Friday, March 31, 2017

SUHAKAM siap siasatan mati dalam tahanan polis -S.Balamurugan..dakwa polis terlibat?

Syabas SUHAKAM kerana melakukan tindakan pro-active memulakan penyiasatan segera mengenai kematian Balamurugan yang meninggal dunia dalam tahanan polis pada 7/2/2017...dan kenyataan dapatan siasatan dihebohkan pada 29/3/2017 (siap dalam masa kurang dari 2 bulan). SUHAKAM berjaya menyiapkan siasatan sendiri melibatkan 43 saksi dan sudah keluarkan kenyataan ini pada 29/3/2017? ...bagaimana dengan pihak polis?

Adakah pihak polis sudah siap melakukan penyiasatan mengenai kematian ini?Adakah polis sudah mulakan siasatan? Atau adakah ini juga akan berlaku 'cover up' untuk membantu rakan polis yang telah melakukan kesalahan - solidariti?  Adakah pegawai polis yang bertanggungjawab sudah didakwa di Mahkamah? Adakah terdapat apa-apa arahan 'tutup kes'? Banyak soalan - kita tunggu sama ada pihak polis atau pihak pendakwaraya atau pihak Menteri Zahid Hamidi akan memberikan jawapan...

Majistret perintah hantar hospital pun langsung tidak dihiraukan...Ingat dalam kes Siti Noor Aishah Atam pun, Hakim menolak permohonan pendakwaan untuk terus menahan Siti sehingga rayuan - tetapi selepas itu Siti ditahan lagi...

Tindakan tidak menghormati dan mematuhi perintah Mahkamah dikalangan polis dan pihak pendakwaan sangat merisaukan ...Bukankah ini penghinaan Mahkamah?

Apakah yang Najib dan kerajaan UMNO-BN akan melakukan sekarang? 

Polis yang membunuh atau melakukan kesalahan jenayah harus didakwa dan dibicarakan di Mahkamah - tak mahu 'tindakan disiplin' dalaman...Polis yang melakukan kesalahan, dan mereka yang bantu 'cover up' harus bukan sahaja didakwa tetapi juga segera disingkirkan...Rakyat berhak mempunyai polis yang bersih, beramanah, mempunyai integriti dan yang tidak mengingkari undang-undang. MACC nampaknya aktif menyiasat dan mendakwa polis 'korup' - polis yang mendera, membunuh atau tidak melakukan tugas berasaskan undang-undang juga harus didakwa....

Sejak 2010 sehingga February 2017, seramai 1,654 telah mati dalam tahanan...
1,037 were Malays, 222 ethnic Chinese, 182 ethnic Indians, 28 from other ethnicities, and 185 foreigners. - See more at:

Pos berkenaan:-

Resolusi Peguam 'Dakwa Polis melakukan jenayah', dan singkirkan 'polis kotor' - kes Syed Mohd Azlan?

Press Statement by SUHAKAM on the death in custody of Balamurugan M Suppiah

Thursday, 30 March 2017 07:26pm
ImageThis item is reproduced from here.

KUALA LUMPUR (29 MARCH 2017) - The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) concluded its independent investigation into the death of Balamurugan M Suppiah (S.Balamurugan) who died at the North Klang District Police Headquarters on 7 February 2017. According to the police, he was found unconscious in a temporary holding area for detainees at about 11.30pm. SUHAKAM begun its investigation in accordance with sections 4(1) and 12 of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 on 10 February 2017, and in the interest of public truth. Through interviews and statements recorded from 43 witnesses, SUHAKAM identified several areas of concern that continue to arise in relation to deaths in police custody.

At the outset, SUHAKAM reiterates that the right to life is the most fundamental human right, within which no derogation is permissible. As guaranteed in Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution and recognised in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the right to life is a prerequisite to the realisation of all other human rights.

The deceased was arrested with two other suspects at around 6.30pm on 6 February 2017 and taken to the Bandar Baru Klang Police Station. During its investigation, SUHAKAM was informed of alleged ill-treatment and beatings of all suspects by the police between 7.30pm to 9.30pm at the police station. Before he were taken to the North Klang District Police Headquarters, the deceased was allegedly hit on the ears, beaten on his feet and legs and punched and kicked in his chest. SUHAKAM was informed that the deceased was shivering and not able to walk when he was sent to the Shah Alam Centralised Lock Up at approximately 4.10am the next morning. The suspects were produced before the Klang Magistrate’s Court at around 10.00am on 7 February 2017 for an application for further remand. The remand for the deceased was refused and the Magistrate directed the police to take him for immediate medical treatment.

SUHAKAM interviewed the Magistrate on 23 February 2017 and was informed that the deceased had a swollen face and eyes and was unable to sit up, stand or even hold his head up when his name was called in her Court. Although the police had the opportunity to take the deceased to the hospital, they failed to do so and took him back to the North Klang District Police Headquarters at about 1.15pm. SUHAKAM was informed that the deceased was shivering again at this point but he was not given any medical attention. By approximately 6.30pm by which time his detention became unlawful, S.Balamurugan’s condition had deteriorated severely to the extent that he had no control from urinating. At approximately 11.30pm, the deceased was found unconscious or presumably dead by the Investigating Officer. SUHAKAM notes with concern that from approximately 7.00pm to 11.30pm, the deceased was not monitored or checked on by the policemen on duty. SUHAKAM considers it to be the duty of the Investigating Officer to be responsible for the acceptance, safety, security, health condition and welfare of any person arrested and detained by the police.

SUHAKAM wishes to point out that although the police had 24 hours to detain the deceased, they may have deliberately flouted the Court Order or wilfully abused their powers when the deceased was taken back to the North Klang Disctrict Police Headquarters, purportedly for his statement to be recorded. Evidence show that this was not done and the deceased was instead held without a reasonable and credible justification. 

The post mortems conducted by Hospital Tuanku Ampuan Rahimah Klang (HTAR) and Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL) both revealed that the cause of death of S.Balamurugan was coronary artery disease. Of note, the second pathologist from HKL concluded that the cause of death was coronary artery disease with blunt force trauma, and the time of death could have been as early as 9.00pm or 10.00pm.

It is SUHAKAM’s view that the allegations of ill treatment and torture corroborate the statements by both pathologists, in that the deceased had, among others, bruises and swelling on his eyes, a large bruise on his chest below his right nipple, swelling on his right ear, lacerations on his ears, injuries on his right chest muscle, blood clots on his right temple, back injuries and severe muscular injuries to his feet and ankles. The second pathologist indicated that he also found that the deceased had obvious bruises on his knees, fingers, back of his left lower leg, lower back and the back of his thighs.

Both post mortems revealed that the deceased was suffering from chronic liver failure and liver cirrhosis. While this is unlikely to be the cause of death, in the second pathologist’s medical opinion, this was a possible explanation for the bleeding from the mouth and nose of the deceased. Both pathologists also concluded that the deceased had a blocked left artery and was suffering from a severe heart condition, but it is their medical opinion that the injuries could have triggered a heart attack or worsened his heart condition leading to his death, given the severity of the injuries. The HKL pathologist noted that while the deceased had serious underlying medical concerns, the injuries on his body could not be ignored as they appeared to be abusive injuries, and not self-inflicted or accidental in nature.

The circumstances under which the deceased was detained after the application for remand by the police was refused were unacceptable. He had endured approximately a further 9 hours of detention prior to his death, after he was released by the Court. This in our view demonstrates a blatant disregard for respect for human life and dignity and the conditions in which he was held may be inconsistent with the Federal Constitution (Article 5(1)).

