Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

July 25, 2011

We've Got Another Date, Penangites!

Most may have heard of the ISA but what about the EO? The Emergency (Public Order and Crime Prevention) Ordinance, commonly abbreviated as the Emergency Ordinance (EO), like the ISA, allows for indefinite detention without trial.
Enacted by the National Operations Council that was led by Tun Abdul Razak following the May 13 race riots, the Emergency Ordinance has never been revoked to the present day even though we are no longer in any state of emergency.




As expected, the EO has been regularly used to detain those deemed to be subversive by the government. The harsh reality is that it is actually used far more frequently than the Internal Security Act. The latest was on six of the 31 Parti Sosialis Malaysia (“PSM”) activists who were arrested near Kepala Batas while they were travelling by bus from Kedah to attend a BERSIH 2.0 (Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections) programme in Penang on June 25th this year.

The six, now known as "EO6" were released on July 2nd but re-arrested immediately under the EO which allows the police to detain a person for up to 60 days. At the end of that period, the Minister for Home Affairs has the power to issue the detainee with either a detention or restriction order for a period of two years 'without trial' to 'protect public order'.

Recent crackdowns seem to indicate that we are moving in the direction of a police state. Now is the time for you to learn more about the EO and the arrest of the six activists.

Come, learn and more importantly, show your support as we gather in solidarity and take umbrage against this repressive legislation at this event.

Date: 27 July 2011 (Wednesday)
Time: 8:30 pm - 10pm
Venue: Caring Society Complex, Penang

April 24, 2010

ANOTHER ELECTION GIMMICK?

The following post was written by DPP who blogs HERE and he shared it in a comment to one of my posts in unplugged so I am reposting it here for more airing. Thanks DPP for sharing.

__________________________________________

Hi MWS

Would appreciate if you gave max publicity to my letter to Mkini published tpday at http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/130103 and titled "Maika share sale an election gimmick?" It might help voters see straight at HS.

"I refer to the Malaysakini report New firm takes over Maika Holdings.

The salient facts about G Gnanalingam's recent offer to buy out all Maika shareholders are as follows:

1. Maika's paid up share capital - RM125 million.

2. Gnanalingam's offer price - RM106 million or RM0.85 per share.

3. Oriental Capital Assurance Bhd's (Ocab) paid up share capital is RM100 million and as at Dec 31, 2008 it's audited NTA was about RM103 million.

4. Maika's investment in Ocab's share capital is 74.165% or 74,174,640 shares, ie, Maika is Ocab's holding company as it has both more than 51% equity shares and control in Ocab. Maika's CEO Vell Paari a/l Samy Velu also sits on the board of directors of Ocab.

5. Prior to Gnanalingam's buyout proposal, there were two other offers to Maika as follows:

a. RM129 million or $1.75 per share by Salcon

b. RM149 million or $ 2.01 per share by Usaha Tegas, the holding company of tycoon Ananda Krishnan.

The Salcon offer was frozen by a court order taken out by Nesa Cooperative, Maika's single largest shareholder who had objected on the grounds that Maika's 74% investment in Ocab had not been independently valued.

Nesa had recommended the investment in Ocab be sold by open tender. Nesa also revealed there were two other parties interested in acquiring Ocab's shares, one from Europe and another from Australia.

As to the RM149 million offer by Usaha Tegas, apparently Maika rejected this offer as it could not accept certain pre-conditions insisted upon by Usaha Tegas. What these pre-conditions were have not been revealed by Maika's directors.

In the light of the above, I demand the board of directors of Maika explain:

1. Why do they think Gnanalingam's offer of RM106 million is suddenly acceptable to them when they unequivocally know there are local market players in the insurance business and foreign parties who are willing to pay more?

2. Why are they unwilling to offer the Maika or Ocab shares for sale by open tender with a reserve price of say, RM150 million, given the Usaga Tegas offer? If as Gnanalingam says, Maika's debts are RM30 million, the net minimum proceeds of RM120 million would be a fair and handsome reward to Maika's shareholders who for some 20 years have received no dividends while there was a period when their CEO was paid a remuneration of RM15,000 per month.

As to Gnanalingam being quoted as saying he's doing 'national service', he contradicts it by saying he will need six months to find another financier which suggests he is looking at flipping the Maika/Ocab shares for a quick gain. So much for national service.

Financiers may do charity work and make sizeable donations from their profits and gains, but their natural predatory instincts mean they will always squeeze out the juicy bits of the best deals for themselves.

It seems clear to me, and for the matter any sane person, that the Maika/Ocab shares are worth a hell of a lot more than Gnanalingam's RM106 million offer.

The RM64,000 question is why Samy Vellu, Vel Paari and the Maika board of directors appear to be not interested in maximising returns to their long-suffering shareholders which include themselves by supporting the lowest offer?

Is there a deal behind the deal?"

