ON HUMAN RIGHTS, JUSTICE AND PEACE ISSUES, LABOUR RIGHTS, MIGRANT RIGHTS, FOR THE ABOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY, TOWARDS AN END OF TORTURE, POLICE ABUSES, DISCRIMINATION...
Over the years, University students in Malaysia have gone 'quiet' - unlike before when students used to come out in protest for justice for the poor - peasants, urban settlers, ...They protested on Palestinian issues, etc
But nowadays, one wonders what has happened to our young people - are they just indifferent to the suffering and injustices that befall the rest of the people of Malaysia? The number of University students have arisen - but somehow, we are not seeing large protests amongst university students after the mid 1980s...Now, it seems they come out for 'more internal self-serving issues like fee increases, academic freedom..
Are they ignorant about the other issues in Malaysia? Or have they gone apathetic? A major concern today as Malaysia moves towards reducing the voter age to 18... What will they be interested in? Racial issues? Religious issues? University Fees and Loans? OR will they start being concerned about all injustices in Malaysia? Will they start speaking up for the poor? for those suffering injustices?
Are they becoming more 'self-centred'? Will there be more discussion about other issues affecting Malaysians - or will they ....?
What about freedom for University students? Will students protest the lack of action on the University and University Colleges Act by this new government despite it being an Election promise? What rights and freedoms do University students want - do they even know? What is their position on Detention Without Trial...on Freedom of Assembly...?
In
the historical catalogue of events that have become signposts for the
raising of human rights consciousness among Malaysians, the Baling
incident of December 1974, which saw university students make common
cause with impoverished peasants
MMU reverses fee hike for existing students after 1,000-strong protest
Published:
After a protest held by
dissatisfied students, the Malacca Multimedia University (MMU)
management has agreed not to increase its student activity fee (SAF) for
all existing students.
“Based on mutual agreement, the management
is agreeable that there will be no SAF increment for all existing
undergraduate and postgraduate students.
“However, an official
announcement of the policy will be released by the management after a
detailed discussion with the students’ representative council (SRC),”
said the SRC in a statement today.
They thanked the MMU management for collaborating with them to attain the “win-win” situation.
“We appreciate the students’ support and patience throughout this matter,” they said.
The decision appears to be the result of a negotiation between the SRC and MMU's management.
On July 23, about 1,000 MMU students had gathered at the university’s President Square (below) to protest what they described as an unfair increment to the SAF.
The fee was previously RM110 per year and the university had intended to raise it to RM500.
The
university had announced this in a memo to students, which also said
the increase will be implemented in April 2020 and that the decision was
made to facilitate student activities with a higher impact.
SRC
president Pouria Zibaei had claimed the announcement of the fee hike was
made without the approval of the council, clubs and societies.
He also said a total of 11,500 signatures had been collected from students and submitted to the SRC to management on July 19.
A
day after their protest, MMU's management had contacted the students’
representative council for negotiation regarding the SAF.
IGP is wrong, Sosma must be repealed ― Charles Hector
Published 15 hours ago on 22 July 2019
JULY 22 ― MADPET is appalled by the fact that Inspector-General of
Police Datuk Seri Abdul Hamid Bador is trying to lobby that the
draconian Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (SOSMA) 2012, which
the Pakatan Harapan in their election manifesto promised will be
repealed, should be retained. He said, amongst others, that “ if Sosma
is taken away from us, it means you take away our 'guns' to fight
terrorists...”.
He claimed that “ The Counter Terrorism (E8) Division of the Bukit
Aman Special Branch department has racked up an impressive number of
arrests and stopped planned attacks from happening here ” (Malay Mail, July 21, 2019).
This claim, however, is not substantiated by the number of
convictions after an open trial. If Sosma only was used, then there must
be a trial. Preparing or planning for a crime is also a crime in
Malaysia which will be tried. Maybe, the government could give us the
statistics of the number of persons who have tried and convicted for
terrorist offences, including the offence of preparing to carry out
terrorist actions.
Sadly, the IGP also seem to be unhappy with the abolition of the
Internal Security Act (ISA), that draconian Detention Without Trial
(DWT) laws have been abolished by the then Barisan Nasional government,
who then simply extended the scope of Poca, another DWT law, and enacted
also enacted a new DWT law being POTA. MADPET is now concerned about
the suitability Abdul Hamid Bador as Malaysia’s Inspector-General of
Police, noting that this was a political appointment.
The IGP also recently said that the arrest and detention of Maria
Chin Abdullah, using Sosma, was justified. He forgets that the now
Member of Parliament Maria had after her release sued the government
with regard to her arrest and detention, and the government has since
agreed to pay her compensation of “ RM25,000 in damages and RM5,000 in
costs to Petaling Jaya MP Maria Chin Abdullah over her detention in 2016
under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 ” (Sosma) (MalayMail,
February 18, 2019). This is an indication or rather an admission that
the government has done wrong in arresting and detaining her using
Sosma.
Hence, what the IGP says now seems to be against the current
government position OR alternatively an allegation that the government
acknowledgement of fault and the payout of compensation was wrong. Was
Maria then accorded “special treatment” because she, who was then the
Chairperson of Bersih, had since been elected as a Pakatan Harapan
Member of Parliament.
Sosma has, amongst others, three main draconian elements being:
1. Removes the requirement of bringing before a Magistrate within 24
hours, hence ousting the judicial authority of Magistrates to consider
whether to allow further remand. Arrested suspect needs to be brought
before a Magistrate 24 hours after arrest. During remand applications by
the police to enable a suspect to be kept in detention for the purpose
of investigation, the Magistrates decides after hearing the police, the
suspect(or his/her lawyer) and then makes the appropriate just order ―
no further remand or remand for how many days. In the case of Sosma list
of “security” offences, there is no need to bring before a Magistrate,
and all that is required is “a police officer of or above the rank of
Superintendent of Police may extend the period of detention for a period
of not more than twenty-eight days, for the purpose of investigation.”
[Section 4(5)]
2. Denial of Bail for persons charged in court ― In ordinary criminal
cases, the accused is generally entitled to bail, but no bail, if one
is charged with any one of over 70-100 “security” offences listed in
Sosma. Section 13(1) states “(1) Bail shall not be granted to a person
who has been charged with a security offence.”
3. Allows the use of Evidence that is not allowed by our Evidence Act
in criminal trials, and also allows for “special procedures” during
trial including the ability for “court shall hold an inquiry in camera
by questioning the witness concerned or any other witness in the absence
of the accused and his counsel”. That means the lawyer and the accused
cannot even cross-examine or challenge the evidence. It will not be a
fair trial.
The need for the police to bring the arrested before a Magistrate
within 24 hours is a right provided for in the Federal Constitution, and
our Criminal Procedure Code. To just trust the police will exercise
their power rightly is not something that any reasonable person can
accept, and that is why the right to be brought before a Magistrate
within 24 hours exist ― and why the Magistrate is empowered to evaluate
the complete facts to determine whether further remand is allowed or
not, and for how long.