SUHAKAM is satisfied that the police knew or ought to have known, even more so when the Magistrate had made her observations and order, of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of the deceased, and that the police failed to take adequate measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid such a risk. SUHAKAM is of the view that there appears to be serious breach or wilful disregard of the duty to protect life by the police due to cumulative failures on their part to provide medical attention to the deceased. SUHAKAM underlines that where there is an alleged breach of this duty of care, there is an obligation on the police to investigate and to carry out an efficient, independent and reasonable investigation, which must lead to the perpetrators’ identification and prosecution.

Evidence from SUHAKAM’s investigation also identified numerous systemic failures on the part of the police in regard to the treatment of detainees in police custody, including but not limited to failures to follow the Lock up Rules 1953, police standard operating procedures, the Court Order and relevant international human rights norms and standards.

SUHAKAM reiterates that in accordance with Principle 1 of the United Nations Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, “all persons under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be treated in a humane manner and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person”. Principle 6 further states that “no person under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. SUHAKAM’s investigation however revealed allegations of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of persons in police custody. The statements of the other suspects alleged that the police had during interrogations applied paint thinner and chilli powder on the body of two of the other suspects including on their genitals. They claimed to have been beaten with a rubber hose and wooden stick, as well as with a handcuff chain for their confessions.

Two suspects arrested in relation to this investigation were below 18. While the police must observe certain legal rights whenever they arrest or detain a child suspect, SUHAKAM’s investigation revealed that the police may have been in breach of section 85 of the Child Act 2001 that stipulates appropriate arrangements shall be made to prevent a child while being detained in a police station from associating with an adult who is charged with an offence. Both suspects who are below 18 were placed in custody with the deceased who was an adult. According to section 87 of the same Act, after the arrest of a child, the police officer or other person making the arrest shall immediately inform a probation officer and the child’s parent or guardian of the arrest. SUHAKAM notes that the law in this regard was not complied with.

Despite a growing awareness of issues concerning the proper treatment of persons in police custody, the implementation of best practices and recommendations, particularly from SUHAKAM’s 2016 Death in Custody Report is seriously lacking. Some recommendations have not been implemented at all and it is observed that the police are still ignorant of their duty of care to detainees or the fact that there is a responsibility on the police to ensure that the individual in their custody is not deprived of his right to life.

In accordance with its legal duty, SUHAKAM makes the following recommendations to the Government of Malaysia and Police Di-Raja Malaysia (PDRM):

  • To ensure that anyone deprived of their liberty is detained lawfully and in a lawful, recognised and gazetted place of detention in accordance with the law. 

  • To investigate cases of abuse and misconduct by the police, including as described above, and prosecute police officials responsible for the illegal detention, ill-treatment and/or torture of the deceased which in his case may have caused and/or contributed to his death.

  • To investigate incidents of alleged torture and abuse of the other suspects by the police, and prosecute police officials responsible.

  • To ensure internal disciplinary proceedings and criminal action for breaches of instructions, including the Court Order relating to the case.

  • As police lock-ups or facilities are not intended for or equipped to handle suspects who require immediate or sustained medical , SUHAKAM reiterates its recommendation in its 2016 Report on Death In Custody to place a custodial medical team in police lockups as well as too review the 1953 Lock-up Rules.

  • SUHAKAM is of the view that the increase in the number of deaths in police custody warrants an increased scrutiny of the operation and funding of police lock ups, particularly in relation to health services and general conditions.


    The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
    29 March 2017
    Source: SUHAKAM Website

    Wednesday, March 29, 2017

    Siti Noor Aishah Atam - Ditahan lagi di bawah SOSMA?

    Siti Noor Aishah Atam masih terus menjadi mangsa ketidakadilan - Buku yang didakwa dalam pemilikannya bukan pun buku yang diharamkan di Malaysia...SOSMA, POCA semua digunakan dalam kes Siti...Kini ditahan lagi mengunakan SOSMA selepas Mahkamah Rayuan membenarkan rayuan pihak pendakwaan - kes dikembalikan ke Mahkamah Tinggi untuk diteruskan perbicaraan...

    Kena buang Universiti kerana tak hadhir - adakah kerana pada masa itu beliau dalam tahanan polis? Kenapa parti politik dan ahli politik tidak mahu terlibat berjuang untuk Siti Noor Aishah? Adakah kerana beliau hanya 'orang biasa"? Badan Peguam Malaysia pun sudah membuat Resolusi kes ini...

    Apalah ertinya pemilikan buku-buku tersebut yang dikatakan mempunyai kaitan dan unsur-unsur pengganas menjadi suatu kesalahan keatas sesiapa yang memiliki buku-buku tersebut, walhal pihak Kementerian Dalam Negeri gagal menjalankan fungsi sebenarnya untuk mengharamkan dan seterusnya menghapuskan buku-buku tersebut. Tanpa tindakan tegas pihak Kementerian Dalam Negeri untuk membendung gejala ini, buku-buku tersebut masih lagi berleluasa dipasaran dan boleh dimiliki oleh sesiapa sahaja samada untuk pembacaan umum ataupun sebab sebab yang lain. Pada fikiran mahkamah ini kegagalan pihak Kementerian Dalam Negeri untuk mengharamkan buku-buku tersebut tidak sealiran dan tidak konsisten dengan menjadi pemilikan bukubuku tersebut suatu kesalahan menurut Seksyen 130JB(1)(a) Kanun Keseksaan.- dari Alasan Penghakiman Mahkamah Tinggi
    Siapa yang memutuskan sama ada buku ini berkaitan dengan 'terrorist' - Pakar? Siapa pakar ini? Apakah kelayakkan pakar ini? Jika kerajaan Malaysia belum membuat keputusan mengharamkan sesuatu buku - bagaimana boleh katakan pemilikan buku itu haram? Buku yang diharamkan harus disenaraikan dengan jelas supaya semua tahu...Pos akan datang mungkin kita akan menilai siapakah 'pakar' ini? Pakar untuk DNA, bahan kimia, mengapa seorang mati OK - tapi pakar untuk katakan buku ini ada unsur keganasan berkait rapat dengan kumpulan ini dan itu - bukankah itu hanya 'pendapat' peribadi - tak ada asas saintifik pun?

    Pegawai Penyiasat (SP6) kemudiannya telah merujuk 12 buah buku-buku diatas kepada 3 orang saksi Pakar(SP2)[Dr. Wan Adli bin Wan Ramli- Pendapat Usuluddin], (SP9)[Prof. Dr. Rohan Gunaratna – Pakar Kajian Keganasan]dan (SP10)[Ustaz Hj. Zamihan bin Hj. Mat Zin- Pakar Kajian Keganasan] untuk mengkaji dan memberikan pandangan mengenai buku-bukutersebut. Saksi-saksi tersebut telah mengeluarkan pandangan masing-masing yang bertanda (P42)(P45A)(P52(1)hingga (12)). Hasil pandangan ketiga-tiga pakar ini menyatakan bahawa buku-buku tersebut menunjukkan unsur-unsur khawarij atau keganasan yang berkait rapat dengan Kumpulan Pengganas Islamic State, Al-Qaeda dan Jemaah Islamiyah.