Thank you.

dpp
we are all of 1 race, the Human Race

November 18, 2009

BELIEVABLE BALA?

The 1st Statutory Declaration (SD) preamble is that of someone proud of their length of service and promotions, look at the length and detail of the preamble. The 2nd SD preamble is short, it's just a formality, not a personal expression. The style (wording) of the preambles and SDs gives the impression they were written by different persons.

I conclude Bala wrote the first SD but somebody else wrote the second SD.

Various blogs have focussed on the money Bala was paid, saying he is not credible, the SD was done merely for money.

As i recall, several days ago, it was revealed Bala's family was being held hostage.

I think the safety of his family motivated Bala, not money. I think Bala is credible. If Bala's tale was not credible, then why didn't Najib counter the tale with evidence?

WRITTEN BY PAKAC LUTEB

You can read more at THIS LINK.

November 10, 2009

NOT AN OPTION

A lot has been written lately by many parties regarding judicial reform. The writers focus on independence of the judiciary and the integrity of judges. Those are absolutely essential components of a judiciary in a democratic society.

However, they are far from sufficient.

If all the judiciary has is independence and judges who have high integrity, what will result is decisions that are merely the administration of law: if someone commits offence X they receive punishment Y. Justice will be absent.

Laws are made by the Legislature. Members of Parliament, however noble their intent, may fail to be aware of some consequences of laws they create.

They may lack the imagination to see the consequences or the situation causing a particular consequence may not be foreseeable. For example, the technology involved in the unjust situation may not yet exist when the law was created.

Sometimes unforeseen consequences can result in great injustice if laws are blindly administered.

There is a remedy that injects justice into the administration of laws. It is called a Jury.

Juries inject common sense and flexibility into the administration of law. They do that with their collective wisdom and intelligence.

Abraham Lincoln reportedly said "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time".

That is very true in the case of juries. Jurors are likely to understand the facts of a case, no matter how convoluted the arguments of the lawyers.

In addition to juries injecting justice into a judicial system, they also give credibility to the judicial system and the decisions reached.

In simple terms, which is less likely to be bribed, coerced or intimidated into arriving at a particular decison, 1 or 2 judges, or a jury of 10 (or 12) members of the rakyat?

To have a judiciary in Malaysia that is fit for a democratic society, trial by jury is NOT an option, it is a necessity.

WRITTEN BY PAKAC LUTEB

November 04, 2009

A SPORTING CHANCE

Is it good sportsmanship to keep moving goalposts to favour one's own team? BN/UMNO seems to believe it is. Witness the many instances of when in the course of a trial the Prosecution has amended the charges.

Often it's done when the charges clearly can't be sustained in the face of the evidence.

An infamous example is Anwar's first sodomy case, where the building the sodomy allegedly happened had not yet been built at the date of the offence as stated in the charge.

Any proper court would have thrown out the charge and acquitted Anwar.

But the courts of Malaysia are anything but proper and permitted the Prosecution to amend the date of the charge.

Sometimes the Prosecution amends the charges to harass a defendant,the changes to the charges being intended to send the accused and their lawyer from pillar to post, even though that is blatant abuse and misuse of the Court.

The Prosecution must, if a trial is to have any legitimacy at all, give the defendant a sporting chance, by not amending charges during a trial.

WRITTEN BY PAKAC LUTEB

November 01, 2009

ANWAR'S SECOND SODOMY TRIAL

November 6 2009 is Anwar's date in court for the second sodomy case. The government of Najib/UMNO/BN intends to swiftly convict and jail Anwar. The plan of the government is as follows:

Clause 24 of the DNA Bill prevents contesting DNA evidence IN COURT, however, it does NOT prevent contesting DNA evidence BEFORE a case is tried in court.

Because of that, the prosecution is withholding evidence, including DNA evidence, from Anwar's defence team.

Anwar's defence team will see the DNA evidence only in court, when it's already too late to challenge the evidence.

Clause 24 also states the DNA evidence is to be considered conclusive. In the context of a trial, what does conclusive mean?

It means the DNA evidence has priority and if there is any other evidence that is contrary to the DNA evidence, the contrary evidence is ignored and the accused is convicted solely on the DNA evidence.

In Anwar’s sodomy trial, it means the medical examination that shows Saiful was NOT sodomised will be ignored by the court.

Doctors learn psychology in medical school and are trained to observe patient’s behaviour and doctors can detect when someone is stressed and upset following being sexually assaulted.

A doctor observing Saiful after the alleged forcible sodomy noted that Saiful did not behave as someone who had been sexually assaulted. The court will ignore that observation by the doctor.

The trial will be before a judge, NOT a jury, because the government knows that a jury would never sokong such a sham trial.

The role of the police will to be to ensure the entire charade goes smoothly, including by suppressing protests against the government's shameful sham trial of Anwar.

