Paul Low is disappointing - Look at EAIC and see how this is no good, and we still need IPCMC

It is most disappointing for Paul Low to even suggest the EAIC - What we need in an  Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC). What would the EAIC do - refer to the the Malaysiakini report below entitled "Former CJ laments ineffectiveness of EAIC"

How many investigators does the EAIC have? Only 1....

What would they usually do - refer the case to the Police Disciplinary Committee? 

By the way, the police are already investigating.... and referring to EAIC who would possibly send it back to the police... That's why we need the IPCMC

There is no need for a formation of an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) as there is already an exisiting mechanism to lodge complaints against police, said Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Paul Low.

Low said the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC), an independent oversight body on law enforcement agencies, also looks into complaints into misconduct by police officers.

"We already have the channels," he told reporters in Kuala Lumpur today.

In view of this, Low urged the family of death in custody victim N Dharmendran - who died on May 21 - to lodge a report with the EAIC so an independent probe can commence.

Low conceded that it is possible that the public may be confused over which agency they should complain to, thus he promised to look into setting up a unified centre to receive complaints, which will later forward complaints to the relevant agencies.

He said this will also help in cases where a complainant is "not comfortable" with reporting to the police - Malaysiakini, 30/5/2013, Paul Low: No need for IPCMC, just go to EAIC

Former CJ laments ineffectiveness of EAIC

Hafiz Yatim 2:29PM May 20, 2013

Former Chief Justice Abdul Hamid Mohamad today questioned the effectiveness of the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC), which since its formation in September 2011 and until the end of 2012, had only ordered one disciplinary action and two warnings to civil servants.

The commission focuses on the 19 enforcement agencies and Abdul Hamid (left) said for a budget of RM14 million for two years, it is a costly venture.

"In establishing a new agency, you need to recruit new officers. They lack experience and the expertise. To overcome that problem, you either recruit officers from other agencies or you may need to borrow them.

"How senior are they? It depends on the grades of the posts you have. Do you think those agencies will give their best officers?

"Do you think that officers who think that they have the potential to go very high up in their service would want to apply to be a permanent officer of the EAIC where the chances of promotion is very limited," he asked.

Abdul Hamid also pointed out that the EAIC is supposed to have six investigators to look into complaints lodged on enforcement agencies but at present it only has one since May 16.

And even if there were more, they would be based in Putrajaya. "But the complaints and the witnesses could be from all over the country," he said.

The former CJ was speaking on the topic ‘A critical analysis of the EAIC' at the Integrity forum today.

He noted that since EAIC's establishment in September 2011 until the end of 2012, it has received a total of 347 complaints and after preliminary investigations 110 were rejected, nine were referred to Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission (MACC), 15 were referred to appropriate disciplinary authorities, four were referred to appropriate disciplinary authorities and MACC; 60  or 17.2 percent were directed for full investigation and 149 required further preliminary investigation.

Abdul Hamid said the EAIC had directed 60 complaints to be referred for full investigations, which, under the Act, should be done by the task force.

“However the commission has not established any task force yet (on those),” he said.

“So far full investigations were done on three cases, and from these three, (as above) only one has been referred to the disciplinary authority of the police while the two cases were closed due to double jeopardy as the complaint had been heard and punished by the appropriate enforcement agency, namely Rela and the Road Transport Department.

Can EAIC handle other matters than corruption?

Abdul Hamid said with the exception of the chairperson of the commission, Heliliah Mohd Yusof, who was once a solicitor general, none of the commissioners had experience in scrutinising investigation papers. Heliliah is also a former Federal Court judge.

The former CJ also pointed out with the exception of corruption cases, the EAIC is required to handle or investigate other complaints even if it falls under the Penal Code, based on the EAIC Act 2009.

This, he added, raises questions on whether the EAIC could handle complaints of disciplinary or criminal in nature involving 160,000 (enforcement) personnel and even if the public decide not lodge police reports but channel their complaints to the EAIC, can the six investigators or at present, one, handle them all?

“The commission (EAIC) has been lucky so far because the public, due to ignorance or otherwise, choose to lodge police reports instead of complaining to the commission. Furthermore, does the investigation officer (IO) have the expertise, experience, facilities and equipments to carry out investigation of offences under all laws?” he asked.

Abdul Hamid said based on what he had put forward, some relevant and pertinent questions should be asked on the EAIC functions namely, whether its scope and functions should include criminal offences, and wouldn’t it be better to leave to the agencies entrusted to do it via the disciplinary committees to handle them.

He also asked can’t we rely on the Police Force Commission or the Public Services Department, the chief secretary to the government (KSN), and others, over disciplinary matters rather than the EAIC. - Malaysiakini, 20/5/2013, Former CJ laments ineffectiveness of EAIC

Malaysian business should also be told to respect human rights

Malaysian business should also be told to respect human rights - to comply, amongst others, with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Have you heard our PM Najib or the Malaysian government doing this? Maybe, Nancy Shukri, the new de factor Law Minister, should do this.

 

 

Businesses told to respect human rights

The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | World | Mon, May 27 2013, 12:22 PM

A- A A+

Paper Edition | Page: 12

Companies operating in Indonesia should refer to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to prevent human rights abuses while conducting their businesses, observers have demanded.

Marzuki Darusman, chairman of the Human Rights Resource Center for ASEAN, said the guiding principles would help corporations to apply human rights principles while running their businesses. “The guiding principles will provide direction to companies that might not have grasped human rights concepts yet,” Marzuki told a seminar in Jakarta on Friday. “With the guiding principles, the abstract concept of human rights becomes concrete.”

Makarim Wibisono, executive director of the ASEAN Foundation, noted that the United Nations encouraged the use of these principles to address prevalent conflicts between businesses interests and human rights. “Cases of human rights violations within the business sector have remained unchecked for quite a long time,” he said.

In 2011, the UN Human Rights Council unanimously endorsed the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The framework was formulated by Special Representative of the UN Secretary General for Business and Human Rights and Harvard Kennedy School Professor John Ruggie.