    PEMIKIRAN SEMPIT - Membaca sesuatu buku tidak akan mempengaruhi seseorang melakukan sesuatu tindakan 'terrorisma' - Manusia ada sifat 'ingin tahu' - dan akan membaca dan cuba memperolehi semua jenis maklumat, mengambil kira semua pendapat -- dan akan dengan BIJAK akan buat keputusan sendiri mengenai pendirian peribadi. Pembacaan buku bertentangan dengan pendirian sendiri juga penting untuk proses menangani pemikiran sedemikian - Kalau tak tahu 'point' pihak lawan, bagaimana mahu 'response' - menangani pendapat salah tersebut... Pengharaman atan penghalanagan akses kepada buku, filem dan pendapat lain adalah sesuatu yang hanya tidak bagus untuk pembangunan peribadi seorang insan. Tugas kerajaan adalah untuk menangani pendapat dengan pendapat supaya semua faham apa yang betu dan apa yang tidak baik...Semua peguam pun perlu baca buku sedemikian - kalau tidak bagaimana cabar 'pakar' sebegini - adakah peguam Siti Noor Aishah diberikan salinan buku berkenaan untuk baca sendiri - Kalau tidak, macam mana nak cabar pendapat atau kesimpulan 'pakar'?
    Sila baca posting sebelum ini:-

    Siti Noor Aishah - POCA,POTA..dimansuhkan - Resolusi Badan Peguam

    Release Siti Noor Aishah Atam from Poca restrictions, kata 36 kumpulan (Malaysiakini, 20/12/2016) 

    Siti Noor Aishah Atam - victim of SOSMA, found Not Guilty by High Court, then re-detained under POCA? 

    Siti Noor Aishah Atam - Alasan Penghakiman Mahkamah Tinggi - Mahkamah Bebas Polis Tangkap Lagi Guna POCA??

    Bekas pelajar sarjana Siti Noor Aishah ditangkap, sekali lagi

    Bekas pelajar sarjana, Siti Noor Aishah Atam ditangkap semula di bawah Akta Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-Langkah Khas) 2012 (Sosma) dan kini ditahan di penjara Kajang.

    Tangkapan dan penahanan itu dikuat-kuasakan semalam, selepas beliau hadir di Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur. Tindakan itu susulan rayuan yang dibuat oleh Timbalan Pendakwa Raya terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi yang membebaskan beliau pada September tahun lalu kerana memiliki 12 buah buku.
    Siti Noor Aishah sebelum ini ditahan di bawah Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1956 (Poca) dan Sosma.

    "Pada saya, dia ditahan berulang kali, sebelum mahkamah dapati dirinya bersalah terhadap sebarang tuduhan.

    “Ini ibarat hukuman sebelum bersalah. Hingga terpaksa (menggunakan) kedua-dua Sosma dan Poca," kata peguamnya, Mohd Kamarulzaman A Wahab kepada Malaysiakini hari ini.

    Siti Noor Aishah, 29, pertama kali ditahan pada Mac tahun lalu, di bawah Seksyen 130JB Kanun Keseksaan dan Sosma, kerana memiliki 12 buah buku yang didakwa berkaitan dengan kumpulan pengganas.

    Pada bulan berikutnya, dia didakwa di Mahkamah Tinggi di Kuala Lumpur dan tidak mengaku bersalah memiliki buku-buku berkenaan, selepas kes itu dibicarakan.

    Siti Noor Aishah, seorang bekas pelajar sarjana Usuluddin, Universiti Malaya, berkata beliau menggunakan buku-buku berkenaan untuk penyelidikan ijazah sarjananya.

    Selepas dia ditangkap pada Mac tahun lalu, Universiti Malaya memecatnya, kerana gagal menghadiri kelas.

    Kamarulzaman berkata tiada satu pun buku diharamkan oleh Kementerian Dalam Negeri, ketika itu, mahupun sekarang.

    Pada bulan September tahun lalu Mahkamah Tinggi melepas dan membebaskan Siti Noor Aishah daripada semua pertuduhan atas alasan tiada kes prima facie dibuktikan terhadapnya.

    Pada hari yang sama, beliau dibebaskan, Siti Noor Aishah ditangkap semula di bawah Poca dan ditahan selama 60 hari.

    Sebaik dibebaskan daripada Poca, beliau diletakkan di bawah tahanan rumah, dengan peranti pengawasan elektronik dipasang. Beliau juga tidak dibenarkan untuk meninggalkan daerah Surah di Dungun, Terengganu, tanpa kelulusan polis.

    "Kes berkenaan dihantar semula ke Mahkamah Tinggi untuk dia membela diri, tetapi sebaliknya dia ditahan lagi.

    “Kes ini balik semula kepada status quo, tanpa sebarang ikat jamin dibenarkan sementara menunggu perbicaraan," kata Kamarulzaman tentang penangkapan itu semalam.- Malaysiakini, 28/3/2017

    GDP - Is UMNO-BN borrowing to increase spending to increase GDP? Debt RM908.7 Billion, Reserves RM426Billion only?

    UMNO-BN government have been relying on Malaysia's GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT(GDP) to give the impression that all is well in Malaysia but is it true or a lie. Many do not know what really is GDP and how it is calculated, and so I have done some research and hope this will help you understand a bit more.

    A person with increasing debt is certainly not a person who is economically good. Malaysia's external debt is now RM908.7bil in 2016(according to the government)...and it looks that Malaysia's reserve(US$95bil (RM426.3bil) is not sufficient to cover the debt...

    GDP values can be 'manipulated' - one way to do this is allegedly 'pumping in more money' into the economy...Has Malaysia been borrowing and 'pumping in money' to maintain the impression that the current UMNO-BN is doing a 'good' job? The people of Malaysia must start educating themselves ...about the more important realities - and decide for themselves...what they want...

    Is it Malaysians that are contributing to GDP - or is it really foreign companies? GDP certainly is not reflective of economic wellbeing of Malaysians and their families...

    How did Malaysia come to this state - it maybe too simplistic to blame oil prices - more justified to blame the UMNO-BN government ....

    GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT - A lie or the truth of the well being of the Malaysian people?

    Definition: Gross domestic product is the best way to measure a country's economy. GDP is the total value of everything produced by all the people and companies in the country. It doesn't matter if they are citizens or foreign-owned companies. If they are located within the country's boundaries, the government counts their production as GDP. -
    So, if a German company is situated in Malaysia, and it produces RM1 billion worth of products - we take it into consideration for Malaysia's GDP? In fact, what Malaysians get would only be the salaries of Malaysian workers, the levy and other fees imposed on migrant workers working there, taxes and duties imposed, land tax, 'cukai pintu' , cost of Malaysia's own citizens-made products, profits made by the supply of products by Malaysian-owned companies...What a foreign company produces really do not belong to Malaysia or Malaysians, does it? Likewise what foreigners earn, save for taxes imposed, belongs to foreigners?

    Well, GDP has also various different calculation methods, but it should all give the same result. Let's look at what is said to be the most common method of calculation...

    Gross domestic product can be calculated using the following formula:

    GDP = C + G + I + NX

    C is equal to all private consumption, or consumer spending, in a nation's economy, G is the sum of government spending, I is the sum of all the country's investment, including businesses capital expenditures and NX is the nation's total net exports, calculated as total exports minus total imports (NX = Exports - Imports).
    C is consumer spending - Thus, if we spend more it improves our GDP. Well, the government actions and/or failures results in the increase of the cost of living - then naturally the spending increases, would it not? Kopi O Ice used to cost RM1, now it is RM2.30?
    G is the sum of government spending - well, then the government simply have to spend more and it will make our GDP look better. It looks at spending, so if Malaysia borrows billions and spends it - it will improve the GDP, irrespective of the rise of Malaysia's debt. Recent Bank Negara report now puts Malaysia's external debt at RM908.7 billion. About two third in foreign currencies, so drop of the ringgit will increase this debt..and 25% of Malaysia's export earning is used to pay back loans and loan interest... In the GDP calculation, it seems to be not bothered about the country's debt - only the spending. So, did Malaysia just simply borrow and borrow more to just to spend more and keep our GDP high? Well, in my opinion, that will mean that the economic well being have really not improved..During the Mahathir era, our debt was stable at about RM40 billion - after Pak Lah and Najib took over, it has been increasing at a dangerous rate - now, according to Bank Negara, it is as high as RM908.7 billion in 2016 - now possibly even higher...