With the Altantuya case, the IGP has Najib by the balls and Najib has given the IGP carte blanche (a figurative blank cheque) to run Malaysia.

Anwar is the enemy of both Najib and the IGP, thus Najib and the IGP are conspiring to eliminate Anwar as a political threat.

The government pretends to be not worried about Anwar, when actually it is terrified of Anwar.

That is why the government and others, such as Ezam, have of late made many disparaging comments about Anwar.

The government hopes the rakyat will believe those comments and not support Anwar. The government fears convicting Anwar, if he has a lot of support amongst the rakyat, as the government fears the possibility of a "people power" revolt such as ended the Marcos regime.

Now you know what the government's plan is.

From it’s inception, the DNA Bill has been intended to eliminate Anwar as a politician.

What Najib may not be aware of is the DNA Bill has the potential to be used against Najib.

DNA of Najib can be compared with DNA from the bones of Altantuya and if there is a match it is conclusive uncontestable evidence that Najib is the father of the baby that was inside Altantuya when she was murdered.

A previous article of mine explains how and why in detail, I shall summarise here:

When a woman is pregnant, some cells of her baby travel through her bloodstream and go everywhere in her body. That is a medical fact.

Now, Najib, do you still love the DNA Bill so much?

written by Pakac Luteb

October 24, 2009

THE OTHER TWENTY PER CENT

Dr. Porntip gave an 80 percent chance that Teoh Beng Hock had been murdered by the MACC. I believe I have the remaining 20 percent. Looking at the information available publicly since Teoh's death, including the findings of Dr. Porntip, I have made certain deductions about the matter:

Teoh was said to have fallen from the 14th floor to a roof at the 5th floor level. That's a fall of 9 floors.

A fall of that distance would often produce some splatter of blood at the scene, but such blood was apparently absent in the photos of Teoh's body on the roof.

Dr. Porntip testified that there were marks indicating dragging across a "hard and rough surface".

The stairs, doorways and pathways to and along roofs of a building don't receive the smooth beautiful finishes given areas inside the building, they are left rough, bare cement and gravel.

From the above, I think a reasonable deduction is that Teoh did not fall to where his body was shown on the roof, but rather was killed elsewhere and dragged to the point on the roof shown in the photos. That's the remaining 20 percent.

It appears that his body was placed on the roof below a window to attempt to make Teoh's death appear a suicide.

In other words, Teoh's death was 100 percent murder.

Why was Teoh killed?

Did he know "too much"?

Could he have implicated someone in a corruption case?

Perhaps he was called to the MACC not to give evidence but rather to learn what he knew and then permanently silence him.

Teoh's death will understandably make people reluctant to provide information to the MACC, which would hamper the ability of the MACC to combat corruption.

It appears that the MACC (formerly known as the ACA) is not really interested in combating corruption, but rather interested in suppressing evidence of corruption, to the extent of committing murder to achieve that end.

What to call a country ruled by thieves and murderers? Malaysia has become such a country.

Written by Pakac Luteb

October 21, 2009

Will "UTUSAN" RUN DOWN DR. PORNTIP?

Well-known Thai pathologist Dr Porntip Rojanasunan told the coroner's court today that there was an 80 per cent possibility of homicide and 20 per cent chance of suicide in the death of political aide Teoh Beng Hock.

This flies in the face of local investigators who were so insistent on pushing the suicide theory, they even went to the extent of insisting Teoh's parents undergo psychological evaluation

In the light of this will "UtusanMeloya" tell the whole truth of her testimony, give barebones info or spin ?

Below are some hypothetical headlines for the sake of satire (or are they) ?

"Maksud nama Dr.Porntip adalah "Hujung Lucah" dan rambutnya ala punk, dia adalah musuh orang Melayu"

" Hujah Dr.Porntip hanya merujuk pada kes Thai, keaadaan di Malaysia lain, di mana tulang tenkorak kita lebih kebal"

"Daripada 10,000 kes yang dikaji Dr.Porntip hanya 100 shj yang membabitkan terjun mati, jadi dia bukan pakar"

"Si-rambut pelangi Porntip mungkin bersubahat dengan ejen yahudi cawangan DAP, pastinya angkara DSAI lagi"

"Dr.Porntip lebih prihatin terhadap simati, tetapi kita prihatin terhadap yg hidup dan di salah tuduh"

"Dr.Porntip menghina kewibawaan pakar tempatan, jom boikot produk Thai"

'Dr.Porntip kelihatan muda walaupun menjangkau usia lebih 50 tahun - mungkin kerana memakai susuk dan ilmu-hitam"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer -above is for the purpose of satire and is not intended to bear any semblance or insinuate our Local Daily- Utusan Malaysia which has been hailed by no less than our Prime Minister for their level of professionalism. Read more HERE and also OVER HERE.

Written by Vijay Kumar Muragavell

INVESTING IN MALAYSIA

Investment always has some risk.

