Election Petitions - Why are courts shutting people from access to justice? Exessive Cost and denial of trial on merits

The manner in which the Malaysian judiciary is dealing with Election Petitions is shocking and disappointing. Election Petitions, or any applications in court should never be dismissed on technicalities. If there are procedural non-compliance or other regularities, courts must make the necessary orders/directions so that these may be cured soonest - and the courts can then hear the Election Petitions on the merits.

2) SUMMARY DISMISSALS OF ELECTION PETITIONS
We are greatly concerned with the spate of summary dismissals of the election petitions filed by Pakatan Rakyat candidates with regard to electoral fraud in the 13th general election.

To summarily dismiss these petitions purely on so-called technical grounds and ignoring the fact that the issues raised in the petitions are matters of public interest which have a direct bearing on the conduct of free and fair elections. 

Some of the technicalities raised can be considered frivolous. For example; the petitions for Machang and Selising were struck off on the basis purportedly that the petition was not served personally by the petitioner himself on the respondents. This is quite ridiculous when everyone understands that parties in court act through lawyers and do not go around trying to serve court documents themselves!

Judges are also saying that the facts stated in the petitions are not sufficient. However I am advised that provisions also exist in the election law for any party to apply for particulars and for the court to direct provision of such details. Surely this would be a better way to handle disputes when such important issues of election abuses are raised regardless by whom whether BN or PR. - extract from Press Statement issued by Anwar Ibrahim on 29/7/2013

HIGH Costs - is the Malaysian courts trying to deter Malaysians, especially the poorer Malaysians, from coming to court to seek justice, and in this case by filing Election Petitions. Remember, the ordinary citizen, who is a voter also have the right to file an Election Petition - not just the losing candidates. See section 34 of the Election Offences Act 1954 - Who may present petition.

An election petition may be presented to the High Court by any one or more of the following persons:

(a) some person who voted or had a right to vote at the election to which the petition relates;
(b) some person claiming to have had a right to be returned or elected at such election; or
(c) some person alleging himself to have been a candidate at such election.

So when the Petitioner is ordered to pay very high cost, here not even after the full trial on the merits, but based on technical or procedural non compliance, would that not deter people from coming to court for justice and thus resort to extrajudicial means? 

Remember, that in 2009 a government study revealed that more than 30% of Malaysian workers earned less than poverty line income, and remember also that the Minimum Wage in Malaysia is only RM900 (RM800 for Sabah and Sarawak), hence these high cost orders is in effect shutting access to Malaysian courts  for millions of Malaysians who are low and middle income earners. I am of the opinion that when it comes to Election Petition and public interest cases, there should be no orders to pay cost, or even if cost is to be paid, it should not exceed a minimal sum of RM500. Remember, any petitioner would have already expended monies in engaging a lawyer, and in filing the case. We want people, everyone including the poor, to have the real right to be able to access justice through courts - and, so please stop ordering payment of excessive cost.[Likewise, bail amounts should also be much lower taking into consideration the financial income of the accused person - it really should never exceed one month's income of the accused person]

The Election Court here today dismissed petitions by Pakatan Rakyat to challenge the results of a parliamentary seat and two state seats which were won by Barisan Nasional (BN) in the 13th General Election.They are Air Lanas and Kok Lanas state seats and Ketereh parliamentary seat.Judge Datuk John Louis O'hara also ordered the petitioners to pay a total of RM200,000 in cost to all the respondents including to Air Lanas assemblyman Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed. At the same court, O'hara also rejected BN's petitions against two Pas state seats - Mengkebang and Manik Urai and ordered the petitioners to pay RM60,000 in costs. -New Starits Times, 23/7/2013, Six election petitions dismissed

Meanwhile, in the capital, the High Court struck out an election petition for Setiawangsa filed by PKR candidate Ibrahim Yaacob on grounds that the petition was defective.Justice Zabariah Mohd Yusof, in her decision, said the petitioner failed to fulfil the mandatory requirements of the election law in filing the petition. She ordered costs of RM50,000 to be paid to the returning officer (RO) of the Setiawangsa constituency and the Election Commission (EC).Zabariah also ordered costs of RM20,000 to be paid to the first respondent, Ahmad Fauzi, who was also the Barisan Nasional candidate, reports Bernama. - The Sun Daily, 24/7/2013, Election petitions by PR, BN dismissed

In PENANG, the High Court dismissed two petitions filed by PKR's Mohd Baktiar Wan Chik and Datuk Abdul Halim Hussain for both the Balik Pulau parliamentary and Teluk Bahang state seats respectively. Justice Hadariah Syed Ismail dismissed the petitions as both failed to comply with provisions under the Election Petition Rules 1954.Hadariah ordered Mohd Baktiar to pay costs of RM40,000 each to three respondents. The respondents are Balik Pulau MP Datuk Seri Dr Hilmi Yahaya, the constituency RO and EC.She also ordered Abdul Halim to pay RM10,000 each in costs to BN Teluk Bahang assemblyman Datuk Shah Headan Ayoob Hussain Shah, the constituency RO and EC. - The Sun Daily, 24/7/2013, Election petitions by PR, BN dismissed

"...The second trend is awarding high costs on the petitioners when their petitions are struck off. Petitioners have been ordered to pay as much as RM120,000 in the case of BalikPulau.

