnected points on the map denoting temple sites. Now it’s like having a detailed street map of the entire city,” Evans said.

Further maps will be published in the coming months, he added.

Long Kosal, a spokesman for the Apsara authority, the government body that manages the Angkor complex, said the lidar had uncovered “a lot of information from the past.”

“It shows the size and information about people living at those sites in the past,” he told AFP, adding further research was now needed to capitalise on the finds.

While the Khmer Empire was initially Hindu it increasingly adopted Buddhism and both religions can be seen on display at the complex.

Angkor is visited by hundreds of thousands of visitors a year and remains Cambodia’s top tourist attraction. — AFP