Contempt proceedings adjourn to 6/4/2021 - and another letter to PM and MB from Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada

As many have been contacting me about what happened on 25/3/2021 at the Kuantan High Court, with regard the application to commence contempt proceedings against the 8 Defendants(being members of the communities protesting logging) and me(their lawyer). The Plaintiffs are 2 Logging Contractors, whereby the Logging License holder is the Pengurus Besar Yayasan Pahang.

The attempt to commence contempt proceedings because of a letter, I wrote as the Defendants lawyer, to a person(who also is the Jerantut Forestry Officer) asking him CLARIFICATIONS about a letter he authored dated 20/2/2020 and the contents of the said letter. This is part of TRIAL PREPARATIONS.

The Plaintiffs allege that the letter was in breach of an interlocutory injunctions that they obtained against the 8 Defendants.

BUT, WHY, I ASK, THEY ARE WANTING TO COMMENCE A CONTEMPT PROCEEDING AGAINST ME - A LAWYER ACTING FOR HIS/HER CLIENTS? 

I was represented by M Ramachelvam, and the Bar Council was represented by Ong Siew Wan(The Council is holding a Watching Brief).

In any event, the matter came up - and the Plaintiffs' lawyer opposed the presence of other lawyers on grounds that this was an ex-parte hearing. My lawyer disagreed stating that when the other parties are there, the hearing will proceed as an opposed ex-parte hearing ...Then, the Judge djourned the matter to another date - 6th April 2020 at 10.00am  

Next date: 6/4/2020, at 10.00 am at the Kuantan High Court 

THANK YOU for your solidarity and support. 

 

Here, I am simply sharing a Joint Statement by others concerning risk of contempt I am currently facing 

See earlier related posts: 

OPEN Letter to PM, Pahang MB,.. from UK lawyers - condemn attempts to 'criminalize' Charles Hector(lawyer) and the eight villagers he represents.

Logging firms apply to cite villagers, lawyer for contempt(Malaysiakini)

Syarikat balak mohon prosiding menghina terhadap peguam, penduduk kampung(Malaysiakini)

Initiation of contempt proceedings against lawyer acting for his clients is a travesty of justice - ALIRAN

[Joint Statement] Malaysia: End attempts to silence lawyer and human rights defender Charles Hector(FORUM-ASIA)

 

Malaysia: Judicial harassment of human rights lawyer Charles Hector | Letter

24/03/2021

Full PDF (ENG)

---

23 March 2021

His Excellency Tan Sri Dato’ Haji Muhyiddin bin Haji Mohd. Yassin
Prime Minister of Malaysia
Prime Minister’s Office of Malaysia
Main Block, Perdana Putra Building
Federal Government Administrative Centre
62502 Putrajaya, Malaysia
Fax: +60 3 8888 3444
Email: ppm@pmo.gov.my

YAB Dato’ Sri Haji Wan Rosdy bin Wan Ismail
Chief Minister of Pahang State government
Tingkat 2, Blok A
Wisma Sri Pahang,
25503 Kuantan, Malaysia
Fax:+6 09-5157766
Email: mb@pahang.gov.my

Your Excellencies,

Malaysia: Judicial harassment of human rights lawyer Charles Hector

Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada (LRWC) is a committee of lawyers and human rights defenders who promote international human rights, the independence and security of human rights defenders, the integrity of legal systems, and the rule of law through advocacy, education, and legal research. LRWC has Special Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (UN).

LRWC has received information that two logging contractors, Beijing Million SDN BHD (“Beijing Million”) and Rosah Timber & Trading SDN BHD (“Rosah Timber”) have brought an application to begin contempt of court proceedings against a human rights lawyer, Mr. Charles Hector and eight of his clients (“defendants”). The hearing is scheduled for 25 March 2021 at Kuantan High Court in Pahang, Malaysia.