The idea of creating this framework was initiated in the early 1970s after the United Nations Economic and Social Council finished its study on the impact of transnational corporations. This framework is based upon three “interrelated and mutually supporting pillars”, which are; the state duty to protect its citizens from abuses, the corporate responsibility to respect human rights and greater access by victims to effective remedy.

James Kallman, the president director of Mazars, an international organization that provides human rights consultancy to large corporations, said that human rights violations in business practices were still a problem in Indonesia.

“Do you know that there are over 1,000 human rights cases reported to the National Human Rights Commission [Komnas HAM] every year in which companies are accused of doing something wrong to their employees, or more frequently to communities?” Kallman said. “The reports are related to environmental and land acquisition issues in which the lands of indigenous people are taken away,” he added.

Kallman said that it was very important that business practitioners respected human rights. “What Professor John Ruggie said was that companies must respect human rights. What a powerful word. How come Professor Ruggie didn’t say ‘companies must comply’? It’s a totally different meaning. Respect is something that comes from the heart,” Kallman said.

Kallman pointed out some concrete ways in which companies could show their commitment to human rights protection. “How can they do it? They have to look at their businesses and see how their practices harm human beings. They must analyze the risk. Does it hurt a worker or a member of the community? How could it impact negatively on the life of someone? That is what due diligence is about. To assess these risks,” Kallman said. Kallman cited some consequences that companies could face should they fail to respect human rights. “Nobody will invest, nobody will loan money and eventually you will suffer losses in your share price. In the long-term, you will cease to exist.” (nai/ogi) - The Jakarta Post, 27/5/2013, Businesses told to respect human rights

Unabated Deaths in Custody — Will They Ever End? - Malaysian Bar

Press Release: Unabated Deaths in Custody — Will They Ever End?

Wednesday, 29 May 2013 12:46pm

The Malaysian Bar welcomes the announcement that the Inspector General of Police, Tan Sri Dato’ Sri Khalid Abu Bakar, will head a special committee established to take measures to prevent deaths in police lockups, which will implement frequent visits by doctors and also visits by Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (“SUHAKAM”) Commissioners.  Such measures provide some assurance of the level of seriousness being accorded to the grave issue of deaths in police custody. The statistics regarding deaths in police custody in Malaysia is a leaf out of the macabre: 156 persons died in police custody between 2000 and February 2011,1 and it has been reported that there were at least six such deaths in 2012,2 with this being the fifth one in 2013.3  This data is alarming, as it points to an average of at least one death in police custody per month since 2000.  The Malaysian Bar is dismayed and saddened by the news of yet another death in police custody, involving 32-year-old N Dharmendran.  He was reportedly arrested on 11 May 2013, and died on 21 May 2013 whilst in police remand at the Kuala Lumpur police contingent headquarters.  The death of N Dharmendran is tragic and inexcusable.  It is yet another incident that raises serious questions about the treatment and safety of detainees in police custody, and the methods of interrogation used.  It underscores the importance of the requirement for those in police custody to have immediate access to legal counsel upon arrest.  In the case of N Dharmendran’s arrest, the protocol prescribed under the Yayasan Bantuan Guaman Kebangsaan (“YBGK”) scheme, which is an initiative made possible by Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Tun Abdul Razak, and supported by the Government, does not appear to have been complied with by the police.  The guidelines for enforcement officers stipulate that as soon as an arrest has been made, and before the suspect is questioned, the police officer must inform the suspect’s family (or friend) of the arrest, and must also provide details of the suspect and the arrest to YBGK, who will then despatch a lawyer to offer legal representation to the arrested person.   However, we understand that YBGK did not receive any notification from the police about N Dharmendran’s arrest.  We regret to note that this is the second occasion that we are aware of where YBGK was not notified of an arrest, and the detainee later died in police custody.  In the first incident, 32-year-old K Nagarajan had been found dead on 24 Dec 2012 in the Dang Wangi police station lockup. The present state of affairs has led to much public outrage and an erosion of confidence in the police.  The police must be proactive in ensuring that the wrongful actions of some amongst them do not tarnish the standing of the whole force.  Unless this is addressed, the police force will unfortunately remain a diminished institution in the eyes of the public.  The unabated deaths in police custody reinforce the Malaysian Bar’s repeated calls for the Government to implement the recommendation of the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysia Police, in its report published in May 2005, for the setting up of an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (“IPCMC”) to function as an independent and external oversight body to investigate complaints about police personnel. It is untenable for the Government to continue to ignore the dire need for the IPCMC, in the face of continuing cases of deaths in police custody.   The Malaysian Bar takes the view that every death in custody must be thoroughly and impartially investigated.  Although Chapter XXXII of the Criminal Procedure Code requires that all custodial deaths be investigated by way of inquest, no inquest is held in most instances.  Thus, the Malaysian Bar calls on the authorities to urgently implement comprehensive structural reform where inquests are concerned.  The few recent enquiries into deaths of persons that occurred whilst in the custody of, or in or around the premises of, law enforcement agencies, have resulted in “open” verdicts.  In this regard, the Malaysian Bar urges the Government to introduce a Coroners’ Act, and establish a Coroners’ Court with the following features:   (1) A clearly-stated aim, which will focus on identifying the deceased and ascertaining how, when and where the person died;   (2) The creation of an official position of a State Coroner, and Coroners.  These would be appointed by the Prime Minister upon the recommendation of the Chief Justice.  The State Coroner must be a Sessions Court Judge, ie a more senior position than that of a Magistrate, who currently conducts the inquests;  (3) The Coroner would be specially trained and be responsible for supervising investigations by the police, ensuring that all relevant evidence is gathered, presiding over enquiries, and making findings; and (4) The specific use of pathologists and forensic pathologists.  Only pathologists, or medical practitioners supervised by pathologists, may conduct post-mortems. In the meantime, the Malaysian Bar calls for an immediate inquest into N Dharmendran’s death, as a matter of public interest warranting the highest level of priority.  The police must render every assistance to the inquest and undertake a prompt and transparent investigation into the incident.  In this regard, we are encouraged by the statement of the police authorities that they have set up a special task force to investigate the matter.    Those responsible for N Dharmendran’s death must be identified and be made to face the full force of the law immediately.  The key question is who the culprits responsible for this heinous crime are.  The police force owes it to the families of the deceased, the public and itself, to do all that is required to ensure that such incidents do not occur again.  It is incumbent upon the police to continuously work to establish the confidence and trust of the public whom they are duty-bound to serve and protect.    As stated by the Supreme Court of India, death in police custody is “. . . one of the worst kinds of crime in a civilised society governed by the rule of law and poses a serious threat to an orderly civilised society.  Torture in custody flouts the basic rights of the citizens . . . . and is an affront to human dignity. . . .”4  It is shocking that detainees continue to die under questionable circumstances while in the custody of the police. The Malaysian Bar hopes that N Dharmendran’s death will not be relegated to a mere footnote in the disturbing history of custodial deaths in our country. The Malaysian Bar expresses its deepest condolences to the family and friends of N Dharmendran. Christopher Leong President Malaysian Bar 29 May 2013 1 Statistics disclosed by the Ministry of Home Affairs. 2 Malaysian Bar’s press release of 2 January 2013, entitled “End Deaths in Police Custody Now!”. 3 “Kula flays Waytha’s deafening silence” (Malaysiakini, 27 May 2013). 4 The Supreme Court of India in Pradesh Munshi Gautam (dead) v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2005 SC 402.

