'Attack' on the Malaysian Bar and Freedom of Asociation? What the Malaysian government proposes to do in October 2016?

Well, this BN-UMNO government is once again targeting the Malaysian Bar, the organization whose membership are all the practicing lawyers in Peninsular Malaysia - yes, now about 17,000 strong... 

And, now the Malaysian government intends to arbitrarily amend the Legal Profession Act to affect changes on how persons will be elected into the Bar Council(which also include appointing 2 government representatives), term of office of the Bar Council(from the current 1 year to make it 2 years), quorum for General Meetings (from the present 500 to 4,000 plus?)...

This is a violation of lawyers' Freedom of Association...an 'attack' on the Independence of the Bar. The Malaysian Bar now makes and amends rules, only after members do approve it in a General Meeting - no support from the majority at the General Meetings - then even good proposals may have to be abandoned until the support of the majority can be obtained at a General Meeting...not the Bar Council(the elected Exco)...

This democratic stance of the Malaysian Bar will be something that this BN-UMNO government can understand - for them, after winning elections, it is then the BN-UMNO Exco/Cabinet that decides what to do - no going back to the people through REFERENDUMS, etc to get the support of the members. So very unlike how the democratic Malaysian Bar operates...      

WHY IS THE MALAYSIAN BAR BEING 'TARGETED'? 

Well, the Malaysian Bar is an INDEPENDENT  organisation , whose membership is all practicing lawyers in Peninsular Malaysia. The Bar is now still very much committed to 'upholding the cause of justice without fear or favour'  - and the Bar and Malaysian lawyers have been strongly shown to be committed - they bravely do come out when the government, the police, the Attorney General and others do things that are wrong, unjust and against human rights...

Malaysian Bar, unlike Opposition political parties, is MORE CREDIBLE...and their views and position are respected by the public. 

Opposition political parties can always be said to have a 'self-interest' agenda - they want to do better in next elections and maybe even win sufficient seats to form the next governments - but the Bar has no such 'agendas' or 'motives' - they are merely interested in Justice, Rule of Law and Human Rights...They are independent as they really survive with what monies their own members give them - no funding from government or any Opposition political parties. 

WHAT IS THE GOVERNMENT TRYING TO DO?

Insert TWO(2) government appointed lawyers as members of the Bar Council - why? To spy? What about letting 2 representative of the Bar Council be a member of the UMNO Supreme Council? If that happens, then they can speedily inform Malaysians if there is any hank panky.

The membership elects their own leadership and the members of the Exco... it is ABSURD that the Malaysian government wants to interfere in the Malaysian Bar in this manner.

Is the Executive Committee of the Malaysian Bar - the Bar Council democratically chosen by lawyers? YES

Bar Council - well, that is like the Executive Committee of the Bar, and members are all democratically elected by the membership...

12 members are elected by all 17,000 or more members by means of postal ballots...every practicing lawyer gets an opportunity to vote

2 members are elected by State Bars at their Annual General Meetings(AGM) - President and State Bar Rep.

Immediate past President is automatically in as member of the Bar Council...

Well, as you can see each and every State no matter the numbers in that State Bar are members of the Bar Council, duly elected in the Annual General Meeting of the respective State Bars. The president of the State Bar is a member, and the 2nd person is the elected Bar Council Representative of the State Bar. 

Now, the Malaysian government wants to increase this State Bar representation from 2 to 3 - WHY? Well, if members feel, it is time for a change and we need 3 or 4 or 5 members from each State Bar, they can simply table a motion, and it will be discussed, debated and voted on. For, the information of Malaysian's Attorney General and the UMNO-BN government, there has been no motion tabled at the Malaysian Bar AGM suggesting that representation be increased to 3 - Apandi Ali(our current AG), who was also in the Bar Council could have done it then when he was a member of the Bar - but he did not - Why?

Malaysian government wants get rid of the '12 members who are democratically elected by all 17,000 or more members by means of postal ballots...' - the voting in of these 12 members is by postal ballot. As such, these will be the most difficult way to get elected as a member of the Bar Council as you will need to get support of all members from Perlis to Kelantan to Johor ...and a lot of people do stand for election, and a lot of people vote...

