Court finds 2 military men GUILTY for attack on villagers protesting a gold mine?

... court sentenced retired Lt Gen Poramet Pomnak and Lt Col Poramin Pomnak to two and three years in prison, respectively, for their involvement in the attack,...The pair also were ordered to pay compensation to some of the victims.

2 with army links guilty of attacking Loei gold mine protest

• 31 May 2016 at 15:15 2,719 viewed3 comments
• WRITER: AFP AND REUTERS

A 2014 mobile phone photo of the melee at the Tungkum Ltd gold mine in Loei posted then to Facebook. (Loei Mining Town Facebook page)

Related Stories

• Akara sued for B500m over gold-mine impacts
• Gold mining to be suspended
• Gold mining firm calls on PM to allow it to operate

A court on Tuesday convicted and sentenced to jail two military men for orchestrating an attack on villagers who were blockading a gold mine, a lawyer said, a rare ruling in favour of such activists.

Residents of Nanonbong in Loei province have waged a decade-long struggle against the mine, operated by the Tungkum Ltd, which they accuse of polluting the environment and damaging health.

The company has responded by filing at least 19 lawsuits against them, according to rights groups, including charges of criminal defamation against a 15-year old girl.

In May 2014, a week before the coup that brought the current military regime to power, Nanonbong villagers said they were mobbed by about 150 armed men while they were blocking the road to the mine.

Many of the villagers, who were protesting against the environmental damage they said the mine caused, were rounded up and some were beaten, they said. The attackers were not identified at the time while police declined to comment.

Investigators were later able to identify two men, a father and son, the former a retired army officer and the latter a serving one, as being among the attackers.

On Tuesday, a provincial court sentenced retired Lt Gen Poramet Pomnak and Lt Col Poramin Pomnak to two and three years in prison, respectively, for their involvement in the attack, the community's lawyer told AFP.

The pair also were ordered to pay compensation to some of the victims.

The ruling marked a rare departure from the impunity often granted to soldiers in a country where the military routinely intervenes in both local and national politics.

"In the verdict the judge mentioned that the two suspects hurt villagers to clear the way for transporting minerals," lawyer Sor Rattanamanee Polkla told AFP.

The attack on the villagers, who were barricading a road that led to the mine, left at least a dozen injured.

Nadia Hardman, a legal adviser who observed the trial on behalf of the International Commission of Jurists, welcomed the ruling but urged a deeper investigation into others involved in the attack.

"We are disappointed that only two people were indicted and found guilty," she told AFP.

She said more than 100 community members gathered peacefully outside the courthouse Tuesday morning and handed out flower chains to police officers.

"It was quite an extraordinary gesture," she added.

However, Sam Zarifi, Asia-Pacific director at the ICJ, told Reuters that the ruling "establishes that human rights defenders and community activists can't be attacked with impunity".

"The overwhelming trend in Thailand for community rights defenders remains that of impunity for their attackers. We hope this is the beginning of a new trend," he said.

Earlier this month the government announced it would shut down gold mining across the country, a unexpected move in a country where profit often takes precedence. The current regime has pushed through a string of controversial environmental projects.

The country also is considered one of the world's most dangerous places for environmental activists. More than 80 of them have disappeared or been murdered since the early 80s. - The Bangkok Post, 31/5/2016

Tuesday, 31 May 2016 | MYT 3:32 PM

Two with Thai army links found guilty of attack on gold mine protest

by amy sawitta lefevre

BANGKOK (Reuters) - A Thai court on Tuesday found two men guilty of attacking villagers and human rights activists protesting against a gold mine in what an international rights watchdog called an important verdict for people standing up for communities.

About 150 men, many of them masked and armed, attacked villagers and rights workers blocking a road to a gold mine in the northeastern province of Loei on May 15, 2014.

Many of the villagers, who were protesting against the environmental damage they said the mine caused, were rounded up and some were beaten, they said.

The attackers were not identified at the time while police declined to comment.

Investigators were later able to identify two men, a father and son, the former a retired army officer and the latter a serving one, as being among the attackers.

The two, retired Lieutenant General Poramet Pomnak and his son, Lieutenant Colonel Poramin Pomnak, were found guilty of taking part in the attack and causing bodily harm, the court said in a statement.

Poramin was sentenced to just under three years in prison while Poramet was handed a two-year sentence.
Reuters was unable to contact their lawyer or an army spokesman for comment.

Environmental and right activists have long criticised Thailand for a poor environmental record and a culture of impunity for the rich and powerful.

Well-connected figures including military officers, civil servants and business people, often enjoy special privileges in exploiting resources and protection from scrutiny and prosecution for wrongdoing.

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomed the verdict as an important step.

"It establishes that human rights defenders and community activists can't be attacked with impunity," Sam Zarifi, Asia-Pacific director at the ICJ, told Reuters.

"The overwhelming trend in Thailand for community rights defenders remains that of impunity for their attackers. We hope this is the beginning of a new trend."

More than 100 villagers showed up at the Loei Provincial Court to hear the verdict.

"The villagers have received justice but the legal process is not complete," said Sor Rattanamanee Polkla, a lawyer for the community rights activists.

"There were more than two attackers in this case but police have not yet proceeded with a case against the rest."

Thailand has been ruled by a junta since the military took power from an elected, civilian government in a May 2014 coup.

Last month, the junta said all gold mining would be abolished by the end of the year over environmental and health concerns.(Editing by Robert Birsel) - Star, 31/5/2016

See related post:- 

Will the only 2 persons charged for the 2014 attack of a Thai community(Loei) and HRDs go scot free?

Will the only 2 persons charged for the 2014 attack of a Thai community(Loei) and HRDs go scot free?

Thailand: upcoming verdict in Loei attack case important test of rights of human rights defenders

The ongoing criminal trial in the Loei Provincial Court, where a verdict is awaited tomorrow, is an important test of Thailand’s commitment to hold those responsible for criminal offences against human rights defenders to account, the ICJ and Protection International said today.

