Citizenship for PR holders over 60 - Some considerations

Permanent residents aged 60 years and above who have applied for full citizenship will be granted this soon, Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad announced today.

Sounds great but there are ssome concerns. Will someone like Zakir Naik who has a Malaysian PR who applied for citizenship, who may be over 60 years be granted citizenship as well?

We know that many persons who should be Malaysians do not have citizenship because of some failings of their parents/others in registering their births, making the necessary application in time, etc ...most of whom were poor, marginalised or even un-informed...For such persons, who were in Malaysia/Singapore before independence, or were born of parents who are citizens/PR/those whose parents qualify for citizenship... That is OK.

Now, under the previous UMNO-BN regime, it is rumoured that many from Indonesia, Philipines...and even other Muslim countries like Pakistan have managed to get PR status - possibly the fault of government, corruption of some public servants, etc..

OF course, a child of a PR holder will automatically qualify to be a Malaysian citizen. Was this a 'tactic' of increasing the Muslim polulation in the country? Or maybe the Malay population? Was it a kind of 'social engineering' to ensure ethnic composition of Malaysia?

Even today, some migrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh claim to have managed to get PR status - they came here for business and/or work...maybe 10 years or so ago. Now, will they who are over 60 also get Malaysian citizenship?

For those whose parents were given 'PR' many years ago(maybe 30-55 years ago), who really would not qualify to be citizens, who since then had children and now grandchildren....all of whom are Malaysian citizens. What will the government do with such 'citizens' - remove their citizenship...or simply accept what has been done wrongly by previous UMNO-led governments...?

CHILDREN - well children of a Malaysian should be Malaysian citizens - but now, we have a court judgment that says that such children born out of wedlock(where the Malaysian father/mother was not married to the non-Malaysians) will not be considered Malaysian citizen. THIS IS SO WRONG - If the father or mother is a Malaysian, irrespective of whether they are legally married or not, SHOULD BE AUTOMATICALLY MALAYSIAN CITIZENS.

Well, if these children, just because the marriage of their parents were not registered, are denied citizenship, then likewise, children of both Malaysian parents, not married when the child was conceived and/or born, will in Malaysia be considered 'STATELESS' ...Not logical.

Hence, rightfully children of a Malaysian parent, irrespective whether they were legally married at the time of conception/birth should automatically be Malaysian citizens. Malaysia should not be escaping responsibility for such children - simply because their parents were not married at that time, or maybe not even married. (Today, with DNA testing, it can always be verified who the parents of the child is/are). Hence, these children also(who may now be adults) should be accorded CITIZENSHIP.  

CHILDREN - Adopted by Malaysians - If the adoption is approved and registered, then again automatically, these children should be accorded Malaysian Citizenship.

Zakir Naik gets PR status....but to date, Foreign Spouses of Malaysians, who have registered their marriage in Malaysia, are still denied PR status. They are now granted a 'spouse visa' for a year, and renewable every year on the application of the Malaysian spouse. Previously, after several years, they are given 3-year spouse visa, and then they can apply for PR status.

Under UMNO-BN, a new policy came into being of late - that no more 3-year spouse visa unless the spouse passes a 'Bahasa Malaysia' test... Well for foreign spouses from Indonesia, Southern Thailand and Brunei, this may not be a problem...but for foreign spouses from other countries, it is a problem...and a grave injustice. Same also for PR applications...the 'Bahasa Malaysia' test. You really do not need Bahasa Malaysia to survive in Malaysia, for even with English one can survive.

Will Pakatan Harapan government, maybe Wan Azizah too, look into this issue, and grant immediate PR to foreign spouses on registration of marriage. If there is a DIVORCE, the PR status could be reviewed, and even removed later, if needed to. 

Marriage - With it comes, obligations including lookings after parents/family/dependents of the other spouse. It will also include rights to property and income/asset generated during marriage. If all is well, it is OK - but if the Malaysian spouse, suddenly passes away, then the foreign spouse may not be able to continue to be in Malaysia looking after the family/dependents of the Malaysian spouse, the matrimonial home and even other businesses. If the foreign spouse is wealthy, he/she can simply fly in and out of Malaysia and be in the country under the 'social visit visa'...but not practical for those from the poorer income group. Hence, the JUST and logical way forward is Permanent Residency(PR) status for foreign spouses upon registration of marriage.