When it comes to the postal ballot all necessary checks and balances are in place to ensure that there is no 'hanky panky'...and, if there is more needed, the members will insist it is put in place...

As mentioned earlier, the members of the Malaysian Bar are lawyers - and they will not allow any irregularities or wrongdoings in the electoral process go unnoticed - thus there is free and fair elections at the Malaysian Bar.

Look at Malaysia, to date the people of the various States  and Malaysia are still being denied the right to choose and vote in their Senators - This needs to change? Now, in essence the parties who win the Elections 'arbitrarily' pick who will be Senator - we need that right to be given back to the voters to choose who will be Senator?


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.Well, with such a large quorum requirement, it becomes nearly impossible to have an Annual General Meeting?


Immediate past-Vice President of the Malaysian Bar will not be able to contest to be President - Well, that is just not right. Just like saying that the DPM will NEVER be Prime Minister? 

Now, the government proposes that the President, Vice President, Secretary and the Treasurer be elected by the Annual General Meeting - at present, all the elected Bar Council members chose who will be President and Office Bearers. [Note, Malaysians never get a chance in choosing who will be Prime Minister - now the Prime Minister is chosen by the elected Members of Parliament]. Personally, I would not mind that the all members choose the Office Bearers, but certainly not just at the AGM - but through a voting process where all members can vote - the Postal Ballot? But, to date, there has been no motion tabled and passed that changes the way we choose our President and Exco... and really the AG and/or government should not interfere... 

Currently, members of Bar elect and choose their leaders every year - a ONE year term. It is certainly been good for democracy, accountability, transparency and efficiency. If you falter in your work, you will not be re-elected the following year. It has also resulted in speedy undelayed action - very efficient. So why now is the government wanting to make it a TWO-year term ... [We see how the 5 year term is affecting Malaysia - we want to get rid of current MPs and replace them with new ones, but we have to wait for 5 years?]. Malaysian lawyers are happy with this ONE-year term, so why again is the government interfering... 

Below, something about the proposed amendments from the Malaysian Bar Website

(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.

 

1MDB - Missing the Point? Priority should be recovery of OUR money, and going after alleged perpetrators?

Well, the people of Malaysia trusted and asked the UMNO-BN government under the premiership of Najib Tun Razak to look after their wealth and property - but some people may have stolen this wealth and property, and persons in charge seem not to have even realized that the house had been broken into, and the wealth and property have been pillaged. Why is that? Surely, the Minister of Finance should honourably resign

The 'trusted' caretakers behave as though nothing is wrong

- and is adamant that it is not their fault - that they did not do any wrong, and that they personally was not responsible for any of the wrongdoings...

- and adamant that all is well with 1MDB, its dealings and its well being..

MISSING THE POINT - Yes, the first course of action is to INVESTIGATE these disclosures, and if true money and property have been lost, stolen, or used 'wrongly'...We need to speedily RECOVER the monies and properties lost - and then go after the the 'thieves' or the 'wrongdoers'...

But No, in Malaysia the UMNO-BN caretaker is more interested in showing the Najib Tun Razak and 1MDB is not guilty of any wrongdoing..

Now, the US government has done investigation, and is confident enough to commence proceedings - and they say that USD1 Billion (nay USD3.5 billion) of the Malaysian people's money has 

So, of course, we, Malaysians, are definitely interested in  getting back our money - and the Malaysian government should be MOST INTERESTED in doing this - that is the PRIORITY.

(Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Justice filed lawsuits on Wednesday seeking to seize dozens of properties tied to Malaysian state fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), saying that over $3.5 billion was misappropriated from the institution. The lawsuits, filed in Los Angeles, seek to seize assets "involved in and traceable to an international conspiracy to launder money misappropriated from 1MDB".

The lawsuits said the alleged offences were committed over a four-year period and involved multiple individuals, including Malaysian officials and their associates, who conspired to fraudulently divert billions of dollars from 1MDB... - The New York Times, 20/7/2016

SO, WHAT IS THE RESPONSE FROM THE VICTIM - 1MDB? 

Well, IMDB came out with a quick Media Statement - highlighting that it is not a party to the civil suit, and stating that they have no assets in US, and that it has not benefited from the said transactions...