    Malaysia’s total external debt rose 9% to RM908.7bil in 2016, Bank Negara said, which is equal to 73.9% of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP).

    Slightly less than two-thirds of the country’s external debt are denominated in foreign currencies. About a third of this debt is made up of interbank borrowings and foreign currency deposits in local banks. 

    Excluding the valuation effects, Malaysia’s external debt was 6.2% higher.

    Meanwhile, the country’s debt service ratio, or which includes payment of principal and interest, went up to 25% of its export earnings, compared with 22.6% in 2015 and 19.1% in 2014.- Star, 24/3/2017
    I is the sum of the country's investment - not too sure what it means? Are we talking about foreign investment into Malaysia? It includes capital expenditure as well? Would capital expenditure also include wages? But foreign investment is really 'unstable' - because foreign MNCs can so easily run to another country - so, to keep them here, Malaysia has to make Malaysia attractive - low wages, weaker unions, precarious employment (easy fire?easy terminate?), maybe even lower water and electricity tariff? Maybe even lower 'taxes'? Preferential treatment for foreign MNCs without providing the same to locally owned companies, will make it more difficult for locally owned businesses to survive...and they die.

    NX is the nation's total net exports - well, it not the money earned by the government by way of taxes, duties, etc. A Japanese company imports materials from overseas, and exports its products - What does Malaysia really gain save for the taxes....?
    In short, GDP is far from a real indicator of the economic well-being of Malaysians...For that we need to look at actual earnings of Malaysians, and actual earnings of the Malaysian government through taxes, duties and various fees charged. 

    What is REAL state of the economic wellbeing  of Malaysia and Malaysians - give us the real statistics of Malaysian individuals and family earnings - How many families earn less than RM1,000 per month, How many earn less than RM2,000 and so on... Now all that government generally provide is the MEAN earnings which is the average, and it gives no clear picture when the richest may be earning RM1 billion per month, and the poorest RM50...MEDIAN gives a better indicator, but still not a complete picture, a median is the list of earnings of say 100 persons, lowest to highest - and the median is what the 50th person earns...
    Did the UMNO-BN government borrow money to pump it into the Malaysian economy to give us the 'false' impression that Malaysia is doing well? Looking at the ever increasing external debt, that possibility is very real? On the face of it, Malaysia seems to be 'always' growing - but then our debt has skyrocketed. Loans need to be repayed with interest and this government may really not be bothered to what happens to Malaysia in the future...pumping in money into the economy also can result in the increase in the cost of living..Now, Malaysia's expenditure annually to make loan payments and interest have been increasing...
    According to standard macroeconomic theory, an increase in the supply of money should lower the interest rates in the economy, leading to more consumption and lending/borrowing. In the short run, this should, but does not always, correlate to an increase in total output and spending and, presumably, GDP. The long-run effects of an increase in the money supply are much more difficult to predict. There is a strong historical tendency for asset prices, such as housing, stocks, etc., to artificially rise after too much liquidity enters the economy. This misallocation of capital leads to waste and speculative investments, often resulting in burst bubbles and recession. On the other hand, it is possible money is not misallocated, and the only long-term effect is higher prices than consumers normally would have faced. - Investopedia
    Bank Negara says that ' Malaysia’s total external debt rose 9% to RM908.7bil in 2016' - but I wonder, whether we have considered how much Malaysia is committed as guarantor? Malaysian government stands as 'guarantor' for many loans taken by others much is that? Gov’t has guaranteed RM177.8b worth of GLCs' debts? WHY? GLC not government-owned?


    Bank negara says that we have international reserves of US$95bil(RM426.3 bil), and I am afraid, as currently at end of 2016, our debt was RM908.7 billion > NOT ENOUGH EVEN TO SETTLE OUR DEBTS?  Would that mean, Malaysia may need to sell its lands and assets to settle its debts?

    At the end of 2016, Bank Negara’s international reserves stood at US$94.5bil (RM423.9bil).As at Feb 28, 2017, the reserves amounted to US$95bil (RM426.3bil). The central bank said the reserves were ample to facilitate international transactions and sufficient to finance 8.5 months of retained imports and were equivalent to 1.1 times the short-term external debt.- Star, 24/3/2017

    RM423.9bil equal to 1.1 times the short-term external debt - that is very scary to me. Remember also that some debts do not have fixed interest rates - for example Bonds. See earlier post:- 1MDB, Malaysian Bonds, Moody, Credit Rating - More Worries for Malaysians?
    There have been countries that have shown an increasing GDP but in reality the real situation was bad...There can also be 'lies' - now there are allegations that China is lying about the GDP. What about Malaysia? 
    What is the real state of economic wellbeing of individuals and families in Malaysia today. Have Malaysians been led to believe that we have been well - when we really are not? Are government borrowings being used to 'pop-up' our GDP? 

    Sadly, Malaysian politicians (backbenchers and Opposition politicians especially) have mostly not been keeping us all informed about the economic reality of Malaysia - WHY? Incompetent and inefficient? Illiterate about such 'serious' matters? Do we need better politicians and political parties?

    UMNO-BN government have been slowly denying us relevant information. 

    How many Malaysians earn less than RM500? RM1,000? RM1,500?...per month...

    How many Malaysian families earn less than  RM500? RM1,000? RM1,500?...per month...

    What is the poverty line income in Malaysia for an individual? for a family?...Very hard to get this information ...Why? What is the UMNO-BN government hiding?

    What is the number of petty crimes like theft, etc - many a times this also is an indication of the economic wellbeing of Malaysians... Petty crimes usually increase when the number of desparate poor that find difficulty earning an income to support themselves and their families...(now we have 'crime index' - and no real statistical details of the number of crimes...) What is the government hiding..

    Cost of living has really increased - but at the same time income including wages have not increased at the same rate...hence, have real wages and/or income of Malaysia really gone down...

    Many Malaysians are really in debt - they are purchasing things on credit cards and by getting loans...But then, there is a decline on stable employment - regular employment until retirement...Retrenchment have been increasing...and note that when you do not make your monthly payments, you can lose your homes, your cars, your telephone services, etc...

    TELL US THE TRUTH - What really is the state of economic wellbeing of Malaysians and their families...We know that Members of Parliament and State Legislative Assembly Persons are earning well...but what about the rest of Malaysians... ?

    Friday, 24 March 2017

    Bank Negara: External debt remains manageable

    Currency weakness: The weaker ringgit adds to higher cost of foreign debts
    Currency weakness: The weaker ringgit adds to higher cost of foreign debts

    PETALING JAYA: The weaker ringgit contributed to the higher cost of foreign debts.

    Malaysia’s total external debt rose 9% to RM908.7bil in 2016, Bank Negara said, which is equal to 73.9% of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP).

    Slightly less than two-thirds of the country’s external debt are denominated in foreign currencies. About a third of this debt is made up of interbank borrowings and foreign currency deposits in local banks. 

    Excluding the valuation effects, Malaysia’s external debt was 6.2% higher.

    Meanwhile, the country’s debt service ratio, or which includes payment of principal and interest, went up to 25% of its export earnings, compared with 22.6% in 2015 and 19.1% in 2014.

    In its 2016 annual report, the central bank said the country’s external debt remained manageable, given its currency, maturity and balance sheet profiles.

    “The profile of Malaysia’s external debt remained healthy with more than one-third of total external debt being denominated in ringgit, thus limiting the risks arising from foreign exchange fluctuations.