For foreign spouses of Malaysians, they really should not be treated like 'foreigners', they should at least be granted acess to public health facilities...maybe if not same rate as Malaysians, then at least at 'double' the rate payable by Maaysians, but certainly not that 'exorbitant' rate charged on other foreigners including migrant workers and business people.

There is currently possibly about hundred thousand or more foreign spouses of Malaysians - and this is a large 'human resource' that Malaysia can use hence reducing dependents on migrant workers. These foreign spouses should be allowed to work or 'do business' without any special new permits....

Permanent residents aged 60 and above to get full citizenship

By

Melissa Darlyne Chow

-

August 14, 2018

Share

KUALA LUMPUR: Permanent residents aged 60 years and above who have applied for full citizenship will be granted this soon, Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad announced today.

He said this was agreed at a meeting last night with Pakatan Harapan (PH) leaders and the Indian community, and concerned 3,407 stateless Indians.

“The red IC is a permanent residency card. If they are already 60 and above, they can go to the National Registration Department (NRD), fill in the necessary forms to change their red IC to blue.

“This is what we promised in the (election) manifesto. We had already decided earlier, but the process to issue the blue MyKad takes time.

“We will fulfil our promise to red IC holders and those 60 and above,” he said at a press conference after chairing a meeting on the management of foreign workers in the country in Parliament.

Also present were Human Resource Minister M Kulasegaran and Deputy Rural Development Minister R Sivarasa.

As for those below 60, Mahathir said if there was a basis, such as one of the parents being Malaysian, they would have the right to become citizens.

“There are certain conditions required for those who want to apply to be citizens, and they need to abide by these. If they follow them, they can become citizens.

“A simple Bahasa Melayu test will also be held. If they pass, we can accept them as citizens.

“Other conditions include residing in the country for 12 years. That is the provision of the Federal Constitution,” he said.

PH had promised to resolve the statelessness issue in Malaysia in its election manifesto for the May general election.

The problem of stateless people is not limited to the peninsula as Sabah, too, has a large number of people without citizenship.

A coalition of NGOs in Sabah last month claimed there were “at least 800,000 stateless people” in the state.

Last November, NGO Development of Human Resources for Rural Areas Malaysia said Indians comprised the biggest number affected in the peninsula with 12,392 stateless individuals recorded between 2014 and 2017.

It said that of the number, only 2,225 had acquired citizenship.

Out of the 12,392 stateless people, 4,522 were children up to the age of 17 years, 3,227 were adults aged 18 to 59, and 4,643 were seniors aged 60 and above.

Among the seniors, 40% were born in Malaysia while the other 60% had arrived in the country before independence in 1957.- FMT, 14/8/2018

Home Ministry: Zakir Naik's Malaysian PR status will not be reviewed ...

https://www.thestar.com.my/.../home-ministry-zakir-naiks-malaysian-pr-status-will-not...

Nov 8, 2017 - KUALA LUMPUR: The permanent resident (PR) status granted to controversial Muslim preacher Dr Zakir Naik will not be reviewed, says Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi

Malaysia calls for JUSTICE for Rohingya, and actions against perpetrators...?

Myanmar’s top military generals, including Commander-in-Chief Senior-General Min Aung Hlaing, must be investigated and prosecuted for genocide in the north of Rakhine State, as well as for crimes against humanity and war crimes in Rakhine, Kachin and Shan States, ...

“The State Counsellor, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, has not used her de facto position as Head of Government, nor her moral authority, to stem or prevent the unfolding events in Rakhine State,”

The poignant testimony of one survivor laid bare the monstrous extent of sexual violence: “I was lucky, I was only raped by three men,” she said. Rapes were often in public spaces in front of families, including children.

The report of the United Nations Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar released on 24 August 2018 confirms Malaysia’s worst fear that the crimes perpetrated against the Rohingya people in Myanmar since 25 August 2017 bear a resemblance to the acts of genocide...Bring the condemned perpetrators to justice. Let the Rohingyas return to peace and a life of dignity.-Saifuddin Abdullah 

STATEMENT BY Y.B. DATO’ SAIFUDDIN ABDULLAH, FOREIGN MINISTER OF MALAYSIA ON THE REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS INDEPENDENT INTERNATIONAL FACT-FINDING MISSION ON MYANMAR

1.            The report of the United Nations Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar released on 24 August 2018 confirms Malaysia’s worst fear that the crimes perpetrated against the Rohingya people in Myanmar since 25 August 2017 bear a resemblance to the acts of genocides committed in the past that have marred the history of humanity.