The legal principle that one is presumed innocent until found guilty
by a court ― not the police or the government. This principle must
always be respected.
The Barisan Nasional government also introduced a new kind of
offence, being “activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy”,
which is just too vague and is open to abuse. This must certainly be
repealed. There, small offences like receipt of publication detrimental
to parliamentary democracy is also a Sosma listed “security” offence.
MADPET calls for the repeal of Section 124B to 124J of the Penal Code,
all the offences concerning “activities detrimental to parliamentary
democracy”.
In Malaysia, there is still no criminal compensation scheme that will
compensate persons who have been detained wrongfully by the police or
in prison. After 28 days in detention by police, one is not charged but
released, and this suggests that the detention was wrong. After
languishing is prison because Sosma denies bail, and the court finds you
not guilty. It is unjust that an innocent man is not compensated for
his loss of liberty.
Remember that these suspects or those that languish in prisons
because bail is denied are fathers, mothers, spouses and siblings, who
do have responsibility to families and dependents. Prolonged detention
can result in loss of employment, income and also business.
Whilst acknowledging the right of the Inspector=General of Police has
the right to his personal opinion, the government should not falter in
doing justice by the abolition of Sosma and all Detention Without Trial
laws.
Therefore, MADPET:
― Reiterates the call for the immediate repeal of Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (Sosma) 2012;
― Call for the repeal of Section 124B to 124J of the Penal Code, all
the offences concerning “activities detrimental to parliamentary
democracy”;
― Reiterates the call for the repeal of all Detention Without Trial
laws like the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (Poca), Prevention of
Terrorism Act 2015(Pota) and the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive
Measures) Act 1985, which also denies the right for the victim to file
for judicial review against the reasons used for his/her
detention/restrictions.
― Calls on the government to ensure justice is done and ensure that everyone is accorded the right to a fair trial. - Malay Mail, 22/7/2019
IGP on fight against terrorism in Malaysia and why we still need Sosma
Published 1 day ago on 21 July 2019
By G. Prakash
Inspector-General of Police Datuk
Seri Abdul Hamid Bador answers questions during an interview with Malay
Mail at his office in Bukit Aman Kuala Lumpur July 17, 2019. — Picture
by Hari Anggara
KUALA LUMPUR, July 21 — Inspector-General of Police Datuk Seri Abdul
Hamid Bador credits Malaysia’s counter terrorism success to the sharing
of information with international counterparts who have more experience
in fighting extremist ideologies.
The Counter Terrorism (E8) Division of the Bukit Aman Special Branch
department has racked up an impressive number of arrests and stopped
planned attacks from happening here.
“We have been watching closely the developments taking place in the
Middle East as there had been earlier concerns that the defeat of the
Islamic State (IS) group in Syria and Iraq could lead to frustrated
fighters who have yet to fulfill their mission to become martyrs,” Abdul
Hamid told the Malay Mail.
“The concern is that they would return to their countries of origin
like Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines and will conduct their
final act in their home country.
“But so far this has not been realised except for maybe the
Philippines but that too investigators are not sure if the perpetrators
are those returning from that region,” he said, referring to the Middle
East.
In March, major news outlets reported that the IS has lost the last
pocket of territory in Syria and Iraq which it controlled, bringing a
formal end to the caliphate it proclaimed in 2014.
The group controls no territory in Iraq and Syria, attacks are down
and the number of foreign fighters it continues to recruit is a fraction
of what it was at its height.
But the notorious terrorist group remains a serious, violent threat.
Many of its top leaders are still alive and it continues to carry out
attacks.
Abdul Hamid said police are always concerned when it comes to terror threats in the country and are constantly vigilant.
“We are constantly monitoring social media and at the same time we
have increased the engagement with foreign intelligence organisations,
sharing information especially with the experienced ones such as Sri
Lanka and Bangladesh and of course our long-time partner Indonesia who
has been very cordial with us.
“We have been brotherly with these countries in our joint effort in tackling this issue,” he said.
‘Don't take away Sosma’
Abdul Hamid said terror networks feared Malaysia's Internal Security Act (ISA).
“For them, they knew ISA is the end for them... that's how it was.
But now that ISA is history, we have this powerful legislation the
Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (Sosma) 2012, which helps us.
“I want to share with the public... if Sosma is taken away from us,
it means you take away our 'guns' to fight terrorists... the public
should be educated about this,” he said.
Abdul Hamid said such laws allow the police to act, not to wait until a threat is in the advance stage.
“We know our limits. I for one would not allow the police to use
torture tactics, I have made it very strict to my men in the counter
terrorism department.
“That is why I have made it clear that there must always be CCTVs in
interrogation rooms and everywhere else. I always remind my men to not
tackle this issue by torturing the subjects as that will make it worse.
“We will not implement torture tactics to illicit confessions,” he said.
Abdul Hamid said the terror suspects are misled on ideology and it is
important for the authorities to use experts from religious departments
to reason with them.
Terror threat is real, Malaysians must not be complacent
The top cop also reminded Malaysians that the threat of terrorism is not something that can be taken lightly.
“There are people who take it for granted, sometimes not appreciative
or complacent that it’s not going to happen here. At times they have
been unfair to us. We have spent a lot of time and energy to ensure it
(attacks) doesn't happen here.
“We need the public to be aware and we need their co-operation so
that they can continue providing tip-offs of any suspicious behaviour,”
he said,
Abdul Hamid said in many instances the police were able to prevent an attack from happening at the final stage.
“We want the public to know about this so they can help, that is why I go to the press and talk about all this,” he said.
Police monitoring 'wolf pack' terrorism
Abdul Hamid said police are also closely monitoring terrorist activities by lone wolves and "wolf packs.”
He said in contrast to IS, these terrorists have no network or links
with militant cells and move in small groups of six to seven members.
“We have to continue monitoring and ensure we can abort attacks before the militants can launch them.
“So far we have been successful in singling them out,” he said adding
that such threats are the reason why the police has always empowered
the E8 division.
Abdul Hamid said he had also recently briefed the Council of Rulers about the fight against terrorism.
“The Council of Rulers is also very concerned about it and I have
told the Rulers that police will continue to engage with the Islamic
Development Department of Malaysia (Jakim) to educate the public against
extremist ideologies.”
Rohingyas easy target for international terrorist groups
Abdul Hamid said there is a concern that Rohingyas in the country
might become an easy target for terrorist organisations and the police
are closely monitoring the situation.
During a recent crackdown against terror cells, four Rohingya
suspects were detained; two of them had planned to assassinate four VIPs
and launch large-scale attacks on non-Muslim houses of worship, as well
as entertainment centres in the Klang Valley.
“We have to understand they have been suppressed just like the
Palestinians, we have to understand their predicament, there will be a
small number of them... the frustrated ones who will resort to
subscribing to terrorism but the majority are not.
“When you talk about Rohingyas, there have been concerns raised by
Bangladeshi intelligence and we are sharing information with them.
“Our intelligence gathering has worked in thwarting terror plots...
that is why we cannot lag behind.
