Pakatan Rakyat will take over from BN - but do we still want it?

Change of Federal Government after 50+ years from the UMNO-led Barisan Nasional (previously the UMNO-led Perikatan/Alliance) to the NEW Pakatan Rakyat government is something that we are all waiting for...

The perception that Anwar Ibrahim had gone around proclaiming that this would happen on 16 September 2008 - and the fact that it did not happen on that date has greatly affected the credibility of Anwar Ibrahim and the Pakatan Rakyat.

But Syed Husin Ali has now assured us that it will indeed happen...

If (the power transfer) is not tomorrow, it will be the day after tomorrow; if it is not in the near future, it will be in the 13th general election (due 2013),” PKR deputy president Dr Syed Husin Ali declared today.

Opening the annual congress of the party's Youth and Women’s wings this morning, the party’s No 2 conceded a lot of people were “disappointed” when the much-talked about Sept 16 plan did not take place.

However, he blamed the powers-that-be for allegedly using underhanded tactics and asserting pressure on BN lawmakers who were purportedly planning to defect to the opposition, such as monitoring their movements through the police Special Branch.- Malaysiakini, 28/11/2008, PKR: There will be change of gov't

So, it did not happen on 16 September, and it is good that Syed Husin says that it will happen...but the when still remains a mystery. We may have to wait for the next General Elections...or maybe even the elections after that.

Many of us will just be happy with a change in the Federal Government - not really bothered whether there will be any real change in policies, the way things are done, etc..

First thing, they say is that we must have a change of the Federal Government...

BUT then we must not ignore that the Pakatan Rakyat have already managed to change amnd form government in 5 very important States - and the people are looking to see whether there is any real significant change or not. To date, safe for that a bit of 'free water' in Selangor and the elections of leaders at the kampung levels in Perak, there seems to be not much changes.

Local Council Elections -- that was a 'promise' made, but that has not happened.

At least in Perak, they did allow the people to chose the local village/kampung level leaders.

I say again, they can have elections to choose the kampung level, taman level, kampung baru level...leaders at the very least...even if they do not want to have the Local Council Elections yet. There can be elections to choose the Penghulu,...even Senators.

It is all possible...and not doing it is indicative that the quest of PKR (or PR) is for the seat of power...not so much to bring about real changes.

Now, they say that the ISA and Detention Without Trial Laws will be repealed, petrol prices slashed, tol done away...blah...blah..blah - BUT will it happen when the PR finally take power.

Is there really any difference in those 5 States, that the PR has taken over? Maybe, I should just say 4 - since Kelantan has already been long in the control of PAS - now Pakatan Rakyat.

There are many issues in Malaysia. How will Pakatan Rakyat handle it? - the same way as being done by the BN, or differently...We are not hearing much about this? And we cannot say that this is because the media is 'censoring' - not now...not in this time and age when we have so many alternatives...

There has also recently been some criticism about this, and the fact that there is not even a 'shadow cabinet' of the Pakatan Rakyat.

There has also not been any steps to formally register the 'Pakatan Rakyat' - the developing of a common Pakatan Rakyat symbol, etc.. Will they still be running as DAP, PAS and PKR? Are there more parties in Pakatan Rakyat now? Is PSM part of Pakatan Rakyat?

Pakatan Rakyat rules 5 States - and is on the verge of taking over the Federal Government, and as such there must more than just 'campaigning' and 'slogans' ...and trying to get MPs to jump over.

SUARAM:-The Selangor Chief Minister should not undermine the right to assembly

Press statement: 27 November 2008

The Selangor Chief Minister should not undermine the right to assembly

SUARAM strongly condemns the suggestion made by Selangor Chief Minister Khalid Ibrahim on public assemblies in Selangor following an agreement reached with Selangor Police Chief.

Suaram is of the view that the suggestion has clearly undermined the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and is against the principles of freedom of peaceful assembly set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

According to a news report, Khalid Ibrahim was reported to have said that assemblies at public places should be no more than 15 minutes and participants need to return to private halls to continue on their agenda. He also suggested that the organiser should make an official request to the police for such an event.

The Chief Minister’s suggestion is clearly an executive intervention aimed to re-interpret and water down the human rights standard on freedom of assembly in Malaysia . We fear that the suggested restriction by the state executive will only worsen the current climate of harassment and intimidation on public assemblies. This allows for further restriction to the rights to assemble which has already been limited by the police in their highhanded selective and arbitrary actions.

In Malaysia , the right to assemble peacefully is provided for by the Article 10 (1)(b) of the Federal Constitution. The right to assemble is also a universal basic human right which is clearly stated in Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and other related international human rights conventions.

We would like to remind the Chief Minister about the two successful mass assemblies in 2007, organised by BERSIH and HINDRAF respectively. The two assemblies are clear proof that Malaysians are capable of holding peaceful assemblies. The Chief Minister also definitely failed to note the recognition and recommendations made by Suhakam and the 2005 Royal Police Commission on the right to assembly as both the commissions recommended that Section 27 of the Police Act that imposes restriction on public assemblies be repealed.

The Selangor Chief Minister’s suggestion also goes against the Selangor state government’s pledge to uphold human rights and democracy principles. The Chief Minister should be mindful that 9 months ago, prior to the general election, a number of the State Assembly representatives and EXCO members were also on the streets in solidarity with the people to protest against policies of the federal government.

The Selangor state government should therefore not back-peddle and compromise on human rights standards with suggestions that undermine the internationally accepted standards on the right to assembly.

We therefore call on the Chief Minister to withdraw his suggestion immediately and work towards realizing the wishes of people in promoting the exercise of human rights in this country. The Selangor state government should call for all legal restrictions on peaceful assembly to be repealed and promote the people’s right to assemble.

Released By,
Tah Moon Hui
SUARAM coordinator

Muslim in Malaysia have no Religious Freedom..?

Well, that seems to be the position taken by a former judge...

PUTRAJAYA, Nov 19 (Bernama) -- The concept of religous freedom does not apply to Muslims in the country, a retired high court judge told an international seminar here.

Datuk Faiza Tamby Chik said, as far as enacted law was concerned, it was clear that it was not easy for one to abandon the practices of the faith.

Citing the case of Lina Joy's renunciation of Islam, Faiza said the high court in its decision ruled that a Malay under Article 160(2) of the Federal Constitution remained in the Islamic faith until his or her dying days.

"The said Malay cannot renounce his or her religion through a deed poll and seek a declaration by virtue of Article 11 of the Federal Constitution," he said when delivering a working paper entitled, 'Malay and Islam in Malaysian Constitution' at the two-day International Seminar on Comparative Laws (ISCOM 2008) which ended today.

Speakers from universities in Sydney, Syria, the Philippines participated at the seminar which was organised by Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia whose speakers also took part.

Faiza is a distinguished Fellow in Faculty of Syariah and Law from the Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia.

On the high court decision, he said the court also held that even if one was a non-Malay and embraced Islam and become a Muslim convert (mualaf) and later decided to leave the Islamic faith, he or she was still required to report and see the relevant State Islamic Authority which would decide on the renunciation of Islam.

He said non-Muslims in the country had wide religious freedom and that the primary limitation on non-Muslims applied to those whose beliefs and religious practices included the propagation of their faith.

However, Faiza said state law may prevent attempts of non-Muslims to proselyte Muslims.

He added that Article 3 of the Federal Constitution provided a balancing clause that other religions might practice in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.
-- BERNAMA - 19/11/2008, Religious Freedom Does Not Apply To Muslims Here, Says Retired Judge

RELA raid - 1 Dead...1 seriously injured. Abolish RELA.

RELA raid...and another death. It was a raid by apparently just the RELA...(the 'volunteer vigilante corp'). Where were the professional law enforcers - the Police, the Immigration Enforcement Officers during this raid?

"The operation at Jalan Changkat 19/1, involving eight Rela officers, was conducted after Rela received reports of illegal immigrants staying in the unit...."

This is NOT the FIRST time that deaths have allegedly resulted during RELA raids.

I hope that the police immediately commence criminal investigations (or SUHAKAM does an immediate inquiry) to find out what really happened. To determine whether the death was a mere accident or not. Are there any RELA member who are criminally (or otherwise) responsible for the death? Was the death caused by the absence (or lack) of professional training when the raid was conducted?

The undocumented migrant would generally face arrest, detention and deportation. Worse case scenario some WHIPPING..and a jail term...but this is not so bad for a person to 'jump to his death' for, is it. Was he pushed?

Investigation must be done NOW - and must involved also them who have been detained as allegedly being 'undocumented workers', before they are all deported...and the truth covered-up. We really should have PROCEDURES to immediately conduct independent inquiries into these kind of cases - within a month, when the memory is still fresh.

SHAH ALAM: A Rela raid ended in tragedy when an Indonesian illegal immigrant was killed and another seriously injured when they fell from a flat in Section 19 here yesterday.

Shah Alam police chief Assistant Commissioner Nor Azam Jamaluddin said a Rela officer lodged a police report after the 1.30am raid.

He said the Indonesian died an hour after he was discovered by Rela officers.

The injured man was being treated at Tengku Ampuan Rahimah Hospital in Klang.

Selangor Rela director Khairi Mohd Alwee said both men were believed to be hiding when Rela officers raided the fourth floor flat and detained six illegal immigrants, including two women.

Khairi said they were later found in a pool of blood on the ground floor.

He said Rela requested the help of paramedics from Civil Defence Department but one of them died.

"The operation at Jalan Changkat 19/1, involving eight Rela officers, was conducted after Rela received reports of illegal immigrants staying in the unit.

"In light of this incident, I hope all illegal immigrants surrender to the authorities during such operations.

"They should not endanger themselves by trying to flee.

"Illegals would be treated fairly by the authorities after detention."

Apart from the operation in Section 19, Rela Selangor, with the help of the Immigration Department, also conducted similar operations around Puchong and Damansara.

A total of 103 illegal immigrants were detained. - New Straits Times, 27/11/2008 - Illegal dies during raid

I wonder whether the RELA members are still being paid for each and every 'undocumented' migrant they arrest....

Migrants are human beings and should not be treated as stray dogs, and the policy and practice of paying members of the People’s Volunteer Corps (RELA) RM80-00 for each undocumented migrant must be stopped (Star, Monday January 23, 2006). Now RELA is also asking for allowance of RM24.20 for lower ranking members and RM34.20 for officers given to those participating in trainings and courses could be extended for operations (Star, Wednesday December 27, 2006 - RELA seeks allowance for staff during ops).

Syed Shahir, President MTUC during his opening speech at the MTUC/ILO Follow up Workshop on Migrant Workers in Malaysia held on 4-6 December 2006 said that this practice of using these “uniformed part-timers who have some policing powers, who were offered and did receive cash rewards for each migrant arrested as an economic incentive and this was most disturbing and embarrassing.” He also went on to say that it was sad that Home Affairs Minister Datuk Seri Radzi Sheikh Ahmad was reported to have said RELA members would be again roped in for the planned crackdown on undocumented workers in 2007(Star, 14/10/2006).

MCA Public Services and Complaints Department head Datuk Michael Chong claimed that the reward offered had made RELA volunteers desperate to nab as many illegals as possible. He said this when handing over RM,2,400-00, being donations, collected by residents of Old Klang Road’s 4th mile area, to the widows, both of whom had two young children. Their husbands, Ahmad Apik, 35, and Edy Sathurrohman, 26, both Indonesians, drowned allegedly after jumping into the Klang river while trying to evade the RELA personnel. Let’s not forget the words of Michael Chong :” “These people may be illegals [undocumented], but they are still human beings,” (Star, Monday January 23, 2006). A wife loses her husband and 2 children lost their fathers, and RM1,200-00 in donations is a far cry from justice. - RELA’S “CATCH A MIGRANT AND GET PAID FOR IT” POLICY MUST END

Recall also the Malaysian Bar Resolution in 2007 calling for the abolition of RELA..

MALAYSIAN BAR RESOLUTION FOR THE END OF THE STATE OF EMERGENCY AND AN END TO LAW ENFORCEMENT” BY THE UNTRAINED AND ARMED PEOPLE'S VOLUNTEER CORPS ( RELA)

Whereas:-

1. On 31^st August 2007, it will be 50 years since Malaysia achieved its independence and has been for over 30 years been a peaceful democratic nation.

2. It is sad that Malaysia is still in a state of Emergency as there exist today 4 Proclamation of Emergencies issued by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong that is yet to be revoked.

3. Since independence, five states of emergency have been declared under Article 150 of the Federal Constitution. The first was the only one to have been revoked. The remaining four are still in operation. The second state of emergency was proclaimed in September 1964 when the country was faced with a campaign of violence from Indonesia. Although the threat ceased within less than two years, the state of emergency was never revoked.

4. The next state of emergency was declared on 14 September 1966 following the dismissal of the Chief Minister of the state of Sarawak. No violence - or threat of violence - resulted from the crisis. The government nevertheless proclaimed an emergency, confined to Sarawak. And although the crisis was soon resolved, the state of emergency has not been revoked.

5. The fourth proclamation came on 15 May 1969 following large-scale rioting and racial violence in the capital, Kuala Lumpur, during a general election. The violence led to several hundred casualties. As a result, further elections were postponed and parts of the Constitution suspended. Normalcy was restored soon - the legislature was reconvened and normal constitutional government restored in February 1971. However, the state of emergency has yet to be revoked.

6. On 8 November 1977, the fifth Emergency, limited to the state of Kelantan, was declared following a political crisis.

7. By reason of the proclamation of emergency, numerous legislations were enacted and are still in force, including also :-

a) Emergency (Essential Powers) Act, 1964 (30/64), today known as the Emergency (Essential Powers) Act 1979;

b) Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969;

c) Essential (Security Cases) Regulations 1975

8. For example, Section 6 of the Emergency (Essential Powers) Act 1979, states that “"For so long as the Proclamation of Emergency referred to in the preamble to this Act remains in force, the regulations made under the Emergency (Essential Powers) Act, 1964 (30/64) (except those regulations which the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may by notification in the Gazette declare not to be in force) shall be in force and shall have effect as if they have been made under this Act; and the regulations may be amended, modified or repealed as if they have been made under this Act.". [The proclamation of emergency referred to in this Act was the proclamation issued on 15 May 1969.]

9. The Ikatan Relawan Rakyat or better known as RELA (a People's Volunteer Corps) came into being by virtue of Essential (Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat) Regulations 1966 [P.U. 33/1966], under Emergency (Essential Powers) Act, 1964 (30/64), and continue to be in force by virtue of Section 6 of the Emergency (Essential Powers) Act 1979.

10. By virtue of the Essential (Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat) (Amendment) Regulations 2005, which came into operation on 1 February 2005, the powers of the Rela, have been dangerously over-extended giving RELA personnel the right to bear and use firearms, stop, search and demand documents, arrest without a warrant, and enter premises without a warrant. and all these powers can be exercised the RELA personnel has reasonable belief that any person is a terrorist, undesirable person, illegal immigrant or an occupier. Illegal immigrant and occupier (which would be Malaysians usually) was added on by this 2005 amendment.

11. These not-professionally trained volunteers has also now been accorded protection by the new amendments whereby it is stated that "…The Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 shall apply to any action, suit, prosecution or proceedings against the Ketua Pengarah Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat, Timbalan Ketua Pengarah Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat or any member of the Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat in respect of any act, neglect or default done or committed by him in good faith or any omission omitted by him in good faith, in such capacity."

12. Noting also that there has been numerous complaints that have surfaced in the media about the RELA not just from migrants but also Malaysians ranging from torture, gangster-like behavior, damage to property, wrongful arrest and detention and even the causing of deaths.

13. Its was reported that RELA arrested a total of 17,700 people believed
to be illegal immigrants and screened 94,010 people up to September
2006, and that means 94,010 people (or 76,310) with proper documentations were subjected to unnecessary harassment and their right to a remedy in law is difficult. Of the people arrested, recent reports in the media indicate that many may even not be “illegal” or “undocumented” migrants at all.

* “…six foreign workers, all with legal travel and work documents, were whisked out of their quarters in a resort in Cherating in the wee hours of the morning on Dec 28 last year when RELA members "literally broke into their chalet and ordered them out." (The Star, January 12, 2007).”

* “…a team of 30 to 40 RELA members (half not in uniforms) turned up to look for foreign workers, assaulted some and allegedly stole cash and valuables during the raid. The companies, who lodged police reports, said that all the workers had legal work permits…..”(The Star, December 4, 2006) ·

* “22 workers of an IT company were beaten and made to do a 50m "duck-walk" at Section 30 in Shah Alam…” (The Star, February 16, 2006)

* Residents of about 10 households in Taman Anggerik, Cheras, Kuala Lumpur, complained that RELA personnel crashed into their homes after breaking door locks and smashing gates, and told them that they [RELA] were looking for illegal workers. The residents said the RELA personnel acted like gangsters and showed them no respect. When they asked the RELA personnel to explain why they crashed into their homes, they were told "we are the law." Cash totaling RM3,756 in a drawer was subsequently found missing. (The Star, October 17, 2006)

14. There have also been report of beatings and even deaths caused by RELA volunteers. As an example, in early 2006 it was reported that Ahmad Apik, 35, and Edy Sathurrohman, 26, both Indonesians, lost their lives, and they each left behind a wife and 2 young children. (Star, January 23, 2006).