The defendants have been protesting plans to log a forest reserve in the vicinity of their community. They are concerned about negative impacts of logging on the environment and community livelihoods. The contempt proceedings appear to be an attempt by Beijing Million and Rosah Timber to obstruct the court’s determination of the defendants’ rights, including their right to legal representation by Mr. Hector. LRWC is monitoring this matter in light of international law and standards, including the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, (UDHR)[1] the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders,[2] the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers,[3] and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.[4]

Background

Since 2013, numerous villagers in Jerantut, Pahang State, have been protesting logging in the Permanent Forest Reserve in Jerantut. Despite classification of the area as a Forest Reserve, the Forestry Department issued a logging license in 2019 to the Pengurus Besar Yayasan Pahang (General Manager of the Pahang Foundation). The Pahang Foundation is a statutory body of the Pahang State government. The General Manager of the Pahang Foundation appointed Beijing Million and Rosah Timber as logging contractors. The portion of the forest planned to be logged is a water catchment area, and the villagers, including the defendants, are concerned about the impact of logging on the quality of water required for their livelihoods. It has been alleged that the State government failed to conduct required environment and social impact assessments.

On 5 November 2020, Beijing Million and Rosah Timber obtained an ex parte interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants from accessing a contested 202.61-hectare area in the Forest Reserve. The defendants’ lawyer, Charles Hector, is currently preparing for a full trial of the matter. According to information we have received, on 20 February 2020 the Jerantut Forestry Officer, Mohd Zarin Bin Ramlan, issued a letter suspending permission for Beijing Million and Rosah Timber to build an access road into the forest after alleged disturbances by villagers on 19 February 2020. We understand that the alleged disturbances formed the foundation of the interlocutory injunction despite police investigations that determined the allegations against the villagers to be unfounded.

During trial preparation, Mr. Hector, wrote to Mr. Mohd Zarin Bin Ramlan to seek clarification of his letter of 20 February 2021. Beijing Million and Rosah Timber are now claiming that Mr. Hector’s letter to Mr. Bin Ramlan was a violation of interlocutory injunction orders, one of which prohibits the defendants, “their agents, representatives, servants and/or any party connected with them” from “1.4 Interfering with department or approval given to the Plaintiffs on 15 September 2019 by the District Forest Office… 1.5 Cause nuisance to the work of the Plaintiffs in any manner whatsoever including physically, online or by communication with the authorities…” Beijing Million and Rosah Timber appear to be manipulating this overbroad order in an illegitimate attempt to interfere with the defendants’ legitimate pursuit of a court remedy challenging the validity of the interlocutory injunction.

International human rights law analysis

LRWC is concerned that the complaint against Mr. Hector and the defendants is intended to obstruct a legitimate legal process, to silence valid concerns of the defendants, and to discredit, punish, and criminalize the legitimate professional work of a respected human rights lawyer.

The UDHR guarantees that everyone has “the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.”[5] Equality of access to the law without discrimination is a fundamental right protected by the UDHR.[6]

The UN Declaration on the Human Rights Defenders affirms that:

everyone whose rights or freedoms are allegedly violated has the right, either in person or through legally authorized representation, to complain to and have that complaint promptly reviewed in a public hearing before an independent, impartial and competent judicial or other authority established by law and to obtain from such an authority a decision, in accordance with law, providing redress, including any compensation due, where there has been a violation of that person’s rights or freedoms, as well as enforcement of the eventual decision and award, all without undue delay.[7]

Thus, it is a violation of international human rights standards to obstruct Mr. Hector’s exercize of his professional duties on behalf of his clients to obtain evidence, gather documents and correspond with potential witnesses in preparation for the court trial.

The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, which have been welcomed by consensus of all States of the UN General Assembly, elaborate these fundamental principles and emphasize that governments “shall ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference” and must not be “threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics.” The Basic Principles also affirm that lawyers “shall not be identified with their clients or their clients’ causes as a result of discharging their functions.”[8]

The government of Malaysia has a duty to prevent Beijing Million and Rosah Timber from interfering with Mr. Hector’s exercize of his duties as a lawyer.

We understand that in 2015 the government of Malaysia made a commitment to develop a National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights based on a framework outlined by the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM). The framework references the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights[9] (Guiding Principles) and notes the need for remedies to address risks of reprisals and intimidation against “individuals and communities, their representatives, advocates and human rights defenders… intended to deter them from pursuing claims and raising complaints.”[10] LRWC would welcome information as to how your government is implementing the Guiding Principles to ensure protection of all those pursuing claims related to alleged violations of human rights by business enterprises.