We may not realise this but another
reason for us to perform well in this area is also thanks to our
government's foreign policy that has been very consistent. I can tell
you terror groups fear us,” he said. - Malay Mail, 21/7/2019
LETTER | Madpet
(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) is concerned that the
attorney-general found that there is insufficient evidence "…to warrant a
culpable homicide investigation into Teoh Beng Hock's death …" What
needs to be done is to continue the investigations.
The Teoh Beng
Hock case also raises many other possible offences that could be
prosecuted including the giving false statements, possibly also
suppression or doctoring of evidence and other breaches of the law. Any
enforcement officer who breaks the law should be investigated and
prosecuted in an open court.
On July 16, 2009, Teoh was found dead
on the fifth floor of Plaza Masalam, Shah Alam, after going to the MACC
office on the 14th floor of the same building where he was
interrogated. Teoh was brought into MACC Selangor’s office for
questioning at 6 pm on July 15, 2009, where he remained for 19 hours
until his body was found at 1.30 pm the next day.
Thai forensic
pathologist Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand testified that she was 80 percent
sure Teoh had been strangled before falling off the building. This was
based on bruises on his neck.
The royal commission of inquiry also
concluded that five MACC officers had given false testimonies about
their actions before Teoh was found dead. They were then-MACC Selangor
deputy director Hishamuddin Hashim and officers Mohd Ashraf Mohd Yunus,
Bulkini Paharuddin, "Anuar" and "Raymond".
Both the commission's
report and Court of Appeal judgments clearly stated that the MACC
officers had committed wrongdoings when questioning Teoh, yet none have
faced prosecution.
There are also many other deaths in custody
cases like the case of Syed Mohd Azlan Syed Mohamed Nur where it was
found that police officers or enforcement officers had broken the law.
In
the Syed Mohd Azlan’s case, the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission
(EAIC) was reported as saying, “There was an element of crime in the
attacks involving common intent or abetment by PDRM officers, including
the arresting team, to intentionally use physical violence on the
deceased to cause death or injury,”
It said that the action was a
criminal offence, specifically under Section 302 and 325 of the Penal
Code read with Section 34 of the same Act. The EAIC’s investigations
also found attempts to obscure evidence by police officers.
Sadly, we have not heard that all these officers were charged and tried in court.
Now,
we have a new government and a new attorney-general and Madpet prays
that all these officers who committed crimes, including doctoring,
fabricating and hiding evidence should be investigated and prosecuted.
Those who make false statements should also be prosecuted.
The
perception of the administration of justice in Malaysia suffers when
police, MACC or other enforcement officers seem to be able to escape
prosecution and trial. Internal disciplinary measures, including
termination, alone are totally inadequate.
Public officers with
the responsibility of enforcing the law must never break the law, and if
they do, they must be immediately prosecuted and tried in court and if
found guilty, their sentence best be a deterrent sentence.
Such
open trials may result in ensuring that other enforcement officers will
in the future obey the law for fear of being prosecuted if the break it
in any way, be it for corruption, torture or any other crime.
Therefore, Madpet,
Calls
on the attorney-general to immediately investigate, charge and try in
an open court all enforcement officers that have broken any law
whatsoever, not just those that caused the death of Teoh Beng Hock, Syed
Mohd Azlan and others who have died in custody and other victims;
Calls
on the attorney-general to look at all Suhakam, EAIC and the royal
commissions of inquiry reports and immediately take action against the
police, MACC or other enforcement officers that have been found to have
committed crimes;
Calls on the Malaysian government to
adopt a strict policy of prosecuting any breach of law committed by
public servants and not simply resort to internal disciplinary measures
including termination;
Calls on the media to actively
report and highlight all cases involving wrongdoings of public servants,
especially enforcement officers, as this will help reduce corruption
and criminal activities in the police, MACC, Immigration Department and
the civil service generally;
Calls on the Malaysian
government to enact laws that make it a crime for public servants who
know of criminal wrongdoings of their fellow public servants and fail to
come forward or cover-up evidence of these wrongdoings; and
Calls
on the Malaysian government to restore public confidence in the police,
MACC, enforcement officers, civil servants and especially in the
administration of justice in Malaysia.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini. - Malaysiakini, 20/7/2019
Only been investigating 'culpable homicide', not even murder - what about the other violations of law involving MACC officers, some of whom have been named by the RCI, etc, including also lies and/or tampering with evidence? It is very important that these officers all be prosecuted and tried in open court - that will deter a repeat of wrongdoing amongst the public servants...
AG: insufficient evidence for homicide investigation into Teoh Beng Hock's death
Nation
Wednesday, 17 Jul 2019 5:43 PM MYT by hemananthani sivanandam, rahimy rahim, martin carvalho, and tarrence tan
KUALA LUMPUR: There is insufficient evidence to warrant a culpable homicide investigation into Teoh Beng Hock's death, says Attorney General Tommy Thomas.
He however added that this does not mean that the case is not being investigated,
Thomas said in a letter dated July 8 to Bukit Gelugor MP Ramkarpal Singh that the instruction from the AG's Chambers to the police to open an investigation paper classified under Section 342 of the Penal Code was an administrative procedure.
"The present state of evidence is insufficient to proper a charge under Section 304 or 304A of the Penal Code.
"However, this recent classification does not prevent investigators from looking into the truth or as to who were involved in his death in any way," read the letter by Thomas that was provided to the media by Ramkarpal in a press conference at the Parliament lobby on Wednesday (July 17).
Section 342 refers to wrongful confinement while Section 304 is culpable homicide.
He said that an investigation on wrongful confinement was consistent with the Court of Appeal's finding that Teoh was not free to leave the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission (MACC) premises although he was never placed under arrest.
"Please be assured that should there be sufficient evidence uncovered by the police, the public prosecutor is not prevented from bringing a charge under culpable homicide or any other suitable charge in order to bring those responsible to justice," added Thomas.
However, Ramkarpal said that Thomas had also sent another reply to Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng dated July 8, which read that he had met with the Inspector General of Police Datuk Seri Abdul Hamid Bador as well as the new MACC chief commissioner Latheefa Koya.
In the letter to Lim, Thomas said that the MACC and police have agreed to work together to resolve this long-standing case.
"I hope they will report to me on the latest updates of their investigations soon, and the truth behind Teoh's death will be revealed," read the letter signed by Thomas, which was also given to the media by Ramkarpal.
However, Ramkarpal said that felt that that there was enough evidence for a homicide investigation.
"We know the identities of the officers concerned, so the question is their involvement and the roles they played," he said.
He added that it was "not acceptable" to say there was insufficient evidence, and urged the AG to scrutinise the evidence before him.
Ramkarpal said that Teoh's family and him would be meeting Thomas this week to seek clarification over the matter.
Teoh, 30, who was an aide to then-Selangor exco member Ean Yong Hian Wah, was found dead on July 16, 2009 on the fifth floor corridor of Plaza Masalam in Shah Alam after giving a statement at the Selangor MACC office.