15. The policy and practice of paying members of the People's Volunteer Corps (RELA) RM80-00 for each undocumented migrant must be stopped (The Star, January 23, 2006). Even MCA Public Services and Complaints Department head Datuk Michael Chong claimed that the reward offered had made RELA volunteers desperate to nab as many illegals as possible. (The Star January 23, 2006)

15. Malaysia is a developed country and professionally trained enforcement personnel should be used for law enforcement, and the use of volunteers like the RELA must end.

16. Some migrants may be undocumented, but they are still human beings and deserved to be treated humanely and should be accorded equal protection under the law.

17. Malaysia, a party to the April 1999 BANGKOK DECLARATION ON IRREGULAR MIGRATION, which clearly states “Irregular [undocumented] migrants should be granted humanitarian treatment, including appropriate health and other services, while the cases of irregular migration are being handled, according to law. Any unfair treatment toward them should be avoided” must adhere to its commitments.

18. New laws can always be enacted by a parliament in times of peace if needed.

IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED:-

a) That we, the Malaysian Bar, call upon the Yang Di-Pertuan Agung to revoke all existing Proclamations of Emergency in Malaysia;

b) That we, the Malaysian Bar call for the repeal all legislations and Acts that were enacted and continue to be in force by reason of the now existing unrevoked Proclamations of Emergency;

c) That we, the Malaysian Bar reiterate our call for the repeal of Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 and the Essential (Security Cases) Regulations 1975;

d) That we, the Malaysian Bar specifically call for the repeal of the Emergency (Essential Powers) Act 1979 and all Regulations and Rules made thereunder, in particular Essential (Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat) Regulations 1966 [P.U. 33/1966], as amended by the Essential (Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat) (Amendment) Regulations 2005;

e) That we, the Malaysian Bar call for the employment and usage of only properly trained professional law enforcement personnel in Malaysia;

f) That we, the Malaysian Bar urge that inquests be conducted for Ahmad Apik, Edy Sathurrohman and for the other persons who have died as result of alleged RELA actions;

g) That we, the Malaysian Bar urge that all persons including undocumented migrants and/or refugees be treated humanely and accorded equal protection of the law;

h) That we, the Malaysian Bar call on the Malaysian government to immediately ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families;

i) That we, the Malaysian Bar call on the Malaysian government to immediately ratify the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Proposers: Charles Hector & Francis Pereira, Motion dated 18^th February 2007.The motion was unanimously carried at the 61st Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar held at the Grand Ballroom, Legend Hotel, Kuala Lumpur - 17 March 2007

Source:- RELA man outraged woman's modesty - Abolish RELA now

The Malaysian Government must employ more full-time professionally trained Immigration Enforcement Officers, and Police - and stop using this volunteer corp...

RESPECT human life and human persons - and abide by the commitments made by Malaysia in the 1999 BANGKOK DECLARATION ON IRREGULAR MIGRATION, which clearly states “Irregular [undocumented] migrants should be granted humanitarian treatment, including appropriate health and other services, while the cases of irregular migration are being handled, according to law. Any unfair treatment toward them should be avoided”

Note also that this incident occurred in Selangor - a Pakatan Rakyat governed state, and I say again that Pakatan Rakyat must EXPRESS clearly its position and stance with regard to RELA....and also Migrants and Refugees in Pakatan Rakyat governed states.

Criminal Court should have ordered compensation for the victim, Nirmala Bonat?

Migrant Domestic Worker Nirmala Bonat was allegedly abused and assaulted by her employer in 2004 - and finally in November 2008, this criminal trial comes to an end, and '...Homemaker Yim Pek Ha was found guilty today of grievously hurting domestic helper Nirmala Bonat, and was sentenced to 18 years in jail...'

It made headlines in Malaysia, with photographs of her severe injuries splashed on the front pages of newspapers when her plight was revealed in 2004.- Malaysiakini, 27/11/2008 - Maid abuse: Housewife gets 18 years

But the Nirmala Bonat's case is the exception .... not the norm. Many a time when the migrant worker is the victim, the perpetrators get off scott free because most will not be able to linger around in Malaysia waiting for the trial (or have the capacity to travel up and down for the trial).

Remember, in Malaysia, the victimized migrant worker, is not given the opportunity to work and earn an income while they wait for their cases to be heard...

Happily after the Nirmala Bonat's expose....the Malaysian authorities came out and asked other victims of abuse to step forward and complain about abusive employers...(But note that you will not be able to work with another employer until the case is over...and this is SO WRONG...)

Migrant Worker victims cannot be expected to just 'hang around' without new employment with a new employer...while the criminal case proceeds.

Could some Member of Parliament ask the question as to how many cases involving migrant worker victims have been completed? How many cases do the prosecution pay for foreign victims to come back to Malaysia to give evidence in the trial? How much money has been expended bringing these foreign victims back to Malaysia for the trial to give evidence?

Homemaker Yim Pek Ha was found guilty today of grievously hurting domestic helper Nirmala Bonat, and was sentenced to 18 years in jail.

MCPX

Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court judge Akhtar Tahir found Yim, 40, guilty on three counts of hurting Nirmala. An additional count of causing hurt was however not proven.

He sentenced her to 18 years' jail on each of the three charges but ordered the sentences to run concurrently.

Akhtar said Yim (left) had committed sadistic behaviour that cannot be tolerated in a civil society.

She had pressed a hot iron on Bonat's back and breasts, and pouring hot water on her legs as punishment for not doing the chores properly.

Yim was cleared of a fourth charge of breaking the maid's nose.

"I agree with the prosecution that you have not shown remorse and have been in a state of denial throughout the case," he said, noting that the court has to give weight to the public interest in passing sentence.

In his judgment, Akhtar said there were suggestions the injury could have been the result of Nirmala suffering bouts of gila kambing (epilepsy).

"Fermima Anunut, the employer of Nirmala's cousin, had testified that she (Nirmala) has the condition. However, Nirmala's mother, when testifying, had denied this.

“The electrocardiogram test and examinations performed by doctors also proved that Nirmala does not suffer from the ailment.”

Akhtar said it was illogical for Nirmala to have suffered a seizure while in her room, and that she had injured herself.

"Furthermore, the court cannot accept how Fermima would have known that Nirmala had suffered seizures when Fermima herself was in Ipoh, working," he said.

Akhtar hence ruled that the injuries suffered by Nirmala were not self-inflicted.

The judge said evidence also showed that Yim was capable of such actions as she had testified to having slapped Nirmala in the past.

"From the statements of the accused while on the witness stand, she blamed the maid for this and that. I could still see Yim's underlying anger even after three years. So it would not surprise me if she had caused the injuries. She also admitted that she had slapped the victim.

"Nirmala Bonat has been consistent in her statements that her lady boss injured her, in her testimony in court and from the time she was found by a security guard.

“The security guard had also given consistent evidence to say the female boss had done this to her. My finding of fact is that the injuries were not self-inflicted."

Akhtar said the court was also satisfied with the prosecution's decision to classify the case under ‘grievous hurt’, as Nirmala testified that she had not taken a bath for 20 days after suffering injuries.

"If a person cannot take a bath for 20 days, it shows the extent of pain from the injuries. Hence, the prosecution was right in classifying the cases as grievous hurt," he said.

In finding that the prosecution has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, the judge pronounced Yim’s guilt.

Yim was seen crying and later hugging her husband Hii Ik Ting, 42, her children and relatives.

A former air stewardess and a mother of four, Yim was sentenced after Akhtar heard mitigation from her lawyers.

Counsel Jagjit Singh who was assisted by counsel Akbardin Abdul Kader told the court he could not submit that his client was remorseful.

“A staunch Christian, she still believes she is innocent and I too feel the same way,” the lawyer said.

‘Nightmarish experience’

DPP Raja Rozela Raja Toran, in pressing for a deterrent sentence, said Nirmala had come to Malaysia to find a decent job but had returned emotionally scarred to Indonesia.

"Although the physical injuries may have healed, she will always be haunted by her nightmarish experience while working here," she said.

Raja Rozela said the injuries inflicted on Nirmala were done not using ordinary items, but a hot iron and hot water, while the injuries were to her whole body.

"It is unbelievable that one woman would do that to another who is helpless. The extent of Nirmala's injuries showed the inhumane nature of the perpetrator," the DPP said.

She also applied under section 426 of the Criminal Procedure Code for an order to compel Yim to pay compensation.

Jagjit objected, pointing out that Nirmala had received donations in cash and kind from Malaysia.

"She is already a billionaire in Indonesia. Furthermore, my client is also facing a civil suit filed by Nirmala and the Indonesian government.”

Akhtar said he did not want to hear a defence application for stay of execution today, after Raja Rozela raised an objection.

"You have to file a written notice of appeal and after you do that, I will set a date for the hearing," said the judge.

Akbardin then said he wanted to submit an oral application, as he intended to file a written application later today.

However, the judge would not allow it, assuring, “I will set the earliest date available".

Legal history

Outside the court, Jagjit expressed unhappiness with the sentence, saying he felt it to be too harsh.

"This sentence is more severe than for culpable homicide. However, we have to respect the court's decision," he said, adding a notice of appeal would be filed today.

The verdict comes after 110 days of proceedings held over four and a half years.

Yim was charged with four counts of voluntarily causing grievous hurt to the Indonesian, then 19, with a hot iron twice on a day in January and in April 2004, with using hot water on a day in March 2004, and using a metal cup at about 3pm on May 17, 2004.

The offences were committed at Yim's upmarket Villa Putera condominium in Jalan Tun Ismail in Kuala Lumpur.

The first three offences were under section 326 of the Penal Code which carries a maximum punishment of 20 years' jail, and a fine or whipping. The fourth charge under section 325 carries a maximum seven years jail and fine.

This case created legal history when then DPP Stanley Augustin said this was the first time that an individual had been charged with three counts under Section 326 of the Penal Code for offences against the same victim.

Nirmala's case created an uproar among Malaysians and Indonesians, after a security guard discovered her plight.

It made headlines in Malaysia, with photographs of her severe injuries splashed on the front pages of newspapers when her plight was revealed in 2004.

Bonat said that Yim abused her every day of the five months she spent in the family's home, until her breasts and back were covered with burns, and her face was swollen by regular beatings.

In Indonesia, it sparked protests in front of the Malaysian embassy with demonstrators calling for better treatment for domestic helpers.- Malaysiakini, 27/11/2008 - Maid abuse: Housewife gets 18 years

It is good that the perpetrator of the crime is punished - but what about compensation for the victim of the crime. Criminal Courts must start making awards of compensation. There seem to have been an application here...but it seems that there was no award of compensation.

This means that now Nirmala Bonat will have to file a civil suit to get compensation and damages...and she still can do that as 6 years have not yet lapsed.

When migrant workers come forward and report a crime or a wrong committed by their employer or their family against him/her, that migrant worker should be able to go to some SHELTER to stay. Surely, she cannot go back to her employer...This SHELTER must be provided by the government.

Until the case is over , be it a criminal case as in the case of Nirmala Bonat or a Labour/Industrial case, the Migrant Worker should be permitted to remain in Malaysia - and also to be able to work and earn a living as he/she waits for her case to be completed.

When it comes to Migrant Workers - cases have to be expedited, to be completed not later than 3 - 6 months.

Updated Note

Compensation - the court should order the perpetrator to pay the victim compensation.

'Anti-freedom of assembly Selangor MB' really must be 'reformed' or kicked-out

The people come out to the street and other public places to express themselves - to let others know of their position and stance on certain matters.

The importance of the freedom of expression and freedom of opinion - is so that OTHERS are aware of it, so that others may be convinced to join the cause or to show support to the cause.

It is useless for persons who want to do this to go to some secluded area...or some enclosed area...and shout "Abolish ISA" or carry posters. It is stupid.

It is a public protest...and the object is ADVOCACY...lobbying the unconvinced or the rest of the people...

The object of a public protest or act of expression is to show NUMBERs - i.e. that this is a matter that many support. And in Malaysia, it would also mean that it is something that people consider really important - so important that I am willing to face potential arrest, potential assault and battery by the police, tear gas, water cannons...

There are other avenues of expressing oneself - but different people express themselves differently...and that is their right.

I should not be required to get anyone's permission before I be allowed to assemble and express myself...

That is why I cannot agree that persons should apply and get police permits before exercising their right to assemble peacefully and express themselves on particular issues.

And, if you have had the experience of trying to get police permits, you would realize that it is a 'stupid exercise'....and the police, normally imposes unacceptable conditions, and delays in the granting of the permit until the 11th hour - so that you would not have the time to mobilize people to attend the protest...

And that is why I am shocked with PR Selangor Menteri Besar, who really do not understand the purpose of public assembly and expression - and this continuous struggle of all freedom loving Malaysians to resist that "get permission from police first" provisions in Malaysian laws..

LARGE gatherings and demonstrations in Selangor are allowed as long as they are held indoors and prior notice is given to the police.

Menteri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim said yesterday police would not take action against gatherings held in enclosed areas such as multipurpose halls.

He has also given the green light to participants to extend their activities outdoors for 15 minutes.

"If there is a need to demonstrate outdoors, it shouldn't be more than 15 minutes," he said at the Parliament lobby yesterday.

He said Selangor police chief Datuk Khalid Abu Bakar had agreed to these suggestions.

Khalid said all parties, including political parties and non-governmental organisations, should adhere to these rules.- New Straits Times, Dewan Rakyat - Green light for large gatherings indoors

Hold in in enclosed areas...like multi-purpose Halls - what is the use? Who will see the expression of those assembled..

Further, try getting permission to use these Halls, usually under the Local Council. And are they free...NO they are not. And mind you, they come with conditions as well...and then you will have to comply with the conditions of the Hall owner...the conditions of the police, etc..

Recent assembly of protest in PJ against the ISA got the permit - with the condition that no anti-ISA T-shirts be worn by participant, no speeches ...

"...it shouldn't be more than 15 minutes..." - really this man is stupid and have no understanding of the freesom of assembly and protest...

There really is no difference, is there whether it was Khir Toyo (BN) or Khalid Ibrahim (PKR-PR)...

I feel that we need to get a new MB that will better reflect and practice the values and principles of Pakatan Rakyat ...of the REFORMASI....of the Makkal Sakti...

What do you think?

Of Alcohol Sale and Minority Rights...

There is trouble brewing within Pakatan Rakyat - and it is all about Alcohol. Could it not have been some more important issue?

It seems that Shah Alam City Council has already decided to ban alcohol sales from January 2009. It was decided at its meeting last month

Meanwhile Malaysiakini learnt that the Shah Alam City Council will be the first local council which will curb the sale of alcohol in Selangor, effective next January.

Sources said that the council had agreed to proceed with this at its meeting last month. - Malaysiakini, 25/11/2008, Alcohol ban: Trouble brewing in Pakatan

Now, let us not forget that these are the persons hand-picked by the Pakatan Rakyat Selangor government and appointed as Local Councilors - not persons elected through Local Council Elections.

We wonder why we did not know about this, which was decided last month - October 2008 (It is 25/11/2008 today).

Several Questions that we must consider:-

a) What are the powers of Local Council's?

b) How do Local Council make decisions generally? Do their decision have to be gazetted, etc..? [Sadly, I do not see their minutes and decisions in their websites...- WHY?]

c) Do the people have a role in the decision-making of Local Councils? Do the people have a right to be heard before a Local Council makes a decision?

d) How do people in the affected area appeal against a decision of a Local Council?

e) Who can quash a decision of the Local Council?

The State government should NOT interfere in affairs of the Local Council, save in certain FEW matters of great importance that should be clearly defined in law. The independence of the Local Council should be recognized and respected.

This is the same as the principle that the Federal Government should not interfere in matters and affairs of the State.

It is sad that the fingers are being pointed at PAS - Why is that? Are we not all Pakatan Rakyat now? It was the Pakatan Rakyat Local Council in Shah Alam that decided....LAST MONTH (according to the Malaysiakini report...)

Apparently, DAP also missed it...PKR also missed it....until now when Malaysiakini brought it up.

I am shocked about the manner in which Tony Pua, the DAP's Publicity Secretary chose to respond...

* Hello, you only got 8 seats ....out of the 36 seats, we got more - we all know that people voted PR, not the individual political parties. And this approach taken is so 'childish'

* Hey...half the population is non-Muslim ...non-Malay. Should it even matter when it is a question of rights. Even if there are 1 or 100 only, it matters not. Pua's arguement means that it is OK for sale of alcohol to be banned in other states where there are very few non-Muslims...non-Malays. Also, not all non-Muslims buy and consume alcohol...and there are some Muslims and Malays that do.

Seeing red over the matter, DAP publicity secretary Tony Pua reminded PAS that Selangor was ruled by a joint government and the Islamic party only controlled eight of the 36 state seats won by Pakatan Rakyat in the March 8 polls.

"Therefore, any attempts by Selangor PAS to flex its muscles without due regard to its fellow coalition partners would be deemed as arrogant and uncooperative," he said in a statement today.

...In view of this, he urged PAS to respect the spirit of multi-racialism since almost half of the population in Selangor comprised non-Muslims and non-Malays.... - Malaysiakini, 25/11/2008, Alcohol ban: Trouble brewing in Pakatan

The BN divided us according to race and ethnicity.....Malay, Chinese, Indian......Bumi-Non-Bumi..., and also religion.