On 31 May, the Loei Provincial Court will render its verdict following the trial of retired Royal Thai Army officer, Lt Gen Poramet Pomnak, and his son, Royal Thai Army officer, Lt Col Poramin Pomnak, on criminal charges related to their alleged participation in a violent attack by a group of over 100 armed men against members of the Khon Rak Ban Kerd Group (KRBKG) in Nanonbong village in Loei and other villagers.

The victims were assaulted and held captive for over seven hours during the attack in the evening of 15 May 2014.

More than 20 people were injured, with seven requiring hospitalization for serious injuries.

KRBKG is a community-based group protesting what they allege is the damaging impact of mining operations on their health and their environment.

Most of KRBKG’s activities have focused on stopping the operations of the Phuthapfa gold mine operated by Thai company, Tungkum Ltd., situated in Loei Province.

“This case has become emblematic of the human rights abuses faced by human rights defenders trying to protect their communities in Thailand,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “Many people are looking at this case to see whether the Thai government will follow through on its commitment to protect human rights defenders.”

The attack on Nanonbong village occurred after KRBKG and local residents barricaded the road to the gold mine, which passes through the village.

During the attack, the barricade was destroyed and at least 13 trucks were reportedly seen transporting materials from the mine site.

Partly based on the villagers’ testimony that Lt Col Poramet Pomnak and Lt Col Poramin Pomnak were involved in the 15 May violence, the two were indicted on several charges, including offences of ‘injury to the person causing bodily harm’ and ‘false imprisonment’ (or illegal deprivation of liberty), under articles 295 and 309 of the Thai Criminal Code.

“Given credible reports that a group of over 100 armed men were involved, the ICJ is concerned that only two people have been indicted for the attack, and we are therefore calling on the Thai authorities to re-open investigations and ensure all those responsible are held to account and redress is provided for the victims concerned,” Zarifi added.

The case against Lt Col Poramet Pomnak and Lt Col Poramin Pomnak comes against a background of disputes between KRBKG and Tungkum Ltd.

The company filed at least 19 criminal and civil lawsuits against 33 members of KRBKG and other villagers in the past seven years.

One of those cases includes claims of criminal defamation against a 15-year old girl who allegedly made negative statements about the company’s activities on a television program.

Members of KRBKG have joined as plaintiffs in the criminal case and are demanding compensation from the two defendants.

Background

Lt Col Poramet Pomnak and Lt Col Poramin Pomnak were formally indicted on the following charges of the Thai Penal Code: articles 295 (‘injury to the person causing bodily harm’) and 296 (sentencing for bodily harm), 309 (‘false imprisonment’ or ‘illegal confinement’) and 310 (sentencing for false imprisonment), 358 (‘offence of mischief’ or ‘damage to property’) 371 (‘offence of bearing arms’), 376 (‘offence of discharging a firearm’), 391 (sentencing for acts of violence not amounting to bodily harm) taken together with articles 32, 33, (‘forfeiture of property used in the commission of an offence’) 83, 84, (principals and accomplices, accessories or conspirators) 91, (articles 90 and 91 set out provisions for sentencing when an act constitutes multiple offences. Sentences can be awarded for each offence consecutively, but with a maximum time as prescribed by article 91); and articles 4, 7, 8bis, 72, 72bis of the Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, Fireworks, and the Equivalent of Firearms Act B.E.2490 (1947); article 3 of the Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, Fireworks, and the Equivalent of Firearms Act (No.3) B.E.2501 (1958); No. 3, 6, 7 of the Order of the Announcement of the National Administrative Reform Council no.44 dated 21 October 1976.

Thailand has a legal obligation to protect all human rights defenders from retaliation for the legitimate and lawful exercise of their rights. On 17 December 2015, Thailand joined 126 other States at the UN General Assembly in adopting one of the latest UN resolutions on human rights defenders. General Assembly resolution 70/161 recognizes the importance of States’ protection of human rights defenders, in particular from being prosecuted for peaceful activities and against other threats, harassment and intimidation; and encourages States to investigate allegations of intimidation and reprisals, and to bring perpetrators to justice.

Source: International Commission of Jurist(ICJ)

Tungkum loses another round in legal battle with villagers

THE NATION March 31, 2016 1:00 am

GOLD-MINER Tungkum failed in its bid to seek a Bt50-million compensation from villagers in Loei, as the Loei Provincial Court rejected its appeal yesterday.

The six defendants had last year erected signs at the Na Nong Bong village entrance gate and along the main road within the village, calling for the closure of the mine and rehabilitation of the local environment. Tungkum sought compensation for alleged damage to the company's reputation.

Thiraphan Phankhiri, the lawyer for the villagers, said the court believed the villagers had been affected in some way by this latest in a series of legal actions against them. The villagers were acknowledged for their peaceful and legal fight.

The verdict brought cheers from about 60 villagers who were present in the court. The six are core members of the Khon Rak Ban Kerd Group (KRBKG) - a community-based group committed to defending the local environment from negative impacts of the gold mine.

Conflict between the company and villagers has been ongoing for years.

The records of Fortify Rights, a rights group, showed that the company has brought at least 19 criminal and civil lawsuits against 33 members of the KRBKG and other villagers in the past seven years, pressing for a total of Bt320 million in compensation. After yesterday's verdict, 19 villagers still face criminal and civil cases.

"The company is on a legal rampage to silence its critics," said Amy Smith, executive director of Fortify Rights. "If Tungkum is truly concerned about its reputation, it should rethink its business and legal strategy and drop these charges."

"These lawsuits are not an individual matter, but a public matter, and everyone in our community has been affected," said Surapun Rujichaiyavat, a Facebook user. He was accused of harming the company's reputation by allegedly posting on Facebook a petition letter demanding an investigation into the legality of the mining concession and transport of ore from the mine site. Tungkum dropped the case against him on March 10.

