Monopoli ASTRO tamat 28/2/2017 - Persaingan menguntungan penguna?

Kerajaan UMNO-BN telah memberikan hak eksklusif kepada ASTRO mulai 1997 dan ini telah berakhir pada 28/2/2017... sehingga kini tidak ada berita baru yang saya nampak, di mana monopoly ASTRO dilanjutkan...

Apabila satu syarikat ada monopoly, dan tidak ada persaingan dari syarikat lain, harga perkhidmatan akan naik...jika pelanggan tak setuju, tidak ada pilihan lain...

 

Bila ada persaingan, semua syarikat mahu menarik pelanggan - justeru harga perkhidmatan pun akan turun, atau pakej-pakej yang lebih baik akan ditawarkan...Lihat perkhidmatan talipon bimbit ...ada DIGI, Celcom, dll...pelanggan ada pilihan...

Kini kita di Malaysia juga akan mempunyai pilihan untuk perkhidmatan satelite TV...harap ini akan mengurangkan perbelanjaan bulanan rakyat untuk ASTRO...dan akan wujud pilihan menjadi pelanggan syarikat lain pula..Harapan adalah kerajaan tidak akan melenggahkan proses meluluskan permohonan syarikat lain...

Harap-harap kerajaan UMNO-BN tidak pula lanjutkan 'monopoly' ASTRO lagi...

Astro’s satellite broadcast has exclusive rights till Feb 2017

December 1, 2015

This exclusive right was granted by the Government of Malaysia to MBNS in 1997. 

KUALA LUMPUR: The government has extended exclusive satellite broadcasting rights to MEASAT Broadcast Network Systems (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (MBNS) up to February 28, 2017, said the Communications and Multimedia Ministry.

It said in a written reply circulated in the Dewan Rakyat that the right was maintained for the Astro operator based on the ‘no worse off’ principle during the migration from the Broadcast Licence to the Content Applications Service Provider Individual Licence.

“This exclusive right was granted by the Government of Malaysia to MBNS in 1997 before the migration of MBNS from the Broadcast Licence under the Broadcasting Act 1988 to the new regime under the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998.

“MBNS can continue with the pay-TV broadcasting service via satellite to the general public after 2017, but not exclusively,” the ministry said in reply to a question from Hasan Arifin (BN-Rompin) who wanted to know whether the government would continue with the exclusive rights for Astro that would expire next year.

In addition, the ministry said other companies could begin applying to purchase pay-TV broadcasting services via satellite after February 28, 2017.- FMT News, 1/12/2015

Pekerja 'sektor awam' boleh kritik kerajaan - kes 5 cikgu ...Kesatuan Sekerja mesti bersama pekerja bukan majikan?

Tindakan disiplin terhadap 5 guru kerana 'kritik' kerajaan,... Apa sebenarnya yang mereka katakan atau lakukan kurang jelas...tetapi Menteri mengatakan bahawa "...We are a democracy. If you say on social media 'the government is wrong, the minister is wrong and this should be done instead', that is fine..."..."But if you go to the extent of slander, then that is wrong. Just don't go overboard," he[Education Minister Datuk Seri Mahdzir Khalid] said. Pendirian NUTP, saperti tersiar dalam media pula menyedihkan, "“You cannot work for the government and then talk bad about your employer,” he[NUTP president Kamarozaman Abdul Razak] said. “This is hypocritical and it’s against the oath we took as civil servants.”. Adakah kesatuan sekerja pekerja sektor awam membantah arahan amalan atau 'oath' yang mengurangkan atau menafikan hak pekerja? Baca lapuran media berkenaan di bawah ini untuk mendapat gambaran tepat apa yang telah disiarkan.

Justeru, masa untuk kita membincangkan hak pekerja serta juga pekerja 'sektor awam'...Hak bersuara dan meluangkan pendapat - termasuk hak menghebohkan salah laku majikan, serta 'kritik' majikan dikhalayak umum adalah hak pekerja yang tidak boleh dinafikan...Bukan tugas pekerja menjaga 'imej' majikan...bukan tugas pekerja untuk kempen untuk UMNO-BN...

Penjawat AWAM (Public Servant) bukan 'orang gaji' kerajaan(Government Servant) semasa. Mereka bekerja untuk rakyat Malaysia - bukan untuk UMNO-BN....atau untuk kerajaan gabungan parti pembangkang. 

Kerajaan semasa akan menentukan polisi, program dan arahan kerja semasa - pekerja terpaksa bekerja bersungguh-sungguh melaksanakan polisi, program dan arahan kerja yang diberikan oleh kerajaan semasa...walaupun secara peribadi mereka mungkin tak bersetuju...TETAPI ini sama sekali tidak harus menghalang pekerja daripada meluangkan pendapat/pendirian peribadi di luar waktu kerja...

Jangan pula kita lupa bahawa kedua-dua bekas Perdana Menteri Malaysia, dari parti UMNO,  Tun Razak (sejak 1950) dan Tun Hussein Onn((sejak 1945) adalah penjawat awam atau pekerja 'sektor awam' kerajaan penjajah British...Adakah mereka mengkritik kerajaan British semasa....? Jika tidak, adakah mereka sebenarnya terlibat dalam perjuangan menyingkirkan pemerintah British sehingga Malaysia mencapai kemerdekaan? Jangan pula kerajaan UMNO-BN kini bertukar pendirian kini mengenai hak penjawat awam atau pekerja 'sektor awam"...Hak untuk kempen dan bekerja untuk menyingkirkan (atau menyimpan) kerajaan UMNO-BN adalah hak peribadi seorang individu yang tidak harus dicabul...asalkan tidak dilakukan semasa waktu kerja...

Upon his return from the United Kingdom, in 1950, Tun Razak joined the Malayan Civil Service.^[1] Owing to his political calibre, he became the youth chief for United Malays National Organisation (UMNO). Two years later, he worked as the Assistant State Secretary of Pahang and in February 1955...

Tun Hussein came back to Malaysia in 1945 and was appointed Commandant of the Johor Bahru Police Depot. The following year he joined the Malaya Civil Service as an assistant administrative officer in Segamat, Johor. He was later posted to the state of Selangor, becoming Klang and Kuala Selangor's district officer.

Bolehkah pekerja kritik majikan? Ya, boleh jika majikan melakukan sesuatu bercanggah dengan hak asasi, hak pekerja, hak berkesatuan, ...atau dalam perjuangan mendapatkan hak tambahan...

Pekerja boleh menjadi ahli parti politik selain daripada parti politik yang menjadi kerajaan semasa. Pekerja boleh melaksanakan hak politik mereka(di luar masa kerja) untuk menyokong atau mengkritik  parti yang kini menjadi kerajaan, atau menyokong atau mengkritik parti politik lain yang bukan kini kerajaan TETAPI di luar masa kerja... 

Penjawat Awam dan/atau pekerja sektor awam, menurut pendapat saya, ada obligasi tambahan kepada rakyat dan negara...yang merupakan 'BOSS' mereka. Najib dan kabinetnya boleh dikatakan hanya 'CEO dan Lembaga Pengarah' dan rakyat Malaysia adalah pemegang saham dan tuan punya 'Malaysia'. 