I am informed by lawyers that such costs are not in line at all with the trend of costs awarded for similar civil litigation. For example similar preliminary objections in the High Court will probably be awarded RM5,000 to RM10,000. Full appeals in the Court of Appeal are awarded RM15,000 to RM 20,000.

Such high costs are oppressive bearing in mind the public interest nature of the litigation and invites the inference that there is a decided policy to inflict punitive costs to discourage petitions. Judge Hadhariah Syed Ismail handling BalikPulau was heard to say that the RM30,000 costs that were awarded for the DUN TelokBahang petition against the KEADILAN petitioner were not high enough and proceeded to award RM 120,000..." - extract from Press Statement issued by Anwar Ibrahim on 29/7/2013

Are the courts forgetting that their main duty is "to prevent injustice", and that "the court or a judge shall have regard to the justice of the particular case and not only to the technical non-compliance of any of the rules...". Remember section 42  Procedure and practice on election petitions of the Election Offences Act.

(2) When any matter is not expressly provided for in the Election Petition Rules 1954, the High Court Rules 1980 [P.U.(A) 50/1980] shall apply.

Well, I believe that important matters like the inherent powers of the court, and how to deal with technical and procedural non-compliance may not be 'expressly provided for in the Election Petition Rules, and hence the courts need to consider the Rules of the High Court 1980 - where clearly the principle is not to deny the applicant their day in court because of technical/procedural mistakes - let the case be tried on the merits. The only time the court dismisses a case(in this an Election Petition) is when there is a 'substantial  miscarriage of justice' - an extremely high standard which almost never will happen.

Order 92 Inherent powers of the Court. (O. 92 r. 4 Rules of the High Court 1980)
For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that nothing in these rules shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the Court to make any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court.

Order 1A  Court or judge shall have regard to justice. (Rules of the High Court 1980)
In administering any of the rules herein the court or a judge shall have regard to the justice of the particular case and not only to the technical non-compliance of any of the rules herein.

Order 2  Effect of Non-Compliance.(Rules of the High Court 1980)
Rule 3. Preliminary objection for non-compliance of rules not allowed (O 2 r 3).
A court or judge shall not allow any preliminary objection by any party to any cause or matter or proceedings only on the ground of noncompliance of any of these Rules unless the court or judge is of the opinion that such non-compliance has occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice.

Remember that these principles must be the guiding principles of all courts and judges, irrespective of whether there are rules or not.

People go to court so that their cases are heard on the merits - if cases are struck out on technicalities, then it just create disaffection amongst persons trying to access justice through Malaysian courts. Worse still, is the fact that these procedural non-compliance is really not the fault of the applicant/litigant but of lawyers and/or lack of clarity in the rules/procedures/format. In fact, really courts should assist the people by reviewing applications filed, etc to see if there are any mistakes or non-compliances and advising that the needful be done so that when the case is called up before the judge for hearing, it can soonest proceed to be heard on the merits and decided.

Another concern, is that whether it is Judges or Judicial Commissioners hearing these Election Petition. It should not be Judicial Commissioners, who really are 'contract judges' or judges on probation uncertain whether they will be even appointed as Judges, who has the necessary protection to ensure independence. The Prime Minister(a BN man, and a recently elected MP, plays a significant role still in determining whether a Judicial Commissioner is at a later date appointed as a Judge or not - hence their 'independence' when it comes to Election Petitions is questionable. If they decide against the PM's party, would they be elevated or appointed as Judges? Whether they decide against the PM, his party, his BN coalition members, or their cronies may not be a factor even considered by the PM when it comes to appointing Judges - but still, reasonably. would it not operate in the mind of Judicial Commissioners when it comes to handling and deciding a Election Petition? I have always been of the opinion that we should get rid of Judicial Commissioners - and people should straight away be appointed as Judges as it was done before the Judicial Crisis of 1988.

MTUC picket protesting denial of the right to retire at 60 becos the Minister exempted 250 over companies from following the law

MTUC had a picket and handed over a memorandum about the denial of the right to enjoy the new retirement ages to some workers as the Malaysian government has granted exemption to some 250 companies - that means the workers in these companies who will retire at 50 or 55 from now until the end of this year will be forced to retire - not being able to enjoy the new retirement age of 60 fixed by law. 

 

Only about 50 worker leaders and workers were present at this peaceful picket held at the Human Resource Ministry on 23/7/2013 - but alas no media, mainstream or alternative, reported this event.

A memorandum was handed over to the Minister of Human Resources [But I could not get a copy of the Memorandum even from the MTUC website - it would have been good to see this Memorandum, especially the demands made by the MTUC]

See earlier post:-

Malaysia denies senior workers in about 200 companies the right to Minimum Retirement age of 60

 

Minimum mandatory retirement age: MTUC unhappy with exemptions

KUALA LUMPUR -- The Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) is unhappy that exemptions are being given to hundreds of employers on implementing the minimum mandatory retirement age of 60.