On March 7, the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand honoured women of the KRBKG with a prestigious women's human rights defenders award for their role in bringing much-needed attention to critical human rights problems in Thailand. - Nation, 31/3/2016
 

Lopsided Allocations of Sarawak Civil Service Positions Amongst Ethnic Groups? Selangor different under Opposition?

Civil servants are supposed to be 'colour blind', serving everyone equally irrespective of ethnicity, religion or political affiliation, but does this happen in Malaysia? Are civil servants appointed and/or promoted based on merits? 

The Ibans are still the single largest ethnic group with a population of 713,421 in 2010 ...The Chinese...  577,646 in 2010. The third largest ethnic group are the Malays with 568,113, followed by the Bidayuhs (198,473); Melanaus (123,410); other Bumiputera groups (156,436); Indians 7,411 and others 9,138.

Note that in Malaysia, the Federal Constitution in Article 153 do provide for positive discrimination - "...the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall exercise his functions under this Constitution and federal law in such manner as may be necessary to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of such proportion as he may deem reasonable of positions in the public service (other than the public service of a State)..."

So, are we only talking about Federal 'public service' positions only - and not State public service positions? So, what does the State Constitution say? Does State Constitutions also provide for positive discrimination in favour of 'Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak'?  Well, maybe we have to look also at the Sarawak State Constitution...

It may be important to determine the number of Malays in Malaysia, and the number of the different native groups from Sabah and Sarawak in Malaysia, and consider whether the Federal public service. How many Federal public servants in Malaysia are from the 'different native groups from Sabah and Sarawak' - we may be wanting to look at also at the positions they hold? We may wonder, for example, how many Iban, Bidayuh, Kenyah, Melanau or Penans hold positions in various Federal Ministries - and what are these positions? Remember, we need to look not just at Sarawak - but also Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah as well..

Now, the reason Borneo Post article talks about 'State civil service' - and this would be different from Federal civil service. Does the Sarawak State Constitution provide for 'special' considerations when it come to the 'state civil service'. If there is none, then reasonably the 'best' candidates will be appointed and/or promoted, and of course when it comes to dealing with the public - i.e. effective provision of service, then there must be consideration about language and maybe also other 'cultural' or 'social' consideration.

Irrespective of the considerations that come into play when it comes to appointments and/or promotions, civil servants have a duty to serve the people equally and without discrimination, in accordance with the law. Hence, their decisions should not be based on political affiliations, family ties, 'threats' or 'rewards/bribes/...'.

Now, this article in the Borneo Post attracted by attention - A case of lopsided representation, which deals with the Sarawak State Civil Service.

Well, what about Selangor State Civil Service - now ruled by the Opposition coalition government, with a PKR Menteri Besar? What is the state of the Selangor State Civil Service? Look also maybe at Selangor State owned companies and GLCs - CEOs, Board of Directors, Upper management? See some older posts concerning Selangor..

UNISEL Board of Directors - Is Pakatan Rakyat any different from BN?

Selangor State Government University - and still all members of the Board are from 1 ethnicity...and Chancellor is the PM's wife....mmmm

A case of lopsided representation

May 28, 2016, Saturday Peter Sibon and Lian Cheng, reporters@theborneopost.com

State civil service a far cry from diverse ethnicity that Sarawak is known for, say community leaders
KUCHING: It is known that Sarawak is home to various ethnic groups but when it comes to the state civil service, it does not reflect the same diversity.

Currently, the state’s 2.6 million population comprises mainly the Dayaks – the Ibans, Bidayuhs and Orang Ulus – followed by the Chinese, the Malays and the Melanaus, while the rest consists of smaller ethnic groups that include the Indians and Eurasians.

However in last year’s statistics for the state civil service, the breakdown was far different from the actual racial composition.

In this respect, the Dayak and Chinese communities are seeking the assistance from Chief Minister Datuk Patinggi Tan Sri Adenan Satem in rectifying such imbalance.

According to Sarawak Dayak Graduates Association (SDGA) president Dr Dusit Jaul, statistics have indicated that the professional and management group in the state civil service appears to be biased toward a particular ethnic group.

“The Dayaks’ under-representation in the management and professional group is very obvious. This is something that we in SDGA, in particular, and the whole Dayak community in general, strongly urge the chief minister to look into.

“When our chief minister proclaims that he is a chief minister for all, we trust his words. The next five years would be for our chief minister to honestly correct this imbalance – the failure of which could lead to political liability for the ruling party going into the 12th state election,” Dusit told The Borneo Post yesterday.

He also pointed out that today’s youths were more discerning than before, in that they surely would want an explanation on the imbalance in the state civil service.

“We cannot hide facts from them, more so when it involves unfairness. Thus, true to his promise to be a leader for all, we strongly advocate for our chief minister to immediately take the necessary step to rectify this imbalance.

“We in SDGA believe that there is more than enough number of Dayaks to be promoted to higher posts in the state civil service. We also believe that Dayak officers are as equally capable as their counterparts from other ethnic groups.

“So seriously, do consider the Dayaks for management post as doing so would shield the state government from accusation of discrimination and marginalisation. The other point is that by policy and act of inclusivity, the state government would harness the best talents to administer the state – something which the Singapore government has successfully done,” explained Dusit.

 
The Chinese community also urged Adenan to intervene and tackle the matter seriously.

Dongzong president Temenggong Dato Vincent Lau said the community knew that this had been happening because some of those who were in the recruitment process had been irresponsible.

“This is happening not because the Dayak or the Chinese applicants are not qualified or incapable enough, but because of those responsible for recruitment – they have been making decisions without taking into consideration the ratio regarding racial composition in Sarawak.