    “The remaining portion of the external debt, which is denominated in foreign currency, is mostly hedged either naturally using export earnings or through the use of financial instruments,” it said.

    Most of these debts, it said, were offshore borrowings, which were raised mainly to expand productive capacity and to improve the managenent of financial resources within corporate groups.

    At the end of 2016, the country’s offshore borrowings fell to 42.7% of the GDP compared to 60% of GDP during the Asian Financial Crisis.

    Bank Negara said the rollover risks were also contained, as 58.6% of the total external debt was of medium to long-term maturity.

    “In addition, not all short-term external debts pose a claim on reserves due to the availability of export earnings and external assets which enable borrowers to meet external obligations without necessarily creating a claim on international reserves,” it said.

    At the end of 2016, Bank Negara’s international reserves stood at US$94.5bil (RM423.9bil).

    As at Feb 28, 2017, the reserves amounted to US$95bil (RM426.3bil).

    The central bank said the reserves were ample to facilitate international transactions and sufficient to finance 8.5 months of retained imports and were equivalent to 1.1 times the short-term external debt. - - Star, 24/3/2017

    Monday, March 27, 2017

    UMNO-BN must trust Judges to pronounce right sentences - Repeal Mandatory Death Penalty

    UMNO-BN government just do not trust Malaysian judges - so through laws, they create mandatory death penalty - no chance for the judges to exercise their discretion when it comes to sentencing. To those who really do not deserve, and to those who really deserve - execution....kill them all. Justice - I do not think it is. Our values and principles - well, certainly not - our objective must be the reform of the criminal, not the extinguishing of his/her life.. 

    Well, after a long time, Najib's Cabinet seem agreeable to the abolition of the death penalty for drug offences. Why stop there? Abolish all mandatory death penalty....Why is the UMNO-BN government not ready to do this? 

    Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Azalina Othman, the new de facto Law Minister, during the Parliamentary session on 2/11/2016 clarified that Malaysia was not just looking at the mandatory death penalty, but all death penalty. They were considering possibly replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment. It was indicated that further studies were to be done, and that. "The decision on the implementation of the death penalty in this country, either be repealed or maintained, is a policy matter to be decided by the government based on the results of the study,"(The Sun Daily, 3/11/2016)

    In fact, abolish all death penalty - if we believe in repentance, mercy and reform...It has many times been pointed out that our administration of justice system can make mistakes, and it is greatly unjust to hang an 'innocent' man. 

    Islam - well, here we are talking about death penalty and mandatory death penalty in what is not Islamic law. So, I am sure that Muslims will also not object to the abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia...

    MORATORIUM - no executions until the government completes its study whether to abolish the death penalty or not. No reasonable country will continue killing persons when the country may tomorrow abolish the death penalty...Our Minister in Charge, , have told us that Malaysia is studying 


    Sunday, 26 March 2017

    Ex-judges want review of mandatory death penalty

    PETALING JAYA: The proposed amendments to review the mandatory death sentence for drug trafficking will give judges wider discretion when deciding if a person is to hang, says former chief justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim.

    He said giving judges leeway for dis­­cretion would be a positive move in some circumstances.

    “There are some situations where a crime might not warrant the death penalty. If this amendment is allowed, judges would be able to use their own discretion,” he said when met after a legal lecture he delivered yesterday.

    He was responding to the Cabi­net’s agreement to review the Dange­rous Drugs Act 1952 to allow judges to use their discretion in sentencing offenders instead of impo­sing the mandatory death sentence.

    Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Azalina Oth­man Said, who made the announcement last week, said the review would enable judges to mete out suitable sentences in marginal ca­­­ses where offenders could be jailed instead.

    She said the review was presented to the Cabinet on March 1 by Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali.

    Ahmad Fairuz said during his time on the Federal Court bench, the duty of having to sentence a man to death weighed on the conscience.

    Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, who was a former minister in charge of law, said judges would have the option to mete out suitable senten­ces on a case-by-case basis.

    “We always worry that judges do not have other options than the man­datory death sentence. In some cases, there is not much evidence, but the judges have no other options but to give the death penalty,” he said.

    Nazri said the move to give jud­ges more discretion over the death penalty in drug trafficking cases was long overdue.

    He said the proposed amendments to provide such discretionary powers to judges had come during his tenure when he was in charge of the law portfolio.

    “When I was the minister, there were about 240 Malaysians who are suspected to be drug mules all over the world. Some of their family members came to see me personally and pleaded for leniency.

    “We also can use this to negotiate with other governments who have arrested Malaysians suspected to be drug mules,” he added.

    Nazri said another factor that was considered was that there were cases that judges who do not wish to mete out death sentences in drug trafficking cases.

    “Some judges do not believe in the death penalty. So when the case comes before them, although there was enough evidence to impose a conviction, they will find some technicality to acquit the person,” he said.

    Former court of appeal judge Da­­tuk Mah Weng Kwai, who is also Su­hakam commissioner, is in fa­­vour of abolishing the death penalty.

    “As for sentencing in cases of Section 39(B) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, I believe that the grant of judicial discretion to judges is a step forward,” he said.

    Senior criminal law practitioner Kitson Foong said the move would address cases of drug mules where the offender might be an innocent carrier.

    “This will be a good opportunity for the court to spare the life of an individual who has been used by drug cartels,” he said.- Star, 25/3/2017

    Monday, 27 March 2017

    Lam Thye suggests moratorium on death penalty cases

    PETALING JAYA: The Government should consider whether its review of the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking should include making it retrospective on pending cases, said social activist Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye (pic).

    Lee said the proposal for the review under Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act was timely as this could help prevent a “travesty of justice”.

    Judges, he said, must be given the discretion to mete out suitable sentences on a case by case basis, especially for drug mules.

    “While supporting the review of Section 39B, I also hope that the Government will address the issue raised by lawmakers and legal practitioners, including whether the move, if approved, could have a retrospective effect on pending death penalty cases,” he said in a statement here yesterday.

    He also called on the Government to decide whether a moratorium should be imposed on pending cases so as to ensure justice for those facing such charges.

    Lee was responding to a report in The Star that lawyers and human rights groups had called for all pending executions to be put on hold while the decision by the Government to review the death penalty for drug trafficking was being deliberated.

    Last week, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said said that the review would enable judges to mete out suitable sentences in marginal cases where the offenders could be jailed instead.

    She said the review was presented to the Cabinet on March 1 by Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali.

    Lee said at the same time, authorities must intensify efforts to reduce drug trafficking, addiction and other drug-related crimes through preventive education, adding that “prevention is always better than cure”.

    Citing a report from Amnesty International, he said the death penalty should only be used for the “most serious crimes” like murder.

    “It (the report) says that drug crime does not meet that threshold. Various United Nations bodies have repeatedly said that it falls short of the ‘most serious crimes’,” he pointed out.


    Press Release | Judicial Discretion is a Positive Step Towards Abolition of the Death Penalty

    Saturday, 25 March 2017 10:57am
    ImageThe Malaysian Bar welcomes the announcement by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of legal affairs YB Dato’ Sri Azalina Othman Said that, following a presentation by Attorney General Tan Sri Dato’ Sri Haji Mohamed Apandi Haji Ali, the Cabinet has agreed to review Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, with a view to removing the mandatory death penalty and restoring judicial discretion in sentencing.  It has been reported that the Minister has directed that the necessary legislative amendments be drafted.  