What is Pakatan Rakyat trying to propagate now....a Muslim-Non-Muslim kind of divide...mmmm

The issue should be resolved based on numbers...or who has the majority...but based on human rights and respect...

Talking about respect...it should also be considered whether BEEF should no longer be served at official functions. We have so many other meat and fish options.... (Pork is "Haram", while the cow is an holy creature - and consumption of it at Pakatan Rakyat and other PR State Official functions must be stopped out of respect....or why bother, after all the Hindu Indians and them Buddhists are too few in number...mmm

PR's Irene acquitted - next a PR Migrant-Refugee Policy

Good news indeed that the High Court has allowed Irene Fernandez's appeal against conviction and sentence. She is now free.

Irene is also in the Supreme Council of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) and has been since the party's inception about 10 years ago.

PKR, together with the DAP and the PAS are known as the Pakatan Rakyat - and they now govern 5 States in the Peninsular..

I am certain that these 5 PR States can come with with a Migrant-Refugee Policy, Guidelines and Practice that will ensure that Human Rights and Migrant Rights are recognized and respected.

For a start, maybe an area could be set aside as a 'SANTUARY' for Refugees and their families, including those potential refugees. Some basic amenities could be provided...What this sanctuary would provide is safety from RELA and other enforcement bodies...etc.

Activist Irene Fernandez, 62, was acquitted on Monday of maliciously publishing false news about the torture and abuse of migrant workers after a 13-year court battle.

There were shouts of joy from Fernandez’s family and supporters when Justice Datuk Mohd Apandi Ali announced his decision, reversed the 2003 Magistrate Court’s conviction and one-year jail sentence.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Shamsul Sulaiman told the court earlier that he would not pursue with a cross appeal.

He said that after being served with the records of the proceedings of Irene’s case and discovering systemic errors in the records, he decided that justice would not be achieved by opposing the appeal.

In the light of the prosecution not opposing the appeal “there is no necessity to deliberate on this appeal further,” said Justice Mohd Apandi.

Irene later said that she was “relieved and very happy that truth and justice had prevailed” as she had least expected the result when she got up this morning.

In In 1995, Fernandez wrote a memorandum on ‘Abuse, Torture and Dehumanised Conditions of Migrant Workers in Detention Centres.'

A year later, she was arrested and charged under Section 8A (1) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984. - Star. 24/11/2008, Activist Irene Fernandez acquitted after 13-year trial

Malaysia, please VOTE for anti-death penalty UN General Assembly Resolution in December 08

On 18th December 2007, the United Nations General Assembly 'calling for a moratorium on executions to be established in all States that still maintain the death penalty'
passed a resolution

The resolution calling for “a moratorium on the death penalty”, was passed by a vote of 104 in favour to 54 against, with 29 abstentions. (See annex VI.) It called on all States that still allowed capital punishment to “progressively restrict the use of the death penalty and reduce the number of offences for which it may be imposed”. Those countries were also called on to provide the Secretary-General with information on their use of capital punishment and to respect international standards that safeguard the rights of condemned inmates. - see earlier posts (a) Is Pakatan Rakyat for the Abolition of Death Penalty in Malaysia (b) U.N. panel votes for death penalty moratorium (Star)

Again in 2008,

The U.N. General Assembly's human rights committee voted Thursday for the second year in a row to urge a global moratorium on the death penalty.

The United States sided with countries such as Iran, China and Syria in opposing the resolution.

The 105-48 vote marked a slight change from the 104-54 vote in the full General Assembly last December. About 30 nations abstained.

Supporters of the ban argue there's no conclusive evidence that the death penalty serves as a meaningful deterrent to crime and the risk of injustice is too high. Nations opposing the ban say the death penalty is effective in discouraging most serious crimes and remains legal under international law.

The vote in the human rights committee, though it includes all U.N. members, is not the final vote. Next month, the General Assembly will hold a final vote on the measure and the committee's vote is almost certain to be closely replicated there.

Though not legally binding, the voting does carry moral weight coming from the 192-nation world body that serves as a unique forum for debate and barometer of international opinion.

Amnesty International, which has been campaigning for the resolution, noted rising acceptance of a moratorium. In the 1990s, it was voted on twice in the General Assembly and failed.

On Thursday, the committee vote picked up one more nation than last year and six fewer opponents.

As of November, some 137 nations had abolished the death penalty in law or practice, compared with about 80 in 1988, according to Amnesty International figures.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has been encouraged by the trend in many areas of the world toward ultimately abolishing the death penalty, U.N. spokeswoman Michele Montas said.

Last year there were at least 1,252 people put to death by 24 nations and 3,347 others sentenced to death in 51 countries, according to Amnesty International. - Washington Times, 20/11/2008 - UN vote shows growing support of death penalty ban

In December, the UN General Assembly will be voting on this resolution - and it is expected that the results will be the same.

In Malaysia, we can still campaign with 0ur government to vote in favour of this resolution which will still be calling for an immediate moratorium on executions...

Some of the interventions of MALAYSIA during the committee stage, as obtained from the website of 7th Space Interactive are as follows:-

[Note that there could have been other interventions from Malaysia...]

The representative of Malaysia also took time to respond to arguments by the text’s co-sponsors that the Assembly should be made to welcome a global trend towards abolition, arguing that States should not make assumptions based on perceived trends, and that they should not use such assumptions to decide how other countries should evolve their own legal systems. ...

Malaysia’s representative, after asking permission to propose an oral amendment, noted that the close results of Tuesday’s votes on the draft amendments had indicated that States were still divided on the issue and that the international community was no closer to consensus. The fact that a number of delegations had voted for the amendments, or had abstained from voting, indicated their discomfort with the resolution as a whole. Therefore, he proposed that references to requests for the Secretary-General to provide a report for consideration at the Assembly’s sixty-fifth session, as contained in operative paragraphs 2 and 3, be changed to “sixty-sixth session” so as to provide further time for countries to evolve their opinion on the issue. To insist on considering the question at the sixty-fifth session would perpetuate divisions.

Further, votes against the amendments of two days ago had seemed to reflect a bloc outlook and did not reflect a judgement on the merits of those amendments, which he believed would have enhanced the text. Those amendments had been defeated by sheer numbers. He invited countries to take those points into account and to support his proposed oral amendment.

The representative of Malaysia said he had been disappointed that the Committee’s important work on a range of different human rights questions had been distracted by a resolution on the issue of the death penalty on which there was no international consensus. There should not be any attempt by a country to impose their viewpoint on that issue onto other countries. While his country respected the decision by some to voluntarily abolish the death penalty and by other countries to apply a moratorium, it was concerned at attempts to offer the same respect to those countries that still maintained it.

He said he had been prepared to engage with the co-sponsors in an open spirit of dialogue and constructive engagement. In reality, that had not taken place. During the informal consultations, a number of delegations had expressed a desire for the text to be amended to strike a balance over the differing views. But, the co-sponsors had not circulated those amendments in a compilation draft, and it became clear that the co-sponsors had not wanted to negotiate the text. Thus, the Committee faced a process that was forced upon countries, and where changes made on the draft had not addressed the concerns of some countries. Those countries had provided clear, fair, non-hostile amendments reflecting the purposes and principles of the Charter and of international cooperation. Those amendments were positive in nature, given to enhance the text, so that there could be the widest possible support from all countries, regardless of where they stood, whether they were co-sponsors or not.

He said the co-sponsors have painted those amendments as undermining the spirit of the resolution, when those amendments would have brought balance to this text. The international community, as a whole, was not ready for the issue; and he was disappointed that even deferring this question to a later stage -- to allow more time for countries to evolve their views on this question -- had been greeted with negativity. For his country, the death penalty was a criminal justice issue, applied only for the most serious of crimes and only through a judicial process that included the right to appeal to courts of a higher jurisdiction and the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence. Other countries should not make assumptions based on perceived trends to decide how they wish other countries to evolve in their own legal systems. In that regard, he opposed the resolution.

What does Malaysia really want to do? The attempt to delay matters by one year seems to indicate that Malaysia maybe moving towards abolition of the death penalty in time. They want more time "...to evolve their opinion on the issue...", and by that I hope that he was talking about evolution of thought in favour of abolition.

Malaysia should at the very least adhere to the 2007 General Assembly Resolutions that require an immediate moratorium of executions. At the very least, stop all executions now, and tell us Malaysians and the whole world that we have not executed and will not execute any person until the 2010 session of the UN which will again re-visit the resolution on death penalty.

Our neighbour Thailand, also another nation like Malaysia that opposed the 2007 Resolution, did also recently declare at the committee stage that they have not executed any person since 2003...

The representative of Thailand said that it was the sovereign right of States to come to a decision on the use of the death penalty, and all States should show respect for the decisions of others. The Thai public viewed capital punishment as an effective deterrent and its judicial system allowed for petitions to be made up to the level of the Supreme Court, as well as commutations of sentences. In Thailand, the death penalty was reserved for only the most serious crimes and under certain conditions. Indeed, since 2003, no execution had been carried out by the Government.- from the website of 7th Space Interactive

It would be good if Malaysia also can declare that it will abide by the 2007 General Assembly Resolution, and will not execute anyone in Malaysia for the time being as an act of respect to the spirit of democracy.

So let us all campaign for Malaysia to vote in favour of that anti-death penalty motion that will be tabled and voted on at the General Assembly of the United Nations in December 2008. After all, the resolution only calls for a moratorium at this stage - not for an abolition of the death penalty yet.

What about a FATWA on Detention Without Trial?

The national Fatwa Council has again hit the news - this time with its fatwa () on YOGA. Recently, it was about 'tomboyism'....

Wonder why they are not discussing and coming out with a FATWA on Detention Without Trial, ISA and the Detention Without Trial Laws,

What does the National Fatwa Council say about Detention Without Trial...? What does it say about Death in Custody? Freedom of Assembly and Expression? Corruption?...

Anyway, this is what they allegedly said about YOGA...

As expected, the National Fatwa Council yesterday announced that Muslims are prohibited from practising yoga.

In declaring yoga haram, the council said it could be traced back to Hinduism and concluded that yoga could erode the faith of Muslims.

Council chairman Datuk Dr Abdul Shukor Husin said the decision was made as yoga involved elements that were against the beliefs of Islam in its physical movements, chanting and worship.

"Many Muslims in the country fail to understand the ultimate aim of yoga.

"It combines physical movements, religious elements, chanting and worshipping for the purpose of achieving inner peace and ultimately to be one with God," he said at a press conference to announce the decision yesterday.
Shukor said once the fatwa was gazetted, it would be passed on to the states to decide on the enforcement.

Malaysia, he said, was not alone in prohibiting yoga among Muslims as the Singaporean and Egyptian Islamic councils had done the same.

Shukor said renowned Islamic scholars were also of the view that yoga could erode the faith of Muslims.

Asked if practising yoga with the intention of promoting physical health was also against the fatwa, he said although it did not include the chanting and beliefs, it was discouraged.

This, he said, was because the physical movements of yoga were a component of the practice which was haram.

"In Islam, one must not do things which can erode one's aqidah (belief). Yoga, even the physical movements, is a step towards the erosion of a Muslim's belief, hence they must avoid it."

Muslims, he added, should be careful and conduct thorough studies before embracing rituals and practices that could threaten their faith.

He said Islam had long paved the way for Muslims to achieve spiritual peace and health and they should stick to these teachings, which included praying five times a day. - New Straits Times, 23/11/2008 -Yoga Ban: Don't question fatwa, says Council

Their statement was found at the Jabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia (JAKIM) website:-

Sidang Media - Fatwa Yoga

Jawatankuasa Fatwa Majlis Kebangsaan Bagi Hal Ehwal Ugama Islam telah mengadakan sidang media bagi mengumumkan fatwa mengenai senaman yoga di kalangan umat Islam. Pengumuman yang telah dibuat oleh Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Fatwa Majlis Kebangsaan Bagi Hal Ehwal Ugama Islam , Y. Bhg. Prof. Dato’ Dr. Abdul Shukor bin Hj. Husin telah diadakan pada 22 November 2008, jam 10.00 pagi bertempat di Dewan Syura JAKIM.

Kenyataan media Jawatankuasa tersebut adalah seperti berikut:

"Antara perkara yang telah dibincangkan oleh Ahli Majlis Muzakarah Fatwa Kebangsaan yang bersidang pada 22 – 24 Oktober 2008 di Kota Bharu, Kelantan ialah senaman Yoga. Setelah meneliti dan mengkaji hujah-hujah serta pandangan-pandangan yang berkaitan dengan Yoga maka, Ahli Muzakarah berpandangan dan berpendapat bahawa senaman Yoga yang berasal dari masyarakat Hindu sejak sebelum Masihi lagi yang menggabungkan amalan fizikal, unsur-unsur keagamaan, mentera dan pemujaan bagi tujuan tertentu seperti mendapatkan ketenangan dan kemuncaknya, penyatuan diri dengan tuhan atau tujuan-tujuan lain adalah tidak sesuai dan boleh merosakkan akidah seorang muslim.

Oleh itu, Ahli Muzakarah juga bersetuju dan memutuskan apa jua jenis atau bentuk amalan yang mengandungi unsur-unsur tersebut di atas adalah dilarang dan bertentangan dengan syariat Islam. Sementara pergerakan amalan fizikal tanpa unsur-unsur di atas yang dilakukan pada zahirnya tidaklah menjadi kesalahan. Namun demikian,masyarakat Islam dingatkan wajib berhati-hati dam berwaspada dari perkara-perkara yang boleh menghakis akidah seseorang muslim.

Seperti yang kita sedia maklum, perkara-perkara yang boleh menghakis akidah boleh berlaku dengan sebab-sebab berikut:

(1)kepercayaan atau keyakinan di hati.
(2)menerusi perkataan atau pengakuan dengan lidah.
(3)perbuatan.

Memandangkan terdapat dua elemen tersebut dalam amalan yoga, maka umat Islam wajib memelihara akidah mereka dari terhakis. - JAKIM Website

And, what really is FATWA?

Fatwas are formal legal opinions issued by a recognized religious legal authority. Fatwas are most frequently issued in response to questions about living everyday life in accordance with religious law, such as proper diet, gender relations, or the use of new technologies, for example.

However, fatwas have also been used to communicate radical anti-Western messages. In 1989, former Iranian spiritual leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini famously called for author Salman Rushdie's death for his publication of his novel, The Satanic Verses.

Other Muslim and Arab authorscondemned the fatwa:"Naguib Mahfouz, the winner of the 1988 Nobel Prize in Literature, criticized Khomeini for 'intellectual terrorism' but changed his view later and said that Rushdie did not have 'the right to insult anything, especially a prophet or anything considered holy.' The Nobel writer V.S. Naipaul described Khomeini's fatwa as "an extreme form of literary criticism."

Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden issued a fatwa in 1996 titled, "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."

The two holy places are Mecca and Medinah, both in Saudi Arabia.

Bin Laden's fatwa is not considered legitimate by most Muslims. He is clearly a criminal, and has no recognized religious authority. Indeed, the Islamic Commission of Spain issued a fatwa condemning bin Laden in March 2004, a year after an Al Qaeda attack in Spain killed 190 people. - Source:-http://terrorism.about.com/od/politicalislamterrorism/g/Fatwa.htm

Another Definition:-

Definition: A fatwa is an Islamic religious ruling, a scholarly opinion on a matter of Islamic law.

A fatwa is issued by a recognized religious authority in Islam. But since there is no hierarchical priesthood or anything of the sort in Islam, a fatwa is not necessarily "binding" on the faithful. The people who pronounce these rulings are supposed to be knowledgable, and base their rulings in knowledge and wisdom. They need to supply the evidence from Islamic sources for their opinions, and it is not uncommon for scholars to come to different conclusions regarding the same issue.

As Muslims, we look at the opinion, the reputation of the person giving it, the evidence given to support it, and then decide whether to follow it or not. When there are conflicting opinions issued by different scholars, we compare the evidence and then choose the opinion to which our God-given conscience guides us.

Pronunciation: fa-twa

Alternate Spellings: fatwah, fetwa, fetwah

Examples: Some scholars have issued a fatwa that smoking cigarettes is forbidden in Islam. - http://islam.about.com/od/law/g/fatwa.htm

And yet another definition in Bahasa Malaysia - about Fatwa ...and Keputusan Fatwa (Fatwa decision).

KEPUTUSAN FATWA

Dari segi Bahasa
memberi jawapan/penjelasan bagi sesuatu masalah agama

Dari Segi Istilah
Penjelasan mengenai hukum syarak oleh Mufti bagi sesuatu masalah agama berdasarkan dalil syarak sebagai jawapan kepada sesiapa yang bertanya, baik secara sendirian atau berkumpulan.


FATWA
Fatwa ialah keputusan fatwa yang telah dikeluarkan oleh Jabatan Mufti dan telah diwartakan oleh kerajaan negeri bagi proses penguatkuasaan undang-undang. - e-Fatwa

What are we doing about Lourdes Mary?

Have we forgotten Lourdes Mary ...

Why are they (them Pakatan Rakyat MPs,...DAP, PKR, PAS...) not taking up this issue of Lourdes Mary?

It may not be Anwar Ibrahim or some other 'famous' personality - but Lourdes Mary is a human being - and all concerned persons must demand an explanation from the police ...from the Home Minister...the Prime Minister...the Government...