CEO boleh ditukar bila-bila...(Jika majoriti Ahli Parlimen tidak lagi mahu Najib terus kekal PM, atau selepas PRU parti lain mendapat majoriti dan PM dari parti lain dipilih)...Penjawat Awam akan terus jadi 'pekerja kerajaan' tak kira parti politik mana yang berkuasa...

Jika kita gunakan pendirian bahawa mereka yang bekerja dengan kerajaan mestilah ahli atau penyokong Najib dan UMNO-BN, dan penentang parti-parti lain - maka, jika parti lain menjadi kerajaan, adakah semua 'pekerja sektor awam' kini dibuang kerja dan diganti dengan pekerja baru pilihan kerajaan parti pemerintah baru? Ini mungkin berlaku dengan syarikat swasta bila syarikat lain mengambil alih, saperti MAB mengambil alih sistem penerbangan Malaysia daripada syarikat lama, MAS - tetapi, saperti yang dikatakan ini bukan keadaannya dengan 'penjawat awam' atau pekerja 'sektor awam'.

Penjawat Awam dan/atau pekerja 'sektor awam' harus menumpukan tenaga mereka melakukan kerja mereka secara profesional semasa kerja - Semasa kerja, mereka tidak harus 'mempromosi' atau menyatakan sokongan mereka atau bekerja menambahkan sokongan untuk UMNO-BN, ataupun mengkritik UMNO-BN, ataupun mempromosi parti politik lain. Semua itu boleh dilakukan di luar masa kerja dalam kehidupan peribadi mereka...tetapi masa kerja, mesti kerja bersungguh-sungguh berasaskan polisi dan arahan kerajaan semasa...

'LANTIKAN POLITIK'? - Bila masuk seorang CEO atau Perdana Menteri atau Menteri Besar baru, kebiasaannya beliau mahu melantik 'orang' dia, yang beliau percaya akan menyokong dan melaksanakan polisi, arahan dan caranya secara berkesan - beliau tidak akan mahukan mereka yang tidak sokong beliau, justeru kebiasaannya akan berlaku penukaran peringkat tertinggi kepimpinan sektor awam - biasanya Ketua Pengarah/Pengarah, Ketua Polis Negara, Pendakwa Raya(AG), dll...Ini mungkin saya setuju - tetapi pekerja sektor awam, walaupun ditukar pangkat (atau tanggungjawab kerja) tidak boleh dibuang kerja tanpa alasan wajar...

Pekerja sektor awam 'profesional' biasanya tak perlu risau sangat kerana beliau pekerja 'profesional' akan kerja bersungguh-bersungguh berasaskan arahan dan polisi semasa, walaupun secara peribadi mungkin tak setuju dengan pimpinan kerajaan semasa. 

Untuk adakan sekatan khusus menghalang mereka ,yang berjawatan ketua pengarah, pengarah, ketua..., daripada 'kritik' kerajaan semasa secara terbuka mungkin ada lojik - tetapi adalah salah untuk ini jadikan halangan sama kepada semua pekerja 'sektor awam' yang lain. Untuk makluman, pekerja pangkat tinggi dalam jawatan sedemikian juga kini dihalang menyertai kesatuan sekerja ...

'KRITIK MAJIKAN' secara terbuka - Pekerja biasa ada hak mengkritik majikan yang mengikut pendapat mereka berlaku tidak adil. Pekerja dibenarkan berkempen mendapatkan sokongan rakyat umum menyokong berjuangan untuk mendapatkan keadilan...Dalam undang-undang Malaysia, hak ini diiktiraf - pekerja boleh berpiket ...piket mesti dilakukan bukan dalam premis majikan tetapi di luar  - untuk mendapatkan sokongan pekerja lain...untuk mendapatkan sokongan rakyat umum...menentang majikan menyokong perjuangan pekerja dan kesatuan menentang majikan. Justeru, penyataan bahawa pekerja sektor awam tak boleh kritik 'kerajaan' adalah tak munasabah...

Pekerja bukan milik majikan. Pekerja bukan 'hamba' majikan. Pekerja tidak 'menjual' semua hak peribadinya kepada majikan. Pekerja dan majikan memasuki perjanjian kerja - Pekerja hanya diperlukan bekerja bersungguh-sungguh melakukan kerja yang diberikan majikan secara 'profesional' - itu sahaja. Majikan ada kawalan apa yang dilakukan pekerja semasa masa kerja sahaja, dan mengenai perkara berkenaan hal ehwal kerja. Pekerja, selain daripada pekerja yang diambil khusus untuk tugas mempromosi nama baik majikan/syarikat majikan saperti pekerja PR[Public relations] dan mungkin CEO dan Pengarah, memang tidak ada obligasi untuk mempromosi nama baik atau imej syarikat di luar masa kerja atau dalam masa peribadi. Pekerja yang didakwa lakukan jenayah pun tidak boleh dibuang kerja oleh majikan, sehingga pekerja tersebut dibicarakan dan didapati salah oleh Mahkamah...

Pekerja, termasuk pekerja 'sektor awam', ada hak untuk bersuara, menyatakan pendapat, masuk atau terlibat secara aktif dalam mana-mana parti politik. 

Pekerja 'sektor awam' ada hak untuk berkempen, tetapi bukan pada waktu kerja, untuk parti selain daripada parti yang kini menguasai kerajaan, termasuk juga mengkritik parti UMNO-BN yang kini menjadi kerajaan. 

Pekerja, termasuk pekerja sektor awam, ada hak mengkritik secara terbuka polisi kerajaan semasa. Perkerja 'sektor awam' ada hak berkempen secara terbuka, di luar masa bekerja, untuk mendapat sokongan rakyat menolak UMNO-BN. Tindakan disiplin tidak harus diambil terhadap pekerja 'sektor awam' berkenaan tindakan mereka semasa masa peribadi mereka - bukan masa kerja.

Jika anda memuatkan komen dalam Facebook atau media sosial pada waktu kerja , jaga-jaga kerana ini adalah salah. Pada waktu kerja, pekerja harus tumpukan perhatian kepada kerja sahaja ...aktif dalam 'sosial media' atau internet semasa waktu kerja boleh dikatakan salahlaku kerja samada kritik kerajaan atau memuatkan resipi ikan patin...Masa kerja harus kerja ...Apa sebenarnya yang telah dilakukan cikgu yang kini siasat ini? Maklumat lebih diperlukan...Harap pihak media akan terus lapurkan berita ini...

Apabila anda meluangkan pendapat - nyatakan bahawa ianya adalah pendapat anda...

Apabila anda mengeluarkan kenyataan fakta - pasti ianya ada asas...berasaskan kebenaran... Jangan buat kenyataan berasaskan apa yang anda dengar saja ...atau tak pasti sama ada  benar atau tidak? 

Cara cakap setengah Ahli Parlimen dalam Dewan Rakyat bukan contoh yang baik, kerana dalam Dewan, mereka boleh cakap apa-apa tanpa risau akan disaman atau dituduh melakukan jenayah...justeru, bila mengeluarkan pendapat atau kenyataan di luar harus lebih pandai... 