2.            The UN report, drawing on meticulous and objective research, provides incontrovertible proof of what the Myanmar military and its government has been denying all this time; intentional, concerted, systematic, consistent, and planned acts and policies to destroy and remove, in particular ethnic Rohingyas, from Myanmar.

3.            It should be noted that the Myanmar military and government were given ample opportunity to provide their side of the story – opportunities that they repeatedly did not avail themselves of. Therefore, they cannot now say that the report is biased, unfair and driven by a political agenda.

4.            I wish to emphasise the fact that Malaysia’s assessment of Myanmar remains the same. A strong and prosperous South East Asia requires a united, prosperous and stable Myanmar, one which is fully integrated into the global community and able to play its rightful role therein. For these reasons, more than 20 years ago Malaysia, under Tun Dr. Mahathir’s leadership, strived towards bringing Myanmar into the ASEAN fold. The inclusion of Myanmar, as well as Cambodia, Laos, and Viet Nam, as members of ASEAN has brought innumerable benefits not only for them, but the region and the world as a whole.

5.            However, aspirations for Myanmar will not be fulfilled if it continues, or refuses to account for policies which reflect Mankind’s darkest past, and which has no role in a civilised world.

6.            As a member of ASEAN, Myanmar must ascribe to the ideals of the ASEAN Charter. These include for ASEAN members to respect the fundamental freedoms, the promotion and protection of human rights, and the promotion of social justice.

7.            Of course the ASEAN Charter also spoke very strongly about the principle of non-interference. Of course Malaysia continues to subscribe to this principle. However, beyond the humanitarian dimension, there are also the security and strategic dimensions – the widespread movement of the Rohingyas creates instability in the region, and could easily become a rallying-call for violent extremism in the region.

8.            All these potentially have deep implications for Malaysia and the region. For this reason, Malaysia cannot be silent, or ignore the Rohingya crisis that is happening at its doorstep.

9.            Malaysia will continue to speak about the plight of the Rohingyas. We will also continue to call for international support for the Government of Bangladesh, in which close to a million Rohingyas have found refuge. As we work towards a sustainable solution to the situation, one which will preserve the dignity and lives of the Rohingyas, the international community must do all it can to support Bangladesh. Malaysia has done so, and will continue to do so.

10.         Perhaps lost in the discussions is the fact that Myanmar has been a Party to the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide since 1956. Under the terms of the Convention, States Parties including Myanmar have the obligation to, among others:

10.1.     Undertake to punish persons committing genocide that happens in the country, whether committed in peace or in time of war;

10.2.     Establish a competent national tribunal in the territory in which the act is committed to try the alleged crimes committed; and

10.3.      Accept the jurisdiction of international penal tribunal should the national mechanism is unavailable or is ineffective.

11.         In addition, the 1948 Convention also calls upon the competent body of the UN to take such actions in the UN Charter they consider appropriate to prevent and suppress the acts of genocide.

12.         Clearly, the crimes described in the report are consistent with those outlined in the 1948 Genocide Convention, which I must repeat, Myanmar is Party to. For this reason, The Myanmar Government has the primary responsibility to take actions against the perpetrators of the crimes under international law committed against the Rohingyas and other minorities in Myanmar, especially in Rakhine State.

13.         If Myanmar proves to be unwilling or incapable of ensuring justice in this regard, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has the responsibility to establish an international judicial mechanism to try those individuals most responsible for these crimes. This too was clearly the view of the majority of the Members of the UNSC expressed during the open briefing held on 28 August 2018 in New York. 

14.         In 1946, General Aung San famously stated that, “Nowadays, all the world over, we cannot confine the definition of a nationality to the narrow bounds of race and religion. Nations are extending the rights of their respective communities even to others who may not belong to them except by their mere residence amongst them and their determination to live and be with them.”

15.         So let me say to my friends in Myanmar – Live up to the ideals of General Aung San. Bring the condemned perpetrators to justice. Let the Rohingyas return to peace and a life of dignity.