Nancy Shukri new de facto Law Minister? Would she be committed to human rights and justice or...?

Well, looks like we have a new de facto Law Minister - maybe it should be de facto Human Rights Minister.

It is Hajah Nancy Haji Shukri, and she is a Malaysian, a Scottish-Malay-Iban adopted by a Malay family (see below 'Malay? Chinese? Just Nancy!', an article that appeared in Nutgraph)

Would Nancy be guided by principles of human rights and justice? Or would she be cowed by Najib and the BN-UMNO? We have to wait and see.

She certainly needs to immediately ensure the appointment of new SUHAKAM HR Commissioners - and who she chooses would be indicative of how she will perform as a Minister. Would she appoint persons who are committed to human rights and justice, fearless to stand up when it is the government, PM, police, public servants, etc that are the violators, or would be weak personalities 'loyal' to the PM and the BN-UMNO government? Would it be people with a human rights history and background, or just some with an academic background? We shall see...we shall see...

More than a month with no HR Commissioners - Najib appoint good fearless persons who will uphold human rights without fear or favour

No SUHAKAM HR Commissioners since 25th April when the term of the 2010-2013 Commissioners expired

How will she handle death in custody? Will she do the right thing and ensure Sedition Act is abolished? 

Personally, would she be like Nazri Aziz, and be a proponent for the abolition of the death penalty?

Nancy gives top priority to Suhakam

PUTRAJAYA: Speeding up the appointment of members of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) will be among the top priorities of newly-appointed Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nancy Shukri.

She said that she was fully aware of public expectations, including that of the appointment of Suhakam commissioners.

“We will try to bring improvements to our services based on feedback from the public,” she told reporters.

This was after the handover of duties to her by Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz yesterday.

Nancy has now taken charge of 11 agencies, including the Public Land Transport Commission, the Prime Minister's Department Advisory Board, the Legal Affairs Division, the Insolvency Department and the Judicial and Legal Services Commission.

Suhakam has been without commissioners since the former chairman Tan Sri Hasmy Agam and the six other members ended their three-year tenure on April 25.

This is the second time that Suhakam has been left without any commissioners.- Star, 29/5/2013, Nancy gives top priority to Suhakam

Malay? Chinese? Just Nancy!

By Koh Lay Chin | 06 May 2010 |

(All pics below courtesy of Nancy Shukri)

NANCY Shukri is the Member of Parliament for the Batang Sadong constituency in Sarawak and Wanita Parti Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu secretary-general. Formerly the political secretary to Sarawak Chief Minister Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud, she was active in the Sarawak Federation of Women’s Institute (SFWI) and various non-governmental organisations before she entered politics. She also owned her own firm, NS Training and Consultancy Services, before being called to serve public office.

She was one of nine new faces introduced by Sarawak Barisan Nasional for the March 2008 general elections, and won in the largely conservative and rural area of Batang Sadong despite not being a local. She holds a law degree from Hull University and an executive Master of Business Administration (MBA) from Ohio University, and is married with three children.

A firm believer in national harmony and development, Nancy told The Nut Graph about her growing and formative years in this 15 Apr 2010 interview in Kuala Lumpur.

When and where were you born?

I was born in Kuching, on 5 Aug 1961, in the kampung where my mom still lives. We live across the river and we still have our house there.

What was your childhood like, some of your early memories?

Nancy, right, with a school friend, circa age 15I can never forget that I swam across the Sarawak river when I was 14. When I was small I liked to go into the jungle, because we were from the kampung and there were still loads of fruit trees at the time. So on weekends my friends and I would always go swimming or go and look for wild fruit.

I didn’t actually know how to swim at first. My mother didn’t know at the time, but I was a naughty girl, and when I was supposed to go for Quran reading, I would take the opportunity to learn how to swim. I would practise at the back of people’s houses, and in very dirty water (laughs). But so I learnt, and at age 14 I [wore] the sarong, turned into a “balloon” of sorts, and then swam across the river. I was the only girl [along] with the boys in the kampung who did that.

The Sarawak river was huge, and if you ask me to do it again now, I wouldn’t. It was fun and I was not scared at the time, but I was told that there were crocodiles in the river.

Can you trace your ancestry?

My mother was adopted by a Malay family during the Japanese Occupation. My mother’s father was Scottish, under the British government at that time. My late grandfather was the Resident of Kuching. He was also the magistrate, and my mother told me he had many responsibilities. He married an Iban-Chinese.

But when my mother was 11, the Japanese came and were looking for British children, so my mother and her brother were taken to be hidden by this Malay family. My grandfather died in a massacre by the Japanese. My mother was looked after by the Malay family [as she grew up], but was also well taken care of by the British government.

Nancy’s father (centre) and mother (right) in preparation
for the umrah to MeccaI remember the last Brooke, Anthony Walter Dayrell Brooke, came to Kuching in 1982 and looked for my mother and uncle. He invited all of my family members to Holiday Inn Kuching for a meal.