NUTP to teachers: Heed Mahdzir’s warning

Sheith Khidhir Bin Abu Bakar

 | March 28, 2017

'You cannot work for the government and talk bad about it.'

PETALING JAYA: The National Union of the Teaching Profession (NUTP) has given its support to Education Minister Mahdzir Khalid’s denunciation of teachers who publicly criticise the Putrajaya administration.

Speaking to FMT, NUTP president Kamarozaman Abdul Razak said teachers must be reminded that they had signed an oath that they would not criticise the government in public.

“You cannot work for the government and then talk bad about your employer,” he said. “This is hypocritical and it’s against the oath we took as civil servants.”

However, he acknowledged that teachers had the right to participate in politics although they must apply for permission from the Education Ministry. Furthermore, their speeches must be based on hard facts, he added.

“Teachers are allowed to engage in politics, become members of political parties and even become candidates as long as they ask for and get permission to do so,” he said.

“Nowadays, however, teachers who engage in politics do so without the ministry’s knowledge and the politics they play is unprofessional and gutter-like.”

When asked what he thought of teachers who refrained from talking about politics in the classroom but were politically active outside, he said, “When you’re teachers, what you do outside of classrooms also counts.

“Most students follow politics and if they find out their teachers said something about the government, then they’re going to be wondering what’s going on.”

A Bernama report earlier quoted Mahdzir as saying that teachers who were critical of the government should resign or face the consequences. - FMT News, 28/3/2017

Five teachers to get show cause letters for participation in Opposition activities

Posted on 27 March 2017 - 11:48am
Last updated on 27 March 2017 - 01:26pm

Lee Choon Fai
newsdesk@thesundaily.com

KUALA LUMPUR: The government will issue show-cause letters to five teachers who are active in opposition political party activities.

Education Minister Datuk Seri Mahdzir Khalid said although they have breached the civil servants' code of conduct, they will be given a chance to explain themselves.

"Civil servants are subject to the General Order of the civil service, there are rules in regards to the conduct of civil servants.

"My advice is, if you support the Opposition, show some class (beradat). Don't go overboard and resort to insults and inappropriate words," Mahdzir told a press conference after an event at the Impian KLCC Hotel here today.

Mahdzir said the teachers in question hold party posts in the Opposition and have literally taken the stage in their events to criticise the government.

He said teachers have the right to support whomever they want but reminded them that they are bound by the General Order.

Mahdzir also said teachers have freedom of speech and the right to criticise, including on social media, as long as their statements are not slanderous.

"We are a democracy. If you say on social media 'the government is wrong, the minister is wrong and this should be done instead', that is fine.

"But if you go to the extent of slander, then that is wrong. Just don't go overboard," he said.

Mahdzir added the teachers are still working as usual and action, if any, will only be taken after internal investigations are completed. - The Sun Daily, 27/3/2017

 

SUHAKAM siap siasatan mati dalam tahanan polis -S.Balamurugan..dakwa polis terlibat?

Syabas SUHAKAM kerana melakukan tindakan pro-active memulakan penyiasatan segera mengenai kematian Balamurugan yang meninggal dunia dalam tahanan polis pada 7/2/2017...dan kenyataan dapatan siasatan dihebohkan pada 29/3/2017 (siap dalam masa kurang dari 2 bulan). SUHAKAM berjaya menyiapkan siasatan sendiri melibatkan 43 saksi dan sudah keluarkan kenyataan ini pada 29/3/2017? ...bagaimana dengan pihak polis?

Adakah pihak polis sudah siap melakukan penyiasatan mengenai kematian ini?Adakah polis sudah mulakan siasatan? Atau adakah ini juga akan berlaku 'cover up' untuk membantu rakan polis yang telah melakukan kesalahan - solidariti?  Adakah pegawai polis yang bertanggungjawab sudah didakwa di Mahkamah? Adakah terdapat apa-apa arahan 'tutup kes'? Banyak soalan - kita tunggu sama ada pihak polis atau pihak pendakwaraya atau pihak Menteri Zahid Hamidi akan memberikan jawapan...

Majistret perintah hantar hospital pun langsung tidak dihiraukan...Ingat dalam kes Siti Noor Aishah Atam pun, Hakim menolak permohonan pendakwaan untuk terus menahan Siti sehingga rayuan - tetapi selepas itu Siti ditahan lagi...

Tindakan tidak menghormati dan mematuhi perintah Mahkamah dikalangan polis dan pihak pendakwaan sangat merisaukan ...Bukankah ini penghinaan Mahkamah?

Apakah yang Najib dan kerajaan UMNO-BN akan melakukan sekarang? 

Polis yang membunuh atau melakukan kesalahan jenayah harus didakwa dan dibicarakan di Mahkamah - tak mahu 'tindakan disiplin' dalaman...Polis yang melakukan kesalahan, dan mereka yang bantu 'cover up' harus bukan sahaja didakwa tetapi juga segera disingkirkan...Rakyat berhak mempunyai polis yang bersih, beramanah, mempunyai integriti dan yang tidak mengingkari undang-undang. MACC nampaknya aktif menyiasat dan mendakwa polis 'korup' - polis yang mendera, membunuh atau tidak melakukan tugas berasaskan undang-undang juga harus didakwa....

Sejak 2010 sehingga February 2017, seramai 1,654 telah mati dalam tahanan...
1,037 were Malays, 222 ethnic Chinese, 182 ethnic Indians, 28 from other ethnicities, and 185 foreigners. - See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/over-1600-deaths-in-custody-since-2010-dpm-reveals#sthash.cD8dSBNU.dpuf

Pos berkenaan:-

Resolusi Peguam 'Dakwa Polis melakukan jenayah', dan singkirkan 'polis kotor' - kes Syed Mohd Azlan?