I believe that the IMDB response should have been 'ANGER' for after all, it is revealed that this was concerning 'money misappropriated from 1MDB' - and they should have said that they are shocked, and will immediately investigate further and will assist the US government - all with the aim of recovering this money that was 'allegedly misappropriated from 1MDB'. IMDB should seek that whatever monies were 'misappropriated' should be forthwith be returned to the Malaysian people - to 1MDB.

But why is 1MDB just interested in just avoiding blame - rather than recovering the monies and seeking out the alleged perpetrators...

Being a company, it should immediately suspend and/or remove Directors and those in the upper management who may have facilitated and/or approved such listed transactions in the US suit.

21/7/2016
 
US Attorney General Press Conference 

1MDB notes a press conference led by the US Attorney General today relating to a civil court action filed by the government of the United States of America.

1MDB highlights that it is not a party to the civil suit, does not have any assets in the United States of America, nor has it benefited from the various transactions described in the civil suit.

Furthermore, 1MDB has not been contacted by the US Department of Justice or any other foreign agency in relation to their investigations.

As previously stated, 1MDB will fully cooperate with any foreign lawful authority, subject to international protocols governing such matters and the advice of the relevant domestic lawful authorities. - 1MDB Website

Well, the 1MDB came out with another statement - announcing a change of auditor because current auditor wants to leave.  

ODD - I would have thought that 1MDB would have first appointed a 2nd independent auditor to re-look and audit again the accounts for the relevant period mentioned in the US suit. With regard the current auditor, temporary suspension would have been the right thing to do - followed with termination, if the independent audit revealed something wrong. Now, auditors ensure that all transactions are OK....???

26/7/2016
 

1MDB Audited Accounts & Auditor Update

On 20 July 2016, the Office of the Attorney General of the United States of America announced that the Department of Justice filed a civil forfeiture complaint against certain entities and individuals and contemporaneously filed related actions seeking the civil forfeiture of certain assets held in the names of these parties (“Complaint”).

The Board of Directors of 1MDB has reviewed and deliberated the contents of the Complaint. Whilst the Board remains confident that no wrongdoing has been committed by 1MDB and that the past audited financial statements continue to show a true and fair view of the company’s affairs at the relevant points in time, the Board has decided that, as a precautionary measure, the 2013 and 2014 audited financial statements of 1MDB should no longer be relied on by any party, pending final and conclusive determination by a court of law of certain alleged facts, as described in the Complaint.

The Board takes this opportunity to highlight it is committed to finding a new auditor for 1MDB, to replace Deloitte, which has previously notified 1MDB of its intention to resign on 26 February 2016. Until a new auditor is appointed, Deloitte will remain as auditor on record. The Board appreciates the professionalism displayed by Deloitte to date and highlights that Deloitte will continue to audit key subsidiaries of 1MDB, including but not limited to: TRX City Sdn. Bhd. (formerly known as 1MDB Real Estate Sdn. Bhd.), Bandar Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. and Edra Bhd. - 1MDB Website

WELL, WHAT WAS THE REACTION OF THE MALAYSIAN GOVERNMENT?

Sadly, ...we all know

 

LPA amendments an open attack on independence of M’sian Bar (54 Groups)

Amendments to the 1976 Legal Profession Act: 

An open attack on the independence of the Malaysian Bar

 

Gabungan Bertindak Malaysia (GBM) and the following civil society organisations are gravely concerned with the decision of the government to make several amendments to the 1976 Legal Profession Act (LPA). Such amendments are open attacks on the independence of the Malaysian Bar and blatant violations of the right to freedom of association as guaranteed in the Federal Constitution.

It sets a dangerous precedent of government interference in the operations of independent statutory bodies and civil society organisations. We urge the government to withdraw such proposals immediately.

The amendments, due to be tabled in parliament in October 2016, empowers the government to abolish the current direct elections of 12 members of the Bar Council through postal votes and replace it with elections at the state level, the appointment of two representatives by the minister in charge of legal affairs to sit in the Bar Council and to increase the quorum of the annual general meeting of the Malaysian Bar from 500 to 4,000 members.