    It is prudent and just that the decision regarding whether to impose the death penalty be left to the discretion of the Judge.  The statutory imposition of the mandatory punishment prohibits Judges from considering mitigating factors and circumstances that surround each case, before sentencing.  Such mitigating factors can include, and are not limited to, the offender’s age, rehabilitation goals, past criminal record, role played in the offence, mental capacity, reparations made, fear of another person, use of violence, harm done to property or persons, and degree of cooperation with the authorities.  Furthermore, studies have shown that there is no conclusive evidence of the deterrent value of the death penalty, particularly in respect of drug offences. 

    Given the imminent amendments to the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, the Malaysian Bar renews our call to the Government to officially declare and implement a moratorium on all pending executions.  In the interest of justice and fairness, no executions should be carried out when reforms are in progress.  It is only right that when the reforms come into effect, they should be applied retrospectively.

    While the proposed review relates only to the mandatory death penalty as provided in the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, the Malaysian Bar reiterates that the death penalty is an extreme, abhorrent and inhumane punishment, irrespective of the crime committed.  There are also provisions for the imposition of the mandatory death penalty in the Penal Code and Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971, and of the discretionary death penalty in the Kidnapping Act 1961.

    The Malaysian Bar calls upon the Government to act swiftly to abolish the death penalty for all crimes, and to uphold the right to life, which is absolute, universal and inalienable.

    George Varughese
    Malaysian Bar 

    25 March 2017

    Thursday, March 23, 2017

    HRD Lena Hendry fined RM10,000...


    See earlier related posts:-   

    ARTICLE 19, ALIRAN, PROHAM, NUBE,WH4C & 111 Others say Drop Charges against Lena Hendry 

    Lena Hendry - Drop Charges says ICJ, Article 19, FIDH, Front Line, OMCT & 116 other groups 

    HR Defender Lena Hendry Acquitted by Court - Draconian law remains..?

    HRD Lena Hendry found Guilty - A Sad day for Human Rights?

    Lena Hendry fined RM10,000 for airing documentary

     | March 22, 2017 
    Human rights activist found guilty last month of screening documentary on Sri Lankan civil war, No Fire Zone: The Killing Fields of Sri Lanka.


    KUALA LUMPUR: Human rights activist Lena Hendry was fined RM10,000 for airing an uncensored documentary on the Sri Lankan civil war in 2013.

    Magistrate Mohd Rehan Mohd Aris meted out the fine after the court had deliberated an appropriate sentence to be imposed on the Pusat Komas programme coordinator.

    “After reading the submissions from the defence and prosecution, the court decided to impose a RM10,000 fine on the accused,” he told the packed courtroom.

    Lena faces a one-year jail term if she fails to settle the RM10,000 fine.

    The court also ordered Lena to settle the fine by today.

    Last month, the court found Lena guilty of the charge under Section 6(1)(b) of the Film Censorship Act for showing No Fire Zone: The Killing Fields of Sri Lanka, a documentary on the Sri Lankan civil war that lasted for 26 years.

    Lena committed the offence at the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Chamber of Commmerce Hall here on July 3, 2013.

    The court granted her a stay of execution on her jail sentence pending any appeal, however, Lena decided to pay the fine.

    She was first acquitted by the same Magistrate on March last year at the end of the prosecution’s case.

    However, the High Court overturned the acquittal and order Lena to enter defence for her charge.

    Lena was represented by lawyer New Sin Yew and Joshua Tay while deputy public prosecutor Nurakmal Farhan Aziz appeared for the prosecution.- FMT News, 22/3/2017

    Wednesday, March 22, 2017

    Siti Noor Aishah - POCA,POTA..dimansuhkan - Resolusi Badan Peguam

    Kes Siti Noor Aishah Atam mendapat perhatian lebih 800 peguam yang menghadiri Mesyuarat Agung Badan Peguam pada 18/3/2017 - di mana satu Resolusi mengenai Siti Noor Aishah dan mangsa lain Akta POCA dan akta lain yang membenarkan penahanan tanpa bicara telah diluluskan. 

    Resolusi menuntut agar POTA, POTA dan akta sedemikian yang memberikan penahanan tanpa bicara dimansuhkan. Sekiranya anda ditahan atau dihadkan kebebasan di Akta membenarkan tahanan tanpa bicara sedemikian, anda tidak ada hak untuk mencabar SEBAB penahanan. Yang TIDAK bersalah pun boleh dengan senang dimangsakan. Mahkamah Tinggi telah mendapati Siti tidak bersalah dan telah bebaskan beliau tetapi terus selepas itu menjadi mangsa akta tanpa bicara...

    Bila polis tahan anda, mereka hanya boleh tahan maksima 24 jam - jika mahu tahan lebih lama, mereka perlu bawa orang yang disyaki kepada Majistret dan seteruskan dapatkan perintah reman daripada Majistret. Majistret akan mengambil kira hujahan pihak polis, orang yang disyaki(atau peguam beliau) dan juga akan mengkaji Diari polis untuk menentukan apakah penyiasatan yang sudah dilakukan. Berasaskan semua ini, Majistret akan memutuskan sama ada tahanan reman dilanjutkan atau tidak, serta untuk berapa lama secara wajar...

    Tetapi jika POCA atau POTA digunakan, budibicara Majistret terus dirampas. Apa yang diperlukan hanya kenyataan polis dan terpaksa Majistret memberikan perintah reman 21 hari. Selepas itu, jika polis bawa kenyataan polis dan kenyataan pendakwa raya, terpaksa Majistret melanjutkan reman untuk 38 hari.

    Teruk lagi jika SOSMA digunakan, tak perlu pun di bawa kepada Majistret. Polis sendiri dapat lanjutkan reman untuk 21 hari..

    Sejak Mei 2014, POCA bertambah bahawa - dulu dihadkan kepada jenayah melibatkan kekerasan dan ugutan...tetapi kini boleh dipakai untuk semua jenayah didalam Kanun Keseksaan...dan asalkan 2 atau 3 orang terlibat, boleh dipakai. Sama ada ia digunakan secara betul atau ikut had yang ditetapkan, kita tidak akan tahu secara pasti - kita kena percaya polis dan/atau kerajaan UMNO-BN. Kini, Mahkamah sendiri tidak boleh lagi mengkaji SEBAB mengapa seseorang dijadikan mangsa POCA dan/atau POTA...Tak buat salah pun boleh jadi mangsa - dan tak ada cara kini untuk membetulkan keadaan dan mendapatkan keadilan...

    Kalau pakai POCA atau mana-mana Akta Tanpa Bicara - senang sangat bagi polis dan/atau pentadbiran kerajaan...tak ada keterangan pun boleh ...kan tak boleh kita bawa kes kepada Mahkamah untuk mengkaji semula alasan dan asas pengunaan Akta tersebut...

    Akta sedemikian harus dimansuhkan...Baca Resolusi Badan Peguam yang telah disokong majoriti besar peguam yang hadhir  - hanya beberapa yang membantah atau berkecuali...

    Malangnya media massa tak melapurkan dengan jelas kandungan Resolusi ini...yang saya anggap sangat penting untuk rakyat Malaysia...hari ini mungkin anda selamat, tetapi besuk macam mana - anda atau kenalan saudara akan menjadi mangsa...

    Dalam demokrasi, Mahkamah memainkan peranan penting - untuk memastikan tidak ada salahlaku pihak polis atau pentadbiran kerajaan...Justeru, rakyat yang dimangsakan boleh menuntut Mahkamah mengkaji semula(judicial review, dll) mana-mana keputusan kerajaan(Menteri,polis, dll...) - tetapi Akta tanpa bicara menghalang Mahkamah melihat sama ada SEBAB dan atau ASAS pengunaan Akta tanpa bicara ini digunakan adalah betul dan/atau wajar...Kuasa Hakim dan Mahkamah dirampas...