Teoh had apparently fallen to his death after he was taken in for questioning over a corruption probe. - Star, 17/7/2019
Five unsolved mysteries about Teoh Beng Hock’s death
Ng Xiang Yi & Fion Yap |
Published:
| Modified:
SPECIAL REPORT | Teoh Beng Hock was found
dead on this day, 10 years ago.
The 30-year-old had been working as a political aide to DAP Seri Kembangan
assemblyperson Ean Yong Hian Wah.
On the evening of July 15, 2009, Teoh was questioned by Selangor MACC as a
witness in its investigation into claims of misappropriated allocations
involving his boss. The next morning, Teoh's body was found on the fifth
floor of Plaza Masalam in Shah Alam, the same building where Selangor MACC had
its office.
Over the years, Teoh’s family has trudged through an inquest, which
delivered an open verdict, and a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) which
concluded that Teoh’s death was a suicide.
Despite the Court of Appeal overturning the open verdict in 2014 and ordering
further investigations, no one has been prosecuted for his death.
A decade has now passed, but many questions surrounding the case
remain.
As Pakatan Harapan reopens investigations,
Malaysiakini revisits the RCI report and judgments of all three Court of
Appeal judges.
Here are five mysteries that are yet be resolved:
1. What caused the bruises on his neck?
After he died, two post-mortems were performed on Teoh.
In the first, government forensic pathologists Dr Khairul Azman Ibrahim and
Dr Prashant Naresh Samberkar concluded that he had committed suicide.
However, Thai forensic pathologist Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand (photo,
below) testified that she was 80 percent sure Teoh had been strangled
before falling off the building. This was based on bruises on his neck seen
from photographs of the body taken by Prashant.
Khairul and Prashant believed otherwise, contending that the bruises were the
result of “staining” caused by the post-mortem procedure.
This caused MACC’s lead prosecutor Abdul Razak Musa to call Pornthip’s
findings and credibility into question during the inquest.
Abdul Razak famously, and hilariously, attempted to strangle himself when cross-examining the Thai
expert about the possibility that Teoh had choked himself.
In the second post-mortem, Pornthip maintained her conclusion that bruises on
Teoh’s neck had been caused by external forces such as strangulation, which led
to a shortage of oxygen flowing to his brain and a loss of
consciousness.
Her findings would later play a key role in the Court of Appeal’s unanimous
decision to reject the coroner’s open verdict on the death.
This is what Court of Appeal judge Mah Weng Kwai said in his judgment: “To
my mind, some person or persons must have done something to Teoh Beng Hock
which had resulted in the bruise mark on his neck. The bruise mark could not
have appeared on the neck by itself without an external cause.”
Mah also wrote that the inquest had been presented with sufficient evidence
to prove that Teoh had suffered injuries before he fell from the building, and
credited Pornthip for her findings in the second post-mortem.
Fellow Court of Appeal judge Mohamad Ariff Md Yusof similarly quoted
Pornthip’s findings extensively in his judgment and rejected the theory that
Teoh had fallen from the building by accident.
If Pornthip’s theory is to be believed, who caused the bruises on Teoh’s
neck?
2. Seven unexplained hours
Teoh was brought into MACC Selangor’s office for questioning at 6pm on July
15, 2009, where he remained for 19 hours until his body was found at 1.30pm the
next day.
Of the 19 hours, no MACC officer has been able to explicitly explain what
happened to him in the last seven. The inquest characterised this period as the
“unexplained gap”.
Teoh’s estimated time of death was between 7.15am and 11.15am on July 16,
several hours before he was found.
All MACC officers involved in questioning him were only able to describe
what had happened from 6pm on July 15 up to 3.30am the next day. Reading the
RCI report, testimonies about events past that time appear unclear and
inconsistent.
Mohd Nadzri Ibrahim was the last MACC officer to question Teoh before he
died. He said he had allowed the latter to return home at 3.30am, but that Teoh
had asked to remain at the office to “rest”. The reason for this was not
provided.
Only three individuals testified that they had interacted with Teoh after
3.30am, with MACC officer Raymond Nion claiming to have been the last to see
him alive at 6am. Raymond’s testimony was rejected by the RCI panel, on the
basis that it was illogical and not credible.
Mohamad Anuar Ismail, the MACC investigating officer in charge of the case
involving Teoh’s boss, said he had spent the night at the office surau after
the questioning session.
Anuar discovered that Teoh’s bag was still at the office when he woke up the
next morning at 8.30am and had made a failed attempt to search for its owner.
He testified that he had only “realised”, at 1.30pm, that Teoh had fallen from
the building.
According to Mah, Teoh had died while he was under MACC’s care, when the
anti-graft body was supposed to ensure his safety.
“The MACC owed Teoh Beng Hock a strict duty of care to ensure that he was
kept safe at all times while under their custody and that he did not come into
harm’s way, such as from beatings and assault by anyone,” Mah said in his
judgment.
What happened to Teoh after 6am that caused him to fall to his death?
3. False testimonies?
The RCI report concluded that five MACC officers had given false testimonies
about their actions before Teoh was found dead.
They are then-MACC Selangor deputy director Hishamuddin Hashim and officers
Mohd Ashraf Mohd Yunus, Bulkini Paharuddin, Anuar and Raymond.
Hishamuddin had led the investigation into the case involving Teoh’s
employer, but he testified that he was not actively involved in the actual
probe.
Seven full pages in the RCI report are dedicated to dispelling the
possibility that the senior officer had been in the dark about details of the
investigation. His testimony was deemed false, insincere and inadmissible.
“There was no direct evidence to prove that Hishamuddin Hashim had a hand in
the death of Teoh Beng Hock.
“But as the senior-most officer involved in the operation and being physically
present in the office when the officers involved in the operation were
interrogating Teoh Beng Hock virtually without let, he should be held
responsible for the actions taken by him and his officers which propelled Teoh
Beng Hock to commit suicide,” the report states.
The RCI noted that Ashraf possessed a record of torturing his lock-up
detainees. It also concluded that Raymond was used by his colleagues to note
down “time-markers” to falsely portray Teoh as being alive.
In Aug 2011, the Malaysian Bar alleged that MACC officers had embarked on an
“elaborate, massive, consistent and planned attempt” to cover up the true circumstances which led to
Teoh’s death.
The oversight body also believed that MACC officers had already known about
Teoh’s death on the morning of July 16, but had fabricated, destroyed and
altered evidence to avoid detection.
Aside from the five mentioned above, the Bar further called for action
against MACC officers Hairul Ilham Hamzah, Zulkefly Aziz, Effezul Azran Abdul
Manop, Arman Alies and Mohd Nazri Ibrahim for contravening MACC rules.
Despite clear recommendations from the RCI panel and the Bar, no action has
ever been taken against any of the MACC officers involved. Why?
4. A much-delayed 'suicide note'?
At the tail-end of the inquest into Teoh’s death, one year after it began,
the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) shocked all by tendering the political
aide’s apparent "suicide note" as evidence
in court.