DATO’ SAIFUDDIN ABDULLAH

MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS MALAYSIA

PUTRAJAYA

29 August 2018

On 8/29/18,

http://www.kln.gov.my/web/guest/latest-news?p_p_id=101_INSTANCE_7Nj5&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-2&p_p_col_count=1&_101_INSTANCE_7Nj5_struts_action=/asset_publisher/view_content&_101_INSTANCE_7Nj5_urlTitle=statement-by-y-b-dato%E2%80%99-saifuddin-abdullah-foreign-minister-of-malaysia-on-the-report-of-the-united-nations-independent-international-fact-finding-mission-on-myanmar&_101_INSTANCE_7Nj5_type=content&redirect=/web/guest/latest-news

--

Myanmar: Tatmadaw leaders must be investigated for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes – UN report

Back

27 August 2018

GENEVA (27 August 2018) – Myanmar’s top military generals, including Commander-in-Chief Senior-General Min Aung Hlaing, must be investigated and prosecuted for genocide in the north of Rakhine State, as well as for crimes against humanity and war crimes in Rakhine, Kachin and Shan States, a report by the UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar* today urged.

The Mission, established by the UN Human Rights Council in March 2017, found patterns of gross human rights violations and abuses committed in Kachin, Rakhine and Shan States that “undoubtedly amount to the gravest crimes under international law”, principally by Myanmar’s military, the Tatmadaw, but also by other security forces.

“Military necessity would never justify killing indiscriminately, gang raping women, assaulting children, and burning entire villages. The Tatmadaw’s tactics are consistently and grossly disproportionate to actual security threats, especially in Rakhine State, but also in northern Myanmar,” the report states.

“They are shocking for the level of denial, normalcy and impunity that is attached to them. The Tatmadaw’s contempt for human life, integrity and freedom, and for international law generally, should be a cause of concern for the entire population.”

The crimes against humanity committed in Kachin, Shan and Rakhine States include murder; imprisonment; enforced disappearance; torture; rape, sexual slavery and other forms of sexual violence; persecution and enslavement. In addition, in Rakhine State, the elements of the crimes against humanity of extermination and deportation are also present.

The Mission also concluded “there is sufficient information to warrant the investigation and prosecution of senior officials in the Tatmadaw chain of command, so that a competent court can determine their liability for genocide in relation to the situation in Rakhine State.”

“The crimes in Rakhine State, and the manner in which they were perpetrated, are similar in nature, gravity and scope to those that have allowed genocidal intent to be established in other contexts,” the report states. 

“Factors pointing at such intent include the broader oppressive context and hate rhetoric; specific utterances of commanders and direct perpetrators; exclusionary policies, including to alter the demographic composition of Rakhine State; the level of organization indicating a plan for destruction; and the extreme scale and brutality of the violence.”

The Mission has drawn up a list of alleged perpetrators as priority subjects for investigation and prosecution, whom it believes had effective control and bear the greatest responsibility. Responsibility starts at the top, with the Tatmadaw Commander-in-Chief Senior-General Min Aung Hlaing. Five other military commanders are also named in the report: the Deputy Commander-in-Chief, Vice Senior-General Soe Win; the Commander, Bureau of Special Operations-3, Lieutenant-General Aung Kyaw Zaw; the Commander, Western Regional Military Command, Major-General Maung Maung Soe; the Commander, 33rd Light Infantry Division, Brigadier-General Aung Aung; the Commander, 99th Light Infantry Division, Brigadier-General Than Oo. A longer list of names will be kept in the custody of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and can be shared with any competent and credible body pursuing accountability in line with international norms and standards.

The report notes that civilian authorities had little scope to control the actions of the Tatmadaw. It also finds that “through their acts and omissions, the civilian authorities have contributed to the commission of atrocity crimes.”

“The State Counsellor, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, has not used her de facto position as Head of Government, nor her moral authority, to stem or prevent the unfolding events in Rakhine State,” the report states.

“Impunity is deeply entrenched in Myanmar’s political and legal system, effectively placing the Tatmadaw above the law,” the report states, adding that justice has therefore remained elusive for victims in the country for decades. “The impetus for accountability must come from the international community.”