Press Statement by SUHAKAM on the death in custody of Balamurugan M Suppiah

Thursday, 30 March 2017 07:26pm

This item is reproduced from here. KUALA LUMPUR (29 MARCH 2017) - The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) concluded its independent investigation into the death of Balamurugan M Suppiah (S.Balamurugan) who died at the North Klang District Police Headquarters on 7 February 2017. According to the police, he was found unconscious in a temporary holding area for detainees at about 11.30pm. SUHAKAM begun its investigation in accordance with sections 4(1) and 12 of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 on 10 February 2017, and in the interest of public truth. Through interviews and statements recorded from 43 witnesses, SUHAKAM identified several areas of concern that continue to arise in relation to deaths in police custody. At the outset, SUHAKAM reiterates that the right to life is the most fundamental human right, within which no derogation is permissible. As guaranteed in Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution and recognised in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the right to life is a prerequisite to the realisation of all other human rights. The deceased was arrested with two other suspects at around 6.30pm on 6 February 2017 and taken to the Bandar Baru Klang Police Station. During its investigation, SUHAKAM was informed of alleged ill-treatment and beatings of all suspects by the police between 7.30pm to 9.30pm at the police station. Before he were taken to the North Klang District Police Headquarters, the deceased was allegedly hit on the ears, beaten on his feet and legs and punched and kicked in his chest. SUHAKAM was informed that the deceased was shivering and not able to walk when he was sent to the Shah Alam Centralised Lock Up at approximately 4.10am the next morning. The suspects were produced before the Klang Magistrate’s Court at around 10.00am on 7 February 2017 for an application for further remand. The remand for the deceased was refused and the Magistrate directed the police to take him for immediate medical treatment. SUHAKAM interviewed the Magistrate on 23 February 2017 and was informed that the deceased had a swollen face and eyes and was unable to sit up, stand or even hold his head up when his name was called in her Court. Although the police had the opportunity to take the deceased to the hospital, they failed to do so and took him back to the North Klang District Police Headquarters at about 1.15pm. SUHAKAM was informed that the deceased was shivering again at this point but he was not given any medical attention. By approximately 6.30pm by which time his detention became unlawful, S.Balamurugan’s condition had deteriorated severely to the extent that he had no control from urinating. At approximately 11.30pm, the deceased was found unconscious or presumably dead by the Investigating Officer. SUHAKAM notes with concern that from approximately 7.00pm to 11.30pm, the deceased was not monitored or checked on by the policemen on duty. SUHAKAM considers it to be the duty of the Investigating Officer to be responsible for the acceptance, safety, security, health condition and welfare of any person arrested and detained by the police. SUHAKAM wishes to point out that although the police had 24 hours to detain the deceased, they may have deliberately flouted the Court Order or wilfully abused their powers when the deceased was taken back to the North Klang Disctrict Police Headquarters, purportedly for his statement to be recorded. Evidence show that this was not done and the deceased was instead held without a reasonable and credible justification.  The post mortems conducted by Hospital Tuanku Ampuan Rahimah Klang (HTAR) and Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL) both revealed that the cause of death of S.Balamurugan was coronary artery disease. Of note, the second pathologist from HKL concluded that the cause of death was coronary artery disease with blunt force trauma, and the time of death could have been as early as 9.00pm or 10.00pm. It is SUHAKAM’s view that the allegations of ill treatment and torture corroborate the statements by both pathologists, in that the deceased had, among others, bruises and swelling on his eyes, a large bruise on his chest below his right nipple, swelling on his right ear, lacerations on his ears, injuries on his right chest muscle, blood clots on his right temple, back injuries and severe muscular injuries to his feet and ankles. The second pathologist indicated that he also found that the deceased had obvious bruises on his knees, fingers, back of his left lower leg, lower back and the back of his thighs. Both post mortems revealed that the deceased was suffering from chronic liver failure and liver cirrhosis. While this is unlikely to be the cause of death, in the second pathologist’s medical opinion, this was a possible explanation for the bleeding from the mouth and nose of the deceased. Both pathologists also concluded that the deceased had a blocked left artery and was suffering from a severe heart condition, but it is their medical opinion that the injuries could have triggered a heart attack or worsened his heart condition leading to his death, given the severity of the injuries. The HKL pathologist noted that while the deceased had serious underlying medical concerns, the injuries on his body could not be ignored as they appeared to be abusive injuries, and not self-inflicted or accidental in nature. The circumstances under which the deceased was detained after the application for remand by the police was refused were unacceptable. He had endured approximately a further 9 hours of detention prior to his death, after he was released by the Court. This in our view demonstrates a blatant disregard for respect for human life and dignity and the conditions in which he was held may be inconsistent with the Federal Constitution (Article 5(1)). SUHAKAM is satisfied that the police knew or ought to have known, even more so when the Magistrate had made her observations and order, of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of the deceased, and that the police failed to take adequate measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid such a risk. SUHAKAM is of the view that there appears to be serious breach or wilful disregard of the duty to protect life by the police due to cumulative failures on their part to provide medical attention to the deceased. SUHAKAM underlines that where there is an alleged breach of this duty of care, there is an obligation on the police to investigate and to carry out an efficient, independent and reasonable investigation, which must lead to the perpetrators’ identification and prosecution. Evidence from SUHAKAM’s investigation also identified numerous systemic failures on the part of the police in regard to the treatment of detainees in police custody, including but not limited to failures to follow the Lock up Rules 1953, police standard operating procedures, the Court Order and relevant international human rights norms and standards. SUHAKAM reiterates that in accordance with Principle 1 of the United Nations Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, “all persons under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be treated in a humane manner and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person”. Principle 6 further states that “no person under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. SUHAKAM’s investigation however revealed allegations of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of persons in police custody. The statements of the other suspects alleged that the police had during interrogations applied paint thinner and chilli powder on the body of two of the other suspects including on their genitals. They claimed to have been beaten with a rubber hose and wooden stick, as well as with a handcuff chain for their confessions. Two suspects arrested in relation to this investigation were below 18. While the police must observe certain legal rights whenever they arrest or detain a child suspect, SUHAKAM’s investigation revealed that the police may have been in breach of section 85 of the Child Act 2001 that stipulates appropriate arrangements shall be made to prevent a child while being detained in a police station from associating with an adult who is charged with an offence. Both suspects who are below 18 were placed in custody with the deceased who was an adult. According to section 87 of the same Act, after the arrest of a child, the police officer or other person making the arrest shall immediately inform a probation officer and the child’s parent or guardian of the arrest. SUHAKAM notes that the law in this regard was not complied with. Despite a growing awareness of issues concerning the proper treatment of persons in police custody, the implementation of best practices and recommendations, particularly from SUHAKAM’s 2016 Death in Custody Report is seriously lacking. Some recommendations have not been implemented at all and it is observed that the police are still ignorant of their duty of care to detainees or the fact that there is a responsibility on the police to ensure that the individual in their custody is not deprived of his right to life. In accordance with its legal duty, SUHAKAM makes the following recommendations to the Government of Malaysia and Police Di-Raja Malaysia (PDRM): To ensure that anyone deprived of their liberty is detained lawfully and in a lawful, recognised and gazetted place of detention in accordance with the law.  To investigate cases of abuse and misconduct by the police, including as described above, and prosecute police officials responsible for the illegal detention, ill-treatment and/or torture of the deceased which in his case may have caused and/or contributed to his death. To investigate incidents of alleged torture and abuse of the other suspects by the police, and prosecute police officials responsible. To ensure internal disciplinary proceedings and criminal action for breaches of instructions, including the Court Order relating to the case. As police lock-ups or facilities are not intended for or equipped to handle suspects who require immediate or sustained medical , SUHAKAM reiterates its recommendation in its 2016 Report on Death In Custody to place a custodial medical team in police lockups as well as too review the 1953 Lock-up Rules. SUHAKAM is of the view that the increase in the number of deaths in police custody warrants an increased scrutiny of the operation and funding of police lock ups, particularly in relation to health services and general conditions. -END- TAN SRI RAZALI ISMAIL Chairman The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) 29 March 2017 Source: Malaysian Bar Website Source: SUHAKAM Website

Siti Noor Aishah Atam - Ditahan lagi di bawah SOSMA?