Its secretary-general Abdul Halim Mansor said this would have adverse implications on workers, among them employees would be employed as contract workers, lose Socso protection, see their Employees Provident Fund contributions drop to 60 per cent and forego many other perks.

"MTUC objects to the decision of the the Human Resources Minister (Datuk Richard Riot) to give exemptions on implementing the minimum retirement age to 258 companies which applied for the waiver under Section 18 of the Minimum Retirement Age Act 2012.

"The minister's statement that this was agreed to by the Tripartite Body (Unions, Government and Employers) is not true based on the minutes of the meeting which the MTUC has," he said in a statement here today.

He also expressed disappointment that the exemption was also given to giants like BASF, Petronas and the Boustead Group.

The Act came into effect on July 1. -- BERNAMA
 

Read more: Minimum mandatory retirement age: MTUC unhappy with exemptions - Latest - New Straits Times http://www.nst.com.my/latest/minimum-mandatory-retirement-age-mtuc-unhappy-with-exemptions-1.316743#ixzz2aGSY0iJl

 

 

 

Pakatan Rakyat fails to address issue of workers facing disciplinary action for execising rights in democratic Malaysia during GE13

I have been searching the internet, hoping to be able to get some news that Pakatan Rakyat, or the Opposition parties, or the BN political parties would have come out with outrage (or a reaction) as to what 2 DRB Hicom companies in Pekan was doing to 18 workers.... (see the statement, now endorsed by 52 groups - which included 1 political party)

Wonder why the issues and causes of the ordinary worker and the common person is not being addressed or at the very least commented on by these politicians and political party. Are they only concern when party leaders are victims of injustice and human rights ...if that be the case, I wonder whether Malaysians really want such politicians and political parties to govern...

Response seem to be only when an issue manages to get covered by the main-stream media - this is so sad.

The people support you...and likewise, you must be there for the people when their rights are being violated or their welfare/livelihood is being affected. I do hope our 'people's representatives' demonstrate greater concern for the ordinary person in Malaysia ...workers, peasants, fisher folk.... 

It is odd just before elections, there is so much expression of concern ...but now after GE13, you do not seem to care anymore? 

A good person is good all the time, and acts of concern is sincere and unconditional - but when it comes to  some of these 'politicians' or 'would-be politicians', their sincerity and 'goodness' is in question.  

The said media statement, both English and Malay versions, were sent to all media - including papers owned and controlled by political parties. How many of these political party papers carried it, or even reported it - did they also 'black it out' or not carry it because it was not a statement by their political leader or party or friends .... well, is that not similar to the criticism that Malaysians have about the mainstream media, TV, etc  - so the question to ask is that how exactly are you different from the BN? The only political party newspaper/portal/blog/website was the English Harakah Daily that carried a report about this statement below on 1/7/2013, DRB-Hicom earns ire of unions for punishing staff over political stand.

 

Joint  Statement – 25/6/2013 (now 52)

DRB HICOM MUST RESPECT THE CITIZENS’ RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS IN MALAYSIA

– Stop disciplinary action against workers for exercising their political rights.

We, the undersigned 52 civil society organizations, trade unions and concerned groups, are appalled by the actions of two DRB Hicom companies based in Pekan, namely HICOM Automotive Manufacturers (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd and ISUZU HICOM Malaysia Sdn Bhd for taking disciplinary action against 18 workers who merely exercised their rights (outside working hours), as citizens, to participate in the democratic process.  Pursuant to a decision by the Malaysian Trade Union Congress (MTUC), which was also supported by the National Union of Transport Equipment and Allied Industries Workers (NUTEAIW),  to extract commitments on workers' rights from contesting candidates and political parties involved in GE13, workers throughout Malaysia, including in Pekan, met or attempted to meet  contesting candidates from all parties before election day, being on 5/5/2013.

Accordingly, on 3/5/2013, a group of 18 workers submitted the MTUC memorandum to one of the contesting candidates in the Pekan parliamentary constituency, which also happens to be the constituency that the Prime Minister of Malaysia was contesting.

On account of this act, disciplinary action has been initiated by 2  DRB HICOM companies based in Pekan against these 18 workers.

First, HICOM Automotive Manufacturers (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd, which assembles automobiles for Suzuki, Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen, has issued show cause letters on  22/5/2013 to 16 workers, and speedily proceeded with the 'Domestic Inquiry' which began on 11/6/2013. At present the Domestic Inquiry is yet to end and there is no decision.

Second, ISUZU HICOM Malaysia Sdn Bhd, that assembles automobiles for Isuzu, also issued show cause letters to 2 workers. They, too, are awaiting the decision of the Domestic Inquiry. Significantly, the workers were NOT allowed the right to be represented by lawyers or representatives of the National Union, only by representatives from the work site committee.