Companies try to minimise risk when deciding where to invest.

Would Malaysia be attractive as a place to invest?

Do the slow internet speeds make it attractive? Australians don't think so.

Does the lack of an independent judiciary make it attractive?

Since Mahathir wreaked havoc on the judiciary, it has been under the control of the Executive, meaning under control of the Prime Minister.

Let's imagine we are a foreign company considering where to invest.

We look at Malaysia and note it has a large, fairly educated, fairly literate population, English is widely spoken.

That is good, the workforce won't be much problem.

The government offers large tax breaks as incentives. Again good, though artificial, as taxes are created by the government.

Companies don't operate in a vacuum, they need to liaise with suppliers, distributors, etc.

Legal disputes may arise.

Let's imagine a legal dispute with a GLC (government linked company).

The legal system in Malaysia is NOT independent, it is under control of the Prime Minister.

Government officials, or their relatives, may have financial interests
in the GLC.

So, will the court be fair and objective or favour the GLC?

It makes investing in Malaysia a gamble.

There's the DNA Bill.

It could be a tool to catch people stealing inventory.

What else could it be?

Could it be used for blackmail?

Could the company be pressured to give away trade secrets, such as
secret formulas?

An executive of the company could be told if they don't give certain information to a rival company, which just happens to be a GLC, the executive will be charged with adultery and DNA proof of adultery will be presented in court, where DNA evidence, under Clause 24 of the DNA Bill, can't be challenged.

The company considers other countries, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand as alternatives to Malaysia.

WRITTEN BY PAKAC LUTEB

October 19, 2009

A COMMON TOOL

Police often lie to suspects when questioning them, to mislead the suspect to reveal information they would otherwise not give the police. Lying is a common tool of police.

Despite the PI Bala being ex-police and knowing that police lie, Bala still believed his ex-colleague and friend in the Brickfields police who invited Bala for a teh tarik after Bala's first SD.

What Bala found instead of teh tarik was that the machinery of government had moved hyperfast and prepared a second SD negating the first SD, also Bala found the government had engaged a different lawyer for the second SD.

After presenting the second SD, Bala, his wife and children disappeared. Some time later, there was also no news of Bala's nephew, who had been close to Bala and very worried when Bala disappeared.

What happened to Bala and his relatives?

Because the police lie as a normal thing in police work, they could very well lie when presenting DNA evidence in court.

For example, the police could lie that a suspect's DNA matches the DNA from a crime scene when in fact there is NOT a match. The police could also simply decide to avoid the trouble and expense of DNA testing and claim there is a match with a suspect's DNA when actually a DNA test was never performed.

A general question: What court or judge or lawyer would allow a Bill that removes the right to challenge something in court? If no challenge is possible, the courts, judges and lawyers will be
unemployed, as they would have nothing to do.

Clause 24 of the DNA Bill prevents challenging DNA evidence in court, however, other challenges might be possible.

A court, or Parliament, may be able to challenge the validity of the Bill itself.

The validity of the Bill is suspect because of the removal of judicial review.

Removing judicial review and putting handling of DNA evidence under the police violates the separation of powers of the Executive and the Judiciary.

The lack of judicial review is a characteristic of police states, NOT democracies.

With passage of the DNA Bill, Malaysia is officially a police state, although it has been an unofficial police state for some decades, thanks in large part to Mahathir's molest and rape of the judiciary, including ending trial by jury.

Malaysia URGENTLY needs a return of trial by jury.

Have you noticed, in all the talk by the government about judicial reforms, trial by jury has NEVER been mentioned?

That's because trial by jury is what the government fears MOST.

The absence of trial by jury is the MOST powerful tool the government has against the rakyat, even more powerful than the ISA.

That is why the government has talked of reviewing the ISA but NEVER, not even ONCE, spoken of considering a return of trial by jury.

When there is trial by jury, the rakyat, not a judge, decides guilt or innocence of an accused.

The government can control a judge but it can't control the rakyat, that's why the government is truly terrified of trial by jury.

Please excuse any typos i may have missed, my cat Claws 24 was helping me write by stepping on the keyboard.

Written by Pakac Luteb

October 18, 2009

A BASIC PRINCIPLE

Although this article is on a serious matter, Clause 24 of the DNA Bill, I will begin on a light note that is a pun and conclude with yet another pun.

My cat has six toes on each foot. It's a rare mutation that led me to name my cat Claws 24.

Now for the serious stuff. A court is the appropriate forum, in fact the only forum, to challenge evidence in a trial. That's a basic principle.

Because of that, any ban on challenging evidence in court makes the court useless and irrelevant. The effect of such a ban is to make the court non-existent, because such ban makes possible conviction of an accused on evidence that contains an error, is fabricated or in fact even non-existent although claimed to exist.