    Jika anda atau kenalan anda menjadi mangsa Akta tanpa bicara, bawa kepada perhatian Majlis Peguam, SUHAKAM, dll...

    Mangsa POCA, POTA...biasa bukan orang kenalan ramai atau 'celebriti' - tetapi warga biasa saperti Siti Noor Aishah ...Adakah PAS, DAP, PKR, Amanah, MCA, MIC, Gerakan, UMNO, dll...prihatin mengenai rakyat biasa saperti ini? Bila tokoh politik jadi mangsa, barulah heboh dan bising...

    Resolution for the Repeal of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 and All Detention Without Trial Laws, and Provision for Compensation for Deprivation of Liberty of the Innocent

    (1) The case of Siti Noor Aishah Atam highlighted the very real possibility that innocent persons are wrongly made victims of draconian laws that allow for detention without trial.  Most victims are totally denied the right to a fair trial, but Siti Noor Aishah Atam, despite being acquitted by the courts, was still was subjected thereafter to detention without trial laws.

    Detention Without Trial Laws

    (2) Detention without trial continues to exist in Malaysia despite the fact that the draconian Internal Security Act 1960 (“ISA”) and the Emergency (Public Order and Crimes Prevention) Ordinance 1969 have been repealed.
    (3) The Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 [Act 747] (“SOSMA”), which came into force on 31 July 2012 vide section 32(1), and repealed the ISA.  The Emergency (Public Order and Crimes Prevention) Ordinance 1969 was also repealed in 2013.

    (4) The Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985, which provides for detentions and/or restrictions without trial, still remains.  Vide Resolution under subsection 1(4) [PU(B) 241/2015], this Act was extended for a further period of five years with effect from 15 June 2015.

    (5) Other laws that provided for detention without trial today include the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (“POCA”), following amendments in 2014, and the new Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 (“POTA”).

    (6) Vide Prevention of Crime (Amendment And Extension) Act 2014, a new Part IVA entitled “Detention Orders” was inserted, which now allows for detention without trial orders.  Section 19A, amongst others state, “. . . . (1) The Board may, after considering the report of the Inquiry Officer . . . . and the outcome of any review under section 11, direct that any registered person be detained under a detention order for a period not exceeding two years, and may renew any such detention order for a further period not exceeding two years at a time, if it is satisfied that such detention is necessary in the interest of public order, public security or prevention of crime . . .”.

    No Judicial Review to Challenge the Reasons One is Victimised

    (7) Like the now repealed draconian ISA, there shall be no judicial review with regards the reasons or justification of detention and/or restriction orders under these detention without trial laws, but only “in regard to any question on compliance with any procedural requirement in this Act governing such act or decision”.  Section 15A(1) POCA states that “ . . . . There shall be no judicial review in any court of, and no court shall have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of, any act done or decision made by the Board in the exercise of its discretionary power in accordance with this Act, except in regard to any question on compliance with any procedural requirement in this Act governing such act or decision”.

    (8) POCA’s usage which was originally limited for triads or crime gangs have been significantly extended vide Prevention of Crime (Amendment of First and Second Schedule) Order 2014 [PU(A) 122/2014], which came into force in 2 May 2014.  Whilst previously limited for those persons who belong to any group, body, gang or association of 5 more persons who associate for purposes which include the commission of offences “involving violence or extortion” — it was extended to all offences under the Penal Code, and persons who also consort with these groups of two or more persons.  As such, now any person who allegedly commits any Penal Code offence with two or more persons can now be subjected to POCA, irrespective of whether it involved violence or not.

    (9) POCA now can also be used against persons allegedly involved in the trafficking in dangerous drugs, in trafficking of persons and smuggling of migrants, and those who benefit from such actions.  It can be used against those who allegedly engage in the commission or support of terrorist acts under the Penal Code.  It can also be used for persons who recruit, or agree to recruit, another person to participate in the commission of an offence.

    (10) POCA can also be used against “. . . . all persons who, being not less than twenty-one years of age, have since attaining the age of seventeen been convicted on at least three occasions of offences involving dishonesty or violence”.

    (11) The breadth of the application of POCA is draconian, and it opens to the possibility of unchecked abuse by the police, public prosecutors and the Government.  It undermines the safeguards to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

    Remand Devoid of Judicial Discretion

    (12) With regard to post arrest remand for the purposes of investigation, Parliament amended the Criminal Procedure Code, restricting also the permissible length of remand orders by Magistrates (section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code), where even “if the offence which is being investigated is punishable with death or imprisonment of fourteen years or more, the detention shall not be more than seven days on the first application and shall not be more than seven days on the second application”.  The Magistrate is empowered to exercise his/her judicial discretion, after considering the representations made either by the accused himself; or through a counsel of his choice; the representations of the police or the prosecutors; including also considering what the police had done since arrest as contained in the police diary.  Now, even if dissatisfied with the decision of the Magistrate, there is still the possibility of revision by the High Court Judge.

    (13) Parliament amended the law concerning remand, possibly to prevent abuse of remand but all these safeguards are ignored if POCA, POTA and/or SOSMA is/are used.

    (14) When POCA is used, all that is needed is a production of a statement in writing signed by a police officer not below the rank of Inspector, stating that there are grounds for believing that the name of that person should be entered on the Register, and the Magistrate has no choice but to remand the person in police custody for a period of 21 days. (Before the 2014 amendment, the required statement was of a police officer not below the rank of Assistant Superintendent — now just an Inspector will suffice.)  Judicial discretion of the Magistrate in the remand proceeding is ousted.  The right to be heard of the suspect and/or his lawyer is denied.

    (15) For a further remand, all that is required is a statement in writing signed by the Public Prosecutor and a statement by a police officer not below the rank of Assistant Superintendent, the suspect will be remanded for a further period of 38 days.

    (16) The same when POTA is used, judicial discretion of the Magistrate is ousted.  On the production of the statements by the police, and subsequently the police and public prosecutor, the Magistrate has no choice but give the remand order of 21 days, and thereafter 38 days.  The right to be heard is denied, and the judicial discretion of a Magistrate is ousted.

    (17) When SOSMA is used, there is not even the need to bring the suspect before the Magistrate.  A police officer of or above the rank of Superintendent of Police may extend the period of detention for a period of not more than 28 days, for the purpose of investigation.

    Right to Consult and/or Be Represented by Lawyer Curtailed and/or Denied to Persons Subject to Inquiry and/or Witnesses

    (18) Under POCA, the right to be represented by a lawyer during the inquiry is limited, as stated in section 9(5): “Neither the person who is the subject of the inquiry nor a witness at an inquiry shall be represented by an advocate and solicitor at the inquiry except when his own evidence is being taken and recorded by the Inquiry Officer.”

    (19) There is not even the right to be present and/or represented during the inquiry when evidence is taken from other witnesses and/or sources, let alone the right to cross-examine let alone challenge alleged evidence against the victim of these detention without trial laws.

    (20) It must be noted, that the right to be represented by a lawyer is denied to any person/s in detention and/or confined in prison when the Inquiry Officer conducts his inquiry.  Section 9A(2) states: “(2) Nothing in this section shall authorise the attendance of the subject of the inquiry or his advocate and solicitor or representative, if any, at the place of detention or prison.”
    (21) There is also no right of representation when the Inquiry Officer submits his report to the Board of Inquiry.  There is also no right to even make a submission for the consideration of the Inquiry Officer and/or Board of Inquiry before a final decision is made.  Section 9(6) states: “The Public Prosecutor may appear at an inquiry to assist the Inquiry Officer.”  But no such right to the victim or his lawyer.

    (22) The process is grossly unjust, and an innocent victim like Siti Noor Aishah Atam can easily and/or unjustly be deprived of his/her liberty, rights and freedom. 