Police officer ASP Ahmad Nazri Zainal testified that he had discovered the
note in Teoh’s bag on July 17, 2009, one day after his body was found. He
claimed that he failed to surrender it to the inquest as he had not considered
its importance at the time.
Almost three months later, on Oct 7, Nazri said he submitted the note to
have its handwriting verified after conducting a second search of the bag.
It was then tendered to the inquest, 10 months later in August 2010.
Due to the timing of its appearance, both the RCI panel and Court of Appeal
ruled that the note was inadmissible as evidence.
In its report, the panel criticised Nazri for his lackadaisical attitude
towards a piece of evidence.
“In fact, this created mistrust in us on the authenticity of this document,
i.e. the note. In the light of these circumstances and the shortcomings in
(document analyst) Mr Wong's opinion, we attached no weight to the note in
our deliberations,” the panel's report states.
The Bar similarly disputed the veracity of the note and claimed that it had
been produced to assist MACC’s attempt to show that Teoh had killed
himself.
In his judgment, Mah said what the note had shown was the police’s lack of
efficiency.
Following the Court of Appeal’s order for fresh investigations, the police
re-opened their investigation, but appeared to base it on the alleged suicide
note. They took statements from Teoh’s family to verify his handwriting,
leading to much public uproar.
Why did the police base their investigations on a disputed piece of
evidence?
5. Who's to blame?
Both the RCI report and Court of Appeal judgments clearly stated that MACC
officers had committed wrongdoings when questioning Teoh, yet none has faced
prosecution.
Several years after the case, investigating officer Anuar was even
promoted.
The RCI report found that Hishamuddin, Anuar and Ashraf had used “aggressive
and inappropriate” interrogation methods. Ashraf and Arman were found to have
employed harsh intimidation against Teoh.
It even characterised Arman as “the bully”, Ashraf as “the abuser” and
Hishamuddin as “the arrogant leader”.
In his judgment, Court of Appeal judge Hamid Sultan Abu Backer said that MACC
had effectively arrested Teoh when he was brought into MACC Selangor’s office
accompanied by officers.
Justice Hamid said this constituted an abuse of power, right from the
beginning of the proceedings, as Teoh was just a case witness, not a
suspect.
To Mohamad Ariff, the evidence did not point to suicide but instead
indicated that abuse had occurred, which could have led to murder. He wrote in
his judgment that the bruises on Teoh’s neck were inflicted before he fell from
the building.
“It can only be suicide or homicide, or if it was suicide, it will serve the
public interest to know what and who drove the deceased to suicide, and what,
or who, caused the pre-fall injury,” the judge wrote.
Mah highlighted that Teoh was mistreated when he was barred from leaving
MACC Selangor’s office and denied access to a lawyer. The judge called for
disciplinary action and punishment for those responsible.
In 2012, Teoh’s family filed a civil suit against the federal government and
MACC, along with 12 of its officers, for negligence and injuring the political
aide to the point of death.
This was settled in the High Court in Kuala Lumpur, with the government
paying the family RM600,000 in compensation and a further RM60,000 in
costs.
However, the suit failed to hold anyone accountable and Putrajaya merely
admitted that it had been negligent.
In 2016, then BN minister Nancy Shukri said that the Attorney-General's
Chambers had found "no crime" had been
committed by any MACC officer in relation to Teoh’s death.
After the 2018 general election, the newly formed Pakatan Harapan government
promised to reopen investigations into Teoh’s death.
However, the police later announced they were pursuing the case under
Section 342 of the Penal Code, which deals with wrongful confinement.
This courted swift criticism as it went against the Court of Appeal’s
judgment that Teoh’s death had been caused by one or more unknown persons,
including MACC officers.
What more would it take for someone to be brought to justice for Teoh’s
death?
'Not a difficult question to answer'
Despite remaining unresolved after 10 years, Teoh family’s lawyer, Ramkarpal
Singh, believes the case is essentially quite a straightforward affair.
Comparing it to the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu, in which he represented
the late Mongolian national’s family, he said much had already been revealed
about Teoh’s death through the inquest, court proceedings and the RCI
report.
“This is a death in a custody case, whether you like it or not. Are they
(MACC officers) responsible? I don’t think that is a difficult question to
answer.
“In the Teoh Beng Hock case, you know who these people are. What is
necessary now is to further investigate their role, to determine the extent of
their role.
“For me, I can’t see a problem in the Teoh Beng Hock case,” Ramkarpal told
Malaysiakini recently.
For activist Ng Yap Hwa, who volunteers with the Teoh Beng Hock Trust for
Democracy, these five mysteries could be solved if the police and AGC expanded
their scope.
Ng Yap Hwa
Ng believes that the investigations had hit a snag because the police had so
far only regarded Teoh’s death as a suicide case.
“I think the police do not want to take action against the MACC. They saw
this case as a suicide from the start and have never considered an alternative
explanation.
“Unless they change the direction of their investigations, we might never
know what really caused Teoh’s death, no matter how many times the police
reopen the case,” Ng told Malaysiakini.
Ramkarpal, who is also the DAP Bukit Gelugor MP, similarly urged the police
to probe beyond wrongful confinement in its investigations.
He hoped that the new investigations would not arrive at the same
conclusions as before.
Ramkarpal Singh
“Suicide was more or less ruled out by the Court of Appeal.
“If you are just going to focus on suicide, does this means you are
insulting the Court of Appeal?
“It was not just one judge, you know, but three judges. All of them had the
same opinion,” the lawyer stressed. - Malaysiakini, 16/7/2019
LETTER |
Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet) notes with
sadness the death of Nigerian student, Thomas Orhions Ewansiha, who died
while under detention at the Bukit Jalil Immigration Depot on July 9.
He was arrested by the Immigration Department on five days earlier for maybe allegedly being an undocumented migrant.
Immigration
director-general Khairul Dzaimee Daud was reported saying that "The
student was suspected of committing offences under Section 56(1) of the
Immigration Act 1959/1963 and was arrested under Section 51(5)b) for 14
days for further investigations."
This section contains many
different offences, and there seems to be no indication of what exactly
the suspected offence for which Ewansiha was arrested for.
If
it was merely because he was a suspected undocumented migrant, this is a
fact that could be speedily confirmed by reference to the department's
own records, the school he was attending, and the Nigerian embassy.
He should have been released within hours, and not still be in detention for days.
Unfettered judicial discretion in remand applications
The
Federal Constitution, in Article 5(4) states: "Where a person is
arrested and not released he shall without unreasonable delay, and in
any case within 24 hours (excluding the time of any necessary journey)
be produced before a magistrate and shall not be further detained in
custody without the magistrate"s authority..."
There is an
exception when it comes to a non-citizen, where it states that "….other
than a citizen, who is arrested or detained under the law relating to
immigration, this clause shall be read as if there were substituted for
the words 'without unreasonable delay, and in any case within 24 hours
(excluding the time of any 'necessary journey').
This means the
foreigner arrested for an ‘immigration offence’ need not be brought
before a Magistrate within 24 hours, but "within 14 days."