Finally, we note that the Malaysian Bar Council has called for review and revision of Malaysia’s common law on contempt of court. There are concerns that the law is vague and that sentences for contempt may be arbitrary and disproportionate, including high fines and custodial sentences. LRWC urges your government to review and revise the law in accordance with international law and standards.[11]

LRWC plans to continue to monitor the situation of Mr. Hector and the defendants in light of the above international human rights law and standards. We urge your government to take immediate steps to ensure the protection of Mr. Hector and the defendants, together with all lawyers and human rights defenders, from retaliation and reprisals as a result of their legitimate exercize of their internationally protected rights.

Yours sincerely, [signed]

Catherine Morris, BA, JD, LLM
Executive Director
Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada

Copied to:

Chief Justice, The Right Honourable Tun Tengku Maimun binti Tuan Mat
email: faridahmsalleh@kehakiman.gov.my

Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
Email: humanrights@suhakam.org.my

President, Malaysian Bar Council
email: president@malaysianbar.org.my, council@malaysianbar.org.my

H.E. Mr. Ahmad Faisal bin Muhamad,
Ambassador of Malaysia to the United Nations in Geneva
Email: mwgeneva@kln.gov.my

Ms. Cynthia Veliko
Regional Representative
High Commissioner for Human Rights in South-East Asia
email: Cynthia.veliko@un.org

References

[1] UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III), Article 10, 11, available at: https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/,

[2] UN General Assembly, Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly, 8 March 1999, A/RES/53/144, article 9.2, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/RightAndResponsibility.aspx.

[3] United Nations, Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, 7 September 1990, articles, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/RoleOfLawyers.aspx.

[4] UN Human Rights Council, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework, A/HRC/17/4, 16 June 2011, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf.

[5] UDHR, supra note 1, article 8.

[6] UDHR, ibid, article 7.

[7] UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, supra note 2, article 9.2

[8] Ibid, paras 16, 18.

[9] Danish Institute for Human Rights (DIHR), National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights: Malaysia, available at: https://globalnaps.org/country/malaysia/. See the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Strategic Framework on a National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights for Malaysia, which notes the need to address risks to human rights defenders at paras 106 (15), and 107.c, available at: https://suhakam.org.my/portfolio/business-and-human-rights/.

[10] Ibid. In particular see the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Strategic Framework on a National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights for Malaysia, paras 106 (15), and 107.c, available at: https://suhakam.org.my/portfolio/business-and-human-rights/.

[11] Malaysia Bar Council, Press Comment: Codifying the Law of Contempt is a Step in the Right Direction, 5 August 2020, available at: https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/article/news/press-statements/press-statements/press-comment-codifying-the-law-of-contempt-is-a-step-in-the-right-direction

Source :  Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada

 

Note: The said letter is just and only my sharing of a letter that concerns me.  The contents are theirs(the authors) and as usual the posting in this Blog in no way is an indication that I am of the same opinion of the various different points made in the letter. Thank you.  

For one, I certainly do not agree that this a JUDICIAL HARASSMENT - as the application to commence contempt proceedings is solely the action of the Logging Contractors(the Plaintiffs), and the independent court will just be hearing  this application

[Joint Statement] Malaysia: End attempts to silence lawyer and human rights defender Charles Hector(FORUM-ASIA)

 

THANK YOU for your solidarity and support. Here, I am simply sharing a Joint Statement by others concerning risk of contempt I am currently facing 

See earlier related posts: 

OPEN Letter to PM, Pahang MB,.. from UK lawyers - condemn attempts to 'criminalize' Charles Hector(lawyer) and the eight villagers he represents.

Logging firms apply to cite villagers, lawyer for contempt(Malaysiakini)

Syarikat balak mohon prosiding menghina terhadap peguam, penduduk kampung(Malaysiakini)

Initiation of contempt proceedings against lawyer acting for his clients is a travesty of justice - ALIRAN

 

[Joint Statement] Malaysia: End attempts to silence lawyer and human rights defender Charles Hector
24 March 2021 3:44 pm

(Bangkok, 24 March 2021) – Attempts to intimidate Malaysian lawyer and human rights defender (HRD) Charles Hector for his work amount to harassment with the ultimate aim of silencing the people he represents, the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) and Front Line Defenders said in a joint statement today.

Human rights lawyer Charles Hector, along with eight defendants he is representing against logging companies, may face contempt charges for seeking clarifications over details contained in a letter sent by the Jerantut Forestry office.