The government purportedly made the amendments to improve transparency and representation of the Bar Council, when in reality, it does the exact opposite.

First and foremost, these proposals were not mooted by the members of the Malaysian Bar. Furthermore, the proposed bill has not been made available either to the Malaysian Bar or the public. Hence, its claim of improving transparency and representation is highly questionable.

It is ironic that the attorney-general who had complained about the inadequate representation of the current Bar Council had no qualms about government appointees, a measure that is totally devoid of transparency and representation of the members of the Bar.

The proposal to raise the quorum of the annual general meeting to 25 percent of the membership or 4,000 members, smacks of ill intent. It is absolutely unreasonable and unrealistic, since the highest turnout for any of her AGM has not surpassed 1,910 lawyers, out of their 17,000 membership. It is designed to paralyse the functions of the Malaysian Bar.

In comparison, the quorum for the AGM of the Canadian Bar Association with 37,000 members, is only 100. The Hong Kong Bar Association with about 1,300 members, requires not less than 20 members as its quorum to convene a general meeting.

We strongly urge the federal government and the attorney-general to withdraw the planned amendments and to respect the principle of self-regulation and the right to freedom of association of the Malaysian Bar. It is the right of the members of the Malaysian Bar to choose her leaders and representatives, through a democratic electoral process. The government must not interfere nor impose conditions on this legitimate and transparent electoral process.

Endorsed by member organizations of Gabungan Bertindak Malaysia:

1. Anak Muda Sarawak (AMS)
2. ENGAGE
3. Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF)
4. Japan Graduates Association Malaysia (JAGAM)
5. Kumpulan Aktivis Mahasiswa Independen (KAMI)
6. Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (KLSCAH)
7. LLG Cultural Development Centre (LLG)
8. Majlis Perundingan Malaysia Agama Buddha, Kritisian, Hindu, Sikh dan Tao (MCCBCHST)
9. Muslim Professionals Forum (MPF)
10. National Indian Rights Action Team (NIAT)
11. Negeri Sembilan Chinese Assembly Hall (NSCAH)
12. Partners of Community Organisations (PACOS)
13. Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara (Aliran)
14. Pusat Komas (KOMAS)
15. Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia (SABM)
16. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
17. Tamil Foundation (TF)
18. The Association of Graduates from Universities and Colleges of China, Malaysia (Liu Hua)
19. The Federation & Alumni Associations Taiwan University, Malaysia (FAATUM)
20. Tindak Malaysia
21. United Chinese School Alumni Associations of Malaysia (UCSAAM)

Endorsed by other non-governmental organzations:

1. Angkatan Warga Aman Malaysia (WargaAMAN)
2. Center for Orang Asli Concerns (COAC)
3. Federation of Malaysian Indian Organisation (PRIMA)
4. Friends of Kota Damansara
5. Green Friends Sabah
6. Jaringan Orang Asal SeMalaysia (JOAS)
7. JIHAD for JUSTICE
8. Kajian Politik untuk Perubahan (KPRU)
9. Komuniti Muslim Universal (KMU)
10. Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET)
11. Malaysian Indians Progressive Association (MIPAS)
12. Malaysian Indians Transformation Action Team (MITRA)
13. Malaysian Youth And Students Democratic Movement (DEMA)
14. Malaysian Youth Care Association (PRIHATIN)
15. National Human Rights Society (HAKAM)
16. Oriental Hearts and Mind Study Institute (OHMSI)
17. Perak Women for Women Society (PWW)
18. Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (EMPOWER)
19. Persatuan Komuniti Prihatin Selangor dan Kuala Lumpur
20. Persatuan Rapat Malaysia (RAPAT)
21. Persatuan Sahabat Wanita Selangor (PSWS)
22. Projek Dialogue
23. Sabah Women’s Action Resource Group (SAWO)
24. Sahabat Rakyat
25. Save Open Spaces, KK
26. Save Sarawak’s Rivers Network (SAVE Rivers)
27. Sekolah Pemikiran Asy Syatibi
28. Sisters in Islam (SIS)
29. Sunflower Electoral Education Movement (SEED)
30. WE ARE MALAYSIANS
31. Writers Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI)
32. Women’s Centre for Change (WCC)
33. Women Development of Malaysia PJ Branch

2 media that had covered the statement.

https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/349319

http://www.theedgemarkets.com/en/article/proposed-amendments-legal-profession-act-designed-paralyse-malaysian-bar-say-civil-society

Wrong to still use POCA when a person already charged in court?

Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (Poca) - when that is used, a person ends up usually with WITHOUT TRIAL orders  - DETENTION ORDERS OR POLICE SUPERVISION ORDERS(RESTRICTION ORDERS).

A person detained under POCA - denied the right of a fair trial, and if he is subject to Detention Orders or Police Supervision(Restriction Orders), he does not have the right to challenge the reasons for the said order. He cannot go to court for a Judicial Review to enable the court to review the reasons and/or justifications for the said Detention or Police Supervision(Restriction Orders), which can be indefinite orders up to the discretion of the Board.  

POCA and all such draconian laws should be REPEALED.

We still do not know how many people in Malaysia are in Detention Without Trial under POCA - the government must reveal this.

POCA has been around for some time, and finally with Sanjeevan's case, it has gotten public attention...With the use of POCA on Sanjeevan, it means that this law can also be used against Human Rights Defenders/Activist, NGO activist, Trade Unions ...Currently, the law cannot be used againt politicians or in connection with political activities..not enough.

Since Courts cannot review the REASONS - it means innocent persons are at risk of being detained wrongly..

MP Surendran is right - if Sanjeevan is being charged, this means he should no longer be under POCA - the right to a fair trial has been accorded to him...

He now has a right to apply for BAIL - and the court can grant him bail - and he will be released for now...if after trial, he is convicted, then he may be sentenced to imprisonment..

Flight Risk - well, part of the bail condition could be the withholding of his passport - remember that until convicted, he is presumed innocent...and Bail is only to ensure that he attends his trial..

See earlier posts:-

Activists, Unionist, HR Defenders may be victims of POCA, law that denies right of fair trial? 

PREVENTION OF CRIME ACT 1959(REVISED - 1983) & Comments ?

WRONG TO USE DRACONIAN PREVENTION OF CRIME ACT(POCA) IN SANJEEVAN’S CASE - Repeal Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (POCA) -

 

MP asks the need for Poca when Sanjeevan already charged 

22 Jul 2016, 11:53 am     Updated 22 Jul 2016, 12:07 pm

The police have been urged to release MyWatch chairperson R Sri Sanjeevan from detention under the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (Poca), since he has already been charged in court.

"On 19 July he was charged in court for various offences in relation to which he was purportedly being detained under Poca.

"Why then is he still detained under the Poca despite having been charged? He should be released on court bail," said Padang Serai N Surendran in a statement today

Surendran, a lawyer, said Sanjeevan's continued detention under the highly objectionable law, illustrates how detention without trial laws can be abused.

"In Sanjeevan's case, the abuse of Poca can be clearly seen.

"Since he was arrested on June 22, he was repeatedly remanded using the ordinary provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code.

"After several remands orders, magistrates had started to reject police applications to further remand Sanjeevan.

"Then, the police resorted to the Poca to continue his detention," said Surendran.

'Why wait for police report?'

He also urged the police to take Sanjeevan's allegations of assault while in custody "seriously and carry out a thorough and impartial investigation" instead of waiting for a police report to be lodged.

"Sanjeevan's counsel had informed the sessions judge in open court regarding the alleged assault. Is that not enough for police to commence investigation?" he asked.

"All police personnel alleged to be involved should be transferred to other duties or if necessary suspended pending investigation. Has this been done?

"In this regard, it is unacceptable for the deputy IGP to announce that police will investigate if Sanjeevan lodges a police report," he said.

Sanjeevan was first arrested on June 22 on allegations of extorting RM25,000 from a gambling den operator.

Over the past three weeks, however, Sanjeevan had been released and re-arrested again and again for separate investigations under Sections 384 and 503 of the Penal Code, which deal with extortion and criminal intimidation respectively. He was arrested for the ninth time on Sunday under Poca, and was slapped with a 21-day remand by the Magistrate's Court in Kuala Lumpur on the following day.