We consider the action taken by the two DRB Hicom companies not only a gross violation of worker rights. It is also a violation of the right of citizens to participate in the democratic process of Malaysia, especially during elections. No employer should have the right to dictate directly or indirectly the political choices, activities and/or actions of their workers, more so outside employment hours. Workers, as citizens, of Malaysia must have the freedom to join and participate in any political party of their choice, offer themselves as candidates if they so wish, and involve themselves in campaigning in general elections.

Hence DRB Hicom's taking disciplinary action against these 18 workers for exercising their rights as citizens in the run-up to GE13, is completely uncalled for. It is a gross violation of the rights of these 18 workers. Under the circumstances, we demand that DRB Hicom stop all disciplinary actions being taken against these 18 workers immediately. If any of these 18 workers have already been terminated,  they should be reinstated immediately.

We understand that the charges leveled against the workers are (1) undermining the image or good name of the company orally, in writing or by action, and (2) bringing about or trying to bring about any form of influence or outside pressure to submit or support any external claim that is related to service be it an individual claim or claims of other employees. 

We further understand that the employer DRB Hicom is trying to rationalise its action against the said 18 workers - in seeking a commitment on workers rights from the Pekan parliamentary candidate – by claiming that the workers might have given the 'false impression' that 'the company was involved in politics' which is contrary to the company's stance. 

We find such an explanation laughable! Indeed, it is hypocritical given the fact that during the electoral campaign period, on 25/4/2013, the company had encouraged workers to go and meet the Barisan Nasional Paliamentary candidate for Pekan, Mohd Najib Abdul Razak, also the incumbent Prime Minister. Indeed, workers were allowed to go for the meeting during working hours! This event was also highlighted in Najib’s 13^th General Election Pekan Constituency candidate website (http://www.parlimenpekan.com/?p=840), and the posting was entitled ‘Dato’ Sri Najib Beramah Mesra Dengan Warga DRB-Hicom Pekan’(Dato’ Sri Najib Socialize with DRB-Hicom citizenry). Later that very day women workers were also allowed by the company to meet up with Najib’s wife.  

Companies and businesses should never terminate a worker for reasons other than matters that relate to work performance and/or their conduct as a worker save in very exceptional cases, for eg, like when a worker is convicted of a criminal offence. 

These 18 workers have families and children, and a termination would cause great hardship to their well-being and livelihood. Amongst the 18 are also trade union leaders, including also the current chairperson of MTUC Pahang Division. We hope that the termination of worker leaders does not occur and that the two DRB HICOM companies are not resorting to ‘union busting’.

We call on DRB Hicom, HICOM Automotive Manufacturers (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd and ISUZU HICOM Malaysia Sdn Bhd to immediately discontinue disciplinary action against the said 18 workers, and if any be already terminated to immediately reinstate them without loss of benefits.

We call on Prime Minister Mohd Najib Abdul Razak, being also the Member of Parliament for Pekan, to intervene and ensure that the rights of his constituents, as workers and as citizens, are not violated by employers. 

Charles Hector

Mohd Roszeli bin Majid

Pranom Somwong

For and on behalf the 52 organisations listed below

ALIRAN

Asia  Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development ( APWLD)

Asian Migrant Centre (AMC)

Association of Maybank Executives

Building and Wood Workers International Asia Pacific

Burma Campaign Malaysia

Clean Clothes Campaign

Community Action Network (CAN), Malaysia

Dignity International

Group of Concerned Citizens
Persatuan Sahabat Wanita Selangor

Human Rights Ambassador for Salem News , UK 

Jawatankuasa Sahabat Rakyat (人民之友)

Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Polyplastics Asia Pacific

Kesatuan Sekerja Industri Elektronik Wilayah Selatan Semenanjung Malaysia

Kesatuan Pekerja Pekerja Kelab Semenanjung Malaysia

Legal Aid Commission, Sri Lanka

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

Malaysians for Beng Hock

Malaysian Physicians for Social Responsibility

Migrante International

Migrants Rights Council,India

MTUC(Malaysian Trade Union Congress) Melaka

MTUC(Malaysian Trade Union Congress) Pahang

MTUC(Malaysian Trade Union Congress) Penang Division

Network of Action for Migrants in Malaysia(NAMM)

NUBE (National Union of Banking Employees), Malaysia

NUHBRW (National Union of Hotel, Bar and Restaurant Workers), Malaysia

Parti Rakyat Malaysia(PRM)

Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti, Selangor (EMPOWER)

Persatuan Masyarakat Selangor & Wilayah Persekutuan (PERMAS)

Pusat KOMAS (KOMAS)

Sarawak Dayak Iban Association

SUARAM (Suara Rakyat Malaysia)

Tenaganita, Malaysia

Think Centre, Singapore

Tenaga Nasional Berhad Junior Officers Union (TNBJOU), Malaysia

WARBE Development Foundation-Bangladesh

Women's Aid Organisation (WAO), Malaysia

Workers Assistance Center, Inc, Philippines

Workers Hub For Change (WH4C)

Additional Endorsements:

NLD LA Malaysia
Yayasan LINTAS NUSA - Batam Indonesia

IMA Research Foundation, Bangladesh

WARBE Development Foundation-Bangladesh

Committee for a Workers' International (CWI) Malaysia

Women's Rehabilitation Centre (WOREC), Nepal

National Alliance Of Women Human Rights Defenders Alliances, Nepal

Legal Support for Children and Women (LSCW), Cambodia

HMISC (Hsinchu Cathoic Diocese Migrants and Immigrants Service Center, Taiwan

National Domestic Workers’ Movement (NDWM), India

Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja MHS Aviation Berhad

Can a single parent convert a child to another religion? 3 certificates converting three minors, which were made without their mother's knowledge quashed by court

Can a single parent convert a child to another religion? That right should be with both parents - father and mother.