On my father’s side, there is a big family from Kuching. My paternal grandfather died when I was a baby. He was a Malay who married a Melanau, and they came all the way from Rajang.

How has all this shaped your identity as a Malaysian?

As far as I know, to my family and me, everybody is a brother and sister, regardless of religion. Because that’s the lifestyle we have been living all these years, with our Chinese and British cousins. We even forget about so-and-so not being Muslim. In fact, I have a Chinese Malaysian cousin whom we keep calling Mat — we forget his Chinese name!

In our family, and for most Sarawakians, if a Chinese Malaysian invites us to their house, we don’t bother asking whether things are halal or not. We just start eating; that’s us.

But of course, now people are always asking, and you think, what has happened politically? Suddenly someone starts using racial or religious issues, and then you realise [that this situation exists], and you start getting questions like, “Who are you? Are you Malaysian first? Malay first? Or Chinese first?”

And what do you say when people start asking you that question?

I am just Nancy! Why would it concern you whether I am Malay or Chinese or what? I am just Nancy and I am a Malaysian, that’s all.

Upon graduating with her Bachelor of Law (Honours)

Are there any stories or advice from your mother or father that you hold dear to your heart?

My mother does not give us advice, actually, she shows by example. She is a very active woman, in both the NGOs and politics at the ground level. It’s because of her that I got involved in politics, I guess. She had a hard life because she had to take care of so many people. She only studied up to Primary Three, but she does artwork, handicraft and works with NGOs, [and] teaches people.

Do you often look back now and compare your busy life as a politician with your blissful past?

In the kampung I was also very active and community-orientated as a child. I played the kompang and zikir as a teenager. I guess because of my mother’s influence, I was not just a follower, but a leader in singing and other activities. I followed Saberkas (the Sarawak National Youth Organisation) from the age of 12. Whenever there was a kenduri in the kampung, or if people wedded or passed away, we would all be very much involved in everything.

I thought that all this would be over when I went off to study. I remember telling myself, perhaps I want to be on my own and lead a private life. But like it or not, when it comes to these things, people actually pick and appoint you. And I just didn’t know how to say no.

After my mother admitted she was getting old, people took me into the NGOs and expected me to be there. They also put me in high positions. After my term was over, I thought that was it. But then suddenly I was involved in politics.

With other politicians and administrators in Sarawak

I was running and enjoying my own business already, which revolved around training. As long as I had fun and could go on holidays with my family, I did not want to pressure myself. A while later, I was pulled in to become a political secretary, which I had no experience in. And then after that, I was asked to stand to become an MP. It was a real shock to me actually, and something totally out of my plans.

What do you hope for Malaysia?

I want to see a more peaceful Malaysia. Look at Parliament. It is not too bad now, but in the first three months when I first came in, I almost gave up. Because this is not my culture — fighting, arguing, shouting. In fact, if you observe the Sarawakians in Parliament, we do not shout. To us and to me, it does not do us any good.

At first we were criticised, even by the [deputy speaker] (Datuk Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar), that we did not speak up. But who said so? We were speaking, but not in that tone, not that way. However, during recent proceedings, it was the speaker himself again who gave credit to us. He said, “I’m glad that you Sarawakians always kept cool and did not participate, or it would have worsened the situation.”

I want to see men and women moving forward, instead of talking about the past. I want to see people become more advanced in their thinking, and realise that we don’t have to kill each other in order to reach somewhere.

With her mother (left) and other relatives during her wedding
ceremony in Kuching. She wore several different traditional
dresses that day, including this kimono

As in the debates on race and religion?

Like it or not, we have sentimental values as Malay or Chinese [Malaysians] for example, but that does not make us different from [one another].

It spoils the whole country, the whole nation, when we talk about racial and religious issues. On the “Allah” issue, for example, Sarawak did not comment on it. I led the hymns for Christian songs in my school and I treated it as a singing activity. That is you and this is us, and it doesn’t turn me into a Christian.

There is a difference in how we handle things in Sarawak. Once, I said in Parliament: “We don’t want anyone from outside Sarawak to come and teach us about harmony or peace or living in unity!” I think we are the ones who can become the model, for we are the ones who have been living in a very peaceful surrounding. - The Nut Graph, 6/5/2010, Malay? Chinese? Just Nancy!

More than a month with no HR Commissioners - Najib appoint good fearless persons who will uphold human rights without fear or favour

When Malaysians needed the Human Rights Commission(SUHAKAM), Najib's Barisan Nasional-UMNO government saw fit to ensure that there will be no HR Commissioners when so many rights to a free and fair election were allegedly being violated. Yes, as of 25th April, no HR Commissioners - why could the term of the old HR Commissioners be extended, or a new batch appointed to ensure that Malaysians will still have SUHAKAM to be yet another avenue where persons in Malaysia to go to complaint about rights violations.

The last batch of SUHAKAM HR Commissioners did fare well taking up a lot of issues, and promptly making necessary statements on issues of human rights including the freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, police brutality, etc ... most like was a 'thorn in Najib's back' - unlike many previous batches of HR Commissioners, filled with a majority of 'fearful', passive persons sufficient to ensure that they never came out much against the government and/or actions of public servants...In the last batch, being of much smaller number, there were fortunately many who truly were 'human rights defenders', who were able to ensure that SUHAKAM behaved not like a 'government entity' but more like a National Human Rights Institution. The result was that more and more persons lodged complaints believing that there is hope...not just a futile exercise of complaining to 'toothless' tigers.

I would not be surprised if Najib now appoints a bunch of more passive...'less brave', less true HR Defnders as HR Commissioners - and SUHAKAM may once again end up being a 'toothless', pro-government body - and human rights once again is forgoten.

My hope, though, is that Najib and this BN government does the needful and appoint true HR Defenders to be HR Commissioners... persons with a history of upholding the cause of justice and human rights without fear or favour...and this should be done soonest...

The BN government, sadly have been eroding democratic space....freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. 