Siti Noor Aishah Atam masih terus menjadi mangsa ketidakadilan - Buku yang didakwa dalam pemilikannya bukan pun buku yang diharamkan di Malaysia...SOSMA, POCA semua digunakan dalam kes Siti...Kini ditahan lagi mengunakan SOSMA selepas Mahkamah Rayuan membenarkan rayuan pihak pendakwaan - kes dikembalikan ke Mahkamah Tinggi untuk diteruskan perbicaraan...

Kena buang Universiti kerana tak hadhir - adakah kerana pada masa itu beliau dalam tahanan polis? Kenapa parti politik dan ahli politik tidak mahu terlibat berjuang untuk Siti Noor Aishah? Adakah kerana beliau hanya 'orang biasa"? Badan Peguam Malaysia pun sudah membuat Resolusi kes ini...

Apalah ertinya pemilikan buku-buku tersebut yang dikatakan mempunyai kaitan dan unsur-unsur pengganas menjadi suatu kesalahan keatas sesiapa yang memiliki buku-buku tersebut, walhal pihak Kementerian Dalam Negeri gagal menjalankan fungsi sebenarnya untuk mengharamkan dan seterusnya menghapuskan buku-buku tersebut. Tanpa tindakan tegas pihak Kementerian Dalam Negeri untuk membendung gejala ini, buku-buku tersebut masih lagi berleluasa dipasaran dan boleh dimiliki oleh sesiapa sahaja samada untuk pembacaan umum ataupun sebab sebab yang lain. Pada fikiran mahkamah ini kegagalan pihak Kementerian Dalam Negeri untuk mengharamkan buku-buku tersebut tidak sealiran dan tidak konsisten dengan menjadi pemilikan bukubuku tersebut suatu kesalahan menurut Seksyen 130JB(1)(a) Kanun Keseksaan.- dari Alasan Penghakiman Mahkamah Tinggi

Siapa yang memutuskan sama ada buku ini berkaitan dengan 'terrorist' - Pakar? Siapa pakar ini? Apakah kelayakkan pakar ini? Jika kerajaan Malaysia belum membuat keputusan mengharamkan sesuatu buku - bagaimana boleh katakan pemilikan buku itu haram? Buku yang diharamkan harus disenaraikan dengan jelas supaya semua tahu...Pos akan datang mungkin kita akan menilai siapakah 'pakar' ini? Pakar untuk DNA, bahan kimia, mengapa seorang mati OK - tapi pakar untuk katakan buku ini ada unsur keganasan berkait rapat dengan kumpulan ini dan itu - bukankah itu hanya 'pendapat' peribadi - tak ada asas saintifik pun?

Pegawai Penyiasat (SP6) kemudiannya telah merujuk 12 buah buku-buku diatas kepada 3 orang saksi Pakar(SP2)[Dr. Wan Adli bin Wan Ramli- Pendapat Usuluddin], (SP9)[Prof. Dr. Rohan Gunaratna – Pakar Kajian Keganasan]dan (SP10)[Ustaz Hj. Zamihan bin Hj. Mat Zin- Pakar Kajian Keganasan] untuk mengkaji dan memberikan pandangan mengenai buku-bukutersebut. Saksi-saksi tersebut telah mengeluarkan pandangan masing-masing yang bertanda (P42)(P45A)(P52(1)hingga (12)). Hasil pandangan ketiga-tiga pakar ini menyatakan bahawa buku-buku tersebut menunjukkan unsur-unsur khawarij atau keganasan yang berkait rapat dengan Kumpulan Pengganas Islamic State, Al-Qaeda dan Jemaah Islamiyah.

PEMIKIRAN SEMPIT - Membaca sesuatu buku tidak akan mempengaruhi seseorang melakukan sesuatu tindakan 'terrorisma' - Manusia ada sifat 'ingin tahu' - dan akan membaca dan cuba memperolehi semua jenis maklumat, mengambil kira semua pendapat -- dan akan dengan BIJAK akan buat keputusan sendiri mengenai pendirian peribadi. Pembacaan buku bertentangan dengan pendirian sendiri juga penting untuk proses menangani pemikiran sedemikian - Kalau tak tahu 'point' pihak lawan, bagaimana mahu 'response' - menangani pendapat salah tersebut... Pengharaman atan penghalanagan akses kepada buku, filem dan pendapat lain adalah sesuatu yang hanya tidak bagus untuk pembangunan peribadi seorang insan. Tugas kerajaan adalah untuk menangani pendapat dengan pendapat supaya semua faham apa yang betu dan apa yang tidak baik...Semua peguam pun perlu baca buku sedemikian - kalau tidak bagaimana cabar 'pakar' sebegini - adakah peguam Siti Noor Aishah diberikan salinan buku berkenaan untuk baca sendiri - Kalau tidak, macam mana nak cabar pendapat atau kesimpulan 'pakar'?

  

Sila baca posting sebelum ini:-

Siti Noor Aishah - POCA,POTA..dimansuhkan - Resolusi Badan Peguam

Release Siti Noor Aishah Atam from Poca restrictions, kata 36 kumpulan (Malaysiakini, 20/12/2016) 

Siti Noor Aishah Atam - victim of SOSMA, found Not Guilty by High Court, then re-detained under POCA? 

Siti Noor Aishah Atam - Alasan Penghakiman Mahkamah Tinggi - Mahkamah Bebas Polis Tangkap Lagi Guna POCA??

Bekas pelajar sarjana Siti Noor Aishah ditangkap, sekali lagi

28 Mac 2017, 2:19 tengahari     28 Mac 2017

• 

Bekas pelajar sarjana, Siti Noor Aishah Atam ditangkap semula di bawah Akta Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-Langkah Khas) 2012 (Sosma) dan kini ditahan di penjara Kajang.

Tangkapan dan penahanan itu dikuat-kuasakan semalam, selepas beliau hadir di Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur. Tindakan itu susulan rayuan yang dibuat oleh Timbalan Pendakwa Raya terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi yang membebaskan beliau pada September tahun lalu kerana memiliki 12 buah buku.

Siti Noor Aishah sebelum ini ditahan di bawah Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1956 (Poca) dan Sosma.

"Pada saya, dia ditahan berulang kali, sebelum mahkamah dapati dirinya bersalah terhadap sebarang tuduhan.

“Ini ibarat hukuman sebelum bersalah. Hingga terpaksa (menggunakan) kedua-dua Sosma dan Poca," kata peguamnya, Mohd Kamarulzaman A Wahab kepada Malaysiakini hari ini.

Siti Noor Aishah, 29, pertama kali ditahan pada Mac tahun lalu, di bawah Seksyen 130JB Kanun Keseksaan dan Sosma, kerana memiliki 12 buah buku yang didakwa berkaitan dengan kumpulan pengganas.

Pada bulan berikutnya, dia didakwa di Mahkamah Tinggi di Kuala Lumpur dan tidak mengaku bersalah memiliki buku-buku berkenaan, selepas kes itu dibicarakan.

Siti Noor Aishah, seorang bekas pelajar sarjana Usuluddin, Universiti Malaya, berkata beliau menggunakan buku-buku berkenaan untuk penyelidikan ijazah sarjananya.