Sadly, for the purpose of gaining custody of children, when a marriage breaks down rather that going through divorce proceedings in court - the easy way that some take is to convert to Islam, and thereafter try to convert the children without the knowledge or consent of the other parent(be it father or the mother). This is a human problem affecting also children and other dependents and Malaysia needs to address it /// 

Malaysia

Hindu mother wins legal fight to also decide children’s faith after husband converts them to Islam

BY RITA JONG
July 25, 2013
Latest Update: July 25, 2013 07:50 pm

 

In a landmark decision, the Ipoh High court today quashed a man’s move to convert his three children to Islam, the latest episode in a combustible issue in Malaysia.

Judicial commissioner Lee Swee Seng said that while K. Patmanathan could convert, he did not have the right to deprive the children and their mothers of the freedom of religion.

He quashed the three certificates in converting the three minors, which were made without their mother M. Indira Gandhi’s knowledge.

Lee made this decision in allowing Patmanathan’s estranged wife, Indira’s judicial review application to quash the certificate issued by the Perak Religious Department.

The state registrar of conversions, the Perak Religious Department director, the state and federal governments, the education ministry and Patmanathan were named as respondents

Lee allowed the application with no order as to cost.

Indira, 38, a kindergarten teacher, filed a judicial review application in 2009.

Patmanathan, 44, had himself converted to Islam on March 2009 and is now known as Muhammad Ridzuan Abdullah.

He then converted his three children on April 2 the same year.

That same month, the Syariah Court granted him custody of his three children, an order which Indira had challenged in the civil courts.

The High Court subsequently granted Indira an interim order for the custody of their children.

She had claimed that Patmanathan had stormed into her house, had used force against her and their children, Tevi Darsiny, Karan Dinish and Prasana Diksa, who were then aged 12, 11 and one, respectively, before leaving with their birth certificates.

Patmanathan then took away their youngest daughter and until now, the police have failed to locate their whereabouts.

In the decision yesterday, Lee said the certificates were null and void as it was unconstitutional because it was given without hearing the mother or children.

“This was unconstitutional because Articles 3, 5 and 11 of the Federal Constitution state that a mother has an equal right to raise her children to follow her own religion,” he said.

“This decision is no victory for anyone, but we have to learn to live in harmony," said the judicial commissioner.

He also said the conversion was unlawful as the Perak Syariah law states that children must be present to utter the affirmation of faith.

Lee also ruled that the conversion attempt was against the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

Indira married Patmanathan in 1993 according to Hindu rites. They have been embroiled in a legal tussle over custody of the children for the past four years.

Today's decision comes after Putrajaya bowed to public pressure and was forced to withdraw the Administration of the religion of Islam (Federal Territories) Bill 2013, at the last Parliament meeting to legalise conversion of minors to Islam unilaterally. – July 25, 2013, The Malaysian Insider, Hindu mother wins legal fight to also decide children’s faith after husband converts them to Islam

Denied bail becos 'Worried because they may repeat their actions...' is this 'preventive detention'? Bail should be accorded to even Alvin and Vivian

Remember that a person is presumed innocent until tried and convicted by a court of law.

The object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused person in court for his/her trial dates. To be released on bail is a right. Are they flight risk? In any event, if an accused do not turn up in court for no reasonable reason - then courts may refuse bail.

But here, looking at what was reported as the reason , 'because of their penchant for uploading contents that could potentially stir public ire' ....'there was a danger that they would repeat their actions if allowed to go free...'- well this is very wrong. it is akin to PREVENTIVE DETENTION or 'Detention Without Trial'? Such justification for denial of bail cannot be allowed.

The two did not plead guilty to the charges - they claimed trial.

And why did they decide to charge them, well the first report 

“The AGC also decided on charging them following the abduction and assault of an individual by an unidentified group, believed to be a backlash to their (Alvin and Vivian's) alleged actions," he [Attorney General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail]said.

In my opinion,this is a bit far fetched. Mr AG you are concerned about 'trial by media' and you should not be saying such things about an unrelated criminal incident...Are they also being charged for this? Remember, innocent until proven guilty,

We may all ,be not happy for the things that Alvin and Vivian are alleged of doing - but that does not mean that their rights can be violated... they have yet to be convicted.

And, Malay Mail you really should not have posted that 'picture', which I believe raised public anger and/or displeasure - you are just making it worse.