The Peaceful Assembly Act, as we all see now, is most draconian and erodes away the right to peaceful assembly even further.... Now, the need for 10 days notice(when people have something to express, it certainly is done immediately - not after 10 days). Then, there is that additional requirement of getting explicit permission from the people that own/control the place where the assembly is to be held. In 1998, the REFORMASI protest/s in KL really did not have any 'organisers' - now, the new Act requires some person to 'organize' it, when in reality many peaceful assembly are impromptu response of the people with really no 'organisers' per se. Word goes around - and people gather and protest...

There has been so much more erosion of rights and freedoms during the BN-UMNO rule of Malaysia, and I need not elaborate for we all know this.

Now, what we need to do is to call Najib to immediately appoint SUHAKAM HR Commissioners and make sure they are people with a history of standing for Human Rights, not a bunch of fearful 'yes-persons' who would be very slow to act against the government, the police, etc....

See also:-  No SUHAKAM HR Commissioners since 25th April when the term of the 2010-2013 Commissioners expired

 

 

Wednesday May 22, 2013

79 complaints lodged but zero Suhakam commissioners

By SHAILA KOSHY
koshy@thestar.com.my

KUALA LUMPUR: The number of complaints lodged with Suhakam is piling up but no inquiries can be held as Suhakam is still without commissioners.

Suhakam secretary Rodziah Abdul said the Complaints and Inquiries Division had received 79 complaints between April 26 and May 20.

Of the 79, 59 pertained to the 13th general election and the remaining 20 were split up as follows – freedom of expression (1), education (2), migrant workers (2), unrelated to infringement of human rights (10), and others (5).

“The operational machinery of Suhakam continues even without the commissioners, including communicating with the agencies involved,” said Rodziah in an interview.

“However, only commissioners can decide whether an inquiry is necessary as they are the governing body of Suhakam.”

Of the 59 complaints on GE13, she said 22 related to indelible ink.

“We will communicate with the Election Commission after we have assessed whether there are merits to the complaints.”

Asked whether commissioners could be expected soon, she replied: “To date, we haven’t been informed about any new appointments or re-appointments.”

It has been 26 days since chairman Tan Sri Hasmy Agam and six commissioners ended their three-year tenure on April 25.

This is the second time Suhakam has been left without commissioners.

The last time, there was a 45-day gap between the leaving of the Suhakam team led by Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman on April 23, 2010, and the appointment of the team led by Hasmy.

While the appointments are made by the Prime Minister under the Suhakam Act, he does so from a list of candidates proposed by the Suhakam Selection Committee chaired by Chief Secretary Datuk Seri Dr Ali Hamsa.

It is understood that the committee has met twice and shortlisted candidates for the Prime Minister to consider.- Star, 22/5/2013, 79 complaints lodged but zero Suhakam commissioners

Dharmendran - dead in police custody - classified as murder - but apparently still no police officer arrested..

"I [N Surendran] have been allowed to view Dharmendran's body with lawyer Latheefa Koya and the family members of the deceased after the pathologist had allowed us to view it at the Kuala Lumpur Hospital (HKL) mortuary."

"There were physical evidence of beatings and torture to the front of his thighs, and at the back of his body, there were beating marks on his back (severe to the point that) it had swelled up.

"The ears are stapled and there are staples left intact, which could be (clearly) seen on the ears. - Death in Police Custody - N Dharmendran (21 May 2013?)

There is really no reason whatsoever to beat up suspects. As of 2007, whatever confessions or things that are told by the suspect to the police cannot be used in cases to ensure conviction of the suspects. So why beat up suspects? There has just been too many deaths in police custody.

Death In Police Custody

147 Deaths in Police Lock-Ups in 2000-2009 period

A report by Bernama is attached below but I am not sure whether it is about N Dharmendran or a different case. For more about the Dharmendra case, visit MADPET Blog or just follow this link Death in Police Custody - N Dharmendran (21 May 2013?)

Man dies after breathing difficulties at lock-up

Bernama 4:45PM May 22, 2013

A man died after complaining of breathing difficulties while being detained at the Kuala Lumpur police headquarters lock-up in Kuala Lumpur last night.

In the 9pm incident, the man had complained of chest pains before being brought to the Kuala Lumpur Hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival, said City CID chief Ku Chin Wah.

He said the 32-year-old man was one of four suspects arrested in connection with a shooting case in Bandar Tun Razak, Cheras on May 11.

“A post-mortem will be done at HKL,” he told a press conference in Kuala Lumpur today.

In other developments, Ku said police had been given an extension on the remand till Monday on the second suspect held in connection with the murder of Customs deputy director-general (Customs/ Internal Tax) Shaharuddin Ibrahim.

He said police needed more time to wrap up investigations.

Shaharuddin was shot dead while on his way to work in Putrajaya in April 26.

- Bernama - Malaysiakini, 22/5/2013, Man dies after breathing difficulties at lock-up

Things have moved on and it has been classified as 'murder'

Autopsy done, ‘evidence points to murder’

G Lavendran | May 23, 2013

The preliminary post-mortem findings reveal that N Dharmendran died of multiple blunt force trauma.

PETALING JAYA: The preliminary post-mortem conducted at Hospital Kuala Lumpur has revealed that police detainee N Darmindran had died to severe blunt force trauma.

HKL pathologist Dr Siew Sheue Feng’s report, which was given to the deceased’s family last night, ruled out heart attack or asthma as the cause of death as claimed by the police.

Darmindran, 32, an Indah Water employee, had been in police detention since May 11.

Lawyer G Sivamalar, who accompanied the family to retrieve the post-mortem report, said that the pathologist had struck out all natural causes.

“So far, the evidence points to murder, at least that would be a fair claim.

“Now it’s all up to the investigating officer at Dang Wangi police station ASP Kamarul Rizal to give the final verdict,” she said.

“The police can’t use the excuse that the injuries were caused during the fight Darmindran was involved in on May 11 as the pathologist confirmed that the injuries were ‘fresh’,” she added.

After speaking to the pathologist, Sivamalar also said that Darmindran’s back and buttocks were also severely injured along with another two staples found on his legs.

“The pathologist said that that his back and buttocks were severely injured, also his thighs and legs were badly swollen due to injuries,” said Sivamalar.