“The selection of civil servants should be fairly distributed among those from different races. Something needed to be done to address the situation. We have been complaining and hoping that more Chinese could be recruited.  After all, in different departments, you need some Chinese to communicate properly with Chinese customers,” said Lau, urging the relevant authorities in the state that they must address the issue.

“It must be done to ensure that all races are given the same opportunity and also to maintain the balance of different races within the civil service. This is important to ensure harmony of races.”

For Sarawak Federation of Foochow Associations president Dato Dr Ngu Piew Seng, the number of Dayaks and Chinese in the civil service remained minimal, despite both communities constituting about 70 per cent of the total population.

“I hope the chief minister would do something to rectify the situation.

“I am from the Chinese community and I know that it is not true that the Chinese have been blamed for not being interested to work in the civil service. And like the Dayaks, the Chinese are always being bypassed in terms of promotion. This has to be looked into as well,” he stressed.

Ngu’s sentiment was shared by Board of Management of Kuching Chung Hua Middle School No 1, 3 and 4 chairman Richard Wee, who said that in general principle, it would be fair to reflect the composition of the state civil service in accordance with the actual racial composition in the population.

“However, there are many other factors to be considered. Primarily, the civil service needs to have a transparent system based on meritocracy for future promotions for all; rather than basing it on the previous unwritten practice of race. This is to attract the younger generation of all races to consider civil service as their chosen career path.

“The practice in the past had deterred many from joining the civil service; hence the imbalance seen in the current situation. Hopefully, there could be a change in the state government’s policy that would encourage new graduates to view the civil service differently,” said Wee.

Meanwhile, PRS Youth deputy chief Councillor Sempurai Petrus Ngelai said if the statistics released on May 31 last year were to made as a yardstick for the Group A civil servants’ proportion against the state’s racial composition, then it clearly did not reflect the government’s policy of inclusive and fairness in the civil service.

“This trend, if it were to still persist, would not be healthy for the state government as it would give the impression that other racial groups are being inadequately represented in the civil service, especially among the officers in Group A. Even with the combination of the two racial groups ((Dayaks and Chinese), they are still far less than the other group. What we worry is that people tend to speculate and perceive that state civil service is dominated by a certain racial group, which is bad for state government’s image,” he said.

Sempurai hoped that the statistics would be improved going forward, given that Adenan received overwhelming support from all the races in the recent state election.

“It is clear that the inclusivity for all races in the vision of state’s development and the rakyat (people)-oriented policy made him (Adenan) win the state election with flying colours.

“PRS Youth hopes that the Public Service Commission (PSC) and state government would improve and give equal chances to incoming junior officer of all races in the state civil service,” he said. - Borneo Post, 28/5/2016

Read more: http://www.theborneopost.com/2016/05/28/a-case-of-lopsided-representation/#ixzz4A8Z5Rwrd

 

 

Chinese population drops

April 12, 2012, Thursday By Peter Sibon, reporters@theborneopost.com

KUCHING: Statistics show overall increase of state’s population but decline in number of Chinese .
The Chinese are the only community which showed a decline in number between 2005 and 2010 although they maintain their position as the second largest ethnic group in the state.

Based on the latest statistics obtained from the Sarawak Statistics Bulletin 2012, the Chinese population in Sarawak declined from 590,300 in 2005 to 577,646 in 2010 – a drop of 2.2 per cent.

The Ibans are still the single largest ethnic group with a population of 713,421 in 2010 — an increase of 6.4 per cent from 670,400 in 2005.

The third largest ethnic group are the Malays with 568,113, followed by the Bidayuhs (198,473); Melanaus (123,410); other Bumiputera groups (156,436); Indians 7,411 and others 9,138.

Overall, the state’s population rose from 2.3 million in 2005 to 2.47 million in 2010 – a jump of 7.4 per cent.

Among the major towns and cities, Kuching, the state capital, remains the most populous with 617,887 people in 2010 — an increase from 567,200 in 2005.

Miri, the only other urban centre in the state with city status, has the second largest population with 300,543, followed Sibu (247,995) and Bintulu (189,146).

Among the 31 towns and cities in the state, four have fewer than 20,000 people. These are Dalat with a population of only 19,062; followed by Matu (17,369); Julau (15,816) and Pakan (15,480).

Major towns with a population reaching almost 100,000 areSerian (91,599) and Samarahan (89,923).

The 2010 population of other major towns are Sri Aman (66,790); Marudi (64,018); Betong (62,131); Sarikei (58,021); Kapit (56,053); Bau (54,246); Limbang (48,186); Saratok (46,094); Mukah (42,922) and Lawas (38,385).

The rural–urban ratio of the state’s population has narrowed markedly with only 52 per cent of the people living in the rural areas.

If the rural-urban drift continues unabated, it is likely that by 2015 there might be more people living in urban centres than rural areas.

Read more: http://www.theborneopost.com/2012/04/12/chinese-population-drops/#ixzz4AAx7tZ36

Malaysian Bar - BN government seeking to weaken the Bar by proposed amendments?

Well, the Malaysian Bar seems to be the new target of the Barisan Nasional government, currently under the premiership of Najib Tun Razak... the Malaysian Bar, made up of all the lawyers practicing in Peninsular Malaysia, which is about 17,000 strong... who, I am proud to say, have been true to the object of upholding the cause of justice without fear and favour...

Well, the 'attack' on the independent Malaysian Bar started when 3 movers of a Motion at the last Malaysian Bar was called in for investigation under the Sedition Act, together with a Secretary of the Malaysian Bar...see earlier posts, one of which is Undeterred by sedition probe, lawyers vow to fight on (Malay Mail)

Note that what was investigated was an official letter send out by the Malaysian Bar containing all motions tabled by members that would be deliberated at the upcoming Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar. Subsequent, to the Bukit Aman interview, things was silent -  and it looks like there was no interest to pursue any further with regards to the alleged Sedition offence...BUT now, the attack seem to be coming in the form of a PROPOSAL to amend the Legal Profession Act...