The Mission called for the situation in Myanmar to be referred to the International Criminal Court or for an ad hoc international criminal tribunal to be created. In the interim, it called for an independent, impartial mechanism to collect, consolidate, preserve and analyse evidence of violations. It also recommended targeted individual sanctions against those who appear to be most responsible.

The report states that the massive violence and consequent mass exodus sparked by the events of 25 August 2017 – when the armed group, ARSA led attacks on military and security outposts across northern Rakhine State and the army responded with massive force – was “a catastrophe looming for decades”. The report notes that this was the inevitable result of “severe, systemic and institutionalized oppression from birth to death” and an exclusionary vision, including the persistent denial of citizenship and severe restrictions on freedom of movement. Against this backdrop, the violence in Rakhine State in 2012 created the conditions that led to large-scale violence in 2016 and the human rights crisis that unfolded in 2017.

The Mission documented mass killings, the scorching of Rohingya settlements and large-scale gang rape and other sexual violence by Tatmadaw soldiers. The poignant testimony of one survivor laid bare the monstrous extent of sexual violence: “I was lucky, I was only raped by three men,” she said. Rapes were often in public spaces in front of families, including children. The Mission also met many children with visible injuries matching accounts of being shot, stabbed or burned. Satellite imagery corroborates accounts of widespread, systematic, deliberate and targeted destruction, during which Rohingya populated-areas were burned down with nearby ethnic Rakhine settlements left unscathed.

“The Government and the Tatmadaw have fostered a climate in which hate speech thrives, human rights violations are legitimized, and incitement to discrimination and violence facilitated,” the report states. The Mission found numerous examples of hate speech and incitement to violence, including when in November 2012 a leading Rakhine political party cited Hitler, arguing that “inhuman acts” were sometimes necessary to “maintain a race”.

The security forces’ response to the ARSA attacks in August 2017 started within hours, “was immediate, brutal and grossly disproportionate”, suggesting “a level of preplanning and design” consistent with Commander-in-Chief Min Aung Hlaing’s stated vision to finish “the unfinished job” of solving “the long-standing Bengali problem”. The Mission also found that a large build-up of troops and other military assets across northern Rakhine had already begun in early August 2017.

The report also highlights serious human rights violations by security forces against the ethnic Rakhine, including sexual violence, noting that the pattern of violations against them is highly underreported.

In Kachin and Shan States, the Mission verified a number of incidents in the context of armed conflicts, confirming consistent patterns of violations of international law. The report finds that Tatmadaw operations in northern Myanmar are “characterized by systematic attacks directed at civilians” and conducted “in flagrant disregard for life, property and well-being of civilians.”

Such attacks serve as a catalyst for a wide range of other violations, including killings, sexual violence, arbitrary arrest and detention, enforced disappearances, forced labour, land grabbing, and the burning of villages. Tatmadaw operations have a devastating impact on the population.

The Mission also confirmed that violations and abuses were committed by non-State armed groups. This includes the “ethnic armed organizations” in Kachin and Shan States, and ARSA in Rakhine State.

While the Mission was never granted access to Myanmar, the team amassed a vast amount of information from primary sources, including through 875 in-depth interviews with victims and eyewitnesses, satellite imagery and authenticated documents, photographs and videos. Specialist advice was sought on sexual and gender-based violence, psychology, military affairs and forensics. Only verified and corroborated information was taken on board. The Mission travelled to Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and the United Kingdom.

A fuller report, containing detailed factual information and legal analysis will be published and presented to the Human Rights Council on 18 September. It will include a significant amount of satellite imagery analysis.

ENDS

 

* Marzuki Darusman, a lawyer and human rights campaigner and former Attorney-General of Indonesia, is chair of the fact-finding mission. The other two members of the fact-finding mission are Radhika Coomaraswamy, a lawyer and former UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and UN Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict; and Christopher Sidoti, an Australian human rights consultant, specializing in the international human rights system and in national human rights institutions.

Contact information: Nathan Thompson, +41 76 691 0799 consultant.thompson@ohchr.org; Rolando Gomez, +41 79 477 4411, rgomez@ohchr.org.

 
Access the full report and supporting documentation

SOURCE:- 
United Nations Human Rights Council Website

Hanipa and Tommy Thomas - Ignorant about SOSMA? Delay means langusihing without Bail until trial over?

Section 13 (1) SOSMA states that  Bail shall not be granted to a person who has been charged with a security offence.