We do not want a repeat of this in modern Malaysia.

During the remand hearing, one of the female detainee, Lourdes Mary, fainted in court while explaining the lock-up condition to the magistrate.

According to Surendran, the detainee is a diabetic and her legs have swollen twice the size as she was unable to obtain insulin since her detention yesterday.

“I have never seen this kind of neglect in court before,” lamented the lawyer.

Meanwhile, another legal team member M Manogaran criticised the police for demanding lawyers to register themselves before entering the court building and for barring journalists from entering the complex. - Malaysiakini, 24/10/2008 Child, mother freed, 10 remanded

That incident was also reported in the Star,

At around noon, there was a minor commotion when Lourdes Mary, who is believed to be suffering from diabetes, fainted in the midst of remand proceedings and had to be carried out of the courtroom into a nearby car to be taken to the Putrajaya Hospital. - Star, 24/10/2008 -Ten Hindraf supporters remanded for three days (updated) Source: Earlier Posting

I believe that what happened to Lourdes Mary is very very serious - and it warrants even a Royal Commission of Inquiry, with the mandate:-

a) To Investigate the Lourdes Mary incident, and determine whether the police are criminally liable OR were negligent in the performance of their duty;

b) To look at the state of healthcare in Malaysian Police Lock-Ups, with the object of setting standards, proposing improvements and reforms, etc..

Every single day hundreds and thousands end up being arrested and detained in police lock-ups all over the country. They all will face healthrisks - and maybe even death - because the police have the required mechanisms or 'responsibility' to ensure that health of detainees are given the utmost priority.

Lourdes Mary could have become another Death in Custody case - because the failure to get certain medijcation or the required standard of healthcare may result in death.

I am shocked at the lack of response on this matter (noting of course there was a lot of response when the lawyer responsible was being 'harrassed') ....we have to now focus on Lourdes Mary...

From an earlier posting - but still relevant...

Why are the Human Rights group not making this an issue of importance?

Why is SUHAKAM not saying or doing anything about this matter?

Why is the Malaysian Bar silent on the matter?

She was arrested by the police and kept in a police lock-up ...her legs allegedly had swollen because she did not get her insulin. While in court she fainted and had to be taken to the hospital in an ambulance...I believe, that this is a very serious matter,...and she could even have died... and become just another statitic of persons who died in police custody.

The matter seem to have disappeared... Is this yet another matter that will be swept under the carpet - and hopefully forgotten..

Now Selangor wants 'religious vocational school' . Why not just vocational school for ALL

Rather than moving away from the BN practices of 'divide and rule'. the Pakatan Rakyat Selangor government is again at it - behaving just like the BN.

Now they want to establish a "religious vocational school" - My first question is WHY?

Would this school be only for Muslims? ...and again we ask the question "WHY?"

Why not just set up vocational schools - open to every one, and you could include religious instructions in the syllabus. Maybe, it should not just be confined to Islam - but could also include religious instructions for the other religions. (I am sure that the MCCBCHS would help in providing the other religious teachers....)

Talking about religions - one thing that should be done is the teaching of all persons some basics of the various different religions in Malaysia - including also some of its practices. This knowledge will also help build a community where there is understanding and mutual respect...

UNITE Malaysians - stop this 'Divide and Rule' practices of the BN...

Selangor Kaji Cadangan Tubuh Sekolah Agama Vokasional

SHAH ALAM, 17 November – Kerajaan negeri tidak menolak kemungkinan menubuhkan sekolah agama vokasional di negeri ini pada masa depan.

Dato’ Menteri Besar, Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim berkata kerajaan negeri akan cuba mengatur perkara itu dengan mengadakan perbincangan bersama Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor (JAIS) dan majikan swasta.

“Saya rasa sudah tiba masanya kita menggabungkan konsep pengajian agama dan peningkatan kemahiran kerana saya dapati permintaan untuk mereka yang mempunyai keupayaan kemahiran adalah tinggi,” katanya dalam sidang media selepas mengadakan perjumpaan khas dengan guru-guru Kelas Al-Quran dan Fardhu Ain (KAFA) Negeri Selangor di Stadium Malawati pagi tadi.

Hadir sama, Ketua Umum Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Tetap Hal Ehwal Islam, Adat-adat Melayu, Infrastruktur dan Kemudahan Awam, Dato’ Dr Hasan Mohamed Ali dan Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Tetap Pendidikan, Pendidikan Tinggi dan Pembangunan Modal Insan, Dr Halimah Ali.

Menurut Abdul Khalid peluang melanjutkan pelajaran di sekolah seumpama itu boleh digunakan ramai pelajar yang mungkin tidak berupaya atau tidak mahu meneruskan pengajian ilmiah mereka, sebaliknya memilih bidang kemahiran sebagai kerjaya.

Abdul Khalid berkata selain peruntukan daripada kerajaan negeri, beliau berharap kerajaan persekutuan akan turut sama menghulur dana bagi penubuhan sekolah berkenaan.

“Ini baik untuk negara dalam melahirkan lebih ramai pekerja muda yang berkemahiran tinggi,” katanya.

Beliau berharap blue print mengenai cadangan itu dapat disediakan dalam tempoh enam bulan.

Sementara itu ketika menjawab pertanyaan media berhubung kehadiran Dato’ Seri Anwar menyampaikan ucap tama pada majlis itu, Abdul Khalid berkata beliau yang menjemput bekas Menteri Pendidikan itu yang berpengalaman dalam mengasaskan beberapa usaha awal mendidik golongan belia. ­– NOOR ALLIA KASSIM

He said 'never met' ...NOT 'not involved in the killing'...mmm

In his written statement dated 20/11/2008, Abdul Razak Baginda

I implore all of you and the public to stop spreading lies about YAB Dato' Sri Mohd Najib Tun Razak, the DPM and his wife. I know that Dato' Sri Najib and his wife had never met the deceased, Altantuya. So much fitnah has been thrown towards the DPM and his wife. Those who have spread such lies can never produce any authentic evidence because there are none.

But, the questions is how do you know that Najib and Rosmah 'never' met the Mongolian woman?

Even, if they have never met - they may very well have known each other, could they not.

Even, if they have never met, that does not mean that they had no part in the 'murder' of Altantuya...

Are we now to belief that the 2 officers acted on their own....(after all did we not have a statement from the AG/IGP or someone) that there were no others involved...

The court however ordered chief inspector Azilah Hadri, 32 and corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, 37 - from the elite Special Action Force (UTK) which guards the prime minister and deputy prime minister - to enter their defence to the charge of murder. - Malaysiakini, 31/10/2008 Abdul Razak Baginda acquitted

Why did Razak Baginda come out now and make a statement? To get into the good books of Najib....mmmm

We recall:-

Abdul Razak Baginda’s wife Mazlinda Makhzan repeatedly maintained that her husband is innocent and alleged that he had been framed.

“He is a good man. He is not the Prime Minister of this country. He doesn’t want to be one.

FAMILY SUPPORT: (From left) Rowina, Mazlinda and Puravalen walking to the back of the magistrate’s court in Kuala Lumpur yesterday.

“He is not interested in all that,” she said during an outburst in court before Abdul Razak was charged yesterday.

Mazlinda, a former magistrate, was complaining about media reports concerning the murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu. - Star, 17/11/2006,Wife maintains political analyst is innocent

And also that PI Bala....

On P Balasubramaniam’s (right) statutory declarations first alleging then retracting that Najib knew Altantuya, the political analyst said the matter was still under police investigations and he had also been interviewed by police on his release on the same issue.

"What I have said to you is what I told the police, Najib has never met the deceased." - Malaysiakini, 20/11/2008 - Abdul Razak: Najib not involved

No matter what Razak Baginda says, the doubts will linger in the minds of people about our DPM's involvement in the murder of the mother of 2.

If Najib ends up as Prime Minister after March 2009, with all these allegations hanging over him - we may have our first 'Malaysian Executive Crisis'.

The problem that Najib faces is that the the IGP or the AG (Public Prosecutor) has lost credibility - and even if they come out today and say that Najib is not involved, the public will not believe it. Maybe a Royal Commission of Inquiry ....or better still an INDEPENDENT Royal Commission of Inquiry is the answer to Najib's problems...vis-a-vis the Altantuya case.

It would have been better if Razak Baginda never came out proclaiming that his ex-'boss' (maybe now his future boss) never met Altantuya....

And the fact that he did not clearly state '...that they were not involved in the killing...' open the door to further speculations as to what really is the truth..

Allegations of gender discrimination in Malaysian Universities...

Allegations of gender discrimination are coming from Datuk Rafiah Salim, the former Vice Chancellor of University Malaya - and this must be investigated, and the necessary steps must be taken to remove this discrimination.

She[Datuk Rafiah Salim] said female V-Cs were victims of gender discrimination, going by the shorter tenures offered to them compared with their male colleagues.

She was given a two-year tenure with a half-year extension to her contract.

Similarly, her female colleagues -- Universiti Kebang-saan Malaysia vice-chancellor Datuk Professor Dr Sharifah Hapsah and Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris vice-chancellor Datuk Professor Dr Aminah Ayob -- were given two-year contracts.

"Other V-Cs who were male were given three-year contracts. Now tell me if that is not gender discrimination."- New Straits Times, 18/11/2008, It's discrimination, says Rafiah

The Pakatan Rakyat (or is it DAP's) proposal for a RM10-00 salary cut as censure is a joke. There must be a much more serious sanction - and given the fact that this is 'gender discrimination' - I believe, that if it is proven, then the only punishment is resignation, not some insignificant salary cut..

Unless Khaled can give a satisfactory response and assurance of immediate stop to such discrimination against women academic staff in the public universities, DAP MPs will be moving a RM10 cut motion for the salary of the Higher Education Minister during the 2009 Budget Committee stage debate as a censure. - Lim Kit Siang's Blog

Pakatan Rakyat must do things differently from BN or else...

When a community chooses an ADUN and a MP - then rightfully this person/s must be there in the various councils, committees, etc which looks into the area he/she is the elected rep.

BN excluded the Opposition MPs/ADUNs - but the Opposition must not do the same.

The choice of the people must be respected - the Elected Rep must not be ignored be it at the ADUN level or the MP level.

He must be provided the required avenue to provide inputs and ideas, etc -- as the representative of the local community...

BUT alas it seems that the Pakatan Rakyat is doing just the same thing as the BN government previously...and this is so sad.

The PR Government must take this opportunity in government to create new standards, new norms, new ways of doing things, etc ...Remember '...Do unto others what you want others to do upon you..."

Jasmin Mohamed (left) (Umno - Sungai Dua) ticked off Phee Boon Poh (DAP - Sungai Puyu) for not compelling the state government to include Barisan Nasional elected representatives in the various district development councils in the state, something Phee had actively preached for in the previous assembly term.

The Umno opposition man chided Phee for preaching one thing during his tenure as state opposition leader (2004 - 08) and practicing something else after becoming part of the state administration after the March 8 general election.

He rapped Phee, who is in charge of the Health, Welfare and Caring Society portfolio, for keeping mum over the Pakatan Rakyat government's alleged excluding of opposition members from the councils when he had previously kicked up a fuss when the BN government did the same.

"Why did YB Sungai Puyu fail to compel the state government to include Umno assemblymen in the councils?" Jasmin asked the House when debating the state's 2009 Budget tabled by Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng (DAP - Sungai Dua). - Malaysiakini, 18/11/2008 - DAP rep told to 'practice what you preach'

Pakatan Rakyat must do things differently from BN or else...the rakyat may start looking for a NEW Alternative...

Another Detention Without Trial - this time an MIC politician..

He may be an MIC politician..

The police may say that he is the 'the mastermind behind violent crimes relating to drug deals' or is involved in 'in major crime syndicates in Johor'

A 44-year-old MIC politician has been detained under the Emergency Ordinance for alleged involvement in major crime syndicates in Johor.

The suspect, believed to be also the mastermind behind violent crimes relating to drug deals, was picked up at his home on Monday.

Johor police chief Deputy Comm Datuk Mohd Mokhtar Mohd Shariff said the man has been detained under Section 3(1) of the Emer­gency Ordinance. The order was signed by Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar.

“The suspect was sent to the Simpang Renggam rehabilitation centre on Tuesday and will be detained for two years,” he said at the state police headquarters here yesterday. - Star, 20/11/2008,Suspected Johor crime mastermind gets two-year detention

But that is no reason why he should not be charged and tried in an open court - where he will have the opportunity to defend himself.

Detaining him without trial just like Raja Petra, Uthayakumar, Manoharan, etc is just not acceptable.

Remember the principle that every person is to be presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty..

That is what the police and the government should do - prove him guilty in an open court...

The Home Minister's satisfaction is not acceptable for detaining persons for 2-years...maybe another 2 years after that....and

‘If the Minister is satisfied that the detention of any person is necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to the maintenance of essential services therein or to the economic life thereof, he may make an order (hereinafter referred to as a detention order) directing that that person be detained for any period not exceeding two years’. (s 8(1) Internal Security Act 1960)

‘If the Minister is satisfied that with a view to preventing any person from acting in any manner prejudicial to public order it is necessary that that person should be detained, or that it is necessary for the suppression of violence or the prevention of crimes involving violence that that person should be detained, the Minister shall make an order (hereinafter referred to as a ‘detention order’) directing that that person be detained for a period not exceeding two years’. (s 4(1) Emergency (Public Order And Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969)

‘Whenever the Minister ... is satisfied with respect to any person that such person has been or is associated with any activity relating to or involving the trafficking in dangerous drugs, the Minister may, if he is satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of public order that such person be detained, by order (hereinafter referred to as a ‘detention order’) direct that such person be detained for a period not exceeding two years’. (s 6(1) Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985)

Our call is for the immediate and unconditional release of ALL who are being detained under laws that allow for Detention Without Trial...

Hope some MP will ask the question and get names and details of all those who are being detained without trial under laws that allow for Detention Without Trial.

I hope that the Selangor State Government and other Pakatan Rakyat State governments extend their assistance to families of persons detained without trial - under ALL the Detention Without Trial Laws, and not just the ISA.

Zaki Azmi bribed...and now shown to be a LIAR...??

Zaki Azmi admitted to bribing...

Then apparently there was a clarification - where Zaki Azmi said that he never bribed...

Now, apparently there is an 'audio recording' - which will make Zaki Azmi a LIAR...

And, mind you this Zaki Azmi is the head of the Malaysian Judiciary..

Veteran opposition lawmaker Karpal Singh has given Chief Justice Zaki Azmi a week from today to resign from his post for allegedly admitting to corrupt practices while in private practice.

MCPX

This came after Karpal claimed for the first time today that there was an audio recording of Zaki's confession made two weeks ago despite the CJ's denial of making the remarks.

"Zaki cannot, and should not, deny that he had in fact uttered the words. There is a audio recording of what he said in Kuching," Karpal, also DAP's Bukit Gelugor MP, said in a statement today.

The statement was issued in his capacity as the chairperson of the newly-formed parliamentary caucus on judiciary independence and integrity.

Calling Zaki's clarification a "lie", Karpal said the chief justice - appointed to the post last month - has allegedly misled the country and therefore not fit to continue holding the post.

"In the event Zaki does not step down as CJ within seven days from today, I will have no alternative but to move a motion against him under Article 127 of the federal constitution for having misled the country with his so-called clarification," said Karpal further.

Zaki has issued clarification

The judiciary's No 1 embroiled in the controversy after English daily New Straits Times quoted him as making the confession of bribing court staff at a convention in Kuching on Nov 7.

During the convention, Zaki delivered a speech in which he recalled an incident in 1987 and allegedly said the following:

"It took me six months to be nice, to bribe each and every individual to get back into their good books before our files were attended to.

"That was my personal experience, and I am telling this to all the clerks and all the registries to stop this nonsense".

Zaki however issued a clarification later, saying the reporter has misinterpreted him.

So far, Karpal has lodged a police report and moved a motion to debate the matter in the Parliament twice - but both attempts were shot down by the Speaker.

Audio evidence

Meanwhile, Rahmah Ghazali reported from Parliament on Karpal saying that the audio recording of Zaki's remarks in Kuching can prove that he had lied.

"There is an audio recording (to prove that he lied), I think you can take my word for it what has been quoted in Kuching. There is no doubt about it," said Karpal when met at the Parliament lobby.

He declined to confirm directly that he was in the possession of the recording when pressed for an answer apart from saying he did not want to go into details.

Karpal also argued that the NST has not come up with any retraction on the initial report.

He further reiterated that there must be an integrity in the judiciary and it must start all the way from the chief justice.

"You cannot have a chief justice who lies. As simple as that...No point having independence of judiciary if the judges cannot tell the truth. Integrity comes first, then independence," said Karpal. - Malaysiakini, 18/11/2008, Karpal gives Zaki 7 days to quit

Who does the Police listen to? Time for State Police?

Now, would the police have arrested a Cabinet Minister on the way to attend a Cabinet meeting?

Would the police have arrested a BN State Exco member on the way to attend a State Cabinet meeting?

But when it came to Pakatan Rakyat - the police arrested a State Exco member on the way to attend a State Cabinet meeting? It certainly would have interfered with the executive functions and certainly a cabinet meeting...