For your information, for a long time the Malaysian Bar was prejudiced by the fact that its quorum for an Annual General Meeting was amended by virtue of an amendment that came into effect on 2/10/2006 which reduced it to a reasonable 500. [If not wrong, the previous required quorum was 20% or 25% of the total membership]. In comparison, the quorum for any other society was usually 2 times the number of the executive committee or 50% of the total membership....

Now, for the members of the Bar Council currently - 12 members are elected through postal ballot, where all members can vote...

From the State Bars, there will be 2 - the President and Bar Council Representative who will be elected at the State Bar AGMs...

The immediate past President and Vice-President will be a member of the Bar Council 

Section 47(2) LPA - The Bar Council shall consist of the following -

(a) the immediate past President and Vice-President of the Malaysian Bar;
(b) the chairman of each State Bar Committee and the members elected to represent each State Bar Committee pursuant to subsection 70(7);
(c) members elected pursuant to section 50.[12 by postal ballot]

From amongst the Bar Council members, the chose the President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasure - now all decision making of the Bar Council is made by the entire Bar Council, and the term of office is ONE(1) year. 

Now in the Malaysian Bar, the President can hold office for just 2 consecutive terms - and, so no President is President of the Malaysian Bar for more than 2 years consecutively...

Now, history will show that Presidents and Office Bearers of the Malaysian Bar can come from the any of the member of the Bar Council - be it someone who came it by way of postal ballot or through State Bar AGMs. Our current Attorney General, was, I believe, once an Office Bearer of the Bar Council.

The Malaysian Bar is also very strong on the issue of equality - so number of years of practice does not matter. Seniority does not matter - members decide on who they want to be in the Bar Council. 

Well, it comes to amendments to the Legal Profession Act - it must and shall be as what the members of the Bar wants - not by a government who wants to control...to maybe pacify the Bar...maybe even to transform it into a pro-government Malaysian Bar - no more willing the uphold the cause of justice without fear or favour?

Now, this government seem like they want to try yet again take away the independence of the Malaysian Bar.. WHY? Will we allow the government to do this? The last time the government tried to do this....looks stood strong in solidarity against such moves... and the people stood in support with Malaysian lawyers...protesting such attempts to 'control'...and yet again, we face a new attempt by this BN government...

Putrajaya seeks to curb Malaysian Bar with government appointees

BY BOO SU-LYN

Friday May 27, 2016
03:30 PM GMT+8

KUALA LUMPUR, May 27 — Putrajaya appears to be aiming to control the Malaysian Bar by seeking significant amendments to the Legal Profession Act 1976, including having a minister appoint two members of the Bar Council to represent the government.

A circular to members of the peninsular legal body by Malaysian Bar president Steven Thiru said the proposed amendments scheduled to be tabled in the next parliamentary meeting in October also includes hiking up the quorum requirement for the Malaysian Bar’s general meetings from 500 members to 25 per cent of the membership, or 4,000 members.

The Malaysian Bar currently has 17,000 members.

“The Bar Council has neither sought these proposed amendments, nor has there been any resolution by members of the Malaysian Bar for these amendments,” Steven said in the circular dated today sighted by Malay Mail Online.

“In its wide sweep, the proposed amendments pose a serious threat to the independence of the Malaysian Bar, and are an unwarranted interference into the self-regulation and internal management of the Malaysian Bar.

“There is presently no cogent or justifiable basis for these proposed amendments, and its underlying objective is unclear. It has been observed that ‘[t]he independence of the Bar from the state in all of its pervasive manifestations is one of the hallmarks of a free society’,” he added.

The proposed amendments to the Legal Profession Act come even as the Bar Council has openly criticised various government policies and legislation for violating human rights, including the Sedition Act 1948.

The Malaysian Bar also approved a motion at its AGM last March that called on Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali to step down as Attorney-General over his handling of cases involving state investment firm 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) that is under several international investigations around the world.

According to Steven, the proposed amendments include having the minister in charge of legal affairs appoint two members of the Bar Council, the decision-making body of the Malaysian Bar, to represent the government. But these two members will not be eligible to contest any office bearer position, namely the president, vice-president, secretary or treasurer.

The government is also seeking to abolish the annual election by postal ballot — currently for 12 members of the Bar Council — by Malaysian Bar members, and will instead have the Bar Council elected at the state Bar level once every two years.

“Three members from each State Bar — the Chairmen of the State Bar Committees, and two State Bar Representatives — would be elected directly to the Bar Council by secret ballot at the State Bar’s Annual General Meeting. One of the State Bar Representatives must be a member with more than 10 years in practice, and the other must have less than 10 years in practice. 

“As there are 12 State Bars, this process would result in the election of 12 State Bar Committee Chairmen and 24 State Bar Representatives as members of the Bar Council, totalling 36 members,” said Steven.

“The remaining four members of the Bar Council would consist of the immediate past President and immediate past Vice-President of the Bar, and the two members of the Bar appointed by the minister in charge of legal affairs to represent the government,” he added.

The government is also proposing to increase the size of the Bar Council from 38 to 40 members.

Malay Mail Online understands that the abolition of elections via postal ballot would mean that outspoken members of the Bar Council like Hendon Mohamed, Andrew Khoo, Edmund Bon, Ravi Nekoo, Roger Chan, Honey Tan and Richard Wee, all of whom are from the KL Bar, would have to vie for one position as KL Bar representative of more than 10 years’ seniority, when they were elected previously through the postal ballot.

Besides increasing the quorum requirement for the Malaysian Bar’s annual or extraordinary general meetings, the proposed amendments to the Legal Profession Act also include raising the quorum requirement for each State Bar from five to 25 per cent of its membership.