Selepas dia ditangkap pada Mac tahun lalu, Universiti Malaya memecatnya, kerana gagal menghadiri kelas.

Kamarulzaman berkata tiada satu pun buku diharamkan oleh Kementerian Dalam Negeri, ketika itu, mahupun sekarang.

Pada bulan September tahun lalu Mahkamah Tinggi melepas dan membebaskan Siti Noor Aishah daripada semua pertuduhan atas alasan tiada kes prima facie dibuktikan terhadapnya.

Pada hari yang sama, beliau dibebaskan, Siti Noor Aishah ditangkap semula di bawah Poca dan ditahan selama 60 hari.

Sebaik dibebaskan daripada Poca, beliau diletakkan di bawah tahanan rumah, dengan peranti pengawasan elektronik dipasang. Beliau juga tidak dibenarkan untuk meninggalkan daerah Surah di Dungun, Terengganu, tanpa kelulusan polis.

"Kes berkenaan dihantar semula ke Mahkamah Tinggi untuk dia membela diri, tetapi sebaliknya dia ditahan lagi.

“Kes ini balik semula kepada status quo, tanpa sebarang ikat jamin dibenarkan sementara menunggu perbicaraan," kata Kamarulzaman tentang penangkapan itu semalam.- Malaysiakini, 28/3/2017

GDP - Is UMNO-BN borrowing to increase spending to increase GDP? Debt RM908.7 Billion, Reserves RM426Billion only?

UMNO-BN government have been relying on Malaysia's GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT(GDP) to give the impression that all is well in Malaysia but is it true or a lie. Many do not know what really is GDP and how it is calculated, and so I have done some research and hope this will help you understand a bit more.

A person with increasing debt is certainly not a person who is economically good. Malaysia's external debt is now RM908.7bil in 2016(according to the government)...and it looks that Malaysia's reserve(US$95bil (RM426.3bil) is not sufficient to cover the debt...

GDP values can be 'manipulated' - one way to do this is allegedly 'pumping in more money' into the economy...Has Malaysia been borrowing and 'pumping in money' to maintain the impression that the current UMNO-BN is doing a 'good' job? The people of Malaysia must start educating themselves ...about the more important realities - and decide for themselves...what they want...

Is it Malaysians that are contributing to GDP - or is it really foreign companies? GDP certainly is not reflective of economic wellbeing of Malaysians and their families...

How did Malaysia come to this state - it maybe too simplistic to blame oil prices - more justified to blame the UMNO-BN government ....
 

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT - A lie or the truth of the well being of the Malaysian people?

Definition: Gross domestic product is the best way to measure a country's economy. GDP is the total value of everything produced by all the people and companies in the country. It doesn't matter if they are citizens or foreign-owned companies. If they are located within the country's boundaries, the government counts their production as GDP. - thebalance.com

So, if a German company is situated in Malaysia, and it produces RM1 billion worth of products - we take it into consideration for Malaysia's GDP? In fact, what Malaysians get would only be the salaries of Malaysian workers, the levy and other fees imposed on migrant workers working there, taxes and duties imposed, land tax, 'cukai pintu' , cost of Malaysia's own citizens-made products, profits made by the supply of products by Malaysian-owned companies...What a foreign company produces really do not belong to Malaysia or Malaysians, does it? Likewise what foreigners earn, save for taxes imposed, belongs to foreigners?

Well, GDP has also various different calculation methods, but it should all give the same result. Let's look at what is said to be the most common method of calculation...

Gross domestic product can be calculated using the following formula:

GDP = C + G + I + NX

where
C is equal to all private consumption, or consumer spending, in a nation's economy, G is the sum of government spending, I is the sum of all the country's investment, including businesses capital expenditures and NX is the nation's total net exports, calculated as total exports minus total imports (NX = Exports - Imports).

C is consumer spending - Thus, if we spend more it improves our GDP. Well, the government actions and/or failures results in the increase of the cost of living - then naturally the spending increases, would it not? Kopi O Ice used to cost RM1, now it is RM2.30?

G is the sum of government spending - well, then the government simply have to spend more and it will make our GDP look better. It looks at spending, so if Malaysia borrows billions and spends it - it will improve the GDP, irrespective of the rise of Malaysia's debt. Recent Bank Negara report now puts Malaysia's external debt at RM908.7 billion. About two third in foreign currencies, so drop of the ringgit will increase this debt..and 25% of Malaysia's export earning is used to pay back loans and loan interest... In the GDP calculation, it seems to be not bothered about the country's debt - only the spending. So, did Malaysia just simply borrow and borrow more to just to spend more and keep our GDP high? Well, in my opinion, that will mean that the economic well being have really not improved..During the Mahathir era, our debt was stable at about RM40 billion - after Pak Lah and Najib took over, it has been increasing at a dangerous rate - now, according to Bank Negara, it is as high as RM908.7 billion in 2016 - now possibly even higher...

Malaysia’s total external debt rose 9% to RM908.7bil in 2016, Bank Negara said, which is equal to 73.9% of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP).

Slightly less than two-thirds of the country’s external debt are denominated in foreign currencies. About a third of this debt is made up of interbank borrowings and foreign currency deposits in local banks. 

Excluding the valuation effects, Malaysia’s external debt was 6.2% higher.

Meanwhile, the country’s debt service ratio, or which includes payment of principal and interest, went up to 25% of its export earnings, compared with 22.6% in 2015 and 19.1% in 2014.- Star, 24/3/2017

I is the sum of the country's investment - not too sure what it means? Are we talking about foreign investment into Malaysia? It includes capital expenditure as well? Would capital expenditure also include wages? But foreign investment is really 'unstable' - because foreign MNCs can so easily run to another country - so, to keep them here, Malaysia has to make Malaysia attractive - low wages, weaker unions, precarious employment (easy fire?easy terminate?), maybe even lower water and electricity tariff? Maybe even lower 'taxes'? Preferential treatment for foreign MNCs without providing the same to locally owned companies, will make it more difficult for locally owned businesses to survive...and they die.

NX is the nation's total net exports - well, it not the money earned by the government by way of taxes, duties, etc. A Japanese company imports materials from overseas, and exports its products - What does Malaysia really gain save for the taxes....?

In short, GDP is far from a real indicator of the economic well-being of Malaysians...For that we need to look at actual earnings of Malaysians, and actual earnings of the Malaysian government through taxes, duties and various fees charged. 

What is REAL state of the economic wellbeing  of Malaysia and Malaysians - give us the real statistics of Malaysian individuals and family earnings - How many families earn less than RM1,000 per month, How many earn less than RM2,000 and so on... Now all that government generally provide is the MEAN earnings which is the average, and it gives no clear picture when the richest may be earning RM1 billion per month, and the poorest RM50...MEDIAN gives a better indicator, but still not a complete picture, a median is the list of earnings of say 100 persons, lowest to highest - and the median is what the 50th person earns...

Did the UMNO-BN government borrow money to pump it into the Malaysian economy to give us the 'false' impression that Malaysia is doing well? Looking at the ever increasing external debt, that possibility is very real? On the face of it, Malaysia seems to be 'always' growing - but then our debt has skyrocketed. Loans need to be repayed with interest and this government may really not be bothered to what happens to Malaysia in the future...pumping in money into the economy also can result in the increase in the cost of living..Now, Malaysia's expenditure annually to make loan payments and interest have been increasing...