And was is some serious offence that required him to be arrested then and there...surely a letter to be present in court to be charged, or to be present in the police station at a particular time and date would have been enough.

As I mentioned the loyalty of the police to the the Selangor and other Pakatan Rakyat State Government comes into question? Or maybe the word should be 'respect' ...or 'courtesy'...NOT loyalty.

The police conduct in Pakatan Rakyat governed states raises serious questions. Is it time for us to have 'State Police' just like the Federation, the USA?

For the moment, I suggest that the State Government should have a say with regard to who will be the Chief Police Officer of the State, and also the OCPD of the various police Districts in the State.

If the police still follows the instructions of the PM and the Federal Government - and not the Menteri Besar and the State Government, something is not right. (When both the Federal and State Governments were BN - it would have not been an issue - but now that we are moving into an era when there are soem BN governed States, and some Pakatan Rakyat governed States - it becomes important to consider who the police listens to...or whose policy and decision matters...).

Selangor executive councillor Ronnie Liu was arrested at the state secretariat building in Shah Alam this afternoon.

MCPX

The DAP state assemblyperson for Pandamaran was detained by several plainclothes and uniformed policemen at the entrance of the building at around 2pm.

Liu, who was on his way to attend the weekly state cabinet meeting, was later taken to the Puchong police station.- Malaysiakini, 12/11/2008 - S'gor exco man arrested, out on bail

Bar rejects police explanation on questioning of lawyer

Bar rejects police explanation on questioning of lawyer

Monday, 17 November 2008 08:41am

N. Surendran ©New Straits Times KUALA LUMPUR: The Bar Council has rejected a police explanation on why lawyer N. Surendran was questioned in connection with some of his cases. The council's vice-president, Ragunath Kesavan, urged the inspector-general of police to stop his officers from calling in lawyers representing clients to have their statements recorded, purportedly to assist in investigations. He said such action was unwarranted. "In the specific case of Surendran, we refute the IGP's version of events when he stated that Surendran was called for questioning in order for the police to record his statement and complete investigations into the remand of some arrested persons, including his clients. "Surendran was notified by police officers that a report had been lodged against him for statements he allegedly made during proceedings in court. "Subsequently, a section 111 notice was served on him for those alleged statements," Ragunath said yesterday. He added that Surendran had previously been called by the police under similar circumstances, followed by lawyers Americk Sidhu and M. Puravalen. "Cases of lawyers being harassed and/or intimidated by the police are on the increase," he said. Ragunath said the Bar Council had noted that the trend was more prevalent in cases of purported breaches of public order that involved citizens exercising their legitimate right to dissent. "This immediately conjures up the perception that the police force is selective in carrying out investigations, targeting legitimate dissenters exercising their rights of assembly or expression, which are protected under our Federal Constitution. "We call on the police to respect the rule of law, which includes the right to legal access and the substantially unfettered right, recognised in law, to legal representation without the undue harassment and intimidation of lawyers carrying out their duties as officers of the court," he said.

Royal Commission of Inquiry for the Lourdes Mary case

The Malaysian Bar has come out in response to the IGP's justification for the harassment of lawyer Surendran..

Harassment of lawyers may be the focus now - but let us not forget Lourdes Mary - who was allegedly deprived/denied her diabetic medication resulting in her leg swelling up, and finally her fainting in court and having to be rushed off to the hospital. She could have died. [If that is the level of healthcare being accorded to detainees, I would not be surprised that there will be deaths in the future]

We had a Royal Commission of Inquiry for the 'Nude Squat Case' - and now there are reforms.

Likewise, there is a need for a Royal Commission of Inquiry for the Lourdes Mary case...

Press Release

Harassment of Lawyers on the Increase

The Bar Council reiterates that cases of lawyers being harassed and/or intimidated by the police are on the increase.

We urge the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) to immediately stop such unwarranted action whereby his officers call in lawyers representing clients, to have their statements recorded, purportedly to assist in investigations.

We note that this trend is prevalent more so in cases of purported breaches of public order that involve citizens exercising their legitimate right to dissent. This immediately conjures up the perception that the police force is selective in carrying out investigations, targeting legitimate dissenters exercising their rights of assembly or expression, which are protected under our Federal Constitution.

We call on the police to respect the Rule of Law, which includes the right to legal access and the substantially unfettered right, recognised in law, to legal representation without the undue harassment and intimidation of lawyers carrying out their duties as officers of the court.

In the specific case of Lawyer N. Surendran, we refute the IGP's version of events when he stated that Surendran was called for questioning in order for the police to “ record his statement and complete investigations into the remand” of some arrested persons, including his clients.

N. Surendran was in fact notified by police officers that a report had been lodged against him for alleged statements he had made during the proceedings in court. Subsequently, a Section 111 notice was served on him for those alleged statements.

The Bar Council reiterates that Surendran was also previously called by the police under similar circumstances, followed by Americk Sidhu and M. Puravalen.

We reiterate the importance of respecting the Rule of Law and the right of access to legal representation as a fundamental tenet of any truly democratic society. We urge the police to allow lawyers to carry out their duties without any fear or favour.

Ragunath Kesavan

Vice-President

Malaysian Bar

13 November 2008

The Bar's statement was a response to the IGP. Questioning of a lawyer of what he and his client talked about is utter nonsense. Lawyers should never be forced into becoming ....'police spies'(for want of a better word...)

Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Tan Sri Musa Hassan said lawyer N Surendran was called up as police wanted to record his statement to complete investigation on the remand case of ten Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) supporters who gathered in front of the Prime Minister’s Department in Putrajaya on Oct 23.

Police action in calling up Surendran was not aimed at scaring or harassing lawyers as claimed by the Bar Council,” he said in a statement here today.

Musa said the police action was in accordance with the law under Section 126 of the Evidence Act.

“Although Section 126 of the Evidence Act gives lawyers the privilege of communicating with clients, subsection (1)(a) and (b) of the section could dismiss the privilege based on two things.” They were “any communication that can lead to acts against the law” and “any facts known by the defence counsel that shows that a crime or fraud had been committed since he took over the case.” The IGP said based on the provision of the section, lawyers could give statements to the police.

“PDRM (Royal Malaysian Police) want to stress that the Bar Council statement that the police action was harassment or scaring tactic was untrue and inaccurate. We are only conducting our duty professionally based on the country’s law,” he said.
Bar Council president Datuk S.Ambiga was reported as saying that police action in calling up the lawyer was harassment and a threat to lawyers who were also officers of the court.- New Straits Times, 11/11/2008,IGP: Calling up of lawyer in accordance with the law

Why did Selangor Government 'arrest' persons exercising freedom of assembly in their state?...

What is the Selangor Pakatan Rakyat government policy on freedom of assembly and expression on the Selangor soil?

Twenty-two of the 23 people detained during a candlelight vigil in front of the Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) last night were freed on police bail this morning.

MCPX

The group, who were released at 7am, has been asked to report back to the Petaling Jaya district police headquarters on Nov 24.

The detainee who is still in police custody is being investigated for other cases. It is unsure if he would be remanded or charged.

The vigil was held to protest the use of the Internal Security Act and to commemorate the first anniversary of the Nov 10 Bersih rally. - Malaysiakini, 10/11/2008 - Candlelight vigil: All but one freed

What about State sovereignity?

Where were the Selangor State Police ...or the Local Council Enforcement officers ? Should they have not been there to protect the right to peaceful assembly and expression in Selangor?

But then - did anyone hear the Selangor MB coming out yet and condemning the police action in dispersing a 'candle light vigil' and arresting 23 in the State of Selangor?

Well, the Pakatan Rakyat must come out with a policy on the freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and freedom of opinion for the Pakatan Rakyat states - and the Police must be made aware of this policy, and be told that their services are not required or needed in these States when it comes to persons exercising their right to assemble and protest...

Side Issue:- I wonder whether the Selangor MB and his EXCO would have also been arrested by the police yesterday if they took part in that public assembly?

The State of Selangor is no more under the BN - and the BN controlled police should be reminded about State sovereignity -- about the fact that we are a Federation...blah...blah...blah..

Pakatan Rakyat should also designate places for persons to assemble and protest - places like the field in front of AMCORP Mall, the area that looks like a park between the Civic Centre and the road...etc.. {not some stadium/places where no passer-by can see the expressions of dissent/protest/support...}

They came to my house and arrested my guest - how will the Selangor MB and government respond?

Fight Corruption in Courts - Get rid of corrupt Judges and court staff...and Zaki Azmi

What will happen to Zaki Azmi - who just yesterday admitted that he too had to bribe court personell...

If he bribed, or his lawyers bribed or his staff/agents bribed...action must be taken immediately..

"It took me six months to be nice, to bribe each and every individual to get back into their good books before our files were being attended to.

"That was my personal experience, and I am telling this to all the clerks and all the registries to stop this nonsense and I know this is happening, even as late as last week... a lawyer came to see me."

He added that the clerk asked the lawyer to come the next day to collect the file after saying "tapi jangan lupa, ya", signalling him to come with cash. - New Straits Times, 8/11/2008 -Stop it now, corrupt court staff warned

The law is clear, and one such provision that makes it an offence is

Anti-Corruption Act 1997

10. Offence of accepting gratification.

Any person who by himself, or by or in conjunction with any other person-

(a) corruptly solicits or receives or agrees to receive for himself or for any other person; or

(b) corruptly gives, promises or offers to any person whether for the benefit of that person or of another person,

any gratification as an inducement to or a reward for, or otherwise on account of-

(aa) any person doing or forbearing to do anything in respect of any matter or transaction, actual or proposed or likely to take place; or

(bb) any officer of a public body doing or forbearing to do anything in respect of any matter or transaction, actual or proposed or likely to take place, in which the public body is concerned,

shall be guilty of an offence.

11. Offence in giving or accepting gratification by agent.

If-

(a) any agent corruptly accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification as an inducement or a reward for doing or forbearing to do, or for having done or forborne to do, any act in relation to his principal's affairs or business, or for showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to any person in relation to his principal's affairs or business;

(b) any person corruptly gives or agrees to give or offers any gratification to any agent as an inducement or a reward for doing or forbearing to do, or for having done or forborne to do any act in relation to his principal's affairs or business, or for showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to any person in relation to his principal's affairs or business; or

(c) any person knowingly gives to an agent, or if an agent knowingly uses with intent to deceive his principal, any receipt, account or other document in respect of which the principal is interested, and which contains any statement which is false or erroneous or defective in any material particular, and which to his knowledge is intended to mislead the principal,

he shall be guilty of an offence.

12. Acceptor or giver of gratification to be guilty notwithstanding that purpose was not carried out or matter not in relation to principal's affairs or business.

(1) Where in any proceedings against any agent for any offence under paragraph 11(a) it is proved that he corruptly accepted, obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain any gratification having reason to believe or suspect that the gratification was offered as an inducement or a reward for his doing or forbearing to do any act or for showing or forbearing to show any favour or disfavour to any person in relation to his principal's affairs or business he shall be guilty of an offence under that paragraph notwithstanding that-

(a) he did not have the power, right or opportunity so to do, show or forbear;

(b) he accepted the gratification without intending so to do, show or forbear;

(c) he did not in fact so do, show or forbear; or

(d) the act, favour or disfavour was not in relation to his principal's affairs or business.

(2) Where in any proceedings against any person for any offence under paragraph 11(b) it is proved that he corruptly gave, agreed to give or offered any gratification to any agent as an inducement or a reward for doing or forbearing to do any act or for showing or forbearing to show any favour or disfavour to any person having reason to believe or suspect that the agent had the power, right or opportunity so to do, show or forbear and that the act, favour or disfavour was in relation to his principal's affairs or business he shall be guilty of an offence under that paragraph notwithstanding that the agent had no power, right or opportunity or that the act, favour or disfavour was not in relation to his principal's affairs or business.

14. Bribery of officer of public body.

Any person who offers to an officer of any public body, or being an officer of any public body solicits or accepts, any gratification as an inducement or a reward for-

(a) the officer voting or abstaining from voting at any meeting of the public body in favour of or against any measure, resolution or question submitted to the public body;

(b) the officer performing or abstaining from performing or aiding in procuring, expediting, delaying, hindering or preventing the performance of, any official act;

(c) the officer aiding in procuring or preventing the passing of any vote or the granting of any contract or advantage in favour of any person; or

(d) the officer showing or forbearing to show any favour or disfavour in his capacity as such officer,

shall, notwithstanding that the officer did not have the power, right or opportunity so to do, show or forbear, or that the inducement or reward was not in relation to the affairs of the public body, be guilty of an offence.

17. Duty to report bribery transactions.

(1) Any officer of a public body to whom any gratification is given, promised, or offered, in contravention of any provision of this Act shall report such gift, promise or offer together with the name, if known, of the person who gave, promised or offered such gratification to him to the nearest officer of the Agency or police officer.

(2) Any person who fails to comply with subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or to both.

(3) Any person from whom any gratification has been solicited or obtained, or an attempt has been made to obtain such gratification, in contravention of any provision of this Act shall at the earliest opportunity thereafter report such soliciting or obtaining of, or attempt to obtain, the gratification together with the full and true description and, if known, the name of the person who solicited, or obtained, or attempted to obtain, the gratification from him to the nearest officer of the Agency or police officer.

(4) Any person who fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with subsection (3) shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both.

Zaki Azmi also talks about a new incident - where some lawyer told him about yet another incident of corruption... Action must be taken against the said clerk ...and, of course, the said lawyer too...

Will action be taken against Zaki Azmi? Probably not - for after all he was UMNO...and he is now the head of the Malaysian Judiciary - the head of the 3rd Branch of Government..

After all, we remember the allegations made in that 1st Statutory Declaration of that PI Bala of what the police did when it came to statements made about Mohd Najib Razak (the UMNO Deputy President and Deputy Prime Minister...) - they just left it out of the statement recorded. [Of course, shortly thereafter PI Bala withdrew the 1st SD with a 2nd SD]. In the 1st SD, he also talked about the Prosecution and their questioning...and how nothing was asked about Mohd Najib Razak...

So, I would not be surprised that no investigation and/or prosecution will be commenced against this now, very powerful, man - Zaki Azmi...

The report appeared in the New Straits Times - not some cheap tabloid - so, it is more likely than not that Zaki Azmi did say that - admitting to participating in acts of corruption...in committing a crime (or crimes). It was a direct quote - not some conclusions that the reporter made in writting up the report. [I hope the reporter did record it - and the relevant authorities immediately get hold of that recording ...and 'notes' of the said reporter...]

Speed is of essence. Seeing, how important and powerful (and his previous connections to UMNO) Zaki Azmi is, I would not be surprised if they are not able to get New Straits Times to "make a correction" - stating that he never said that. They may go ahead and blame the honest reporter...or maybe the 'sub-editors' or the 'editor'... Maybe, even the reporter may come out and say that he/she made a mistake,...blah...blah. But alas... sometimes the truth has a way of getting out ...and has gotten out through this newspaper report, I believe...

We shall see...we shall see...

I believe that we will also see some arrest of court staff...maybe also judicial officers for corruption...even some lawyers...on corruption charges..

Zaki Azmi is desparate to get himself accepted by the majority of Malaysians. He (and maybe the people behind him) are trying very hard to do this. Interviews here and there ...statements here and there - hard to believe it is all coming from good old Zaki Azmi himself...

The manner in which he was brought in by Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and the UMNO-led BN government from a mere lawyer to Federal Court Judge ... President of the Court of Appeal...and now head of the Malaysian Judiciary...stinks...just stinks.

UMNO led-BN just had to get their man in charge of the Malaysian Judiciary as soon as possible - more so when the signs of the times showed that the continued control of the UMNO-led BN was getting very very shaky. Before March 08, Zaki Azmi was President of the Court of Appeal. (I believe that if they could, they would have made him the Head of the Judiciary before GE2008 - ...but fear of consequences...fear that it may be a bigger issue used by the Opposition...may have prevailed - and Zaki Azmi was placed in the number 2 position...)

13 or 14 months ago, Zaki Azmi was a lawyer - and last month he became the Head of the Malaysian Judiciary

Early September 2007 - Lawyer to Federal Court Judge

December 2007 - Appointed the President of the Court of Appeal (No.2 in the Malaysian Judiciary)

October 2008 - Appointed Head of the Malaysian Judiciary

Normally persons are first appointed High Court Judges, later maybe elevated to become a Court of Appeal judge, and maybe several years later elevated to become a Judge of the Federal Court...

Tan Sri Zaki Tun Azmi will today become the first lawyer to be appointed directly to the Federal Court. The only other lawyer to have bypassed the High Court in Malaysia was Justice Datuk Gopal Sri Ram - Star, 5/9/2007, Lawyer Zaki to be made Federal Court judge

And 3 months later, in December 2007, Zaki Azmi is appointed as the number 2 of the Malaysian Judiciary - the President of the Court of Appeal...

Only 3 months experience as a Judge - and he is made No. 2 of the Malaysian Judiciary ...Not at all good.

Federal Court judge Tan Sri Zaki Tun Azmi will take over from Abdul Hamid as Court of Appeal president

Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who made the announcement in a statement yesterday, said both appointments had been consented to by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin upon his advice after consultation with the Conference of Rulers. - Star, 6/12/2007 -Abdul Hamid confirmed as CJ

See also earlier posts about Zaki Azmi, including one dated 11/10/2008 and .....