Attorney General explains why Alvin, Vivian were disallowed bail

July 18, 2013
 

PUTRAJAYA, July 18 — Controversial duo, Alvin and Vivian had not been allowed bail pending their trial because of their penchant for uploading contents that could potentially stir public ire, said Attorney General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail.

He was referring to Alvin Tan Jye Yee, 25, and Vivian Lee May Ling, 24, who had allegedly mocked Muslims and Ramadan via Facebook.

The duo were at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court today to answer three charges, of posting indecent photographs in their blog, inciting racial antagonism, and sedition.

In a statement today, Gani said the Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) decided to prosecute them based on the legal provisions and after considering the implications of their alleged actions.

“The AGC also decided on charging them following the abduction and assault of an individual by an unidentified group, believed to be a backlash to their (Alvin and Vivian's) alleged actions," he said.

Meanwhile, Gani called on all parties to refrain from making any statement or speculation relating to the case to avoid a trial by media. — Bernama

The picture depicting Alvin Tan and Vivian Lee eating bak kut teh and describing it as ‘wangi, enak, menyelerakan’ (fragrant, delicious, appetising). - Picture taken from Facebook {The Malay Mail online report below had the picture, that caused much anger amongst Malaysians, and I believe is also one of the things they are being charged for - so really it is not proper}

PETALING JAYA, July 18 — Controversial bloggers Alvin Tan and Vivian Lee were today denied bail following charges brought against them over a provocative Ramadan greeting on Facebook and their sex video acts posted on the Internet last year.

Tan will be held at the Sungai Buloh Prison while Lee is to be housed at the Kajang Prison pending trial.

The duo earlier claimed trial at the Sessions Court in Kuala Lumpur to three separate charges under the Sedition Act, the Film Censorship Act, and the Penal Code.

Arguing earlier for the duo to be denied bail, prosecutors said there was a danger that they would repeat their actions if allowed to go free.

Both insisted they had no inclination to do so, while their lawyer further insisted that to deny them bail would be “punitive”.

Tan further said all his computers have since been seized by the authorities.

After a brief recess, judge Murtazadi Amran declined bail for both defendants.

Better known as “Alvivi”, a contraction of their two first names, 25-year-old Tan and Lee, 24, had stirred up a hornet’s nest last week when they posted a mock “Selamat Berbuka Puasa” (breaking of fast) greeting on their Facebook page that showed them eating “bak kut teh”, and describing the soupy pork dish as “wangi, enak, menyelerakan” (fragrant, delicious, appetising).

The picture also included a “Halal” logo, although the consumption of pork is forbidden to Muslims.

They were hauled in for questioning by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) last week, released and picked up again by the police this morning for displaying the picture deemed offensive to Muslims.

But the swift action of the authorities towards the couple’s post barely a week ago drew Pakatan Rakyat lawmakers yesterday to note the contrasting lack of action against far-right group Perkasa’s Datuk Ibrahim Ali over threats to burn copies of the Malay-language bibles in January and his deputy, Datuk Zulkifli Noordin, for videos in which he appeared to mock Hindus.

The couple had first courted controversy over the videos and photographs of their sexual exploits that had been posted on a now-defunct blog. - Malay Mail, 18/7/2013, Sex bloggers denied bail, sent to prison

See also earlier post - 

Do not charge Alvin and Vivian under Sedition Act, the Act which should be repealed. There are other options.

Sex bloggers denied bail, sent to prison

MPs must not be absent from Parliament (Malay Mail)

MPs must not be absent from Parliament — Charles Hector

July 16, 2013
 

JULY 16 — Previously, there was “live” telecast of parliamentary proceedings, but unfortunately most of the programmes were interviews conducted when parliamentary proceedings were going on. We did not see much of what was happening in Parliament itself.

Now, under the new Communications and Multimedia Minister, Ahmad Shabery Cheek, we get to see the proceedings live with no interruptions for about 90 minutes; we hope in the future we will get the full proceedings live.

What is disturbing is that many MPs are absent — both from government and also the opposition. There may be justification if they were the ministers and deputy ministers who have their own duties — but why are backbenchers and Pakatan Rakyat MPs also absent?

Remember, you are the people’s elected representatives, and the minimum requirement is that you are there in Parliament for all proceedings, asking questions and raising points for consideration.

Why are you absent? Are you out there doing business or on personal enrichment activities? MPs and people’s representatives must be persons who can and will devote their full time to their duties. Attending parliamentary sessions is mandatory unless you are sick or have some other “very good” reason. It is your duty to be serving your constituents and the people of Malaysia.

If you cannot do that, then just do not offer yourself as a candidate or stand for elections, and nobody bothers whether you are there in Parliament or not.

You absent MPs or those of you involved in your own business and work for personal enrichment, when you should be attending Parliament and doing your work as MPs, are an embarrassment. You should just resign and allow someone else to be elected. You can still be involved in the party, and go around campaigning for the party — ceramahs, etc … no need to be an MP or state assemblyman.

I also noted that because one MP was absent, his question was skipped. Who suffers? It is the people. The chance to be able to raise questions in Parliament is so limited and precious; it is unforgivable when the MP who raised the question is absent.