According to standard macroeconomic theory, an increase in the supply of money should lower the interest rates in the economy, leading to more consumption and lending/borrowing. In the short run, this should, but does not always, correlate to an increase in total output and spending and, presumably, GDP. The long-run effects of an increase in the money supply are much more difficult to predict. There is a strong historical tendency for asset prices, such as housing, stocks, etc., to artificially rise after too much liquidity enters the economy. This misallocation of capital leads to waste and speculative investments, often resulting in burst bubbles and recession. On the other hand, it is possible money is not misallocated, and the only long-term effect is higher prices than consumers normally would have faced. - Investopedia

Bank Negara says that ' Malaysia’s total external debt rose 9% to RM908.7bil in 2016' - but I wonder, whether we have considered how much Malaysia is committed as guarantor? Malaysian government stands as 'guarantor' for many loans taken by others ...how much is that? Gov’t has guaranteed RM177.8b worth of GLCs' debts? WHY? GLC not government-owned?

DOES MALAYSIA HAVE SUFFICIENT MONIES TO SETTLE OUR DEBTS?

Bank negara says that we have international reserves of US$95bil(RM426.3 bil), and I am afraid, as currently at end of 2016, our debt was RM908.7 billion > NOT ENOUGH EVEN TO SETTLE OUR DEBTS?  Would that mean, Malaysia may need to sell its lands and assets to settle its debts?

At the end of 2016, Bank Negara’s international reserves stood at US$94.5bil (RM423.9bil).As at Feb 28, 2017, the reserves amounted to US$95bil (RM426.3bil). The central bank said the reserves were ample to facilitate international transactions and sufficient to finance 8.5 months of retained imports and were equivalent to 1.1 times the short-term external debt.- Star, 24/3/2017

RM423.9bil equal to 1.1 times the short-term external debt - that is very scary to me. Remember also that some debts do not have fixed interest rates - for example Bonds. See earlier post:- 1MDB, Malaysian Bonds, Moody, Credit Rating - More Worries for Malaysians?

There have been countries that have shown an increasing GDP but in reality the real situation was bad...There can also be 'lies' - now there are allegations that China is lying about the GDP. What about Malaysia? 

What is the real state of economic wellbeing of individuals and families in Malaysia today. Have Malaysians been led to believe that we have been well - when we really are not? Are government borrowings being used to 'pop-up' our GDP? 

Sadly, Malaysian politicians (backbenchers and Opposition politicians especially) have mostly not been keeping us all informed about the economic reality of Malaysia - WHY? Incompetent and inefficient? Illiterate about such 'serious' matters? Do we need better politicians and political parties?

UMNO-BN government have been slowly denying us relevant information. 

How many Malaysians earn less than RM500? RM1,000? RM1,500?...per month...

How many Malaysian families earn less than  RM500? RM1,000? RM1,500?...per month...

What is the poverty line income in Malaysia for an individual? for a family?...Very hard to get this information ...Why? What is the UMNO-BN government hiding?

What is the number of petty crimes like theft, etc - many a times this also is an indication of the economic wellbeing of Malaysians... Petty crimes usually increase when the number of desparate poor that find difficulty earning an income to support themselves and their families...(now we have 'crime index' - and no real statistical details of the number of crimes...) What is the government hiding..

Cost of living has really increased - but at the same time income including wages have not increased at the same rate...hence, have real wages and/or income of Malaysia really gone down...

Many Malaysians are really in debt - they are purchasing things on credit cards and by getting loans...But then, there is a decline on stable employment - regular employment until retirement...Retrenchment have been increasing...and note that when you do not make your monthly payments, you can lose your homes, your cars, your telephone services, etc...

TELL US THE TRUTH - What really is the state of economic wellbeing of Malaysians and their families...We know that Members of Parliament and State Legislative Assembly Persons are earning well...but what about the rest of Malaysians... ?

Friday, 24 March 2017

Bank Negara: External debt remains manageable

Currency weakness: The weaker ringgit adds to higher cost of foreign debts

PETALING JAYA: The weaker ringgit contributed to the higher cost of foreign debts.

Malaysia’s total external debt rose 9% to RM908.7bil in 2016, Bank Negara said, which is equal to 73.9% of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP).

Slightly less than two-thirds of the country’s external debt are denominated in foreign currencies. About a third of this debt is made up of interbank borrowings and foreign currency deposits in local banks. 

Excluding the valuation effects, Malaysia’s external debt was 6.2% higher.

Meanwhile, the country’s debt service ratio, or which includes payment of principal and interest, went up to 25% of its export earnings, compared with 22.6% in 2015 and 19.1% in 2014.

In its 2016 annual report, the central bank said the country’s external debt remained manageable, given its currency, maturity and balance sheet profiles.

“The profile of Malaysia’s external debt remained healthy with more than one-third of total external debt being denominated in ringgit, thus limiting the risks arising from foreign exchange fluctuations.

“The remaining portion of the external debt, which is denominated in foreign currency, is mostly hedged either naturally using export earnings or through the use of financial instruments,” it said.

Most of these debts, it said, were offshore borrowings, which were raised mainly to expand productive capacity and to improve the managenent of financial resources within corporate groups.

At the end of 2016, the country’s offshore borrowings fell to 42.7% of the GDP compared to 60% of GDP during the Asian Financial Crisis.

Bank Negara said the rollover risks were also contained, as 58.6% of the total external debt was of medium to long-term maturity.

“In addition, not all short-term external debts pose a claim on reserves due to the availability of export earnings and external assets which enable borrowers to meet external obligations without necessarily creating a claim on international reserves,” it said.

At the end of 2016, Bank Negara’s international reserves stood at US$94.5bil (RM423.9bil).

As at Feb 28, 2017, the reserves amounted to US$95bil (RM426.3bil).

The central bank said the reserves were ample to facilitate international transactions and sufficient to finance 8.5 months of retained imports and were equivalent to 1.1 times the short-term external debt. - - Star, 24/3/2017

UMNO-BN must trust Judges to pronounce right sentences - Repeal Mandatory Death Penalty

UMNO-BN government just do not trust Malaysian judges - so through laws, they create mandatory death penalty - no chance for the judges to exercise their discretion when it comes to sentencing. To those who really do not deserve, and to those who really deserve - execution....kill them all. Justice - I do not think it is. Our values and principles - well, certainly not - our objective must be the reform of the criminal, not the extinguishing of his/her life.. 

Well, after a long time, Najib's Cabinet seem agreeable to the abolition of the death penalty for drug offences. Why stop there? Abolish all mandatory death penalty....Why is the UMNO-BN government not ready to do this? 