Some problems with convicting an accused solely on the basis of DNA: DNA evidence can be easily contaminated with other DNA or damaged (the strands of DNA broken into smaller pieces) and it can even be fabricated, please refer to THIS LINK.


Clause 24 makes the DNA Bill a tool to convict anyone of anything, by claiming that there is DNA evidence of guilt of the accused.

Malaysia Today has a nice article AT THIS LINK about how a mistake can come back later with a painful bite:

Clause 24 may be such a mistake, a mistake that may come back to bite Najib and Rosmah.

Here is a way they may become bitten:

First, 2 facts:

Fact 1: Everywhere we go we are leaving samples of our DNA. The samples are small, but they can be amplified by a method called PCR, until there is sufficient DNA for testing.

Fact 2: When a woman is pregnant, some cells from the baby inside her circulate in her blood. Thus, cells from her baby can be found throughout her body, in any tissue where there is blood supply, including in her bones. Remember, it is in the bones, in the bone marrow, where blood is made. Those cells from the baby of course
contain DNA from both it's parents, including the father. Bones of Altantuya are in Mongolia and her father is a medical doctor, he would know who can extract DNA from her bones.

Taken together, those 2 facts potentially could lead to DNA of Najib being compared with DNA from the bones of Altantuya.

If there is a match, because of Clause 24, it would be conclusive evidence, not allowed to be challenged in any court, that Najib made Altantuya pregnant.

Even if the DNA match were to be totally fabricated or non-existent, it would still be impossible for Najib to challenge in any court, because of Clause 24.

Thus Najib, because of Clause 24, could be found, without any means to challenge the evidence, to have impregnated Altantuya, giving motive for Rosmah to want to kill Altantuya.

With motive to kill Altantuya and Rosmah being present at the place Altantuya was killed, her presence at the murder scene being claimed by both Bala's first SD and by RPK, presumably Rosmah wanted to be there to be confident that Altantuya was truly dead, Rosmah could be convicted of murder and sent to the gallows.

The long saga of the murder of Altantuya would thus finally conclude.

Malaysians might gain a new peribahasa (saying) from the sordid tale,
"It's not over until the fat lady hangs".

Written by Pakac Luteb

October 16, 2009

DEVILS - A BRIEF TUTORIAL

People tend to choose the Devil they know instead of the Devil they don't know.

They do that because they don't THINK before choosing.

Devil we know, such as BN: We know it's a DISASTER and will ALWAYS be a DISASTER.

Devil we don't know, such as PKR/PAS: May be a DISASTER, may be EXCELLENT, may be just OK-lah. Those are the odds by mere chance. We can't predict the future accurately, so let's allow chance to guide us.

Devil we know, BN: 3/3 chance [100%] DISASTER

Devil we don't know PKR/PAS: 1/3 chance of DISASTER, 1/3 chance of OK-lah, 1/3 chance of EXCELLENT.

Thus we can see that the Devil we don't know has a 2/3 chance of being better than Devil we know.

Let us embrace the Devil we don't know and avoid giving the BN another landslide victory.

Come what may, DON'T vote BN, vote anything else, vote the Devil you don't know, proven above to probably be better than the Devil we know.

Written by Pakac Luteb

June 27, 2009

WE SHALL OVERCOME - Lyndon B Johnson

In this very eloquent speech to the full Congress, President Lyndon B. Johnson used the phrase "we shall overcome," borrowed from African-American leaders struggling for equal rights.

The speech was made on March 15, 1965, a week after deadly racial violence erupted in Selma, Alabama, as African-Americans were attacked by police while preparing to march to Montgomery to protest voting rights discrimination.

Discrimination took the form of literacy, knowledge or character tests administered solely to African-Americans to keep them from registering to vote.

Civil rights leader Rev. Martin Luther King and over 500 supporters planned to march from Selma to Montgomery to register African-Americans to vote. The police violence that erupted resulted in the death of a King supporter, a white Unitarian Minister from Boston named James J. Reeb.

A second attempt to march to Montgomery was also blocked by police. It took Federal intervention with the 'federalizing' of the Alabama national guard and the addition of over 2000 other guards to ensure protection and allow the march to begin.

On March 21, 1965 the march to Montgomery finally began with over 3000 participants, under the glare of worldwide news publicity.

We Shall Overcome speech by Lyndon B Johnson
March 15th 1965

Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, Members of the Congress. - I speak tonight for the dignity of man and the destiny of democracy.
I urge every member of both parties, Americans of all religions and of all colours, from every section of this country, to join me in that cause.

At times history and fate meet at a single time in a single place to shape a turning point in man's unending search for freedom. So it was at Lexington and Concord. So it was a century ago at Appomattox. So it was last week in Selma, Alabama. There, long-suffering men and women peacefully protested the denial of their rights as Americans. Many were brutally assaulted. One good man, a man of God, was killed.