The attendance sheet of MPs, including the time they arrive, leave and are absent for more than 30 minutes when proceedings are going on must be made available to the rakyat — on the parliamentary website.

The questions, oral/written and motions must also be placed on the website; this would also give the rakyat an idea of which MP is seriously doing their job as an MP and who is not.

Kick MPs out — those of you who just want to be MPs but are not interested in doing your job. — aliran.com

* Charles Hector is an Aliran member.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malay Mail Online. 

- Malay Mail Online, 16/7/2013, MPs must not be absent from Parliament — Charles Hector

What You Think

MPs must not be absent from Parliament — Charles Hector

July 16, 2013

JULY 16 — Previously, there was “live” telecast of parliamentary proceedings, but unfortunately most of the programmes were interviews conducted when parliamentary proceedings were going on. We did not see much of what was happening in Parliament itself.
Now, under the new Communications and Multimedia Minister, Ahmad Shabery Cheek, we get to see the proceedings live with no interruptions for about 90 minutes; we hope in the future we will get the full proceedings live.
What is disturbing is that many MPs are absent — both from government and also the opposition. There may be justification if they were the ministers and deputy ministers who have their own duties — but why are backbenchers and Pakatan Rakyat MPs also absent?

Remember, you are the people’s elected representatives, and the minimum requirement is that you are there in Parliament for all proceedings, asking questions and raising points for consideration.
Why are you absent? Are you out there doing business or on personal enrichment activities? MPs and people’s representatives must be persons who can and will devote their full time to their duties. Attending parliamentary sessions is mandatory unless you are sick or have some other “very good” reason. It is your duty to be serving your constituents and the people of Malaysia.
If you cannot do that, then just do not offer yourself as a candidate or stand for elections, and nobody bothers whether you are there in Parliament or not.
You absent MPs or those of you involved in your own business and work for personal enrichment, when you should be attending Parliament and doing your work as MPs, are an embarrassment. You should just resign and allow someone else to be elected. You can still be involved in the party, and go around campaigning for the party — ceramahs, etc … no need to be an MP or state assemblyman.
I also noted that because one MP was absent, his question was skipped. Who suffers? It is the people. The chance to be able to raise questions in Parliament is so limited and precious; it is unforgivable when the MP who raised the question is absent.
The attendance sheet of MPs, including the time they arrive, leave and are absent for more than 30 minutes when proceedings are going on must be made available to the rakyat — on the parliamentary website.
The questions, oral/written and motions must also be placed on the website; this would also give the rakyat an idea of which MP is seriously doing their job as an MP and who is not.
Kick MPs out — those of you who just want to be MPs but are not interested in doing your job. — aliran.com
* Charles Hector is an Aliran member.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malay Mail Online. 
- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/mps-must-not-be-absent-from-parliament-charles-hector#sthash.wdSzmJLI.dpuf

What You Think

MPs must not be absent from Parliament — Charles Hector

July 16, 2013

JULY 16 — Previously, there was “live” telecast of parliamentary proceedings, but unfortunately most of the programmes were interviews conducted when parliamentary proceedings were going on. We did not see much of what was happening in Parliament itself.
Now, under the new Communications and Multimedia Minister, Ahmad Shabery Cheek, we get to see the proceedings live with no interruptions for about 90 minutes; we hope in the future we will get the full proceedings live.
What is disturbing is that many MPs are absent — both from government and also the opposition. There may be justification if they were the ministers and deputy ministers who have their own duties — but why are backbenchers and Pakatan Rakyat MPs also absent?

Remember, you are the people’s elected representatives, and the minimum requirement is that you are there in Parliament for all proceedings, asking questions and raising points for consideration.
Why are you absent? Are you out there doing business or on personal enrichment activities? MPs and people’s representatives must be persons who can and will devote their full time to their duties. Attending parliamentary sessions is mandatory unless you are sick or have some other “very good” reason. It is your duty to be serving your constituents and the people of Malaysia.
If you cannot do that, then just do not offer yourself as a candidate or stand for elections, and nobody bothers whether you are there in Parliament or not.
You absent MPs or those of you involved in your own business and work for personal enrichment, when you should be attending Parliament and doing your work as MPs, are an embarrassment. You should just resign and allow someone else to be elected. You can still be involved in the party, and go around campaigning for the party — ceramahs, etc … no need to be an MP or state assemblyman.
I also noted that because one MP was absent, his question was skipped. Who suffers? It is the people. The chance to be able to raise questions in Parliament is so limited and precious; it is unforgivable when the MP who raised the question is absent.
The attendance sheet of MPs, including the time they arrive, leave and are absent for more than 30 minutes when proceedings are going on must be made available to the rakyat — on the parliamentary website.
The questions, oral/written and motions must also be placed on the website; this would also give the rakyat an idea of which MP is seriously doing their job as an MP and who is not.
Kick MPs out — those of you who just want to be MPs but are not interested in doing your job. — aliran.com
* Charles Hector is an Aliran member.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malay Mail Online. 
- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/mps-must-not-be-absent-from-parliament-charles-hector#sthash.wdSzmJLI.dpuf

Do not charge Alvin and Vivian under Sedition Act, the Act which should be repealed. There are other options.