The
only justification is that time may be needed to verify whether the
passport or the visa of the foreigner is real or forged, where 14 days
may be needed.
The Immigration Act, in Section 51(5)(b) states,
amongst others, that "Where any person other than a citizen is arrested
or detained under this act, whether for an offence against this act or
otherwise than for such offence, and has not been earlier released, or
charged in court for an offence against this act, or removed from
Malaysia under this act, he shall, within 14 days of his arrest or
detention, be produced before a magistrate who shall make an order for
his detention for such period as may be required by an immigration
officer or a police officer for the purpose of investigations into an
offence against this act, or by an immigration officer for the purpose
of either making inquiries, or affecting his removal from Malaysia,
under this act."
This provision seems to remove the judicial
discretion of the magistrate, who in a remand application should listen
to the police (in this case the Immigration officer), the suspect and
make an appropriate remand order or set him free.
The act uses
the words, "…magistrate who shall make an order for his detention for
such period as may be required by an immigration officer or a police
officer…" which implies the magistrate has no choice but just order
remand for the number of days requested by the said Immigration officer –
and this goes against the ordinary remand powers of a magistrate.
It
is an injustice that a Malaysian citizen, suspected of committing the
same immigration offences are treated differently from a non-citizen.
The Malaysian is brought before the magistrate within 24 hours, and the
foreigner within 14 days.
Equality for all persons
Madpet
urges the government to ensure that all persons, citizens or
non-citizens, should be brought before the magistrate within 24 hours if
the police, Immigration officer and/or other enforcement officers, want
to detain a person for further remand for the purposes of
investigation.
The magistrate should have the power to grant or
refuse the remand application, and to determine the number of days
remand allowed, in any case, no remand order shall be more than seven
days being the maximum remand provided for serious offences in Section
117 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which states, "if the offence which
is being investigated is punishable with death or imprisonment of 14
years or more, the detention shall not be more than seven days on the
first application and shall not be more than seven days on the second
application."
The Federal Constitution should also be amended, to
ensure that Article 8(1), which states "All persons are equal before the
law and entitled to the equal protection of the law" is given full
effect.
In this modern age, hours are sufficient to verify
whether a person is in Malaysia legally or not, not 14 days as envisaged
by constitution drafters in 1957.
Suspects of offences must be placed in lock-ups, not together with other confirmed undocumented migrants.
Allegations should not be ignored
Ewansiha
died in custody, and even if it is later established that he died of
natural causes, the real issue is really why he was still being detained
when he should have long been released within hours, noting the fact
that he was definitely not an illegal immigrant.
There have also
been other recent allegations related to the Immigration Department, its
officers and detention centre conditions.
We note that it was
also reported in media that 68-year-old Singaporean Puis Gilbert Louis –
a holder of a valid visa until Nov 11 last year and who was arrested on
Oct 9 and ended up in detention for 37 days – had commenced a suit
against the Immigration Department, seeking RM2.67 million compensation
for his detention in an overcrowded cell.
There have also been
allegations about children in Immigration detention centres, and other
allegations about abuse of powers and detention conditions.
Madpet
also calls on Suhakam to immediately visit and investigate the
detention conditions at Immigration detention places, a power that is
bestowed on Commissioners by Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act
1999.
Madpet also calls for a parliamentary select committee, not
the home minister or any other interested parties, to investigate the
Immigration Department, its practices, its powers and detention
conditions.
Madpet urges the government to act speedily to improve
detention conditions, but also reform procedures and laws, and act
speedily and openly against any or all Immigration officers who have
abused their powers, been involved in torture or have facilitated
offences by reason of indifference, solidarity with fellow officers or
any other reason. - Malaysiakini, 15/7/2019
Five more times Immigration Dept was accused of abuse
Published 1 day ago on 13 July 2019
BY JERRY CHOONG
Detained suspected illegal migrant
workers from Indonesia stand before their documents are checked during a
crackdown on illegal migrant workers in Nilai. – Reuters pic
KUALA LUMPUR, July 13 — The recent death
of Thomas Orhions Ewansiha, a Nigerian PhD student, who died while he
was detained by the Immigration Department has again cast a spotlight on
the agency’s history of being accused of ill-treating and abusing its
subjects.
Thomas was detained even his documents, such as passport and student
pass, were all valid. The 33-year-old is survived by a wife and two
young children.
In July last year, foreign media reported
extensively on horrifying tales of alleged abuses while in the hands of
immigration officers in detention centres nationwide, including cases
of violence and extortion.
Local human rights group Tenaganita’s executive director Glorene A.
Das was reported saying that the abuse is a daily occurrence, and those
reported were just the tip of the iceberg.
Malay Mail lists down five of other cases where the Immigration Department was accused of atrocities in the past year:
Last October,
a Singaporean national who called himself Muhammad Fauzi related that
his passport was damaged by an Immigration officer at the Sultan Abu
Bakar Customs, Immigration and
Quarantine Complex in Johor the month
before.
The officer allegedly demanded a bribe to allow Fauzi to exit the country after tearing his passport.
Fauzi has since claimed that three other people have personally
contacted him over similar ordeals, and urged others to step forward.
2. Refusing pass extension for pregnant Indonesian woman
In the same month,
the Immigration allegedly rejected an Indonesian woman from extending
her stay, even as she was pregnant and could not board a plane home.
Her husband, a Malaysian technician who called himself Albert, was
even allegedly told by an officer that she should be sent home by ship
if she could not travel by air. His wife was then eight-and-a-half
months pregnant.
Albert was assisted by Seberang Prai municipal councillor K. Jason
Raj later on, and when the two met up with a senior Immigration officer,
the husband was rudely asked why she was brought here.
Both were then
told to leave.
3. Screaming, hurling insults at French academic
Renowned academic on Malaysia, Sophie Lemiere, was allegedly bullied by Immigration officers in January this year after her name was found to be on the “Suspicious List” of persons.
The French national was here to attend a conference following an invite by Deputy Defence Minister Liew Chin Tong.
Lemiere claimed she tried to explain that she was on the list due to
her research during the previous regime, but was screamed at by one of
the officers while another female officer insulted her using foul
language such as “shit” and “stupid” several times.
4. Sued for detaining Singaporean in over-crowded, filthy cell
Last month,
Singaporean national Puis Gilbert Louis sued the Immigration
Department, seeking RM2.67 million in compensation, after he was
allegedly detained in an over-crowded cell at the Pekan Nanas
immigration camp.
Louis was arrested in October last year following a night raid at his
house in Johor Baru. It was uncertain why he was detained, but he
suggested that it may be because he was suspected of harbouring three of
his guests who were accused of being illegal immigrants.
Reported to be an asthmatic and claustrophobe, Louis claimed he
experienced breathing difficulties on the way there. The camp cell he
was placed in housed 130 people, its toilet dirty and open, with no
clean water available for drinking and food provided in unhygienic
conditions.