What we need immediately is to end corruption in the courts...and the public must be educated as to how and where they can lodge complaints (or their reasonable suspicions) about acts of corruptions in court. It is important that the report and/or the complainant be protected - for if not, there may be a 'black-listing' by the court and court personell...

This was what happened to Zaki Azmi when he complaint - and that was apparently why he had to resort to bribing...

We must have a procedure that protects the complainant - and prevents repercussions from the court and its staff. [same applies with the police, etc...]

Recalling an incident in 1987, Zaki said he was "blacklisted" when he complained to the chief registrar of two missing files belonging to his clients.

"It took me six months to be nice, to bribe each and every individual to get back into their good books before our files were being attended to...- New Straits Times, 8/11/2008 -Stop it now, corrupt court staff warned

We need now public eduacation as where we should lodge complaints about corruption, etc against:-

a) Judges
b) Majistrates and Session Court Judges
c) Court Staff
d) Deputy Public Prosecutors and Government Lawyers,
e) Lawyers and Law Firm workers/agents

& the assurance that we, who complain, will not be 'black-listed'....etc

Well, first things first - let there be an investigation on Zaki Azmi - vis-a-vis his admission that was reported in the New Straits Times

Chief Justice Zaki Azmi admited he bribed....CORRUPTION?

Chief Justice confessed that he bribed court officials when he was a lawyer - this is clear from the New Straits Times report..

"What I am telling you is not fiction but based on my own experience in private practice," he said at an integrity convention here.

Recalling an incident in 1987, Zaki said he was "blacklisted" when he complained to the chief registrar of two missing files belonging to his clients.

"It took me six months to be nice, to bribe each and every individual to get back into their good books before our files were being attended to.

"That was my personal experience, and I am telling this to all the clerks and all the registries to stop this nonsense and I know this is happening, even as late as last week... a lawyer came to see me."

He added that the clerk asked the lawyer to come the next day to collect the file after saying "tapi jangan lupa, ya", signalling him to come with cash. - New Straits Times, 8/11/2008 -Stop it now, corrupt court staff warned

He admitted to bribing - and I believe that it is (and was) an offence in this country and there is no limitation when it comes to crime.

He may be the head of the Malaysian Judiciary - but still he is not above the law.

I hope that the ACA and/or the police take immediate action based on his own reported admission.

Investigation hopefully will also result in action taken against all them court officials that received Zaki Azmi's bribes...

The Bar Council should also commence disciplinary action against him (or his firm) if possible - and maybe also investigate that lawyer that Zaki Azmi talked to last week according to the report.

Zaki Azmi is not immune just because he is the Head of the Malaysian judiciary ...or is he?

AHRC Urgent Appeal - to end police persecution of lawyer over statement made in court

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION – URGENT APPEAL PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-249-2008

7 November 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
MALAYSIA: Lawyer is persecuted by police for statement in court over police negligence

ISSUES: Freedom of opinion and expression; rule of law; independence of lawyers; right to health
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has been informed that a lawyer's freedom to speak independently as an advocate on behalf of a citizen has come under attack by the police. Following a statement in court regarding police negligence of his client's medical condition that resulted in her fainting during her remand hearing and having to be rushed to hospital, Mr. N. Surendran was approached by police and told that a police report has been lodged against him and that he is required for questioning. There has been no similar inquiry initiated into the failure of the police to ensure medical treatment for his client while in police custody.

CASE DETAILS:

On 24 October 2008 Mr. N. Surendran and a team of other lawyers were representing the ten persons arrested at the Prime Ministers Office in Putrajaya on 23 October 2008 for trying to hand over an appeal letter to the Prime Minister (PM) calling for the release of five members of the banned Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) and others detained without trial under the Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA). They were the first persons to be arrested after the organisation was declared unlawful on 15 October 2008.

During the remand hearing at Kajang Magistrates' Court, Surendran informed the Magistrate that the police had been negligent in their handling of detainee Lourdes Mary. She is diabetic but had not been given her diabetic medications including her insulin injections causing her to faint in court during the proceedings, She had to be rushed to hospital (please see photo). Her leg had swollen to twice its normal size. Lourdes had been brought to court at 8.30am but collapsed at around 12 noon.

As Surendran left the court after the hearing he was approached by two police officers and told that a report had been lodged against him and that he was being investigated for having said in court that the police were negligent. They later issued Surendran a notice under Section 111 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) dated November 3, asking him to present himself for questioning at the Putrajaya Police Head Quarters on Thursday 6 November 2008 at 2.30pm. The Investigating Officer Chief Inspector Saunders also told Surendran that he was being investigated because of his statement in court.

Surendran, in a statement dated November 3, said:

"This development is very disturbing as it encroaches upon the sacrosanct duty of an advocate to speak without fear and favour on behalf of citizens. The liberties of the people are put at serious risk when lawyers are harassed or questioned merely for speaking on their behalf in a court of law. Indeed, it is fundamental in Commonwealth countries that lawyers are to be free to advocate their clients cases without interference or prosecution by the authorities, especially so in criminal matters. It is of utmost importance that the authorities recognise and accept the crucial role played by lawyers in the criminal justice system and it is hoped that they will refrain from such actions in the future".

The President of the Malaysian Bar, Ambiga Sreenevasan, on November 6, did say:

'We are perturbed that the police served a Section 111 notice on lawyer N. Surendran in relation to statements he allegedly made to the magistrate in court in the course of proceedings. N. Surendran was questioned today by the police pursuant to a police report made against him for the alleged statements. We are seriously concerned, as no offence appears to have been committed and the police were unable to enlighten him as to what offence they are investigating.

We therefore view the police questioning as an act of pure harassment and intimidation that encroaches upon the ability of an advocate and solicitor, who is an officer of the court, to perform his duties effectively and to the best of his ability.

This harassment must stop if we are indeed committed to the principle of access to justice and to the Rule of Law. It is internationally recognised that lawyers perform a vital function when they act for their clients in the pursuit of justice. It is also internationally recognised that they must be permitted to carry out these functions freely.'

The police are yet to discontinue the investigation against Surendran.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

HINDRAF is a movement that advocates for Indian rights in Malaysia that emerged in 2007.

On the 13 December 2007 five Hindraf leaders were detained under the Internal Security Act, 1960 (ISA) and issued a two year detention order. They are P. Uthayakumar, R. Kengadharan, V. Ganabatirau, M. Manoharan and a senior executive with Malaysia Building Society Bhd, K. Vasantha Kumar. Leader P. Waythamoorthy fled to London. The five who are being detained without trial have come to be known as the HINDRAF 5. (Please see: AHRC-FUA-001-2008).

Despite the detention of their leaders, the movement continued to advocate for rights, and on 15 October 2008 the Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar declared it as illegal.

In a statement he said:

"As a result of the investigations, the Home Ministry, as per its authority under sections 3 and 5 of the Societies Act 1966, has declared Hindraf unlawful and detrimental to peace, public order, security and the moral values of Malaysia".

"I feel that if we don't rein in their activities, they will continue to jeopardise security and public order, and our country's sovereignty, as well as upset the harmony among races".

Syed Hamid said the decision to ban the movement was based on all of the activities the organisation had been involved in since its beginning. The Home Minister stated that Hindraf were trying to exploit racial issues within Malaysia and causing distrust between Indians and Malays which was detrimental to public order and safety. He further urged citizens to avoid becoming involved in any way with this organisation or its activities.

On the 23 October 2008, the six year old niece of detained Hindraf leader P Uthayakumar, accompanied by ten other persons, went to the Prime Minister's office to hand over an appeal letter, asking for the release of her uncle. They were arrested and detained. In Malaysia, within 24 hours, the police have to obtain a further remand order if they want to continue to detain the suspects further for investigation.

On 24 October, Magistrate Nurdiana Mohd Nazari, who heard the remand application, allowed further remand for three days for ten of them, including Lourdes Mary.

It was during this remand hearing, that Lourdes Mary collapsed and had to be rushed to the hospital.

FURTHER INFORMATION:

The ISA is seen to represent a deteriorating human rights and democracy situation in Malaysia by the government. It allows for detention without trial and Section 8 (power to order detention or restriction of persons) states that if a Minister is satisfied that the detention of any person is necessary for the security of Malaysia they can issue a detention order directing that person to be detained for a period not exceeding two years. However, this detention order can be renewed by the Minister, which is not uncommon therefore making detention effectively indefinite: AHRC-UAC-217-2008

By declaring the HINDRAF as unlawful, it generally made associating in any way with HINDRAF now a crime. As an example, section 48(1) of the Societies Act 1966 states :"(1) Any person who in any manner acts on behalf of, or represents, or assists, whether in a professional capacity or otherwise howsoever, any unlawful society, or any person who was an office bearer thereof as if he continues to be an office-bearer thereof, or any body which was the governing body of the society or of any branch thereof as if it continues to be such governing body, in relation to any matter, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine not exceeding fifteen thousand ringgit or both.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

The United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers is an international standard designed to assist Member States in ensuring the proper role of lawyers. These should be respected and incorporated into Governments national legislation and practice. Under Section 14 lawyers are to act to protect the rights of their clients and to promote justice, upholding human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognised in national and international law, acting freely and diligently. Under Section 16 Governments should ensure that lawyers can thus perform their professional functions without 'intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference'.

Further, under Section 18 of the Basic Principles it states: 'Lawyers shall not be identified with their clients or their clients' causes as a result of discharging their functions', and importantly in Section 20: 'Lawyers shall enjoy civil and penal immunity for relevant statements made in good faith in written or oral pleadings or in their professional appearances before a court, tribunal or other legal or administrative authority'.

Surendran acted within his professional function by drawing attention to his client, Lourdes Mary’s right to medical attention and the subsequent denial of this by police that lead to her ill-health. That the police have failed to investigate the serious consequences of officers' actions towards Lourdes, causing her to faint and be rushed to hospital, but have acted with efficiency and promptness regarding their 'reputation' and its possible defamation, casts a shadow over Malaysia's reputation regarding human rights within the international community.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write letters to the authorities listed below stating your concern over Malaysia's deteriorating human rights record and the lack of freedom or independence of lawyers.

The AHRC has written a separate letter to the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers calling for intervention in this case.

To support this appeal, please click here:

SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear __________,

MALAYSIA: Please stop harassment against a lawyer informing court of police negligence

Name of victims:
1. Mr. N. Surendran, lawyer
2. Ms. Lourdes Mary, client
Name of alleged perpetrator: Malaysian Police
Date of incident: 24 October 2008
Place of incident: Kajang Magistrates' Court, Putrajaya

I am concerned to learn of another example of the worsening human rights record and further deterioration of freedom in Malaysia.

On the 24 October 2008 Mr. N. Surendran, a lawyer, who was representing clients, including Lourdes Mary, one of 11 persons arrested on the 23 October 2008 when attempting to hand over an appeal letter to the Prime Minister at the Prime Minister's Office asking for the release of the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) five who have been detained without trial under the Internal Security Act 1960 since 13 December 2007.

I am aware that he informed the court that police had been negligent in ensuring that Lourdes Mary received the required medical attention. Lourdes Mary is a diabetic and needed her medication, including insulin injections. Being denied her medication, her leg swelled up and she suffered pain and great discomfort. She fainted in court during the remand hearing and had to be rushed to hospital.

I am informed that when Mr. N. Surendran left court he was approached by police officers, who told him that a report had been lodged against him for what he had said in court concerning police negligence. It was also confirmed later by the Investigating Officer Chief Inspector Saunders that Surendran was being investigated for the statements he made in court.

Subsequently, a Section 111 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) notice dated 3 November 2008 was issued to him requiring him to report for questioning at the Putrajaya District Police Headquarters on Thursday 6 November 2008 at 2.30pm. This has further been confirmed by the Investigating Officer Chief Inspector Saunders, the questioning is to be on Thursday 6 November 2008 at 2.30pm.

The police have still not discontinued their investigation against Mr N. Surendran.

I am informed that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) includes under Article 14.1 that everyone shall be entitled to a hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, and in Article 19 that everyone has the right to freedom of expression.

This case clearly illustrates police harassment and persecution of Surendran over his comment on police negligence to the Magistrate, the level to which the independence of lawyers has become threatened.

I am further informed that police have failed to investigate the issue of Lourdes Mary's denial of medical care and medication for her diabetes during police custody, which caused her medical condition to worsen. The police should not be immune from criticism, particularly when errors have been made that could have cost the life of a detainee. Rather than trying to protect their 'reputation', police should be investigating their own procedures and officers, and allow lawyers to perform their professional functions free from political bullying.

In light of the above, I urge you to take immediate steps to stop this harassment against Surendran by the police and to ensure that Surendran can continue performing his profession as a legal representative without further harassment.

If this kind of police action does not stop, it will affect the independence of lawyers and their ability to perform their duty of upholding then cause of justice without fear or favour.

I also urge you to investigate the police officers responsible for failure to provide proper medical care and attention to the detainee.

I take this opportunity to call upon the government of Malaysia to repeal the Internal Security Act, 1960 (ISA) and other laws that allow for detention without trial. I call on the Home Minister to also revoke all current 2-year detention orders and release all those being detained without trial.

I also call on the Home Minister to revoke his order making HINDRAF unlawful, and to respect the freedom of association and expression.

Yours sincerely,

----------------

PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

1. Dato' Seri Syed Hamid bin Syed Jaafar Albar
Home Minister
Blok D 2, Parcel D
Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan
62546 Putrajaya
MALAYSIA
Fax: +60 3 8889 3854
Tel: +60 3 8886 3299

2. Dato' Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's Office Malaysia
Perdana Putra Building
Federal Government Administrative Centre
62502 Putrajaya
MALAYSIA
Fax: +60 3 8888 3444
Tel: +60 3 8888 6000
E-mail: ppm@pmo.gov.my

3. Tan Sri Musa Hassan
Inspector General of Police (IGP)
50560 Bukit Aman,
Kuala Lumpur.
Fax: +60 3 22725613
Tel: +60 3 22626015

4. Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman
Chairperson,
National Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM)
Tingkat 29, Menara Tun Razak,
Jalan Raja Laut,
50350 Kuala Lumpur
MALAYSIA
Fax: +60 3 2612 5620
Tel: +60 3 2612 5600

Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrchk.org)

Asian Human Rights Commission
19/F, Go-Up Commercial Building,
998 Canton Road, Kowloon, Hongkong S.A.R.
Tel: +(852) - 2698-6339 Fax: +(852) - 2698-6367

Bring ISA detainee RPK to court by 4pm & Release him, says court

It is true that the Court has ordered that Raja Petra be immediately released - and has ordered that he be brought to court today to be released.

The Shah Alam High Court today ordered the release of Raja Petra Kamarudin, an ISA detainee, from the Kamunting detention centre following his habeas corpus application.

The Malaysia Today editor was detained under ISA in September. He was ordered to be detained for two years after he was considered a threat to national security over his articles published in his website.
He is to be brought to the court today to facilitate his release. - New Straits Times, 7/11/2008 Raja Petra Released

Star

Malaysia Today editor Raja Petra Kamaruddin is to be freed Friday.

He succeeded Friday in his bid to obtain a release order from detention under the Internal Security Act (ISA) via his habeas corpus application.

The judge ruled that the Home Minister had acted outside his jurisdiction when he issued the two-year detention order under Section 8(1) of the ISA.

The High Court here also allowed Raja Petra to be brought to court to be released today.

He was detained for a second time under the ISA on Sept 12.

On April 11, 2001, Raja Petra along with 10 other activists were detained under the ISA for allegedly plotting to overthrow former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. Raja Petra was released 52 days later. - Star, 7/11/2008 Court Frees Raja Petra

Malaysiakini

The Shah Alam High Court this morning ruled that the detention of well-known blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin under the ISA was illegal and ordered his immediate release.

MCPX

Judge Syed Ahmad Helmy Syed Ahmad said that Raja Petra's detention was unconstitutional.

He said that the Home Minister had not followed the proper procedure under Section 8 of the ISA to issue the detention order against Raja Petra.

The judge also ordered that Raja Petra, editor of the popular 'Malaysia Today' website, be produced in court by 4pm today after which he should be immediately released.

Raja Petra is presently being held at the Kamunting detention centre in Perak.

The ruling by the court followed a habeas corpus application by Raja Petra's counsel seeking his release from detention under the security law.

The blogger (left) was arrested on Sept 12 by police and held at an unknown location before he was sent to the Kamunting Detention Camp in Perak on Sept 23.

Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar on Sept 22 had signed a detention order for him to be held under section 8(1) of the ISA. Under the Act, the initial two-year detention period without trial can be renewed indefinitely

Syed Hamid then told reporters that he was satisfied with the reasons given by the police for the blogger's detention.

"The detention is due to Raja Petra's articles that ridiculed Islam which could arouse anger among Muslims.

"The police had recommended his detention and after going through the papers, we are satisfied that there are strong grounds for him to be further detained for two years (in Kamunting)," he said.

According to his lawyer J Chandra, Raja Petra was arrested for publishing articles on his news portal which allegedly tarnished the leadership of the country and insulted the sanctity of Islam.

The former newspaper columnist had earlier been charged with sedition and defamation after linking Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak and his wife to the sensational murder of a Mongolian woman.