The proceedings to initiate contempt charges are scheduled to take place tomorrow (25 March 2021) at the Kuantan High Court in the Malaysian state of Pahang, following a letter Hector had sent on behalf of his clients to an officer of the Jerantut Forestry office on 17 December 2020. In that letter, Hector sought further explanations on an earlier letter sent by the forestry officer in February 2020.

The plaintiffs behind the contempt proceedings are logging firms Beijing Million Sdn Bhd and Rosah Timber & Trading Sdn Bhd. They claim that Hector’s letter is a violation of a temporary injunction order obtained in November 2020, which, among others, stops the defendants from blocking the plaintiff’s workers from accessing a contested area in the Jerantut Permanent Forest Reserve.

The logging firms were appointed by the General Manager of Yayasan Pahang (Pahang Foundation), the license holder allowed to carry out logging in this forest. Yayasan Pahang is a statutory body of the Pahang State government.

‘The use of legal proceedings to curtail the crucial role of human rights lawyers highlights the continuous risk and intimidation they face in their work, particularly when they defend individuals in cases involving powerful businesses,’ said Shamini Darshni Kaliemuthu, Executive Director of FORUM-ASIA.

The eight defendants represented by Hector are from communities affected by potential logging activities in the Jerantut Permanent Forest Reserve.

In February 2020, the logging firms accused the defendants of preventing their workers and contractors from accessing and carrying their work in the forest reserve, and for allegedly disseminating false information about them. The defendants have denied these allegations.

The defendants, a part of the community who have been protesting logging of the Jerantut Permanent Forest Reserve since 2013, argue that the relevant authorities are still considering their objections and have not yet given permission to commence logging. The defendants, along with their communities, depend on the forest reserve for clean water and their livelihood. They also assert that their protest activities have been legal and peaceful.

‘Apart from intimidating lawyers, these actions by businesses result in disempowering vulnerable communities who depend on the forest reserve for their survival,’ said Shamini.

Malaysia has faced widespread deforestation and forest shrinkage in years. Despite attempts to revise laws to ensure protection for the forests, deforestation and infringement on ancestral lands have continued. Human rights lawyers and environmental defenders fighting against these are increasingly being targeted by corporations.

Charles Hector is a human rights lawyer who has extensive experience defending the right to fundamental freedoms, and the rights of indigenous peoples, migrants and refugees, and workers. He has been instrumental in improving mechanisms for access to lawyers and legal representation for the vulnerable.

‘Targeting a human rights defender like Charles Hector, who defends other human rights defenders, is certainly a strategy to weaken the morale of the community protesting the harmful logging,’ observed Olive Moore, Deputy Executive Director of Front Line Defenders.

In Malaysia, without a legislation to define contempt of court offences and penalties, sentences are arbitrary and can range from fines, prison terms and can lead to the revocation of one’s lawyer certificate.

‘Amidst allegation of collusion between regional state authorities and corporations, the Government of Malaysia must prove that it is able to prioritise the rights of its citizens over the interests of these corporations, and that it is able to protect the human rights lawyers who continue to defend the rights of vulnerable communities,’ said the groups.

***

For further information, please contact:

• East Asia and ASEAN Programme, FORUM-ASIA, ea-asean@forum-asia.org

For media inquiries, please contact:

• Melissa Ananthraj, Communication and Media Programme, FORUM-ASIA, communication@forum-asia.org
•  
• Source:  FORUM_ASIA Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development

OPEN Letter to PM, Pahang MB,.. from UK lawyers - condemn attempts to 'criminalize' Charles Hector(lawyer) and the eight villagers he represents.

THANK YOU for your solidarity and support. Here, I am simply sharing an OPEN Letter send to the PM of Malaysia, Pahang Menteri Besar condemning the commencement of contempt proceedings against lawyer and 8 clients - read on. There is a contact provided in the OPEN Letter below where you can confirm/verify this Open Letter.

See earlier related posts:

Logging firms apply to cite villagers, lawyer for contempt(Malaysiakini)

Syarikat balak mohon prosiding menghina terhadap peguam, penduduk kampung(Malaysiakini)

Initiation of contempt proceedings against lawyer acting for his clients is a travesty of justice - ALIRAN

 

Charles Hector

 

Lawyers and organizations from UK and a number of other countries write to Malaysian authorities condemning attempts to discredit and criminalize human rights lawyer Charles Hector.