Due to these conditions and others, Louis contracted diseases and
lost a substantial amount of weight, only being able to seek medical
treatment after he was released. He also claimed no lawyer could visit
him during the detention, and that family and friends were only allowed
limited access.
5. Detaining two babies for three weeks, refusing access to Filipino mums
The department kept detaining two Filipino babies not even two years
old at the Bukit Jalil Immigration Detention Centre despite repeated
intervention from Putrajaya, while their mothers were denied access to
see their children for 20 days.
The undocumented babies were detained during an immigration raid in
Kajang, and were in the care of a relative. Their mothers who had valid
visas were not at home.
It was only following revelation by Tenaganita and media coverage that the Immigration said they would be deported the next day.
Following their return, Philippines civil society Migrante International revealed that the refugees were allegedly treated “like animals”.
The claims include frequent routine inspections, unhygienic food, and
cramped living spaces. Even the children were not spared from verbal
abuse by the wardens and officers, with many of them in need of medical
attention.
One woman said almost all of the detainees are from developing
countries, including neighbours Indonesia, Myanmar, Vietnam and
Thailand.
One of the women claimed she witnessed how a detainee from Kenya was
tied to the wall with both hands and made to stand the whole day, after
showing signs of psychosis.- Malay Mail, 13/7/2019
Immigration DG confirms Nigerian PhD student died in custody
Published:
| Modified:
A Nigerian doctorate student at a local private university died on July 9 in the custody of the Immigration Department.
Immigration director-general Khairul Dzaimee Daud (above) confirmed the incident which was highlighted on social media by other Nigerian students here.
"He died in a detention centre at Bukit Jalil on July 9, 2019, at 0030. No breach of SOP (standard operating procedure).
"We are still awaiting the laboratory report from HUKM (Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre)," Khairul Dzaimee told Malaysiakini.
He
said the student was detained on July 4 during an Immigration operation
in Desa Aman Puri Apartment, and subsequently placed under remand for
14 days to verify his documents and seek confirmation from the college
on his attendance record and details of his course.
Khairul
Dzaimee also revealed that 20 others were detained during the same
operation launched following complaints about alleged "misbehaviour" of
foreigners in the area.
He
further claimed the student did not give full cooperation during the
operation and attempted to run when being approached by immigration
officers.
In a press statement, Khairul revealed further details
including that the student upon arrest had presented his passport which
he said contained a valid student visa.
However, the student's initial reaction to flee had raised suspicions over the validity of his travel documents.
"The
student was suspected of committing offences under Section 56(1) of the
Immigration Act 1959/1963 and was arrested under Section 51(5)b) for 14
days for further investigations," he said.
He said the student,
who did not reveal any existing illnesses, was also given basic
treatment for an old injury on his right calf during the documentation
process carried out at the Kuala Lumpur Immigration Department office
before all those arrested were taken to the Bukit Jalil Immigration
depot at noon on July 5.
With regards to the death in custody,
Khairul said at approximately 12.05am on July 9, the depot's
officer-in-charge was informed by other inmates that the student had
suffered fits while asleep.
He said the student was treated by the
team on duty who also alerted the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Hospital (HUKM) to send an ambulance.
"The
ambulance arrived with a medical assistant at 12.30am but the subject
was subsequently pronounced dead," he said, adding the immigration
officer on duty subsequently lodged a police report at the Bukit Jalil
police station.
Earlier today, the Limkokwing Institute of
Creative Technology announced the death of one of its doctorate students
on its official Twitter account.
"It is with the deepest regret
that we report the demise of Orhions Ewansiha Thomas. Pursuing his PhD
in Management, Mr Thomas was an inspired young man.
"All of us at
Limkokwing University wish to express our heartfelt wishes of love and
support to all affected," the university tweeted, along with a
photograph of the student and a note "in loving memory".
It is
understood that the university administration had issued a notice to
suspend all classes scheduled for today in anticipation of a gathering
by students on campus. - Malaysiakini, 12/7/2019
Workers' Minimum Standard of Housing and Amenities (Amendment) Bill 2019 was a law specific to plantation workers - it provided the worker with a house for him/her and family/dependents ...including also 250 square feet of land, for them to plant vegetables, rear chicken, etc...
CONCERNS ABOUT THE AMENDMENT - Not FREE (rate of rent not stated), NO place for Family, 'DISCIPLINE" Now, the Pakatan Harapan government wants to amend this law to cover OTHER workers - which is good - BUT it not FREE anymore.... 'an employer may collect from an employee any sum for rent or charge in respect of any accommodation provided by the employer or any centralized accommodation' and this will be by way of 'wage deductions' > So, how much RENT or charge for accomodation? 50% of salary? - Well, should it not be FREE or at the very least not be more than 10-20% of the Salary? [See proposed new Section 24G] No Place for Family? - "...Nothing in this Part shall render an employer obligated to provide accommodation for the dependents of an employee who is provided with accommodation..' (new proposed Section 24N) - Is it the new government's values? Worker accommodation must be for worker and, of course family/dependents - if not, what? Worker has to get another home for family outside? Even for migrant workers, there must be space to when their family members visit at the very least...don't you think?
DISCIPLINE - "to ensure that employees comply with the disciplinary rules as may be determined by the employer..."(new proposed section 24L) - This is worrisome? Are workers young students? So can the employer now have RULES to restrict movement of workers? ...Restrict visitors? ...Determine sleeping time?...Etc. 'No meeting with workers? No meeting with Unions - for the purpose of organizing, encouraging workers to join/form Unions, etc ...{As it is, workers cannot discuss 'Unions' during working hours - now, employers seem to be handed the power to control the accommodation area or 'free hours' of workers.
The proposed amendment of the ACT fails to state clearly whether the worker will get a house or a room - or will simply be forced to stay in a room/house with many other workers ...Even it is for bachelor workers, they should at the very least have a private room for themselves - no more living like sardines. Should they also not have the right to choose who they stay with...The are not students or 'college students' where they are allocated room-mates or housemates as the school/college/university decides?
IS this housing, if provided by EMPLOYER or "centralized accommodation provider', a CHOICE for the worker? ...which means that a worker can CHOOSE to stay in accommodations provided or alternative choose his own accommodation elsewhere? OR, no choice ...WORKERS must stay where employer decide....? Wonder whether the amendments are for the good of Workers or simply to help out Employers and these 'centralized accommodation provider'?
Estate workers - A right to free house(for themselves, their families/dependents), and also land for some farming/chicken rearing PLUS nurseries, etc...BUT the amendments for other places of employment say PAY through wage deductions, power for employers to make rules & Discipline, ...and no mention at all about what kind of accomodation entitlement at all? And no place for families, etc Estate workers themselves lose out when the replace the word 'workers' with 'employees"..
Workers - will include all workers, including those supplied by 'Contractors For Labour' but employees only are those DIRECTLY EMPLOYED by the owners/operators of workplaces - plantations, factories, etc ...BUT alas, many employers are using less and less EMPLOYEES of their own, they are simply using workers supplied by these 'Contractors For Labour' - the so-called 'outsourced workers'? [Yes, the contractor for labour also must provide for housing of their employees ---}
Right to accommodation - only to the EMPLOYEE - so, simply owner/operator of workplaces that make the profit will choose not to get their own employees BUT simply get workers supplied by the 'contractor for labour'...