There is no cause for pride in what has happened in Selma. There is no cause for self-satisfaction in the long denial of equal rights of millions of Americans. But there is cause for hope and for faith in our democracy in what is happening here tonight. For the cries of pain and the hymns and protests of oppressed people have summoned into convocation all the majesty of this great Government - the Government of the greatest Nation on earth. Our mission is at once the oldest and the most basic of this country: to right wrong, to do justice, to serve man.

In our time we have come to live with moments of great crisis. Our lives have been marked with debate about great issues; issues of war and peace, issues of prosperity and depression. But rarely in any time does an issue lay bare the secret heart of America itself.

Rarely are we met with a challenge, not to our growth or abundance, our welfare or our security, but rather to the values and the purposes and the meaning of our beloved Nation.

The issue of equal rights for American Negroes is such an issue. And should we defeat every enemy, should we double our wealth and conquer the stars, and still be unequal to this issue, then we will have failed as a people and as a nation. For with a country as with a person, "What is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"
There is no Negro problem. There is no Southern problem. There is no Northern problem. There is only an American problem. And we are met here tonight as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, we are met here as Americans to solve that problem.
This was the first nation in the history of the world to be founded with a purpose. The great phrases of that purpose still sound in every American heart, North and South: "All men are created equal" - "government by consent of the governed"-"give me liberty or give me death." Well, those are not just clever words, or those are not just empty theories. In their name Americans have fought and died for two centuries, and tonight around the world they stand there as guardians of our liberty, risking their lives.

Those words are a promise to every citizen that he shall share in the dignity of man. This dignity cannot be found in a man's possessions; it cannot be found in his power, or in his position. It really rests on his right to be treated as a man equal in opportunity to all others. It says that he shall share in freedom, he shall choose his leaders, educate his children, and provide for his family according to his ability and his merits as a human being.

To apply any other test - to deny a man his hopes because of his colour or race, his religion or the place of his birth - is not only to do injustice, it is to deny America and to dishonour the dead who gave their lives for American freedom.

THE RIGHT TO VOTE

Our fathers believed that if this noble view of the rights of man was to flourish, it must be rooted in democracy. The most basic right of all was the right to choose your own leaders. The history of this country, in large measure, is the history of the expansion of that right to all of our people.

Many of the issues of civil rights are very complex and most difficult. But about this there can and should be no argument. Every American citizen must have an equal right to vote. There is no reason which can excuse the denial of that right. There is no duty which weighs more heavily on us than the duty we have to ensure that right. Yet the harsh Act is that in many places in this country men and women are kept from voting simply because they are Negroes.

Every device of which human ingenuity is capable has been used to deny this right. The Negro citizen may go to register only to be told that the day is wrong, or the hour is late, or the official in charge is absent And if he persists, and if he manages to present himself to the registrar, he may be disqualified because he did not spell out his middle name or because he abbreviated a word on the application. And if he manages to fill out an application he is given a test. The registrar is the sole judge of whether he passes this test. He may be asked to recite the entire Constitution, or explain the most complex provisions of State law. And even a college degree cannot be used to prove that he can read and write.

For the fact is that the only way to pass these barriers is to show a white skin. Experience has clearly shown that the existing process of law cannot overcome systematic and ingenious discrimination. No law that we now have on the books- and I have helped to put three of them there - can ensure the right to vote when local officials are determined to deny it.

In such a case our duty must be clear to all of us. The Constitution says that no person shall be kept from voting because of his race or his colour. We have all sworn an oath before God to support and to defend that Constitution. We must now act in obedience to that oath.

GUARANTEEING THE RIGHT TO VOTE

Wednesday I will send to Congress a law designed to eliminate illegal barriers to the right to vote.

The broad principles of that bill will be in the hands of the Democratic and Republican leaders to morrow. After they have reviewed it, it will come here formally as a bill. I am grateful for this opportunity to come here tonight at the invitation of the leadership to reason with my friends, to give them my views, and to visit with my former colleagues.

I have had prepared a more comprehensive analysis of the legislation which I had intended to transmit to the clerk tomorrow but which I will submit to the clerks tonight. But I want to really discuss with you now briefly the main proposals of this legislation.

This bill will strike down restrictions to voting in all elections - Federal, State, and local - which have been used to deny Negroes the right to vote.

This bill will establish a simple, uniform standard which cannot be used, however ingenious the effort, to flout our Constitution.

It will provide for citizens to be registered by officials of the United States Government if the State officials refuse to register them.

It will eliminate tedious, unnecessary lawsuits which delay the right to vote. Finally, this legislation will ensure that properly registered individuals are not prohibited from voting.

I will welcome the suggestions from all of the Members of Congress - I have no doubt that I will get some - on ways and means to strengthen this law and to make it effective. But experience has plainly shown that this is the only path to carry out the command of the Constitution.