“On top of that, they found another two staples – one on each ankle. Four staples were found on the body of the deceased, including the two on his ears,” she added.

Mock funeral at IPK KL

Sivamalar said that the family was willing to fight till the end in order to seek justice for Darmindran.

“The family is staying strong, they want the police to be honest and for once provide justice for the people,” she said.

“They want Darmindran’s case to be the last of its kind and hoped that police brutality would cease for good,” she added.

The family’s lawyers, who include PKR MP for Padang Serai, N Surendran and PKR lawyer Latheefa Koya would discuss further with the family of Darmindran on their next plan of action.

The funeral would be held today at Darmindran’s residence in Taman Mulia, Bandar Tun Razak in Cheras.

The family would also be holding a mock funeral outside the Kuala Lumpur police headquarters, where the deceased was detained.

Following the post-mortem report, the police have reclassified the probe as a murder investigation. - FMT News, 23/5/2013, Autopsy done, ‘evidence points to murder’

 

Sunday May 26, 2013

Leave no stone unturned in latest death in lock-up case

The Star Says

THE new IGP surely isn't having it easy. Just days into his appointment, Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar has had his hands full dealing with Opposition rallies, arrests of people for sedition and cracking down on gun violence.

But perhaps the most difficult and sensitive matter before him is the death of yet another police detainee.

Although police initially said N. Dharmendran died from “breathing difficulties”, a post-mortem revealed he died from “multiple blunt force trauma”. Bluntly put, he was most likely beaten to death and the case has swiftly been reclassified as murder.

City police chief Deputy Comm Datuk Mohmad Salleh also announced the setting up of a task force to investigate.

So far, the police have responded to this new crisis quite well. Perhaps they have learned from the public relations nightmare involving the 2009 death of A. Kugan in the Subang Jaya police station.

In that case, public anger was fanned by conflicting reports from two post-mortems on the cause of death of the suspected car thief. But photos of Kugan's body with incriminating wounds and bruises went viral, leading to widespread belief of police brutality. Eventually, police constable V. Navindran was charged and convicted of causing hurt to Kugan.

Navindran subsequently claimed he was made the scapegoat. Through the whole messy case, the police image took a severe beating as accusations of cover-up and brutality and torture being commonplace in lock-ups swirled.

Kugan's death at the hands of the police remains an angry, sore point with the public, especially the Indian community. If Dharmendran's death is not handled properly and satisfactorily, it could explode with similarly nasty consequences.

Dharmendran, 32, was detained on May 12 along with three others after they were suspected to have been involved in a shooting case in Bandar Tun Razak two weeks earlier.

DCP Mohamad, while saying Dharmendran might have been murdered while in custody at the Kuala Lumpur police headquarters, declined to elaborate on the nature of the deceased's injuries.

He also urged the public not to speculate and to allow the police time to conduct a full investigation.

The problem is people will speculate as long as police continue to withhold information like the deceased's injuries. It has already been widely reported that there were signs of bruises and staple marks on his body.

Granted, the police have promised to investigate, but it is perhaps better for an independent body to do so. This will give the public confidence that there is transparency and no cover-up.

What Khalid must also do immediately is to review the protocol on how detainees are interrogated and treated. Again, how this is conducted will also affect public perception of the force.

It may also be timely for him to consider supporting the implementation of the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission as proposed by the royal commission of inquiry in the police in 2007.

A young father has been murdered. His family and the public are demanding answers. No stone must be left unturned, even if it means revealing ugly truths, so that Dharmendran's murderers can be brought to justice and safeguards are in place to prevent custody deaths from happening again.- Star, 26/5/2013, Leave no stone unturned in latest death in lock-up case

But, I believe, still no police officer has been arrested.....only saw reports about the wife being called in for investigations...Tell us how many witnesses have been investigated. What has happened to the suspected police personnel? Have they been suspended at the very least? 

Now, if the victim was tortured to death by the police, then we hope that criminal action [not some disciplinary action] be taken against all the police officers involved in physically torturing the victim, all police officers that 'knew about it' and did nothing - for they should also be punished as 'accomplices'.

The Officer in Charge of the said police station, if he is a person of honour, should immediately tender his resignation for his gross failings as OIC that has resulted in the torture and 'murder' of a suspect...What do you think?

Have the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and/or the IGP visited the family of Dharmendran to extend at the very least their condolence - for after all the death happened in the custody of the police...or they have just not bothered. 

The SUHAKAM also cannot act - because there are no Human Rights Commissioners since April 25th...that is if one is wondering why SUHAKAM has not made a statement with regard this case.... 

Recent Arrests and Actions by the Authorities are a Closing of Democratic Space - Malaysian Bar

Press Release

Recent Arrests and Actions by the Authorities are a Closing of Democratic Space

The Malaysian Bar is appalled by the recent arrests of several individuals pursuant to the Sedition Act 1948.  The Sedition Act, as with its predecessor the Sedition Ordinance, was conceived and designed by a colonial government to stifle fundamental rights and liberties, oppress the rakyat and deny them democratic space.  Its sole purpose was to suppress and persecute the citizenry.  The Sedition Act has no place in our modern democratic society and should have been discarded at Merdeka.  The time for it to be dumped into the dustbin of history is long overdue.

It has been reported that Adam Adli, Tian Chua, Tamrin Ghafar and Haris Ibrahim were arrested for purportedly making seditious statements at a forum held on 13 May 2013.  The continued use of the Sedition Act by the authorities directly contradicts the promise made less than a year ago by Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Tun Abdul Razak in July 2012, that the 64-year-old law will be repealed and replaced in 2013 by a National Harmony Act.  This was a clear admission and recognition by the Government that the Sedition Act was an anachronistic and repressive colonial law.  The Prime Minister further stated that the new law will not prevent members of the public from criticising the government, quoting John Locke who said, “…the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.” 

The decision to arrest Adam Adli, Tian Chua, Tamrin Ghafar and Haris Ibrahim is therefore an unacceptable repudiation of the promise made by the Prime Minister.  It further raises questions over the Government’s sincerity in pursuing transformation and greater civil liberties through legislative reforms.