Putrajaya is seeking to abolish the annual election of the office bearers of the Malaysian Bar — conducted by secret ballot at the first Bar Council meeting of each term, held at the conclusion of the Bar’s AGM — by members of the Bar Council.

“Instead, the office bearers would be elected directly by members of the Bar, at the Annual General Meeting of the Bar or at the premises of the State Bar Committees. 

“Only the 24 members elected as State Bar Representatives at the annual general meetings of the State Bars are eligible to be elected as office bearers. The immediate past president, immediate past vice-president, and 12 chairmen of the State Bar Committees are expressly precluded from contesting any office bearer position,” said Steven.

The proposed amendments include having the Malaysian Bar’s office bearers and Bar Council members serve for a fixed term of two years, instead of the current one-year term.

The minister in charge of legal affairs will also be empowered to make rules and regulations on the conduct of the elections to the Bar Council and of the office bearers of the Bar.

“The Bar Council has expressed grave reservations to the proposed amendments.  We have submitted a preliminary memorandum to the Attorney General’s Chambers, setting out our concerns. We have also informed the Attorney General’s Chambers that we intend to consult Members of the Bar, and to submit a further memorandum,” said Steven. 

Malay Mail, 27/5/2016  - See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/putrajaya-seeks-to-curb-malaysian-bar-with-government-appointees?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook#sthash.h4AKsLIS.E5x6JVpJ.dpuf

 

Proposal to Amend the Legal Profession Act 1976 is a Severe Threat to the Independence of the Malaysian Bar 

Circular No 127/2016

Dated 27 May 2016

To Members of the Malaysian Bar

The Bar Council has been notified by the Attorney General’s Chambers that the Government intends to pursue drastic amendments to the Legal Profession Act 1976 (“LPA”).  The proposed amendments are scheduled to be tabled in the Dewan Rakyat during the next Parliamentary session from 17 October to 24 November 2016. 

We understand that the key features of the proposed amendments are as follows:

(1) Two Members of the Bar would be appointed — by the Minister in charge of legal affairs — as members of the Bar Council, for the purpose of representing the Government.  However, these two members would not be eligible to contest any position as Office Bearer of the Malaysian Bar (ie President, Vice-President, Secretary or Treasurer).

(2) The quorum requirement for general meetings (ie Annual General Meeting and any Extraordinary General Meeting) of the Malaysian Bar would be increased from 500 Members to 25% of the membership of the Malaysian Bar or 4,000 Members, whichever is less.  There are currently just under 17,000 Members of the Bar.

The quorum requirement for general meetings of each State Bar would also be increased, from 5% to 25% of its membership.

(3) The number of members of the Bar Council would be increased from the current 38 members, to 40 members.

(4) Annual election of Bar Council

(a) The annual election by postal ballot — currently for 12 members of the Bar Council — by Members of the Malaysian Bar would be abolished.  

(b) Instead, the election would be conducted at the State Bar level once every two years.

Three members from each State Bar — the Chairmen of the State Bar Committees, and two State Bar Representatives — would be elected directly to the Bar Council by secret ballot at the State Bar’s Annual General Meeting.  One of the State Bar Representatives must be a member with more than 10 years in practice, and the other must have less than 10 years in practice.  As there are 12 State Bars, this process would result in the election of 12 State Bar Committee Chairmen and 24 State Bar Representatives as members of the Bar Council, totalling 36 members.   

The remaining four members of the Bar Council would consist of the immediate past President and immediate past Vice-President of the Bar, and the two Members of the Bar appointed by the Minister in charge of legal affairs to represent the Government.

(5) Election of Officer Bearers

(a) The annual election of the Officer Bearers of the Malaysian Bar — conducted by secret ballot at the first Bar Council meeting of each term, held at the conclusion of the Annual General Meeting of the Bar — by members of the Bar Council would be abolished. 

(b) Instead, the Office Bearers would be elected directly by Members of the Bar, at the Annual General Meeting of the Bar or at the premises of the State Bar Committees.  

Only the 24 members elected as State Bar Representatives at the annual general meetings of the State Bars are eligible to be elected as Office Bearers.  The immediate past President, immediate past Vice-President, and 12 Chairmen of the State Bar Committees are expressly precluded from contesting any Office Bearer position.

(6) The Office Bearers of the Bar and the members of the Bar Council would serve for a fixed term of two years, instead of the current one-year term.

(7) The Minister in charge of legal affairs would be empowered to make rules and regulations in respect of the conduct of the elections to the Bar Council and of the Office Bearers of the Bar.

The Bar Council has neither sought these proposed amendments, nor has there been any resolution by Members of the Malaysian Bar for these amendments.

In its wide sweep, the proposed amendments pose a serious threat to the independence of the Malaysian Bar, and are an unwarranted interference into the self-regulation and internal management of the Malaysian Bar. There is presently no cogent or justifiable basis for these proposed amendments, and its underlying objective is unclear.  It has been observed that “[t]he independence of the Bar from the state in all of its pervasive manifestations is one of the hallmarks of a free society.” [1]

The Bar Council has expressed grave reservations to the proposed amendments.  We have submitted a preliminary memorandum to the Attorney General’s Chambers, setting out our concerns.  We have also informed the Attorney General’s Chambers that we intend to consult Members of the Bar, and to submit a further memorandum.  

In this regard, we have begun consulting the State Bar Committees and the members of State Bars on the proposed amendments.  The first consultative briefing was conducted in Malacca on 26 May 2016, and the next one will be conducted in Kelantan on 29 May 2016.   

The Bar Council is also formulating a broad-based plan of action to address the proposed amendments. We will notify Members as and when there are developments. 

Thank you. 

Steven Thiru

President

Malaysian Bar

---

[1] Canada (Attorney General) v Law Society of British Columbia [1982] 2 SCR 307 at 335, 137 DLR (3d).