To those who seek to avoid action by their National Government in their own communities; who want to and who seek to maintain purely local control over elections, the answer is simple:
Open your polling places to all your people.
Allow men and women to register and vote whatever the colour of their skin.
Extend the rights of citizenship to every citizen of this land.

THE NEED FOR ACTION

There is no constitutional issue here. The command of the Constitution is plain.

There is no moral issue. It is wrong - deadly wrong - to deny any of your fellow Americans the right to vote in this country.
There is no issue of States rights or national rights. There is only the struggle for human rights.

I have not the slightest doubt what will be your answer.
The last time a President sent a civil rights bill to the Congress it contained a provision to protect voting rights in Federal elections. That civil rights bill was passed after 8 long months of debate. And when that bill came to my desk from the Congress for my signature, the heart of the voting provision had been eliminated. This time, on this issue, there must be no delay, no hesitation and no compromise with our purpose.

We cannot, we must not, refuse to protect the right of every American to vote in every election that he may desire to participate in. And we ought not and we cannot and we must not wait another 8 months before we get a bill. We have already waited a hundred years and more, and the time for waiting is gone. So I ask you to join me in working long hours - nights and weekends, if necessary - to pass this bill. And I don't make that request lightly. For from the window where I sit with the problems of our country I recognize that outside this chamber is the outraged conscience of a nation, the grave concern of many nations, and the harsh judgment of history on our acts.

WE SHALL OVERCOME

But even if we pass this bill, the battle will not be over. What happened in Selma is part of a far larger movement which reaches into every section and State of America. It is the effort of American Negroes to secure for themselves the full blessings of American life.

Their cause must be our cause too. Because it is not just Negroes, but really it is all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice.

And we shall overcome.
As a man whose roots go deeply into Southern soil l know how agonizing racial feelings are. I know how difficult it is to reshape the attitudes and the structure of our society.

But a century has passed, more than a hundred years, since the Negro was freed.
And he is not fully free tonight.

It was more than a hundred years ago that Abraham Lincoln, a great President of another party, signed the Emancipation Proclamation, but emancipation is a proclamation and not a fact.
A century has passed, more than a hundred years, since equality was promised.
And yet the Negro is not equal. A century has passed since the day of promise.

The time of justice has now come. I tell you that I believe sincerely that no force can hold it back. It is right in the eyes of man and God that it should come. And when it does, I think that day will brighten the lives of every American. For Negroes are not the only victims. How many white children have gone uneducated, how many white families have lived in stark poverty, how many white lives have been scarred by fear, because we have wasted our energy and our substance to maintain the barriers of hatred and terror?

So I say to all of you here, and to all in the Nation tonight, that those who appeal to you to hold on to the past do so at the cost of denying you your future. This great, rich, restless country can offer opportunity and education and hope to all: black and white, North and South, sharecropper and city dweller. These are the enemies: poverty, ignorance, disease. They are the enemies and not our fellow man, not our neighbour. And these enemies too, poverty, disease and ignorance, we shall overcome.

AN AMERICAN PROBLEM

Now let none of us in any sections look with prideful righteousness on the troubles in another section, or on the problems of our neighbours. There is really no part of America where the promise of equality has been fully kept. In Buffalo as well as in Birmingham, in Philadelphia as well as in Selma, Americans are struggling for the fruits of freedom.

This is one Nation. What happens in Selma or in Cincinnati is a matter of legitimate concern to every American. But let each of us look within our own hearts and our own communities, and let each of us put our shoulder to the wheel to root out injustice wherever it exists.

As we meet here in this peaceful, historic chamber tonight, men from the South, some of whom were at Iwo Jima, men from the North who have carried Old Glory to far corners of the world and brought it back without a stain on it, men from the East and from the West, are all fighting together without regard to religion, or colour, or region, in Viet-Nam. Men from every region fought for us across the world 20 years ago. And in these common dangers and these common sacrifices the South made its contribution of honour and gallantry no less than any other region of the Great Republic - and in some instances, a great many of them, more. And I have not the slightest doubt that good men from everywhere in this country, from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico, from the Golden Gate to the harbours along the Atlantic, will rally together now in this cause to vindicate the freedom of all Americans. For all of us owe this duty; and I believe that all of us will respond to it.
Your President makes that request of every American.

PROGRESS THROUGH THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS

The real hero of this struggle is the American Negro. His actions and protests, his courage to risk safety and even to risk his life, have awakened the conscience of this Nation. His demonstrations have been designed to call attention to injustice, designed to provoke change, designed to stir reform.

He has called upon us to make good the promise of America. And who among us can say that we would have made the same progress were it not for his persistent bravery, and his faith in American democracy.