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Azalina Othman, the new de facto Law Minister, during the Parliamentary session on 2/11/2016 clarified that Malaysia was not just looking at the mandatory death penalty, but all death penalty. They were considering possibly replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment. It was indicated that further studies were to be done, and that. "The decision on the implementation of the death penalty in this country, either be repealed or maintained, is a policy matter to be decided by the government based on the results of the study,"(The Sun Daily, 3/11/2016)

In fact, abolish all death penalty - if we believe in repentance, mercy and reform...It has many times been pointed out that our administration of justice system can make mistakes, and it is greatly unjust to hang an 'innocent' man. 

Islam - well, here we are talking about death penalty and mandatory death penalty in what is not Islamic law. So, I am sure that Muslims will also not object to the abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia...

MORATORIUM - no executions until the government completes its study whether to abolish the death penalty or not. No reasonable country will continue killing persons when the country may tomorrow abolish the death penalty...Our Minister in Charge, , have told us that Malaysia is studying 

MALAYSIA’S CABINET’S DELAY IN TABLING LAWS ABOLISHING THE DEATH PENALTY RISKS UNNECESSARY LOSS OF LIFE -Immediate Moratorium On ALL Executions -

Sunday, 26 March 2017

Ex-judges want review of mandatory death penalty

PETALING JAYA: The proposed amendments to review the mandatory death sentence for drug trafficking will give judges wider discretion when deciding if a person is to hang, says former chief justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim.

He said giving judges leeway for dis­­cretion would be a positive move in some circumstances.

“There are some situations where a crime might not warrant the death penalty. If this amendment is allowed, judges would be able to use their own discretion,” he said when met after a legal lecture he delivered yesterday.

He was responding to the Cabi­net’s agreement to review the Dange­rous Drugs Act 1952 to allow judges to use their discretion in sentencing offenders instead of impo­sing the mandatory death sentence.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Azalina Oth­man Said, who made the announcement last week, said the review would enable judges to mete out suitable sentences in marginal ca­­­ses where offenders could be jailed instead.

She said the review was presented to the Cabinet on March 1 by Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali.

Ahmad Fairuz said during his time on the Federal Court bench, the duty of having to sentence a man to death weighed on the conscience.

Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, who was a former minister in charge of law, said judges would have the option to mete out suitable senten­ces on a case-by-case basis.

“We always worry that judges do not have other options than the man­datory death sentence. In some cases, there is not much evidence, but the judges have no other options but to give the death penalty,” he said.

Nazri said the move to give jud­ges more discretion over the death penalty in drug trafficking cases was long overdue.

He said the proposed amendments to provide such discretionary powers to judges had come during his tenure when he was in charge of the law portfolio.

“When I was the minister, there were about 240 Malaysians who are suspected to be drug mules all over the world. Some of their family members came to see me personally and pleaded for leniency.

“We also can use this to negotiate with other governments who have arrested Malaysians suspected to be drug mules,” he added.

Nazri said another factor that was considered was that there were cases that judges who do not wish to mete out death sentences in drug trafficking cases.

“Some judges do not believe in the death penalty. So when the case comes before them, although there was enough evidence to impose a conviction, they will find some technicality to acquit the person,” he said.

Former court of appeal judge Da­­tuk Mah Weng Kwai, who is also Su­hakam commissioner, is in fa­­vour of abolishing the death penalty.

“As for sentencing in cases of Section 39(B) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, I believe that the grant of judicial discretion to judges is a step forward,” he said.

Senior criminal law practitioner Kitson Foong said the move would address cases of drug mules where the offender might be an innocent carrier.

“This will be a good opportunity for the court to spare the life of an individual who has been used by drug cartels,” he said.- Star, 25/3/2017

Read more at http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2017/03/26/exjudges-want-review-of-mandatory-death-penalty/#jSMKx1KrpY5l3iJo.99

 

 

 

Monday, 27 March 2017

Lam Thye suggests moratorium on death penalty cases

by rahimy rahim

PETALING JAYA: The Government should consider whether its review of the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking should include making it retrospective on pending cases, said social activist Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye (pic).

Lee said the proposal for the review under Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act was timely as this could help prevent a “travesty of justice”.

Judges, he said, must be given the discretion to mete out suitable sentences on a case by case basis, especially for drug mules.

“While supporting the review of Section 39B, I also hope that the Government will address the issue raised by lawmakers and legal practitioners, including whether the move, if approved, could have a retrospective effect on pending death penalty cases,” he said in a statement here yesterday.

He also called on the Government to decide whether a moratorium should be imposed on pending cases so as to ensure justice for those facing such charges.

Lee was responding to a report in The Star that lawyers and human rights groups had called for all pending executions to be put on hold while the decision by the Government to review the death penalty for drug trafficking was being deliberated.

Last week, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said said that the review would enable judges to mete out suitable sentences in marginal cases where the offenders could be jailed instead.

She said the review was presented to the Cabinet on March 1 by Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali.

Lee said at the same time, authorities must intensify efforts to reduce drug trafficking, addiction and other drug-related crimes through preventive education, adding that “prevention is always better than cure”.

Citing a report from Amnesty International, he said the death penalty should only be used for the “most serious crimes” like murder.

“It (the report) says that drug crime does not meet that threshold. Various United Nations bodies have repeatedly said that it falls short of the ‘most serious crimes’,” he pointed out.

Read more at http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2017/03/27/lam-thye-suggests-moratorium-on-death-penalty-cases/#dE387PU29RT43vAu.99

Press Release | Judicial Discretion is a Positive Step Towards Abolition of the Death Penalty

Saturday, 25 March 2017 10:57am

The Malaysian Bar welcomes the announcement by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of legal affairs YB Dato’ Sri Azalina Othman Said that, following a presentation by Attorney General Tan Sri Dato’ Sri Haji Mohamed Apandi Haji Ali, the Cabinet has agreed to review Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, with a view to removing the mandatory death penalty and restoring judicial discretion in sentencing.  It has been reported that the Minister has directed that the necessary legislative amendments be drafted.   It is prudent and just that the decision regarding whether to impose the death penalty be left to the discretion of the Judge.  The statutory imposition of the mandatory punishment prohibits Judges from considering mitigating factors and circumstances that surround each case, before sentencing.  Such mitigating factors can include, and are not limited to, the offender’s age, rehabilitation goals, past criminal record, role played in the offence, mental capacity, reparations made, fear of another person, use of violence, harm done to property or persons, and degree of cooperation with the authorities.  Furthermore, studies have shown that there is no conclusive evidence of the deterrent value of the death penalty, particularly in respect of drug offences.  Given the imminent amendments to the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, the Malaysian Bar renews our call to the Government to officially declare and implement a moratorium on all pending executions.  In the interest of justice and fairness, no executions should be carried out when reforms are in progress.  It is only right that when the reforms come into effect, they should be applied retrospectively. While the proposed review relates only to the mandatory death penalty as provided in the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, the Malaysian Bar reiterates that the death penalty is an extreme, abhorrent and inhumane punishment, irrespective of the crime committed.  There are also provisions for the imposition of the mandatory death penalty in the Penal Code and Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971, and of the discretionary death penalty in the Kidnapping Act 1961. The Malaysian Bar calls upon the Government to act swiftly to abolish the death penalty for all crimes, and to uphold the right to life, which is absolute, universal and inalienable. George Varughese President Malaysian Bar  25 March 2017