These means ALL charged with 'security offences'(as listed in SOSMA) are denied BAIL(Few exceptions for the sick, etc...). Even the prosecutor and the courts have their hands bound by Parliament and this is not right ....This is YET ANOTHER REASON WHY SOSMA MUST BE ABOLISHED

They have already been charged and are awaiting the completion of their trials. Persons who are being held in detention( by reason of not being qualified for BAIL) should really have their trials expedited.... 

Have the UMNO-BN government in the past purposely been delaying trials ...so that they can keep some of these accused for a long time? Is Pakatan Harapan also doing the same ....They could have immediately repealed SOSMA - and all these persons now detained awaiting their trial to be over ...would at least have the chance to apply for BAIL(whether the judge will grant them BAIL or not is up to the Judge)...

REMEMBER...all persons are presumed 'innocent' until proven guilty in a court of law. Now, at the end of their trial, many may be found NOT GUILTY....and, a great injustice would have befallen them - time in detention without BAIL, time away from family and children, time away from work and business, the impact suffered by family and children...HOW CAN IT BE COMPENSATED? How many YEARS would they have lost...WHERE IS JUSTICE?

SOSMA can only be used for 'security offences' and these security offence is only those offences listed in Schedule 1 of the ACT(SECURITY OFFENCES (SPECIAL MEASURES) ACT 2012) {see the said Schedule below - and see what offences SOSMA CAN BE USED FOR )

Section 2 - Application :- This Act shall apply to security offences.

Section 3 Interpretation In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-"security offences" means the offences specified in the First Schedule; What doed the First Schedule say _

Schedule 1
(Section 3)
SECURITY OFFENCES

Penal Code [Act 574]:

(i) Offences under Chapter VI
(ii) Offences under Chapter VIA
(iii) Offences under Chapter VIB

Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 [Act 670]:

Offences under Part IIIA

Special Measures Against Terrorism in Foreign Countries Act 2015 [Act 770].

Therefore what is Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Mohamed Hanipa Maidin even talking about those being charged under Societies Act? 

SOSMA cannot be used if you are just charged under Societies Act....only can be used if you are also charged maybe under Chapter VIB - Organised Crime [Section 130U to 130ZC)

Now, SOSMA with regard to BAIL says this in Section 13

(1) Bail shall not be granted to a person who has been charged with a security offence.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1)-

(a) a person below the age of eighteen years;
(b) a woman; or
(c) a sick or an infirm person,

charged with a security offence, other than an offence under Chapter VIA of the Penal Code [Act 574] and the Special Measures Against Terrorism in Foreign Countries Act 2015 [Act 770], may be released on bail subject to an application by the Public Prosecutor that the person be attached with an electronic monitoring device in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code.

When a person is generally denied Bail, or alternatively still in detention because cannot afford Bail, JUSTICE demands that their trials are speeded up.... 

Under SOSMA, which is not a DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL LAW, you will charged in court and your case will be tried in court. However, if you get charged for any of the 'security offences' listed in the First Schedule of SOSMA  - you will have no chance of applying for Bail and getting bail, meaning that you end up spending locked up in detention until your trial is over....[Bail generally is granted for all offences, save the most serious ...but even then Bail may be possible if the Judge decides so as it has been granted even when one is charged for murder...]

Bail is denied(or revoked) if one does not turn up in court, or maybe is 'threatening' witnesses, or even may run away from the country(nowadays a simple bail condition of having to surrender their passport will do...)

 

"The attorney-general, in his capacity as public prosecutor, is considering whether his chambers can amend the charges against the detainees," Hanipa said in a statement today.

It will involve 442 detainees who are being probed under Section 43 of the Societies Act 1966 for being members of an unlawful society, as well as Sections 141 to 158 of the Penal Code for offences against public tranquillity.

"This process will take some time and has to be on a case-by-case basis," Hanipa said, adding that the public prosecutor will give priority to female offenders and juveniles, the sick or infirm detainees.

"When amended charges are made, the accused can either plead guilty to them or claim trial. In the event these offenders claim trial to the amended charges, bail may be applied by them, and it is in the discretion of the court whether or not to grant bail."

Those accused of these 'security offences' are being denied BAIL - TELL US - how many persons have been so denied bail - and how many have been charged for each such offences. TELL US - how long these persons have been detained and what is the status of their trial... 