.- Malaysiakini, 7/11/2008 Court Orders Raja Petra's Release

Let us hope that they do not re-arrest RPK and detain him again under the ISA...something they did to Karpal Singh when the court released him from ISA Detention. (Operasi Lallang 1987)

I await the written judgment of the court to understand what really happened..

The courts today have only the power to see if the Detention Order was issued correctly - i.e. whether the procedure was followed, whether it was the Minister who signed or.... The courts cannot anymore look at the reasons (most of the time absurd) the Minister had issued the Detention Orders. [This amendment to the ISA and the Detention Without Trial Laws came after Operation Lallang 1987 ... ]

Judicial Review or Judicial Intervention

Since the coming into force of the amendments[28] to the laws allowing for DWT, judicial review has been limited to questions of compliance with any procedural requirement in this Act.

The Prime Minister when tabling the Internal Security (Amendment Act) said as follows: ‘The interventionist role of judicial decisions and the trends of foreign courts should not be copied because such actions was against the concept of separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary which was upheld in Malaysia. If the courts can reverse executive’s decision, it would make it impossible for the executive to make any decision for fear that the courts would intervene. The ruling party would then be waiting for the decisions of the courts and the results of appeal to higher courts’[29].

The meaning of judicial review was defined by s 8C Internal Security Act[30] to ‘include proceedings instituted by way of (a) an application for any prerogative orders of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari; (b) an application for a declaration or an injunction; (c) a writ of habeas corpus; and (d) any other suit, action or other legal proceedings relating to or arising out of any act done or decision made by the Yang di-Pertuan Agung or the Minister in accordance with this Act’.

By virtue of s 8B Internal Security Act[31], judicial review was ‘limited to any question on compliance with any procedural requirement in this act governing such act or decision.

Section 8A further limits this, and the said section is laid out as follows:

‘No detention order shall be invalid or inoperative by reason –

(a) that the person to whom it relates –

(i) was immediately after the making of the detention order detained in any place other than a place of detention referred to in section 8(3);

(ii) continued to be detained immediately after the making of the detention order in the place in which he was detained under section 73 before his removal to a place of detention referred to in section 8(3), notwithstanding that the maximum period of such detention under section 73(3) had expired; or

(iii) was during the duration of the detention order on journey in police custody to a place of detention referred to in section 8(3); or

(b) that the detention order was served on him at any place other than the place of detention referred to in section 8(3), or that there was any defect relating to its service upon him.’

By virtue of s 8D[32], ss 8B and 8C were made applicable to any proceedings instituted by way of judicial review whether such proceedings were instituted before or after the coming into force of the amending Act. Only proceedings in respect of which a final decision of the court had been given and/or to any appeal or application to appeal against such final decision survived. - Preventive Detention In Malaysia - A Brief Overview

This hurdle, however, did not prevent the court to review the detention by the police under the ISA before the Minister had issued the Detention Order..

Recently, in the Federal Court case of Mohamad Ezam Mohd Noor –v- Ketua Polis Negara & Other Appeals (2002) 4 CLJ 309, the court looking at the period of administrative detention by the police, being the period prior to the issuance of the Detention Orders by the Minister, held that the court is entitled to review the sufficiency and the reasonableness of the respondent’s [i.e. the Police] reasons for believing that there were grounds to justify the appellants’ detention under s.8 ISA and that the appellant had acted or was about or likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the security of the nation. The court said that the objective test, and not the subjective test, applies and what this means is that the court would now look and see whether a reasonable police officer would in that particular situation have arrested and detained the said detainee. In this case, interestingly, the court did not just consider the facts that existed prior to the arrest, but also went on to considered what happened after the arrest during the period of detention, to determine the real reasons for the arrest and detention. This case was concerning the ISA, and logically it should also apply to other detention without trial laws.- Preventive Detention In Malaysia - A Brief Overview

Hence, it is very interesting to see the reasons behind RPK's release... it looks like it was some procedural mistake made by the Home Minisiter..but we will have to wait for some written judgment to be written to be 100% sure.

He said that the Home Minister had not followed the proper procedure under Section 8 of the ISA to issue the detention order against Raja Petra - Malaysiakini, 7/11/2008 Court Orders Raja Petra's Release

Bravo judge Syed Ahmad Helmy Syed Ahmad...

Now, let us continue to fight for the release of the others still detained under the ISA and the other laws that allow for Detention Without Trial...

Bar Calls For End of Harrrassment of lawyers ...surendran, etc..

Updated:-

The Malaysian Bar has come out calling that harassment of lawyers like N. Surendran be stopped.

But this may not be just harrassment of lawyers - but part of a new trend of harrassing critics of the government and its officers...

Press Release

Cease Harassment of Advocates Performing their Duties

The independence of the Bar is critical to the Rule of Law. This means that lawyers must be free to act for their clients without fear or favour. Unfortunately, over the course of the last several months, this independence has been threatened each time the police have called in lawyers for questioning on matters relating to the execution of their professional duties.

We are perturbed that the police served a Section 111 notice on lawyer N. Surendran in relation to statements he allegedly made to the magistrate in court in the course of proceedings. N. Surendran was questioned today by the police pursuant to a police report made against him for the alleged statements. We are seriously concerned, as no offence appears to have been committed and the police were unable to enlighten him as to what offence they are investigating.

We therefore view the police questioning as an act of pure harassment and intimidation that encroaches upon the ability of an advocate and solicitor, who is an officer of the court, to perform his duties effectively and to the best of his ability.

This harassment must stop if we are indeed committed to the principle of access to justice and to the Rule of Law. It is internationally recognised that lawyers perform a vital function when they act for their clients in the pursuit of justice. It is also internationally recognised that they must be permitted to carry out these functions freely.

This principle, which protects all citizens, must be understood and respected by the authorities.

Dato' Ambiga Sreenevasan

President

Malaysian Bar

6 November 2008

Lawyer, N. Surendran called to be present at the IPD Putrajaya by reason of the fact that the police are investigating his making of statement in court. Mr Surendran said the police was negligent, and it was in light of fact that diabetic Lourdes Mary was denied her required medication - resulting in her leg swelling, her fainting in court and taken immediately to hospital.

Rather than investigate the allegation of 'negligence" - they are investigating the lawyer that made that remark in court...WHY?

Putrajaya police today recorded statements from lawyer

MCPX

N Surendran over his allegation in court that police were negligent in ensuring the well-being of one of his clients.

Surendran, however, said the police did not get much out of him as he had refused to answer more than one question until they informed him of the offence he was being investigated for.

"According to the police report (shown to me), investigations were in relation to what I told the Kajang Magistrate. But when we asked what was the specific offense, the investigating officer could not tell us.

"Police can’t randomly call up people for questioning without notifying them of the offense," he said when contacted today.

Surendran was among a team of lawyers representing 10 individuals in a remand hearing on Oct 24 after they were arrested outside the prime minister’s office the day before.

The 10 were accompanying 6-year-old W Vwaishhnnavi, daughter of Hindraf chairperson-in-exile P Waytha Moorthy and her mother K Shanti in handing a letter to the prime minister.

During the remand hearing, one detainee NV Lourdes Mary, 44, fainted. Lourdes Mary is a diabetic and did not have access to insulin while in detention.

After she fainted, Surendran allegedly told Kajang Magistrate Nurdiana Mohd Nazari that the police were negligent in ensuring Lourdes Mary’s well-being.

Surendran said based on the police report against him, it appeared that the police were solely examining his statement about Lourdes Mary.

"The only conclusion we can come to is that this is an attempt to harass lawyers who are trying to perform their duties," he said.- Malaysiakini, 6/11/2008 - Another lawyer questioned by police

What happened to Surendran has been happened before ...and it is something that must stop...

Surendran was accompanied by his lawyer Sulaiman Abdullah. Among the lawyers who turned up in a show of support for Surendran today included Bar Council president Ambiga Sreevenasan and her deputy K Ragunath.

Contacted for comments later, Ambiga said the Bar Council was concerned over the latest trend of lawyers being called in for questioning in relation to the performance of their duties.

"This is a dangerous trend because it affects the independence of lawyers in protecting the interest of their clients," she said.

In July, a total of four lawyers were questioned in relation to the controversial statutory declaration made by private investigator P Balasubramaniam who is now ‘missing’. Bala later retracted his first declaration, saying he made it under duress.

Back then, the Bar Council had expressed concern that police tactics would undermine lawyer-client privileges.- Malaysiakini, 6/11/2008 - Another lawyer questioned by police

Some say that the government wants people to stop criticizing its political leaders, its police and etc...

When matters were alleged by RPK about Najib (DPM) - he was charged with a criminal offence (WHY? Should this not be left to Najib, etc who may or may not choose to file a civil defamation suit or not...)

When matters are alleged about the police...as in this case. Are they trying to make it a criminal offence as well.

Criticize...and we will charge you in court - is this the new approach by the BN-government, the police and the AG chambers

We shall see...we shall see

We need to not stop at what is happening to the lawyer

BUT to need to also look seriously at Healthcare obligations and duties of police need immediate attention.

Does current Lock-up conditions and way detainees are treated pose a health threat to detainees?

MCA, not the DAP or PKR or PAS, that criticizes MB Selangor's racist behaviour

Selangor PR Menteri Besar and government seems to be worse that the BN - because the MB is out looking for a Bumiputra (does that mean Malay, Kadazan, Iban....) to lead the PKNS - not the best qualified person. It would have been OK if the MB talked about the person having to be a person from Selangor ...or a Selangor citizen.

Did DAP protest the statement of Selangor MB? Did PKR or AI protest the statement of the MB?...

Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim should have searched among the non-bumiputra candidates to find suitable candidates to fill the Selangor State Development Corporation general manager’s post.

Wanita MCA chief Datin Paduka Chew Mei Fun said Khalid should have been firm on his principle of adhering to the criteria of “capability as the main guideline in any selected position regardless of race”.

She questioned why the state government had not requested its Pakatan Rakyat partners, DAP or PKR to submit a list which had talented people of various races to fill the vacancy.

Chew was referring to a recent statement by Khalid that the position of the corporation chief would be filled by a bumiputra candidate after acting general manager Low Siew Moi’s one-year extension ends.- Star, 5/11/2005

Statements like this will keep the people in Malaysia divided - and this is certainly not the kind of behaviour I expected from the Pakatan Rakyat government..

In an earlier post, 'Anwar and PR must apologize for racist conduct' -

I also looked at the PKNS, and the other Selangor State owned company - and the same phenomena is seen with regard to Board members, etc.. (There is only 1 and the same Chinese woman in the Board of PKNS and some of its subsidiaries/related companies. Maybe, she is the accountant....mmm).

And guess, who that 'only 1 and same Chinese woman' was? Yes, it was - Low Siew Moi.

Remember also when the Selangor MB appointed 4 more Bumiputras to the the already 100 percent Bumiputra Board of Directors of UNISEL (Universiti Industri Selangor) - the question was raised as to why this happened. See my earlier post, 'UNISEL Board of Directors - Is Pakatan Rakyat Any Different from BN?'

Just go check and see whether there are any non-Malays, other than Low Siew Moi, in the Selangor government owned and controlled entitys. How many? In fact, look also at the ethnicity of persons in management as well.

March 2008 ---- that is 8 months ago since Pakatan Rakyat took over the Selangor State government.

In Kelantan, where there are 99% Malays - I may not be questioning the racial/ethnic composition of the Board of Directors, etc...but this is Selangor...

It is not quotas - ethnic/racial quotas that we are calling for - but just an indication that Selangor is more than just Malay in these government owned and controlled entities...

The best qualified Selangorian - that should be the criteria.

Selangor MB have been making too many mistakes...he is an embarassment...Maybe the PR should consider removing this man, who demonstrates a lot of UMNO characteristics, from the position of MB.

Many say that we have to do this and continue the UMNO led-BN practices and appoint only Bumis as heads ...and into the Board... because, if we start acting like the true 'Reformasi Pakatan Rakyat', then we may lose the support of the people and we will not be able to get into power the next time around... I do not agree with this kind of thinking.

Slow and steady they say... I say that there is not even a 'slow and steady' approach currently...it is a 'stagnant and maintain' approach in most areas..

I believe that 'Low Siew Moi' was only appointed as the 'interim temporary' head of PKNS because the others in the Board may have been 'anti-Khalid' or 'anti-PR' or 'too close to UMNO and their old political masters'...simple as that.

Low Siew Moi, was, I believe, the 'don't rock the boat type' - I obey whoever is the current MB type.

It was certainly not because Selangor MB wanted to behave progressive and appoint a 'non-Bumi' as head of PKNS to show that PR was not at all like UMNO led-BN. Most likely, he did not have a choice. - this is just me speculating and guessing.

Why do I say so? Just look and see whether there have been an infusion of any new Directors or persons in them Management Team who are from the other than Malay ethnic groups....

When there is a new government - change has to come quickly - delay is not the answer..

Local Council Elections - when will we have it? Are there preparations being done to prepare for local council elections.

Elections of Kampung/Taman/Kampung Baru heads and committee - when will we have this? Nothing in the law that prevents Selangor and other PR states from allowing people to elect these leaders.

Elections of Penghulu..

There has been a change of government - a change of the peope sitting as the MB and the State Exco ...and is that it...go read George Orwell's Animal Farm...(which is a story of what may have happened in Selangor government...)

When did wearing an anti-ISA T-Shirt become a 'crime' in Malaysia?

Because he wore an anti-ISA T-shirt....

According to the 27-year-old Malaysiakini subscription executive, the police considered him a possible threat to the VVIPs present, which included Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak.

Relating his ordeal, Oliver said he and his friends had visited the event after seeing a banner in KL Sentral regarding the bash, which was taking place at a nearby car park.

The three were passing through exhibition booths when the police confronted them and escorted Oliver - who was clad in a T-shirt which bore the words 'No to ISA' - to a beat base in the vicinity.

"I asked why I was detained and they asked why I wore this T-shirt. I asked what was wrong with the T-shirt and they said I could be a threat to the VVIPs present."

"They gave me two options: Remove the T-shirt or remain at the police booth until the VVIPs leave. I refused to remove my shirt and chose to stay," he said. - Malaysiakini, 4/11/2008 - Deepavali bash: Man held over anti-ISA T-shirt

What has happened to freedom of expression in Malaysia?

Najib's stupid short-sighted plan about EPF - really will affect us Malaysians in our old age...

The Employees Provident Fund (EPF) - was the Simpanan Hari Tua (Savings for when one is old and is retired) - and this must be preserved and protected..

Remember that most Malaysians do not get pensions like some government servants (or public servants) - and most Malaysians will only have their EPF or KWSP funds to survive on in their old age until they die. (And life span is getting longer and longer these days...)

When the government started using this EPF money for allegedly assisting some companies - we suddenly found that we did not anymore get that almost fixed 8% interest annually...

Then to assist the economy - the government started allowing persons to take out their money to buy this and that...

The consequence will be felt later on when the money in our EPF account in our old age is so little - and is not able to sustain our lives for more than a few years.

Now, again for the sake of assisting the current economic situation, the government is allowing us to pay 3% less - and hopes that we will use this money now to buy things and help the current economy...

Very...very bad idea from Mohd Najib Razak and the UMNO-led government..

For starters, Najib, also the finance minister, said that in view of giving extra cash in hand for employees, the government will give workers the option to reduce their contribution to the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) by three percent for two years beginning next January.

Currently, employers contribute 12 percent to EPF while the employees contribute 11 percent of their salary to the national savings fund.

"With the reduction, the level of contribution is still at a very reasonable 20 percent, with employers contributing 12 percent and employees eight percent.

"A person with a salary of RM2,000 a month will get RM60 extra in disposable income, while someone earning RM6,000 will get an additional disposable income of RM180 a month," said Najib.

Should all the contributors volunteer to reduce their EPF contribution, the amount involved will come up to RM4.8 billion a year, he said.

Assuming that only 50 percent of the contributors take up this option, the level of private consumption spending will increase to RM2.4 billion, he added. - Malaysiakini, 4/11/2008 - RM7b stimulus to bolster economy

Think not just short term solutions to national economic problems...but the Long Term solutions for Malaysians in their old age...

When we do not have money to live in the future after we retire (or are unable to work anymore) - will the government be there to help?

Or will Malaysians like people in USA be forced to work until they die just to survive..Oh yes - go watch that movie that is showing on ASTRO called 'SICKO' - which deals with this issue and healthcare...

One wonders how much money one should put away now, when we can still work and earn, so that we can survive our old age....noting of course that the cost of living continues to rise year after year...

Lawyer in Lourdes Mary's case to be questioned about statements made in court..

With reference to my earlier posting, I just found out that rather than investigating the police officers responsible for what happened to diabetic Lourdes Mary, the police are investigating the lawyer who represented her in court ...for allegedly having said in court that the police were negligent...

It looks like harassment of the lawyer --- not an investigation into the omissions or acts that resulted in Lourdes Mary fainting in court ...

I just received a statement from Mr N. Surendran,

LAWYER TO BE QUESTIONED BY POLICE ON STATEMENTS MADE IN COURT

( Statement by N.Surendran)

On 24th October 2008, I and a team of other lawyers represented 10 persons who were arrested at the Prime Minister's office for trying to send a letter to the PM calling for the release of ISA detainees. They were being investigated under the Societes Act for allegedly being involved with " Hindraf". During the remand hearing, based on clients instructions I stated to the Magistrate that the police had been negligent in their treatment of one of the arrested persons named Lourdes Mary who is a diabetic requiring insulin injections. Lourdes Mary collapsed in court during the proceedings and had to be rushed to hospital in an ambulance.