    Danger of Abuse, Corruption and Miscarriage of Justice

    (23) Corruption has always been suspected when it comes to the police and/or prosecutors.  This possibility of corruption is escalated when detention without trial laws and SOSMA are used, especially when judicial monitoring of administrative decisions is stifled and/or excluded.  The right to be heard and the right to a fair trial are denied.

    (24) The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (“MACC”) stated that about 54% of civil servants under the age of 40 are corrupt (New Straits Times and Malaysiakini, 8 Mar 2017), and this is most disturbing.

    (25) When persons are not charged, tried and convicted, there is also the possibility that others involved in the crime will never be revealed, and will simply escape having to face justice.

    (26) Detention without trial laws encourage a lackadaisical attitude and inefficiency in the police force and other enforcement and prosecution officers, as there is now no more the need to find sufficient evidence as required by law to prove in court that one is guilty of a crime.  The case of Siti Noor Aishah Atam is evidence of this, when even the books for which she was arrested for in the first place were not even books banned in Malaysia.  The courts in that case acquitted Siti at the close of the prosecution case, as the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case.

    (27) When innocent persons are placed under detention without trial, it is also possible that the true criminals will never be caught and brought to justice.  Police may just close the files, believing that they have managed to get the real perpetrator, when the persons in detention may be some innocent person.  The belief of the police and/or prosecution in the guilt of a person is immaterial, as what is important is for the court to decide on the guilt of an accused person, also noting the large number criminal trials that have ended with acquittals.

    (28) Victims of crimes also deserve to see justice be done, and this can only happen if there is a fair trial, a conviction and a sentence.  In the absence of a conviction, victims and their families are also denied the possibility of subsequently commencing a legal action claiming for damages and/or compensation.

    (29) With the unavailability of judicial review of the reasons or justifications of the actions and/or decisions of the police, public prosecutors and/or the Board of Inquiry, including the imposition of remand orders, detention orders and/or restrictions / conditions on the victims of POCA and such detention without trial laws, the likelihood of miscarriage of justice is extremely high.  Innocent persons will be wrongly deprived of their liberty, freedom and human rights.
    Lost Right to Rely on the Double Jeopardy Principle

    (30) Worse still, for these victims of detention without trial laws is that they can always at any time during their detentions and/or any time later, be charged, convicted in court and sentenced for, the very same offences for which they were subjected to detention and/or restrictions / conditions under POCA and such detention without trial laws. 

    (31) Section 19G of POCA states: “The detention of any person under this Part shall be without prejudice to the taking of any criminal proceeding against that person, whether during or after the period of his detention.” 

    (32) The double jeopardy principle that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charge, following a valid acquittal or conviction, will not apply.

    Siti Noor Atam Aishah — Proof of the Abuse of SOSMA and POCA?

    (33) Siti Noor Aishah Atam — a 29-year-old Malaysian woman and a University of Malaya Masters of Usuluddin (Islamic Studies) student — was arrested on 22 Mar 2016, for the alleged possession of 12 books related to on Jemaah Islamiyah (“JI”), Islamic State (“IS”) and Al-Qaeda (“AQ”) at her residence.  She was charged under section 130JB(1)(a) of the Penal Code, tried, acquitted and was released by Judicial Commissioner Datuk Mohamad Shariff Abu Samah in the High Court [Di dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Jenayah 4 Kuala Lumpur di dalam Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur Perbicaraan Jenayah No: 45SO-7-5/2016].

    (34) The Public Prosecutor at the High Court applied that Siti continue to be detained under SOSMA pending the filing of the appeal, which the court denied.  A BERNAMA report carried by Sinar Harian stated: “. . . . Mahkamah turut menolak permohonan Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Mohamad Mustaffa P. Kunyalam untuk menahan Siti Noor Aishah di dalam penjara mengikut Seksyen 30(1) Akta Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-langkah Khas) 2012 (SOSMA) sementara menunggu rayuan difailkan oleh pihak pendakwaan terhadap pembebasan tertuduh. . . .’ (BernamaSinar Harian, 29 Sept 2016).

    (35) It was reported (Malaysiakini, 29 Nov 2016), that Siti Nor Aishah, after release was thereafter arrested and detained under POCA until Saturday (26 Nov 2016), and was then fitted with an electronic monitoring device (“EMD”), and asked to report every Friday at the police station in Bukit Aman for eight weeks.

    (36) She would also most likely been subjected to Restriction Orders (or Police Supervision Orders) under POCA, which could include inhibitions with regard to movement, restrictions as to the people she can communicate with, and even restrictions with regard access to the internet and social media.

    (37) The re-arrest and detention under POCA in the case of Siti Noor Aishah Atam may also be an act of contempt of court.

    (38) Siti Noor Aishah Atam’s case provides a good example, to suggest that many (if not all) of the persons who are currently detained and/or restricted may be innocent. 

    Compensation for Deprivation of Liberty, Freedoms and Rights

    (39) A person arrested and detained by police or the authorities suffers more than the loss of liberty.  It also affects his/her employment and/or income generation activities.  It impacts not just on his/her good name, and also causes much suffering to the family and dependents, including children.

    (40) All the more unjust is that these detention and/or restrictions are with regard to a person not being accorded even the right to heard and a fair trial — not even the right to a judicial review of the reasons for his loss of liberty.

    (41) As such, those under detention without trial laws must be presumed to be innocent.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in Article 11, states: “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.”

    (42) There is a need for the provision of monetary compensation and damages caused by the unjust deprivation of liberty by the State.  It is most unjust for these innocent persons not to be compensated for their loss of liberty, freedom and rights.  There are provisions in other jurisdictions.

    (43) The provision of such compensation payable by the Government would also deter police officers and others from unnecessarily detaining persons using POCA, POTA and/or SOSMA.


    (44) The Malaysian Bar opposed the passing of the Essential (Security Cases) Regulations 1975 (“ESCAR”), which were promulgated to amend the procedural and evidential rules in relation to trials for offences against national interest.  The Regulations brought draconian changes in the basic rules of evidence and the judicial discretion of the courts in meting out sentences.

    (45) In October 1977, the Malaysian Bar held an Extraordinary General Meeting (“EGM”) to discuss the ESCAR, and resolved to advise all Members of the Bar not to appear in trials under the ESCAR.

    (46) The SOSMA is similar to the ESCAR, and the Malaysian Bar need to strongly oppose its usage, and call for its repeal.

    Therefore, it is hereby resolved:

    (A) That the Malaysian Bar call on the Malaysian Government to repeal all detention without trial laws, including the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (“POCA”), Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015(“POTA”) and the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 be repealed;

    (B) That the Malaysian Bar call on the Malaysian Government to immediately and unconditionally release all those currently detained and/or restricted under detention without trials including Siti Noor Aishah Atam;

    (C) That the Malaysian Bar call on the Malaysian Government to repeal the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 [Act 747] (“SOSMA”); 

    (D) That the Malaysian Bar call on the Malaysian Government to enact laws that provide for compensation for all persons deprived of liberty by reason of detention and/or restrictions imposed under detention without trial laws and/or SOSMA;

    (E) That the Bar Council do whatsoever deemed necessary to ensure that detention without trial laws and SOSMA are repealed, that all victims of these laws are immediately and unconditionally released, that the SOSMA is repealed; and
    (F) That the Bar Council do whatsoever deemed necessary to ensure that laws are enacted to ensure just compensation is provided for all those deprived of liberty by actions of the State in the administration of criminal justice.

    The motion was proposed by Charles Hector Fernandez, Francis Pereira and Shanmugam a/l Ramasamy.