The test of a genuine democracy is to allow words to be said even when we disagree with them.  As much as one may not agree with the calls for public demonstrations to oppose the Government and question its electoral legitimacy, citizens nevertheless have a fundamental right to express themselves in such manner so long as they do so peacefully and there is no call for the use of violence.  The authorities would be wrong to assume that a call to overthrow the government must necessarily be only by violent means.  Time and again, the rakyat have shown that they can gather in public assembly in large numbers, yet peacefully.  It is therefore unjustifiable and premature to preempt the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms with assumptions or postulations of the use of violence.  As much as dissent and opposition may be unpalatable, these must not be criminalised and silenced, but countered with open and healthy debate, reforms and concrete changes.

The Malaysian Bar is equally troubled by the arrest of 18 persons holding a peaceful candlelight vigil outside the Jinjang Police Detention Centre on 22 May 2013.  The Malaysian Bar is disappointed that the police have said that they can no longer tolerate such candlelight vigils.  It is not the role of the police to tolerate or otherwise, but it is their duty to facilitate the exercise of democratic freedoms.  The police must bring themselves into the 21st century and cease suppressing the rights of the rakyat.  The Malaysian Bar is concerned that these incidents may also signal a lurch towards greater authoritarianism, fascism and persecution of those whose viewpoints differ from those of the Government.  It feeds an already widely held belief that there is an unhealthy symbiotic relationship between the police on the one hand, and Government on the other.  In simple terms, “You protect me, I defend you”.

This may be seen from the failure of the authorities to take similar action in other obvious cases that more clearly evidence utterances and publications exhibiting seditious tendencies.  It is inexplicable that there has been no similar prosecution against the likes of:

(a) Ibrahim Ali, for allegedly inciting the burning of Malay language bibles;

(b) Ridhuan Tee Abdullah and Zulkifli Noordin, for allegedly disparaging the Hindu religion and insulting adherents of the religion; 

(c) The racial rhetoric of the Prime Minister in his allegation of a “Chinese tsunami”, followed by the Utusan Malaysia article entitled “Apa lagi orang Cina mahu?”; and

(d) Datuk Mohd Noor Abdullah, a former Court of Appeal judge, for allegedly accusing a racial group of treason and warning of retribution by another racial group.   

While the Malaysian Bar is not advocating the use of the Sedition Act against these individuals, we abhor the discrepancies in treatment and the selective prosecution by the authorities in this regard.  Further, the police should not have made an application for the remand of Tian Chua, Tamrin Ghafar and Haris Ibrahim, because it was an abuse of the process of the law.  Given that the alleged incident occurred 11 days ago, the police should already have evidence of what was allegedly said.  We commend the Magistrate for having refused the application for remand.   

The Malaysian Bar strongly urges the authorities to withdraw the charge against Adam Adli, and not to prosecute Tian Chua, Tamrin Ghafar, Haris Ibrahim and the 18 individuals arrested at the candlelight vigil.  We urge them to respect the freedom of speech and assembly as enshrined in the Federal Constitution.  The Malaysian Bar also urges the Government to resist the temptation to quell dissenting voices by resorting to archaic and oppressive legislation.  Otherwise, the promise of freedoms made by the Prime Minister will be nothing more than a mere platitude.

The Malaysian Bar deplores the seizure of copies of Harakah, Suara Keadilan and The Rocket, the newspapers of political parties PAS, PKR and DAP, respectively.  We reiterate that the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 should be abolished.  The condition imposed by the authorities on these three publications — prohibiting their sale and distribution to members of the public at large — is unconstitutional, as it breaches the right of the publishers to the freedom of expression.  It is also a breach of the constitutional rights of the public to receive such information.

The recent arrests, prosecutions and confiscations by the authorities are manifestations of regressive and undemocratic conduct.  The current environment is not reflective of a government aspiring to achieve world-class democracy.  Rather than bringing about a society that is at ease with itself, it is instead creating an environment of grave concern.  

The Malaysian Bar calls upon the newly elected Government to demonstrate its commitment to a continuing course of transformation and democratic reforms, not by rhetoric alone but by sincere and genuine action. 

To promote greater democracy, the Government should welcome diversity of opinion, not close democratic space.

Christopher Leong
President
Malaysian Bar
24 May 2013

--

Is it the royalty or some elements in PR behind this 'crisis' about Exco appointments in Selangor?

I am a bit concerned about what is happening in Selangor with the Exco list. It is a bit hard to believe that it is because of HRH Sultan of Selangor, that seem to be blamed now, as being the party exerting 'pressure' with regard the composition of the State Exco. What if  HRH Sultan said he preferred someone from UMNO as the Menteri Besar? What if HRH Sultan said that he wanted persons from the BN in the State Exco? 

Personally, I do not believe that HRH Sultan of Selangor is the one exerting such pressure in Selangor, it may be just some elements within the Pakatan Rakyat itself. If the later is what is happening, many Malaysians may want to re-think their preference for Pakatan Rakyat - now seen to be as divisive (or even worse than the BN) when ethnicity and religion becomes a bigger concern than the best 'Malaysian' with the required ability, capacity and skills to serve the people. [I never heard of any Sultan's preferences with regard the Exco composition when BN ruled..., or was it there and we were not told...]

The delay in finalising the Selangor state executive council list is to comply with the Selangor Sultan's request to change the racial composition of the line-up, says Selangor PAS deputy commissioner Khalid Samad.

"We understand that his royal highness wants to see an exco made up of six Malays and four non-Malays.

"This is different from the exco in 2008, which was made up of five Malays and five non-Malays," Khalid, the MP for Shah Alam, said in a blog posting yesterday.

He explained that this was to match the increase in Malay majority seats won by Pakatan Rakyat in the 13th general election. - Malaysiakini, 21/5/2013, Exco list held up to accommodate S'gor sultan

With reference to this report, I have concerns.

First concern, is the word '...understand that his royal...' - Where is this understanding coming from? I do not recall seeing any statement made by HRH Sultan of Selangor. 