For at the real heart of battle for equality is a deep seated belief in the democratic process. Equality depends not on the force of arms or tear gas but upon the force of moral right; not on recourse to violence but on respect for law and order.
There have been many pressures upon your President and there will be others as the days come and go. But I pledge you tonight that we intend to fight this battle where it should be fought in the courts, and in the Congress, and in the hearts of men.
We must preserve the right of free speech and the right of free assembly. But the right of free speech does not carry with it, as has been said, the right to holler fire in a crowded theatre. We must preserve the right to free assembly, but free assembly does not carry with it the right to block public thoroughfares to traffic.

We do have a right to protest, and a right to march under conditions that do not infringe the constitutional rights of our neighbours. And I intend to protect all those rights as long as I am permitted to serve in this office. We will guard against violence, knowing it strikes from our hands the very weapons which we seek - progress. In Selma as elsewhere we seek and pray for peace. We seek order. We seek unity. But we will not accept the peace of stifled rights, or the order imposed by fear, or the unity that stifles protest. For peace cannot be purchased at the cost of liberty.

In Selma tonight, as in every - and we had a good day there - as in every city, we are working for just and peaceful settlement We must all remember that after this speech I am making tonight, after the police and the FBI and the Marshals have all gone, and after you have promptly passed this bill, the people of Selma and the other cities of the Nation must still live and work together. And when the attention of the Nation has gone elsewhere they must try to heal the wounds and to build a new community.

This cannot be easily done on a battleground of violence, as the history of the South itself shows. It is in recognition of this that men of both races have shown such an outstandingly impressive responsibility in recent days - last Tuesday, again today.

RIGHTS MUST BE OPPORTUNITIES

The bill that I am presenting to you will be known as a civil rights bill. But, in a larger sense, most of the program I am recommending is a civil rights program. Its object is to open the city of hope to all people of all races.

Because all Americans just must have the right to vote. And we are going to give them that right.
All Americans must have the privileges of citizenship regardless of race. And they are going to have those privileges of citizenship regardless of race.

But I would like to caution you and remind you that to exercise these privileges takes much more than just legal right. It requires a trained mind and a healthy body.

It requires a decent home, and the chance to find a job, and the opportunity to escape from the clutches of poverty.
Of course, people cannot contribute to the Nation if they are never taught to read or write, if their bodies are stunted from hunger, if their sickness goes untended, if their life is spent in hopeless poverty just drawing a welfare check.

So we want to open the gates to opportunity. But we are also going to give all our people black and white, the help that they need to walk through those Rates.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS GOVERNMENT

My first job after college was as a teacher in Cotulla, Tex., in a small Mexican-American school. Few of them could speak English, and I couldn't speak much Spanish. My students were poor and they often came to class without breakfast, hungry. They knew even in their youth the pain of prejudice. They never seemed to know why people disliked them. But they knew it was so, because I saw it in their eyes. I often walked home late in the afternoon, after the classes were finished, wishing there was more that I could do. But all I knew was to teach them the little that I knew, hoping that it might help them against the hardships that lay ahead.

Somehow you never forget what poverty and hatred can do when you see its scars on the hopeful face of a young child.
I never thought then, in 1928, that I would be standing here in 1965. It never even occurred to me in my fondest dreams that I might have the chance to help the sons and daughters of those students and to help people like them all over this country.
But now I do have that chance - and I'll let you in on a secret - I mean to use it.

And I hope that you will use it with me.
This is the richest and most powerful country which ever occupied the globe.
The might of past empires is little compared to ours. But I do not want to be the President who built empires, or sought grandeur, or extended dominion.

I want to be the President who educated young children to the wonders of their world. I want to be the President who helped to feed the hungry and to prepare them to be taxpayers instead of taxeaters.

I want to be the President who helped the poor to find their own way and who protected the right of every citizen to vote in every election.

I want to be the President who helped to end hatred among his fellow men and who promoted love among the people of all races and all regions and all parties.

I want to be the President who helped to end war among the brothers of this earth.
And so at the request of your beloved Speaker and the Senator from Montana; the majority leader, the Senator from Illinois; the minority leader, Mr. McCulloch, and other Members of both parties, I came here tonight - not as President Roosevelt came down one time in person to veto a bonus hill not as President Truman came down one time to urge the passage of a railroad bill - but I came down here to ask you to share this task with me and to share it with the people that we both work for. I want this to be the Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, which did all these things for all these people.
Beyond this great chamber, out yonder in 50 States, are the people that we serve.

Who can tell what deep and unspoken hopes are in their hearts tonight as they sit there and listen. We all can guess, from our own lives, how difficult they often find their own pursuit of happiness, how many problems each little family has. They look most of all to themselves for their futures. But I think that they also look to each of us.

Above the pyramid on the great seal of the United States it says-in Latin - "God has favoured our undertaking." God will not favour everything that we do. It is rather our duty to divine His will. But I cannot help bee believing that He truly understands and that He really favours the undertaking that we begin here tonight.

We Shall Overcome speech by Lyndon B Johnson
March 15th 1965