22 March 2021

Human Rights lawyer Charles Hector

Eleven lawyers, including human rights *QC Michael Mansfield*, over 40 organisations and nearly 70 individuals from six countries, have signed an Open Letter distributed by *Legal Action for Women*, UK, condemning attempts to discredit and criminalize Malaysian human rights lawyer Charles Hector and the eight villagers he represents.

Contact: Nina Lopez, Legal Action for Women, law@allwomencount.net.
Tel: 020 7482 2496

OPEN LETTER to: the Prime Minister of Malaysia, the Chief Justice of Malaysia, Chief Minister of Pahang State Government, The Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM), the Pahang Foundation, the Head of the Delegation of the European Union, the Malaysian Bar and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (​UNHCHR)

*We condemn attempts to discredit and criminalize Malaysian human rights lawyer Charles Hector  *

Legal Action for Women (LAW) and undersigned organizations condemn attempts to discredit and criminalize Malaysian human rights lawyer Charles Hector.  Mr. Hector is representing eight villagers in Jerantut who are protesting intended logging in the nearby forest on which they depend for clean water.

We urge the Malaysian authorities to take immediate action to stop a spurious application by logging contractors for leave to begin contempt of court proceedings against Mr. Hector.  The application is aimed at precluding a fair trial.  It is based on a letter Mr. Hector sent on behalf of his clients seeking clarifications in preparation for full trial.  The contractors claim that that this letter breached a temporary/interim injunction court order.  The Malaysian Bar recently called for new legislation to define contempt of court and what sentences it would carry.  Sentences now are entirely arbitrary and can include high fines, prison sentence and even the revocation of Charles Hector’s practicing lawyer certificate.  *The hearing is on 25 March 2021 at Kuantan High Court in Pahang, Malaysia*. 

Charles Hector is a highly respected human rights lawyer who has defended freedom of assembly, the rights of women, Indigenous people, migrants and refugees, workers, trade unionists, urban settlers, as well as land rights and administration of justice.  He is a former member of the Bar Council, and has also been instrumental in developing the Malaysian Bar Legal Aid Dock-Brief programme to ensure that all defendants who do not have a lawyer receive free legal advice and legal representation. 

The charges brought against Mr. Hector may aim to stop him from representing victims of possible collusion between regional state authorities and corporations, such as these Jerantut villagers.

On the basis of Articles 1, 5 and 12.2 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders,<https://ymlpcl1.com/988eebsyjafaewueuadajsqaxaessej/click.php>adopted by the General Assembly of the UN in 1998, we demand an end to the harassment of Mr. Hector and the eight villagers who are defending human and environmental rights and exposing rights violations.   Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, adopted by a United Nations Congress, also states, amongst other things, that lawyers must never be barred from being ‘. . . able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference; . . (c) shall not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics.’ (Article 16)

The outcome of this case is being watched internationally, especially given the climate emergency and the targeting of human rights defenders and their lawyers.  We call for the immediate discontinuation of this contempt proceedings against the lawyer and his eight community human rights defender clients.

*SIGNED BY: Nina López, Legal Action for Women, UK *

Background

The contempt of court application has been initiated by two logging contractors, Beijing Million Sdn Bhd and Rosah Timber & Trading Sdn Bhd, appointed by the General Manager of the Pahang Foundation, being the Logging License holder. The Pahang Foundation is a statutory body of the Pahang State government. 

Since 2013, hundreds of villagers from Kampong Baharu and other villages in Jerantut, Pahang State, have been protesting logging in the Permanent Forest Reserve in Jerantut. The part intended to be logged is also a water catchment area.  The impact of deforestation on water catchment areas is well documented. 

Regardless of this classification, the Forestry Department issued a logging license in 2019 to the Pengurus Besar Yayasan Pahang (General Manager of the Pahang Foundation).  

The villagers rely on the sources in this forest for clean water for drinking, cooking and personal needs.  The water is a key to their livelihoods and food security which includes fish farming. Logging also threatens the critically endangered birds and animals of the forest; for example, the helmeted hornbill bird which is near extinction was sighted here.  The villagers submitted petitions with hundreds of signatures to the Pahang State Chief Minister (Menteri Besar), relevant members of State Cabinet and also Federal Ministers. In response, the Chief Minister directed the relevant government departments to address the issues raised.