TELL US from your investigation, how many of these trials have been delayed unnecessarily ....HOW MANY HAVE BEEN TRIED AND FOUND NOT GUILTY?

How many just pleaded GUILTY ..? Faced with a prolonged detention until the trial proper is over - and then possibly until all Appeals are over, many will do the SMART thing and plead guilty, especially if the charge carries a low acceptable sentence...Prosecution may also AGREE to amend charges IF you plead GUILTY...Such 'tricks' by prosecution conceals wrong actions by police/prosecution in arresting and charging one who is INNOCENT in the first place...

Should the AG amend charges so persons accused will be tempted to plead GUILTY? So that what the AG is planning ...amend the charge...tempt the accussed to plead guilty ...or the ALTERNATIVE have your trial but spend your time in prison(without Bail) until your trial is over. The right solution is to REPEAL SOSMA, and allow all the accused being charged the right to apply for BAIL - and let the courts decide...REMEMBER that until found guilty...all these persons are to be presumed innocent... 

The RIGHT TO APPLY FOR BAIL  is part of one's right to a Fair Trial - When Pakatan Harapan finally repeals SOSMA, then the many languishing in prison will finally get a chance to apply for Bail - and may have a chance to be re-united with their family - still having to turn up on their trial dates in courts....

Remember now NO BAIL even for that very unclear 'activity detrimental to parliamentary Democracy' offences(Chapter VI sections 124B - 124J)...yes that same one for which Maria Chin(former BERSIH Head, now MP) was arrested for. If Maria Chin was charged in court - would mean that Maria too will be denied bail - and will be languishing in jail today because that too are what SOSMA considers 'security offences'...

Some people in Pakatan Harapan are worried that some of these 'terrorists' and 'gangsters' will also be out on BAIL if SOSMA is removed...They are forgetting the presumption of innocence until proven guilty ...And, just because the police/prosecution believe that someone is GUILTY is irrelevant...the courts will decide...and there are so many cases where the court after a full trial have found people not guilty and acquitted them... 


PLEASE Pakatan Harapan must not delay the abolition of SOSMA anymore....have you no pity for the many unnecessarily languishing in prison without BAIL just because they have been charged with what SOSMA considers 'security offence' ...This is not right...this is certainly against RULE OF LAW...

POCA and Detention Without Trial laws are worse ...there is no TRIAL ...and the innocent cannot even challenge the reasons for their detention/restriction

See related posts:-

ANWAR finally speaks out on SOSMA - weakly calling for 'remedial action' not strongly calling for REPEAL?

Hunger Strike 215 SOSMA victims - PH-led Government stop using SOSMA and DWT laws NOW...pending repeal?

Media Statement  - 24/8/2018

MALAYSIA MUST REAFFIRM COMMITMENT TO ABOLISH ANTI-HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS INCLUDING DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL LAWS AND SOSMA

Home Minister’s 15/8/2018 Reply that Government will continue to use SOSMA and POCA preserve national security most disturbing

 

 

 

AG to consider amending charges on 442 Sosma detainees - Hanipa

Published: Today 10:25 am  |  Modified: Today 12:48 pm

   

Attorney-general Tommy Thomas will consider amending the charges against 442 detainees under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma).

This announcement by Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Mohamed Hanipa Maidin came after detainees launched a hunger strike at the Sungai Buloh Prison, urging the government to repeal Sosma. 

The 118 detainees agreed to end the hunger strike after meeting Hanipa on Aug 26. 

"The attorney-general, in his capacity as public prosecutor, is considering whether his chambers can amend the charges against the detainees," Hanipa said in a statement today.

It will involve 442 detainees who are being probed under Section 43 of the Societies Act 1966 for being members of an unlawful society, as well as Sections 141 to 158 of the Penal Code for offences against public tranquillity.

"This process will take some time and has to be on a case-by-case basis," Hanipa said, adding that the public prosecutor will give priority to female offenders and juveniles, the sick or infirm detainees.

"When amended charges are made, the accused can either plead guilty to them or claim trial. In the event these offenders claim trial to the amended charges, bail may be applied by them, and it is in the discretion of the court whether or not to grant bail."

Sosma is a procedural law which sets out procedures for certain offences, the Sepang MP added.