Workers' Protest - Has Media become partners of the oppressor, the powerful..?

Malaysian Media and journalist just not bothered about worker rights or community rights...?

Well, there were workers who came out bravely to fight for their rights - something that is just not easy at all. They risked all including the possibility of losing their jobs and hence their families livelihood...[Or even being arrested by the police...}

But alas, the Media was not bothered - in Malaysia, sadly media seems bothered only on 'popular' issues - politicians being barred entry from Sarawak, 'disputes' between and within political parties, Anwar and his numerous self-issues (noting that to date, Anwar is yet to champion better prison conditions or raise the other concerns of fellow prisoners), 1MDB, Mahathir's Citizen Declaration, RM2.6 billion, ..well, these issues are important but really the issues and struggles of ordinary people, workers and communities are also just as important..

Media decides what is 'popular', that is what they sometimes do not realize. 

They have the ability - nay the duty to highlight the voices of the small person - workers, local communities, etc... yet, in Malaysia, they are failing miserably... Take the issue of bauxite mining and its consequences to heath, environment, livelihood of farmers and fisherfolk ..but how many media organisations even carried that issue save for the New Straits Times that did remarkably well, in not just highlighting that issue but also following up with scientific investigations, etc.. and finally the government took note and may have started doing something..

Likewise, there are many injustices happening to workers, farmers and the 'small' people but alas, our MEDIA seem unbothered..

What happened in Tasek Cement? What was the reason for the picket? What were the workers' demands? What was the employer's response? What was the outcome of this struggle? ...Well, all I got was some images from Facebook..but, I too, am not sure of the demands or their struggle... Will our media follow up...

People bravely speak up - but our Media does not bother to highlight...As it is the government, the employer or even the political parties may be not bothered - but the Media, if they did their job, would have been able to provide the relevant information to the public and maybe we will all care and help justice be done. But, if we too are kept in the dark by Media - well, then how will we be able to help ensure justice in Malaysia?

There are less and less workers, farmers, fishermen and local communities speaking out, highlighting human rights abuses and claiming justice - and our Media, is not helping. It in fact, is helping the government and even big businesses ensure that the voices of people are not heard...

Malaysia's media's indifference only helps people lose hope - and injustices and human rights violations will reign supreme. Hence, the problems in Malaysia is being consciously or unconsciously being escalated by the media...by their 'indifference'..by their 'policies', etc...

Highlighting the issues and demands of the people, getting in also the responses of the alleged perpetrators and the responsible agencies/Ministries, following up on what happens until the end - the victories or the failures will certainly help make Malaysia a better place...It will also encourage a generally 'docile' and 'silent in the face of rights violation' people in Malaysia by giving them HOPE that it is not useless and struggles can bring victories and general improvement in Malaysia - hence their lives and the lives of their families and communities..

Political parties are failing the people - many have forgotten that they too have a duty to champion justice and human rights for the ordinary people - even if it is a 'small' issue...But alas, even statements on human rights and justice issues by many groups and organizations are simply not carried.

In past struggles, it was the MEDIA that played a significant role in bringing about change because they 'communicated' issues of people to the larger community and that helped people generally to form opinions - hence the politicians and the government will be compelled to bring about change...but alas, Malaysian Media seems lacking or maybe they have unconsciously become 'partners' in oppression of the small person and communities? 

The government wants them to be the 'loudspeakers' of the government....the Opposition politicians want them to highlight their issues...But, the media is supposed to be 'loudspeakers' of ordinary people, workers, etc - to highlight their issue, so Malaysia hears, the government hears, the Opposition hears... and then will be forced to respond to ensure justice and human rights...

Now, in the internet age, we have also the alternative online media, blogs, websites and any/all ADUNs/MPs/Political parties can also have their own sites and tools of communication...just do a google search, and you would see how many really raises the issues of the small person and communities..?

Hopefully, our MEDIA will change..who will investigate this recent worker protest and tell us all what are the issues, the demands and follow up on it??? We shall see...we shall see...

Edmond Bon, Malaysia's AICHR Rep, justifies Malaysia's failure to improve Human Rights situation? Shifts blame from Najib and government?

I was most disappointed when I read this news report - I expected more from Edmund Bon..

Has Edmond Bon become an apologist for the Malaysian Government? In a recent, news report, he explains (or rather justifies) why Malaysia has not moved in improving the human rights standards in Malaysia...the blame seems to be placed on 'agencies that are supposed to implement...". Well, for me, this is lame and cannot excuse Prime Minister Najib and the BN government... 

Edmond Bon was a human rights lawyer, and even still is a sitting member of the Malaysian Bar Council, and as such I would have expected more...and still do have hope in Edmond Bon.

I must say that I was rather 'shocked' when Edmond accepted this appointment as AICHR rep at this time from the BN government of PM Najib.  

This appointment was far from being appointed as a Human Rights Commissioner( which allowed the appointee the freedom and the capacity to act independently for the promotion and protection of Human Rights..) but an AICHR[Asean Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights] rep is merely a Malaysian government representative in an ASEAN committee/sub-committee.. Like government representative, he will only be seen to be speaking for and on behalf of Malaysia...and maybe that explains the media report...

One must remember that the Malaysia's immediate past AICHR representative, Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, did take a position to abolish the death penalty despite Malaysia's own official position was to maintain not just the death penalty but also the mandatory death penalty...[We also know of Nazri, a Minister, who made public his personal position for the abolition of the death penalty]

It's time to end the death penalty

A deeper impact beyond the gallows (NST-Column)

Maybe, Edmund Bon should be also taking public stands on human rights - rather than just playing the role of Malaysia's apologist justifying Malaysia's failure in the field of human rights.

Recently, even in when Malaysia's Kho Jabing was facing the death penalty in Singapore, one would have expected our new AICHR rep to have come out with a stand - more so since he is a lawyer and member of the Malaysian Bar who has the clear position for the abolition of the death penalty....but there seems to be only silence...WHY?