WHAT IS JUST IS TO ABOLISH THE CONTRACTOR FOR LABOUR...and make all who work in plantation the EMPLOYEES of plantation owners - so they all get their right to good FREE houses and land as a work benefit....And, why exactly is the PH government not abolishing the 'Contractor For Labour' who is not responsible for any work unlike 'Contractors' ...but only responsible to supply their 'employees' to owner/operator of workplaces. Abolish the BN created 'contractor for labour' ...who become rich by the sweat and toil of their workers. Contractors are different. There the owner/operator contracts out certain jobs like cleaning or security - and the contractor does the work with their own workers. Give all workers the right to accomodation for themselves and their families, and ALTERNATIVELY a housing allowance ...so those who do not use the homes provided by employer will get a housing allowance which will help pay their rent, etc ..VERY important right for workers who come from out of town to work at certain workplaces... The name of the ACT may sound good but if you read it, you will see that it is really BAD and takes away rights....One other example is the BN-created 'Peaceful Assembly Act' that effectively removed rights or made it just difficult to exercise the right - No right unless police permission sought ...no right unless you get prior permission from owner of land where you want to assemble peacefully...if you breach the police restrictions, you commit a crime...if you do not notify police you commit a crime...PREVIOUSLY only one crime - participating in 'illegal assembly' - now BN created so many more criminal offences.. WORKERS - what happened to the promised right to longer maternity leave, paternity leave ...etc?
13. The principal Act is amended by inserting after section 24 the following Part:
“Part IIIa ACCOMMODATION
Application
24a. This Part shall apply to employees who are employed otherwise than to work in an estate.
Interpretation 24b. In this Part— “person in charge of accommodation” means any person appointed by an employer or centralized accommodation provider to be responsible for the management of the accommodation, and safety and health of the employees and other amenities in the accommodation; “accommodation” means any permanent or temporary building or structure including any house, hut, shed or roofed enclosure used for the purpose of human habitation; “centralized accommodation” means any building used for the housing of employees employed by one or more employers; “centralized accommodation provider” means any person who provides and manages a centralized accommodation and supervises the services provided therein for one or more employers, but does not include an employer who provides accommodations for his own employees.
Functions and powers of Director General in relation to accommodation 24c. (1) For the purposes of this Part, the Director General shall have the following functions: (a) to administer and regulate all matters relating to an accommodation; (b) to direct employer or centralized accommodation provider to submit any information and documents relating to an employee’s accommodation; (c) to issue any directions to an employer or a centralized accommodation provider to provide any other amenities relating to an accommodation; (d) to issue a Certificate for Accommodation; and (e) to do anything incidental to any of his functions under this Part.
(2) The Director General shall have the powers to do all things necessary or expedient for or in connection with the performance of his functions under this Part.
Accommodation to be certified with Certificate for Accommodation
24d. (1) No accommodation shall be provided to an employee unless certified with a Certificate for Accommodation.
(2) An application for a Certificate for Accommodation shall be made by an employer or a centralized accommodation provider to the Director General in the form and manner as may be determined by the Director General and shall be accompanied by the prescribed processing fee.
(3) An employer who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand ringgit.
(4) A centralized accommodation provider who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both.
Employer to give notice of occupation
24e. (1) An employer shall, within thirty days from the date an accommodation is occupied by his employee, inform the Director General of such occupation in the form and manner as may be determined by the Director General. (2) Any employer who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand ringgit.
Accommodation to comply with minimum standards 24f. An employer or a centralized accommodation provider shall ensure that every accommodation provided for employees complies with the minimum standards required under this Act or any regulations made thereunder.
Deductions in respect of rent or charge for accommodation
24g. (1) Subject to any conditions as may be prescribed by the Minister, an employer may collect from an employee any sum for rent or charge in respect of any accommodation provided by the employer or any centralized accommodation provider under this Part.
(2) The sum collected under subsection (1) shall be made by deductions from the wages of the employee.
Accommodation to comply with the laws of local authorities 24h. (1) Notwithstanding section 24d, no employer or centralized accommodation provider shall use any building as accommodation if the building is unfit for human habitation in accordance with the relevant written laws.
(2) Any employer or centralized accommodation provider who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand ringgit.
Amenities
24i. An employer or a centralized accommodation provider shall provide decent and adequate amenities in accordance with this Act or any regulations made thereunder.
Duties and responsibilities in respect of safety and health
24j. An employer or a centralized accommodation provider who provides accommodation for an employee under this Part shall have the following duties and responsibilities:
(a) to provide separate accommodation to employees of the opposite gender; (b) to take necessary preventive measures to ensure employees’ safety and well-being; (c) to take fire safety measures in accordance with the relevant written laws; (d) to ensure that the electrical wiring systems comply with safety requirements in accordance with the relevant written laws; (e) to ensure that the employees receive the necessary medical assistance; and
(f) to take preventive measures to contain the spread of infectious diseases as ordered by the Medical Officer of Health in accordance with the relevant written laws and the employer shall, at his own expense,make arrangements as ordered by the Medical Officer of Health so that all or any of the employees be given immunization against any infectious disease.
Maintenance 24k. An employer and a centralized accommodation provider shall ensure that every accommodation provided for employees under this Part is maintained as directed by the Director General.
Appointment of person in charge of accommodation 24l. (1) An employer or a centralized accommodation provider shall appoint at least one person in charge of accommodation provided under this Part, who will be responsible for the safety and well-being of the employees and the management of the accommodations and amenities, in accordance with the provisions of this Act or any regulations made thereunder.
(2) It shall be the duty of the person in charge of accommodation— (a) to ensure that employees comply with the disciplinary rules as may be determined by the employer; (b) to visit and inspect the accommodation at least twice a month and keep a record of the inspection as may be determined by the Director General in the place of employment; and (c) to ensure an employee is taken to a clinic or hospital if the employee complains of his health, or appears to be unwell or suffering from any disease or medical condition, and keeps a record of complaints as may be determined by the Director General in the placeof employment.
Notice to vacate accommodation 24m. (1) Subject to subsection (2), if an employee resigns under a contract of service or his employment is otherwise terminated by not less than four weeks’ notice, the employee shall vacate the accommodation upon the effective date of his resignation or the date the contract of service is terminated.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), an employee whose contract of service is terminated by less than four weeks’notice or is terminated with immediate effect shall vacate the accommodation within four weeks from the date of the notice or the date the contract of service is terminated.
Employer not obligated to provide accommodation for employees’ dependants
24n. Nothing in this Part shall render an employer obligated to provide accommodation for the dependants of an employee who is provided with accommodation under this Part.”.
In the historical catalogue of events that have become signposts for the raising of human rights consciousness among Malaysians, the Baling incident of December 1974, which saw university students make common cause with impoverished peasants