Second, the changes of ethnic/religious composition certainly should not have anything to do with Pakatan winning more Malay majority seats for after all we are talking about the governance of Selangor State and its people - and how many Malay majority seats won is a reason more likely being raised by elements in Pakatan Rakyat - not HRH Sultan of Selangor who reasonably would be concerned for all people in Selangor, and not how many Malay majority seats won by PR. As such, this reasoning is absurd. The people voted in their reps, and they did not consider ethnicity, religion, gender... these factors are arguments raised by political parties or potential candidates when lobbying to be chosen as candidates or party seats during elections.{Furthermore, if we were to look at popular ethnic support, it may very well paint a different picture...}.

DAP 15, PAS 15 and PKR 14 - still they agreed to an MB from PKR, and I hope it was because he was the best available candidate for the MB position.

Remember restrictions based on ethnicity and/or religion is a problem for multiracial parties like PKR and DAP, and also PAS now since they too are fielding non-Muslim candidates...moving towards becoming a truly Malaysian party. 

I  hope that Pakatan Rakyat would stand up against all these ethnic/religious considerations. Remember that you have the people's mandate...and do not cow down to such pressures based on ethnicity and religion...or 'Party shares'. 

Wherever Pakatan won, it matters not whether the candidate came from PAS, PKR or DAP, or was a Malay, Chinese, Indian, Sri Lankan, Thai, Iban, Kadazan... the Pakatan Rakyat would have still won no matter who the candidate. People voted for the PR...not so much the candidates. [Of course, if it was an incumbent, then performance during the last tenure would also be considered by the voters..]

I believe that the composition of the State cabinet(State Executive Council) should be merely on the consideration of the best person available for the portfolio without consideration about which party, ethnicity, religion, gender,...This would be best for the people. 

But alas, Pakatan Rakyat also, seems to be like the BN, bickering about this and that. First, there was bickering about the seats...now, the number of Exco positions? We had the PKR reps fighting about the MB position and candidate...See also

Selangor ADUNs - serve the people - and do not be distracted by desires for personal enrichment, power, etc...

Azmin should stay out of Khalid's Cabinet, and be an effective watchdog as a Pakatan Backbencher..

We have to remember that the Pakatan Rakyat has the two third majority in Selangor, and that means that there should be no problem to now amend the Selangor Constitution, to bring in in line with the Federal Constitution. This would mean removing the ethnic and religious condition when it comes to appointing the Menteri Besar - making the Menteri Besar(as is the case with the Prime Minister of Malaysia)  a member of the Legislative Assembly who ...command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly. Surely Malaysians would want the best person who enjoys the confidence of the majority appointed as the Menteri Besar irrespective of gender, ethnicity and/or religion, and for the chosen Menteri Besar to then chose the best of the elected representatives as members of his/her cabinet(State Executive Council). Would not a person like Lim Guan Eng make a good Menteri Besar of Selangor?

51  Appointment of Menteri Besar [LAWS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SELANGOR, 1959]
(1) His Highness shall appoint by Instrument under His Sign Manual and the State Seal, a Menteri Besar, in accordance with paragraph (a) of Clause (2) of Article 53.
(1A) His Royal Highness shall appoint by Instrument under His Sign Manual and the State Seal a Deputy Menteri Besar in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (c) of Clause (2) of Article 53.
(2) Subject to the provision of Clause (4) of Article 53 no person shall be appointed to be Menteri Besar unless he is of the Malay Race and professes the Muslim Religion.

Article 51(2) would exclude also Muslims of all other ethnicities in Malaysia, including other Bumiputra Muslims. An Orang Asli also could not be the MB.  This provision certainly need to be repealed.

53  The Executive Council

(1) His Highness shall appoint a Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan to be called in English the State Executive Council.
(2) The State Executive Council shall be appointed as follows, that is to say-

(a) His Highness shall first appoint as Menteri Besar to preside over the State Executive Council, a member of the Legislative Assembly who in His judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly;
(b) He shall on the advice of the Menteri Besar appoint not more than ten nor less than four other members from among the members of the Legislative Assembly; and
(c) He shall, if the Menteri Besar so advises, appoint a member of the State Executive Council to be the Deputy Menteri Besar who shall assist the Menteri Besar in the exercise of his powers, the performance of his duties and the carrying out of his functions, and on the directions of the Menteri Besar, he shall exercise such powers, perform such duties and carry out such functions of the Menteri Besar,...

Yes, Pakatan Rakyat has the ability and the capacity to make the needful amendments of the Selangor Constitution - a failure to do so in this term would show us a glimpse of the true nature of Pakatan Rakyat...

98  Amendments of the Constitution

(1) The following provisions of this Article shall have effect with respect to the amendments of this Constitution.
(2) The provisions of the First Part of this Constitution except Articles 3 and 38 (b) may be amended by His Highness by proclamation issued with the advice and concurrence of the Dewan di-Raja established under Article 23 but may not be amended by the State Legislature or by any other means.
(3) The provisions of Article 38 (b) and Articles 47, 48 and 93 may, subject to Clause (5), be amended by Bills passed by the Legislative Assembly and approved by the Dewan di-Raja established under Article 23 and assented to by His Highness, but may not be amended by any other means.
(4) The provisions of the Second Part except Articles 47, 48 and 93 and the provisions of Articles 1, 2 and 3 may, subject to Clause (5), be amended by an enactment of the State Legislature but may not be amended by any other means.
(5) A Bill for making an amendment to this Constitution shall not be passed by the Legislative Assembly unless it has been supported on Second and Third Readings by the votes of not less than two thirds of the total number of members thereof.
(5A) The following amendments are excepted from the provisions of Clause (5), that is to say-

(a) any amendment to the definition of the territory of the State which is made in consequence of the passing of a law altering the boundaries of the State under Article 2 of the Federal Constitution to which the Legislative Assembly and the Conference of Rulers have consented under the said Article; and
(b) any amendment the effect of which is to bring this Constitution into accord with any of the provisions of the Eighth Schedule to the Federal Constitution, but only if it is made after the Legislative Assembly has been elected in accordance with Article 62.

(6) In this Article "amendment" includes addition and repeal.