Kho Jabing - Singapore's Rush to Hang Him? No time for proper clemency considerations? Why?

QUESTIONABLE VALIDITY OF THE COURT OF APPEAL THAT RE-SENTENCED KHO JABING TO DEATH REASON ENOUGH FOR IMMEDIATE STAY OF EXECUTION OF KHO JABING, NOW SCHEDULED FOR FRIDAY 20/5/2016

Well, then we had the case of Maria Chin's being barred from traveling - and, yet again our new AICHR rep said nothing..

Maria - Arbitrary Travel Ban? No court order? No notice? Gross Violation of Rights? 

Well, we may have lost a potential human rights defender - or maybe we may have just lost Edmund Bon, who after being appointed by Najib-led government - will be no more be interested in highlighting Malaysia's own human rights violation - let alone making a public position from a human rights perspective on such rights violations...

AICHR reps like Edmund Bon, compared to civil servants, do not really depend on the government for economic survival - and hence should be braver about pointing out the actions of the Malaysian government that violate human rights...

If he has already been 'compromised' or is more concerned about the 'position', then Edmund Bon will not help improve the situation of human rights in Malaysia, let alone ASEAN..

We shall see...we shall hope...and only the future will decide how we judge Edmund Bon? 

Well Edmund Bo, be aware that for Malaysia - it not just a question of delay in improving Human Rights situation - but a case of deteriorating human rights situation...the latest NEW violation was the not allowing of Maria Chin to leave the country...???

Considering the state of HR in Malaysia itself, a Malaysian rep trying to promote HR rights in ASEAN may be seen as a 'joke' - Maybe, Edmund Bon, in protest to these ever increasing violations of human rights should just RESIGN - and that maybe the best he could do for the cause of Human Rights and Justice...Or maybe take public positions about HR violations in Malaysia, until this current government is forced to find another rep..

 

Govt's human rights moves 'getting stuck' with agencies

---

Koh Jun Lin     Published Today 9:52 am     Updated Today 10:08 am 

The government’s efforts to improve human rights standards in the country are being stalled by the agencies that are supposed to implement them, said a local rights representative.

Asean Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) Malaysia representative Edmond Bon said since Malaysia’s last Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the UN Human Rights Council in 2013, Wisma Putra had made recommendations that Malaysia should sign up to more human rights conventions, drop its reservations on the conventions that it has already signed, and improve its human rights standards.

“But then what happens is that when it comes back, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs prepares a paper, lists out the issues and problems, and then there is an implementing agency that it goes to, and it is stuck there.

“Or, they would say you need to refer this to the Attorney-General’s Chambers, but the Attorney-General’s Chambers, as I understand it, they have so much on their plate that they don’t have the capacity to handle this.

“And then nothing moves. If nothing moves, then nothing goes to the cabinet,” he told an informal meeting in Kuala Lumpur hosted by the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Malaysia (FCCM) last night.

The same also happens with the Malaysian Human Rights Commission’s (Suhakam) recommendations, which has made little progress after the papers are sent to the relevant agencies.

Bon said this is what he learned since he was appointed as Malaysia’s AICHR representative on April 1, where he has been engaging with various agencies to take stock of Malaysia’s position on international human rights treaties.

Disconnect among the agencies

“I find that there is sort of a disconnect (among the agencies), and this is sometimes accidental; it is not by design,” he added.

He said Minister in Prime Minister’s Department Paul Low is looking into these hurdles in hopes of expediting the process.

Malaysia has thus far ratified three out of the nine UN core human rights instruments: those concerning the rights of persons with disabilities, the rights of children, and discrimination against women.

The six that Malaysia has not signed include those that deal with torture, civil and political rights, enforced disappearance, racial discrimination, economic, social, and cultural rights, and the protection of migrant workers.

The UPR process occurs in cycles lasting approximately four years through meetings at the UN Office in Geneva, Switzerland. Malaysia’s human rights record will be up for review again in 2018.

During the last review, where each of the 104 countries present had 75 seconds to grill Malaysian representatives, many had urged Malaysia to sign and ratify the six remaining human rights instruments, and to drop its reservations on the conventions that it has already ratified.

Meanwhile, back in the Asean region, Bon conceded that AICHR had been focused on human rights promotion rather than protection, during its past six years of existence.

However, things are beginning to change.

This is in part due to a new line of AICHR representatives who have been appointed, including Bon, as their predecessors’ terms came to its two-term limit.

AICHR representatives are appointed for three-year terms.

‘Give AICHR a chance’

The last meeting in Jakarta in April had been promising, with each country agreeing to undertake at least one project.

Malaysia will be dealing with issues related to freedom of expression this year, and the people’s right to water and sanitation next year.

In particular, Bon said he is tasked with drafting an explanatory note for Article 23 of the Asean Human Right Declaration, which pertains to freedom of opinion and expression, which he intends to finish by July.

This would include issues such as the enabling environments for media practitioners to work in, regulations, censorship, and the protection of media practitioners and sources.

“We will issue a general comment (on Article 23), and if (all) ten AICHR representatives accept it, that is the standard for Asean,” he said.

He explained that once Asean members have agreed to a set of standards, then the floor is open to start talking about human rights protection.

However if even one country objects, then the draft would not be accepted. This, he said, had contributed to AICHR being paralysed over the past six years.

Nevertheless, Bon urged for patience and to give AICHR a chance.

“When the inter-American human rights system started, when the European system started, when the African system started; they started out as commissions.

“It started way back, a long time ago, just giving comments. Then they moved on to monitoring, then moved on to interventions, and then moved on to being a court.

“So in the Asean context especially with its consensus-based way of doing things, we must give it a chance,” he said.

Read more: https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/342258#ixzz49GYiFXi9