As I left the court after the hearing, I was approached by two police officers and told that a report had been lodged against me for having said in court that the police were negligent. They issued a notice under s.111 of the CPC in order for me to present myself for questioning at the Putrajaya District Police Headquarters. The Investigating Officer Chief Inspector Saunders has also since confirmed to me that I am to be questioned by police for the statement made during court proceedings. The questioning will be on Thursday 6.11.08 2.30 pm at IPD Putrajaya.

This development is very disturbing as it encroaches upon the sacrosanct duty of an advocate to speak without fear and favour on behalf of citizens. The liberties of the people are put at serious risk when lawyers are harassed or questioned merely for speaking on their behalf in a court of law. Indeed, it is fundamental in Commonwealth countries that lawyers are to be free to advocate their clients cases without interference or prosecution by the authorities, espescially so in criminal matters. It is of utmost importance that the authorities recognise and accept the crucial role played by lawyers in the criminal justice system and it is hoped that they will refrain from such actions in the future.

Issued by,

N.SURENDRAN,

3rd November 2008

Lourdes Mary denied her insulin while in police custody? Investigate this...

I wonder what is being done about the case of Lourdes Mary, reported to be a diabetic who allegedly was not provided her insulin while under police detention...

Why are the Human Rights group not making this an issue of importance?

Why is SUHAKAM not saying or doing anything about this matter?

Why is the Malaysian Bar silent on the matter?

She was arrested by the police and kept in a police lock-up ...her legs allegedly had swollen because she did not get her insulin. While in court she fainted and had to be taken to the hospital in an ambulance...I believe, that this is a very serious matter,...and she could even have died... and become just another statitic of persons who died in police custody.

The matter seem to have disappeared... Is this yet another matter that will be swept under the carpet - and hopefully forgotten..

It may not be Anwar Ibrahim or some other 'famous' personality - but Lourdes Mary is a human being - and all concerned persons must demand an explanation from the police ...from the Home Minister...the Prime Minister...the Government...

We do not want a repeat of this in modern Malaysia.

During the remand hearing, one of the female detainee, Lourdes Mary, fainted in court while explaining the lock-up condition to the magistrate.

According to Surendran, the detainee is a diabetic and her legs have swollen twice the size as she was unable to obtain insulin since her detention yesterday.

“I have never seen this kind of neglect in court before,” lamented the lawyer.

Meanwhile, another legal team member M Manogaran criticised the police for demanding lawyers to register themselves before entering the court building and for barring journalists from entering the complex. - Malaysiakini, 24/10/2008 Child, mother freed, 10 remanded

That incident was also reported in the Star,

At around noon, there was a minor commotion when Lourdes Mary, who is believed to be suffering from diabetes, fainted in the midst of remand proceedings and had to be carried out of the courtroom into a nearby car to be taken to the Putrajaya Hospital. - Star, 24/10/2008 -Ten Hindraf supporters remanded for three days (updated)

Proper health care must be accorded to all detainees and persons under police custody...

I return today from yet another death in police custody case - where here a man who suffered head trauma (a blow/s to the head) was sent back to the police lock-up after being examined by the doctor. Why?

Normally, when one suffers a head trauma (or a blow to the head) - hospitals will normally keep the patient overnight (or 24 hours) for observation to ensure that there is no other serious complication...

The doctor told the inquest that she told the police to closely monitor the detainees condition and also gave them some document with instructions (But alas, the police in charge of the lock-up later testified that they never received any such instructions(or documents) from the policemen who brought the detainee back to the lock-up from the hospital...). So, even if complications and symptoms arose, I wonder whether the police man looking after the lock-up would have noticed it.

Hence, there is a need to look again at the conditions of lock-ups and detention places again...to ensure that all detainees are provided with total health-care while they are in police custody. Should every police station have a doctor?

If their legs are swelling - sent them to the hospital.

If they need medication - get it for them immediately...

If they suffered head trauma - then keep them in the hospital for observation as would reasonably be done for any other person...You could hand-cuff them to the bed, could you not?

We must do something about this matter

Najib's win without elections an indication of FEAR (not UNITY) within UMNO

Najib's win uncontested only shows that FEAR still dominates UMNO members at division level, more so when the votes for the nominations had to be cast by a show of hands and not secret ballot..

Najib's wins because of the draconian requirement of divisional nominations - he wins because no one else will be able to get sufficient nominations.

Najib's win is not because the majority in UMNO at the General Assembly voted for him...

Najib's win is not because the majority of UMNO members voted for him. Fact is the ordinary UMNO members at the Branch level really has no vote, let alone say in who gets nominated. Remember key UMNO personalities tell them branch persons not to discuss who should be Party President, etc....that was for those who get chosen to attend the Division level meeting...

Do a secret ballot in UMNO - and see how many wants Najib to be President - I believe that if it was a secret ballot, then Najib may not even get 50% of UMNO members who want him to be President.

And mind you, Najib wants that quota system to stay - for sure to prevent the situation where members will be able to vote for their President...

The quota system in the Umno elections will remain but members can decide if they want it abolished, said party deputy president Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak....The Umno constitution states that a candidate for the post of president needs to secure at least 30% of the nominations, deputy president 20%, vice-president 10% and ordinary supreme council member 5%. - Star, 11/10/2008 - Election quota to stay

And Muhyiddin, who still may face elections for the post of Deputy, really reads things oddly...

Najib Abdul Razak's contest-free ascension to power in Umno is an indication that a strong unity exists within the party, said Umno vice-president Muhyiddin Yassin.

MCPX

"Congratulations to Najib for winning uncontested the Umno presidency. We have always believed from the very beginning that he will be given the fullest support and endorsement from members. And this is proven," Muhyiddin was quoted as saying the Star Online today. - Malaysiakini, 3/11/2008 - Muhyiddin: Najib's win shows Umno is united

And I am 99 per cent sure that none of the remaining Divisions will nominate anyone else other than Mohd Najib Razak for President. It will be good to see some BRAVE UMNO Divisions exercising their freedom of opinion and independence, and nominate some other than Najib.

Well, UMNO Divisions are not fools - they surely do not want to get into any 'Black Lists' of the next PM. In fact, it will be unanimous from now on - save for a few abstentions, maybe.

It will be good to know whether the Divisions that nominated Najib did so unanimously - or was it just by simple majority in most Divisions. Important information to assess the character and quality of UMNO membership.

PR Penang State government wastes money and time for overseas trip for 52 to S.Korea...

Wasting the peoples' money is wrong. The quantum is immaterial. BN may have squandered billions, but it cannot justify Pakatan squandering even thousands.

A good question for Lim Guan Eng - Why send 52 persons for a 5 day 'trade-mission' to South Kora? How much did the State spend? Who were in this large delegation? How were they chosen? Were they Pakatan cronies? Did the wife pay for herself?

The state government came under fire from local BN leaders, especially from Umno and Gerakan, for allegedly wasting public funds in an unusually large 52-person trade delegation to South Korea for a five-day trip beginning Oct 27.

They also questioned the reasons for Lim to take along his wife, Betty Chew, Deputy Chief Minister Mohammad Fairus Khairuddin and parliamentarians Jeff Ooi, who is the state industrial relations coordinator and an InvestPenang director, Liew Chin Tong, to South Korea. - Malaysiakini, 2/11/2008 - Lim defends Korean trade mission

I read the Malaysiakini report entitled "Lim defends Korean trade mission" but alas, it looked very much like any other BN politician.

Distract-- he talked about "He said the critics, mainly Barisan Nasional politicians, should have instead saved their time and energy to scrutinise and criticise the RM23.7 billion wastage caused by three major scandals recently...."

Not really respond - Reading the report, I am sad to say that the questions have not been answered. When asked to divulge the BUDGET - he procrastinated, saying that some other will provide answers in a few days. Come now - is he not the Chief Minister. Are we not in an age when it is so easy to communicate and get necessary information?

And most shocking was that the trip had only managed to get some money to build a GOLF COURSE....

Lim said BN politicians should have criticised those scandals if they were serious and sincere to wiping out wastage and leakages of public funds, instead of disapproving his Far East delegation, which had secured a RM100 million Korean investment to construct a golf course in the Batu Kawan parliamentary constituency.- Malaysiakini, 2/11/2008 - Lim defends Korean trade mission

I think Kit Siang would also not be able to defend what Guan Eng did here....this nice 5 day trip to South Korea for 52 persons. I only hoped that they did not use State Money to pay for the 52.

Maybe the Malaysiakini report was not complete and accurate - BUT tell me where I can find out the truth about this 'scandal'

Using Concepts, Policy and Race/Religion to distract questioning of the inequity an injustices in Malaysia.

Back to the question as to why use the term 'Bumiputra' or 'Bumiputra' - rather than the phrase used in the Federal Constitution.., i.e. 'the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak'.

Well, there can be many possible reasons (and you, the reader, will have to consider whether it is plausible or not)

ONE - because the UMNO or the UMNO-led BN or maybe just some of those who have the political/economic power wants to possibly 'insert' additional persons, whom they wrongly want to get them special priviledges and rights...

TWO - because it makes it easier for just certain persons (or certain persons of certain ethnic groups) to enjoy most of the benefits that have been accorded to 'the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak'.

Example of how this can be done:-

Say we have Malays,Ibans, Bidayuh, Kadazan, Murut - and if the equity share is to reach the 'the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak' (now taken collectively as the 'Bumiputera') - it allows 99% of all the equity share to land with the Muruts, for example, and some of the groups not even getting anything - BUT the final conclusion will give the impression that all have benefited.

The same will also happen when things/wealth/benefits are just given to a collective like "natives of Sarawak' - for the more powerful (not necessary the ethnic group with the biggest number) may end up getting most of the benefits. In Sarawak, they say Taib and the ethnic group he belongs to reaps the lion share of the benefits/priviledges supposed to reach all the natives of Sarawak.

The government loves to talk about Bumiputera share of the equity, non-Bumiputra share, foreigners share.... but this will never tell us whether just 1 or a small group is benefiting OR whether all the different persons/households are benefiting.

Erradication of Poverty ...and homogenising Malaysians - so that there will be no more identification of race with economic functions...were important objectives of the NEP - but alas, the way things have been done allegedly in the name of NEP has resulted today in Malaysia having one of the biggest gap between the rich and the poor in Asia/the world. Certain few have become richer and richer...whilst many others including the majority of 'the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak' have remained poor.

To reduce absolute poverty irrespective of race through raising income levels and increasing employment opportunities for all Malaysians; and

To restructure society to correct economic imbalances so as to reduce and eventually eliminate the identification of race with economic function

With regard to the state of the nation, our PM Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said:-

On the government's effort in eradicating poverty, Abdullah said the poverty rate had fallen from 5.7 per cent in 2004 to 3.6 per cent last year while hardcore poverty had eased from 1.2 per cent to 0.7 per cent over the same period.

The average household income of Malaysians, Abdullah added, had increased from RM3,249 in 2004 to RM3,686 last year. - New Straits Times, 2008/6/8 - PM: Understand fuel price hike, play your role (Also see earlier post)

But alas, in an article 'Has Malaysia Really Erradicated Poverty' - by Jeyakumar Devaraj (the man who defeated Samy Velu) in ALIRAN in 2004, it is stated that about 57% of Malaysian households earn RM2,000 or less. Note we are not talking about individual income but household income.

Another article 'Debating an equitable Malaysia - Towards an alternative New National Agenda' by G. Lim also deserves serious reading.

But when we look at Malaysia’s international position in terms of individual inequality, the position is quite different. According to the latest internationally comparable data from the World Bank, individual inequality in Malaysia (as measured by the common Gini coefficient) is the second worst in all of the Asian countries for which data is available. Only Papua New Guinea ranks worse. In fact, out of 127 countries for the World Bank provides data, Malaysia ranks 101 in terms of the Gini coefficient – the commonest measure of inequality. Aside from Papua New Guinea, the only countries in the world with worse individual inequality than Malaysia are in Central and South America – a region of notoriously high inequality – and some areas of sub-Saharan Africa such as South Africa and Zimbabwe.

Generally speaking, countries with higher levels of human development have lower levels of inequality; Malaysia thus stands out as an exception as a country with relatively high human development but also with relatively high inequality.

This is evidence how the UMNO led-BN government has, despite the provision of Article 153, miserably failed the ''the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak' (or even the Bumiputra or 'Bumiputera') as individual persons, individual families and households. Their policies and practices have sadly just made a few rich..a few ''Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak' (or Bumiputra or 'Bumiputera')" rich...

On the question of whether we have yet achieved the target of 30% - the present Prime Minister says 'No' - but we all know that other sources of information says "yes' and, in fact more than 30%.

But, we all can say with certainty that there has been a failure in terms of an equitable distribution of wealth amongst the 'Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak' (or the 'Bumiputra')

In fact, there has also been a failure in terms of an equitable distribution of wealth amongst Malaysians generally - even amongst the various States and regions in
Malaysia...

It is so bad that Malaysia has the distinction of being the country with the worst income disparity in Southeast Asia.

According to United Nations Human Development Report 2004, the richest 10 percent in Malaysia earn 22 times more than the poorest 10 percent, resulting in the country having one of the worst income disparity in Asia.

The 9th Malaysia Plan report released today said that the country’s Gini coefficient - a measurement for income disparity - has worsened from 0.452 in 1999 to 0.462 in 2004.

“The income share of the bottom 40 percent of households decreased from 14 percent in 1999 to 13.5 percent in 2004 while the top 20 percent of households increased from 50.5 percent to 51.2 percent.” - Malaysiakini, 31/3/2006 - ‘Worrisome’ gap between rich and poor

Malaysia’s top 10 percent of the population is 22.1 times richer than the poorest 10 percent. The country’s income gap is higher than Singapore (17.7 times), the Philippines (16.5), Thailand (13.4), Vietnam (8.4) and Indonesia (7.8). - Malaysiakini, 2/2/2005, M’sia has worst income disparity in SEA, gov’t flayed

What is important for me is that there be equitable distribution of wealth (and benefits) between all human persons in Malaysia..We cannot continue to accept this inequality brought about by the UMNO led-BN government over the last 50 years plus.

To hide the poor in Philipines, President Marcos constructed nicely painted fences that hid the poor from users of the main roads...Likewise, in Malaysia, it seems...

To prevent Malaysians from knowing the truth - certain matters were made sensitive --- and most times such matters were raised - it was turned into 'racial issues' - challenging the special privileges of the Bumiputra...forgetting the 'social contract'...etc. Let us go beyond such 'distractions' - and look critically at the policy and practice itself - all with the intention to ensure greater equity, human rights and justice in Malaysia....for the GOOD of all human persons...all creations of God.

Who is the 'Bumiputra'? Is it 'Malays PLUS natives of Sabah and Sarawak'? Or...

Let us consider the term "Bumiputra" or "Bumiputera" - and what really does it mean.

Now, we have seen that Art. 153 talks about 'special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak' (see earlier post).

The Federal Constitution defines Malay in Article 160(2) as follows:-

"Malay" means a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay custom and -

(a) was before Merdeka Day born in the Federation or in Singapore or born of parents one of whom was born in the Federation or in Singapore, or is on that day domiciled in the Federation or in Singapore; or

(b) is the issue of such a person;

- see also earlier post 'Today a Malay...."

Now, does the term 'Bumiputra' or 'Bumiputera' refer to '...the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak' or does this term include other persons.

Note, that there can be no 'new' Malay - i.e. someone cannot be brought from some other country, given a citizenship and made a Malay.

A Malay has to be a person
- born before 31/8/1957 born in the Federation of Malaya or in Singapore,
- domiciled in the Federation of Malaya or in Singapore on 31/8/1957
- born of a parent born before 31/8/1957 born in the Federation of Malaya or in Singapore,
OR children of such persons.

The definition, as it stands today, there can be no Malay from Sabah or Sarawak or any other place. That makes one wonder who the members of the United Malay National Organisation (UMNO) - surely they are not Malay, as defined by our Federal Constitution.

Does the term 'Bumiputra' or 'Bumiputera' include the Orang Asli of Semenanjung Malaysia (or the 'aborigine of the Malay Peninsula' as the Federal Constitution describes them)?

Does the term 'Bumiputra' or 'Bumiputera' include persons who are NOT 'Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak'? And if these other persons are also benefiting from the special rights and privileges provided for 'Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak' - then it is wrong.

Do we become Malay when we join UMNO? Do we start enjoying 'Bumiputra status' when we join UMNO?

I have not been able to find any legal definition of the term 'Bumiputra' or 'Bumiputera'... it would be good if anyone out there could help...

I believe we should move away from this term 'Bumiputra' or 'Bumiputera', which, I believe, is a term that was created by the UMNO led - BN government.

We should revert and talk only about 'Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak'.

I personally believe that the 'aborigine of the Malay Peninsula' (or the Orang Asli) should also be accorded special rights and privileges...but this will require a constitutional amendment.

WHY do you think this UMNO led-BN government prefers to use the term 'Bumiputra' rather than the correct term ''Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak'? I will share more on this in some later post....maybe.

I hope to listen to some comments...