Do not charge Alvin Tan and Vivian Lee under the draconian Sedition Act - this act must be repealed soonest.There are other options, including in the Penal Code...

Controversial bloggers Alvin Tan and Vivian Lee - also known as 'Alvivi' - may also be probed under the Sedition Act for posting a photo of themselves on Facebook that allegedly insulted Muslims.

"Yes they can (be investigated and charged under the Sedition Act). Consideration can be made and will be made for this," Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail (centre in photo) told reporters today.

He added that sedition charges could be brought against the couple, on top of charges under the Multimedia and Communications Act which carry a lower penalty. - Malaysiakini, 16/7/2013, Bloggers Alvivi 'could face sedition charge'

There are options under the Penal Code for which they can be charged like section 298, 298A... and I am sure there are other laws that could be used.

298  Uttering words, etc. with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person.[Penal Code]
Whoever, with deliberate- intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utter any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes ant gesture in the sight of that person, or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

298A  Causing etc, disharmony, disunity, or feelings or enmity, hatred or ill-will, or prejudicing, etc., the maintenance of harmony or unity, on grounds of religion.[Penal Code]

(1) Whoever by words, either spoken or written or by signs, or by visible representations, or by any act, activity or conduct, or by organising, promoting or arranging, or assisting in organising, promoting or arranging, any activity, or otherwise in any other manner-

(a) causes, or attempts to cause, or is likely to cause disharmony, disunity, or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will; or
(b) prejudices or attempts to prejudice, or is likely to prejudice, the maintenance of harmony or unity,

on grounds of religion, between persons or groups of persons professing the same or different religions, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than two years and not more than five years.
(2) Sections 173A and 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code (F.M.S. Cap. 6) shall not apply in respect of an offence under subsection (1).
(3) Where any person alleges or imputes in any manner specified in subsection (1)-

(a) that any other person, or any class, group or description of persons, professing any particular religion;

(i) has ceased to profess that religion; or
(ii) should not be accepted, or cannot be accepted, as professing that religion; or
(iii) does not believe, follow, profess, or belong to, that religion; or

(b) that anything lawfully done by any religious official appointed, or by any religious authority established, constituted or appointed, by or under any written law, in the exercise of any power, or in the discharge of any duty, or in the performance of any function, of a religious character, by virtue of being so appointed, established or constituted, is not acceptable to such person, or should not be accepted by any other person or persons, or does not accord with or fulfil the requirements of that religion, or is otherwise wrong or improper,

he shall be presumed to have contravened the provisions of subsection (1) by having acted in a manner likely to cause disharmony, disunity or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will, or likely to prejudice the maintenance of harmony or unity, between persons or groups of persons professing the religion referred to in the allegation or imputation.

(4) (a) Where, on any ground of a religious character, any person professing any particular religion uses for burial or cremation of any human corpse a place other than one which is lawfully used for such purpose by persons professing that religion, he shall be presumed to have contravened the provisions of subsection (1) by having acted in a manner likely to cause disharmony, disunity or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will, or likely to prejudice the maintenance of harmony or unity, between persons or groups of persons professing that religion.
(b) Where any person, on any ground of a religious character, counsels, advises, instigates, urges, pleads with, or appeals or propagates to, or in any manner or by any means calls upon, whether directly or indirectly, any other person or persons professing any particular religion-

(i) to use for burial or cremation of any human corpse a place other than one which is lawfully used for such purpose by persons professing that religion; or
(ii) not to use for burial or cremation of any human corpse any place which is lawfully used for such purpose by persons professing that religion; or
(iii) not to use for worship any place which is lawfully used for such purpose by persons professing that religion,

he shall be presumed to have contravened the provisions of subsection (1) by having acted in a manner likely to cause disharmony, disunity or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will, or likely to prejudice the maintenance of harmony or unity, between persons or groups of persons professing that religion or different religions.
(5) Where any person who is not a religious official appointed, or a religious authority established, constituted or appointed, by or under any written law purports to exercise any power, or to discharge any duty, or to perform any function, of a religious character, being a power, duty or function which can be lawfully exercised, discharged or performed only by a religious official appointed, or a religious authority established, constituted or appointed, by or under any written law, he shall be presumed to have contravened the provisions of subsection (1) by having acted in a manner likely to cause disharmony, disunity or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will, or likely to prejudice the maintenance of harmony or unity, between persons or groups of persons professing the same or different religions.
(6) The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to-

(a) anything done by any religious authority established, constituted or appointed by or under any written law and conferred by written law with power to give or issue any ruling or decision on any matter pertaining to the religion in respect of which the authority is established, constituted or appointed; or
(b) anything done by any person which is in pursuance of, or which accords with, any ruling or decision given or issued by such religious authority, whether or not such ruling or decision is in writing, and if in writing, whether or not it is published in the Gazette.

See also earlier post :- 

WHY THE SEDITION ACT MUST BE REPEALED?