However, Hanipa said, 22 detainees who are being probed for allegedly committing terrorism offences under the Penal Code are not going to have their charges amended.

"It is my view those cases are best left to be dealt with by the learned AG in accordance with his discretion pursuant to Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution, until the cabinet makes a final decision with regard to Sosma," he added.

Thomas was reported to have said that Sosma would be abolished as promised by the Pakatan Harapan government.

 CHAPTER VI   OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE

121	Waging or attempting to wage war or abetting the waging of war against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, a Ruler or Yang di-Pertua Negeri

121A Offences against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's person

121B Offences against the authority of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Ruler or Yang di-Pertua Negeri

121C Abetting offences under section 121A or 121B

121D Intentional omission to give information of offences against sections 121, 121A, 121B or 121C by a person bound to inform

122 Collecting arms, etc., with the intention of waging war against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, a Ruler or Yang di-Pertua Negeri

123 Concealing with intent to facilitate a design to wage war

124 Assaulting member of Parliament, etc., with intent to compel or restrain the exercise of any lawful power

124A (Repealed)

124B Activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy

124C Attempt to commit activity detrimental to parliamentary Democracy

124D Printing, sale, etc., of documents and publication detrimental to parliamentary democracy

124E Possession of documents and publication detrimental to parliamentary democracy

124F Importation of document and publication detrimental to parliamentary democracy

124G Posting of placards, etc.

124H Dissemination of information

124I Dissemination of false reports

124J Receipt of document and publication detrimental to parliamentary democracy

124K Sabotage

124L Attempt to commit sabotage

124M Espionage

124N Attempt to commit espionage

125 Waging war against any power in alliance with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong

125A Harbouring or attempting to harbour any person in Malaysia or person residing in a foreign State at war or in hostility against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong

126 Committing depredation on the territories of any power at peace with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong

127 Receiving property taken by war or depredation mentioned in sections 125 and 126

128 Public servant voluntarily allowing prisoner of State or war in his custody to escape

129 Public servant negligently suffering prisoner of State or war in his custody to escape

130 Aiding escape of, rescuing, or harbouring such prisoner

130A Interpretation of this Chapter

CHAPTER VIA   OFFENCES RELATING TO TERRORISM Suppression of terrorist acts and support for terrorist acts 130B Interpretation in relation to this Chapter

130C Committing terrorist acts

130D Providing devices to terrorist groups

130E Recruiting persons to be members of terrorist groups or to participate in terrorist acts

130F Providing training and instruction to terrorist groups and persons committing terrorist acts

130FA Receiving training and instruction from terrorist groups and persons committing terrorist acts

130FB Attendance at place used for terrorist training

130G Inciting, promoting or soliciting property for the commission of terrorist acts

130H Providing facilities in support of terrorist acts

130I Directing activities of terrorist groups

130J Soliciting or giving support to terrorist groups or for the commission of terrorist acts

130JA Travelling to, through or from Malaysia for the commission of terrorist acts in foreign country

130JB Possession, etc. of items associated with terrorist groups or terrorist acts

130JC Offence to build, etc. conveyance for use in terrorist acts

130JD Preparation of terrorist acts

130K Harbouring persons committing terrorist acts

130KA Member of a terrorist group

130L Criminal conspiracy

130M Intentional omission to give information relating to terrorist acts

Suppression of financing of terrorist acts 130N Providing or collecting property for terrorist acts

130O Providing services for terrorist purposes

130P Arranging for retention or control of terrorist property

130Q Dealing with terrorist property

130QA Accepting gratification to facilitate or enable terrorist acts

130R Intentional omission to give information about terrorist property

130S Intentional omission to give information relating to terrorism financing offence

130T Offences by body corporate

130TA Non-application of Offenders Compulsory Attendance Act 1954 and sections 173A, 293 and 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code

CHAPTER VIB   ORGANIZED CRIME 130U Interpretation in relation to this Chapter

130V Member of an organized criminal group

130W Assisting an organized criminal group

130X Harbouring member of an organized criminal group

130Y Consorting with an organized criminal group

130Z Recruiting persons to be members of an organized criminal group

130ZA Participation in an organized criminal group

130ZB Accepting gratification to facilitate or enable organized criminal activity

130ZC Enhanced penalties for offences committed by an organized criminal group or member of an organized criminal group