Human rights group Suaram has urged for Sanjeevan’s immediate release, saying that the police appear to lack sufficient evidence to recommend charges against him and yet seek to punish him.

Lawyers have filed an application to review the 21-day remand imposed on him under Poca. - Malaysiakini, 23/7/2016

47 Groups :- C & F Group company Must Stop Union Busting and Respect Workers and Trade Union Rights?

Media Statement – 18/7/2016

C & F Group company Must Stop Union Busting and Respect Workers and Trade Union Rights; 63 Union Members and workers laid off after just days Union Registered -

We,  47 undersigned civil society organisations, trade unions,  and groups are appalled by the union busting action/s by C &F Manufacturing Philipines Corporation, which is now terminating  the workers, just after their union, Tinig ng mga Manggagawa sa C&F Manufacturing Phils. Corporation or the Voice of the Workers in C&F Mfg. Phils. Corp., was officially registered. 

On May 26, 2016, the workers registered their union with Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). The very next day, on May 27, the company abruptly offered a Voluntary Separation Program (VSP). The union obtained its Certificate of Registration on May 30, 2016.

On June 6, 2016, the Union filed with DOLE a Petition for Certification Election (PCE) in order to determine the representation of the workers in the collective bargaining.  Thereafter, on the very same day, the company management informed DOLE-Cavite Provincial Office that they are subjecting to "retrenchment" or lay-off some 98 regular workers of the company, wherein more than 63 of these workers are union officers and/or union members.

In the evening of June 6, the night-shift workers learned about their mass lay-off through the posted "announcement" of the management in the bulletin board. On the next day, June 7, 2016 the day-shift workers were blocked at the guard house and were no longer allowed to enter the premises of the company.

On June 9, 2016, 3 days later, the company hired 55 new workers, who were agency-supplied contractual workers from Terumi, AED, and E Pipol. Before this, the company used 50 agency-supplied contractual workers already working in the company and supplied by Terumi.

Justly, if the company no longer needed so many workers, they should have kept their 98 regular workers, who had been working for 3 to 12 years, and simply reduced the number of agency-supplied contractual workers. But, this company got rid of its 98 regular employees and are replacing them with new agency-supplied contractual workers.

Based on the facts provided by the Union, this is a clear union busting, and also an attempt to remove regular employees and replace them with workers on precarious work arrangements.

C & F Manufacturing Phils. Corporation is a supplier to IT/electronics companies such as APC Schneider Electric, IBM, and EMC Corporation. Its CEO and President is Mr. John Flaherty of C& F Group, is based at C & F Tooling Ltd., Cashla, Athenry, Co Galway, Ireland. Website: www.cftooling.ie. C & F Tooling Ltd. have companies in Ireland, Germany, Czech Republic, UK, USA, and the Philippines.

The C&F Group, in a document signed by John Flaherty in his capacity as Group Managing Director and CEO dated 5/1/2016 states that they ‘…have adopted the Electronic Industry Code of Conduct (EICC) as the operating Code of Conduct within the C&F Group…’.

Further in a letter published in the United Nations Global Compact website, it is stated: - “..C&F Group reaffirms its support of the Ten Principles of The United Nations Global Compact in areas of Human Rights, Labour, Environment and Anti-Corruption. In addition, The C&F Group has adopted The EICC-SER code as the Groups Code of Practise.’ (https://www.unglobalcompact.org/participation/report/cop/create-and-submit/active/15521)

There have also been other complaints from the workers, which include ‘forced’ work on Sunday and public holidays and excessively long working hours.

As such, it is verily believed that C&F Manufacturing Phils. Corp. and/or the C&F Group are in breach of the EICC Code, and also the UN Global Compact.

The actions of the company, possibly with the intention of union busting, and avoidance of employer obligations, is a violation of worker and trade union rights.

Therefore, we:

1)     Call on C&F Manufacturing Phils. Corp. and/or the C&F Group to immediately reinstate the said  98 regular worekrs and  union members and/or employees;

2)     Call on C&F Manufacturing Phils. Corp. and/or the C&F Group to recognize and respect the rights  of workers to  organize, form union,  and to collectively bargain; 

3)     Call on C&F Manufacturing Phils. Corp. and/or the C&F Group to abort precarious employment and labour policy and practices, and ensure that all its employees are regular employees;

4)     Call on the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition (EICC), a coalition of electronics companies committed to supporting the rights and wellbeing of workers and communities worldwide affected by the global electronics supply chain to ensure that C&F Manufacturing Phils. Corp. and/or the C&F Group comply with the EICC Code, and respect workers and trade union rights;

5)     Call on UN Global Compact, being a corporate sustainability initiative that ensures companies to align strategies and operations with universal principles on human rights and labour, to ensure that C&F Manufacturing Phils. Corp. and/or the C&F Group respect workers and trade union rights; and 

6)     Call on the government of Philippines to speedily act on the violation of workers and trade union rights by C&F Manufacturing Phils. Corp. and/or the C&F Group, and ensure justice be served.

Cecilia Tuico

Charles Hector

Alejandro Gonzalez

For and on behalf of the 47 groups

1.     National Union of Flight Attendants Malaysia (NUFAM), Malaysia

2.    Labour Studies and Action Centre / Centro de Reflexión y Acción Laboral (CEREAL), Mexico

3.     WEED - World Economy, Ecology & Development, Germany

4.     North South Initiative

5.     All Arakan Students' and Youths' Congress(AASYC), Thai-Burma Border

6.     HAK Association of Timor-Leste

7.     Maquila Solidarity Network (Canada)

8.     Citizen of the Earth, Taiwan

9.     International Campaign for Responsible Technology,  San Jose, California 

10.  Association of Human Rights Defenders and Promoters-HRDP, Burma

11.  Sawit Watch (Indonesia)

12.  National Union of Transport Equipment & Allied Industries Workers (NUTEAIW), Malaysia

13.  Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma (ALTSEAN-Burma)

14.  MAP Foundation, Thailand 

15.  Safety and Rights Society, Bangladesh

16.  Kalikasan Peoples Network for the Environment, Philippines

17.  Metalworkers Alliance in the Philippines (MWAP)

18.  Collectif Ethique sur l’étiquette, France

19.  Basel Action Network

20.  Center for Alliance of Labor and Human Rights (CENTRAL), Cambodia

21.  Fair | Campagna Abiti Puliti, Italy

22.  Clean Clothes Campaign, The Netherlands

23.  Radanar Ayar Rural Development Association, Myanmar

24.  Coalición de Ex trabajadoras (es) y trabajadoras (es)  de la Industria Electrónica Nacional (CETIEN), Mexico

25.  Cooperation Committee of Trade Unions (CCTU) Myanmar

26.  GoodElectronics Thailand (GET)

27.  Paper Union of Malaysia

28.  Committee for Asian Women

29.  International Labor Rights Forum, Washington, D.C.

30.  WH4C (Workers Hub For Change), Malaysia

31.  MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

32.  Solidarity of Cavite Workers, Cavite, Philippines

33.  Hye Sung Workers Union, Cavite, Philippines

34.  Daeduck Employees Union –Independent (DEU-Ind.), Cavite. Philippines

35.  Nagkakaisang Manggagawa ng Keyrin Electronics (NMKE), Cavite, Philippines

36.  Eagle Ridge Employees Union (EREU), Cavite, Philippines

37.  Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Eagle Ridge (SMER), Cavite, Philippines

38.  Batangas Port Workers and Stevedores Labor Union (BPSLU), Batangas City, Philippines

39.  Electronic Industry Employees Union (EIEU) Southern Region, Peninsular Malaysia

40.  Electronic Industry Employees Union(EIEU) Northern Region, Peninsular Malaysia

41.  PROHAM - Society for the Promotion of Human Rights, Malaysia

42.  Parti Rakyat Malaysia

43.  GoodElectronics Network, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

44.  CWI (Committe For Workers International) Malaysia

45.  Association of domestic workers, homeworkers and maquila (ATRAHDOM)., Guatemala

46.  Workers Assistance Center, Inc. , Philippines

47.  Pagkakaisa ng mga Manggagawa sa Nakashima Philippines Corporation (PAMANA-Ind.), Cavite, Philippines