On 19 February 2020, an agent of the logging contractors unloaded heavy machinery in front of the home of one of the defendants.  Villagers went to inquire about what was happening peacefully. Later, they discovered that a complaint had been made to the police accusing them of having disrupted and blocking the workers.  When they went to the police station to assist investigations, they were arrested, finger-printed, photographed, had their DNA sample taken and statements taken before being released on surety.

The following day, 20 February, the Jerantut Forestry Officer, Mohd Zarin Bin Ramlan, issued a letter suspending the logging companies’ permission to build an access road into the forest.  The main reason
given was the “disturbances” caused by the villagers on 19 February.  At that time, the police hadn’t even completed their investigations, and it is suspicious how the Forestry concluded that the allegations were true. The police now have concluded their investigations and found that the allegations against the villagers were false/baseless.  It is highly likely that this 20 February letter of the Forestry Officer was the primary reason why the Court granted the temporary injunction order pending completion of full trial.

In the process of trial preparation, Charles Hector, as lawyer representing the eight villagers, wrote to Mohd Zarin Bin Ramlan individually, not in his official capacity as Jerantut Forest Officer, seeking clarification of this 20 February letter.  How this private letter even came into possession of the logging contractors still remains a mystery.  Hector’s letter to Mohd Zarin is now the basis of this contempt of court action initiated by the logging contractors against the eight villagers and Charles Hector, their lawyer.  

The loggers claim that Mr Hector’s clarification letter was in violation of the interlocutory injunction orders, in particular the order that prohibits the Defendants, /‘their agents, representatives, servants and/or any party connected with them  from ..‘1.4 Interfering with department or approval given to the Plaintiffs on 15 September 2019 by the District Forest Office ….1.5 Cause nuisance to the work of the Plaintiffs in any manner whatsoever including physically, online or by communication with the authorities…/’ [1]<https://ymlpcl1.com/00ad9bsybacaewueuacajsqataessej/click.php>  

 

The said order is vague.

It is unfathomable for an allegation of contempt to be based on a letter from legal counsel, acting on behalf of his clients, seeking clarification from the author of a disputed document. In preparation for trial, lawyers must reasonably seek clarification, interview potential witnesses, obtain documents and evidence.  The need to do this is even greater in civil procedures that require the pre-filing of documents and the provision of witness lists and statements before trial proper even starts.  

It is alarming that the court is hearing a complaint possibly aimed at manipulating the legal process to attack and discredit a dedicated human rights lawyer and silence the genuine concerns of the community.  The right to counsel of one’s choice and the right to a fair trial must be protected.  Human rights lawyers like Charles Hector play a vital role in ensuring access to justice and protecting the public interest.

LAWYERS(14)

Michael Mansfield QC, UK
Hilary Brown, solicitor, Virgo Consultancy Services Ltd
Nick Brown, barrister, Doughty Street Chambers, UK
Russell Fraser, barrister, Garden Court Chambers, UK
Valerie Easty, barrister, Garden Court Chambers, UK
Michael Ellman, solicitor, ex-chair of Solicitors' International Human Rights Group, UK
Toufique Hossain, Director of Public law & Immigration, Duncan Lewis Solicitors, UK
Alastair Lyon, solicitor, Birnberg Peirce and Partners, UK
Richard O'Keeffe, Head of Legal, United Voices of the World Union, UK    
Elizabeth M Millar, solicitor, UK
Frances Swaine, solicitor, Managing Partner, Leigh Day Solicitiors, UK
Matt Foot, solicitor, Birnberg Peirce Ltd, UK
Farhana Yamin, solicitor & climate activist, UK
Emily Burnham, non-practising solicitor, UK

 

ORGANISATIONS(41)

Gloria Peters, All African Women's Group, UK 
Rachel West, Bay Area Global Women's Strike, USA
Jacob Berkson, Brighton Migrant Solidarity, UK
Luke Daniels, Caribbean Labour Solidarity (President), UK
Kofi Thompson, Eco-Conscious Citizens group, Ghana
Niki Adams, English Collective of Prostitutes, UK
Pat Albright, Every Mother is a Working Mother Network/Phila., USA
Alex Burton, Global Justice Bloc, UK
Crissie Amiss, Global Women Against Deportation, UK
Selma James, Global Women’s Strike, UK          
Phoebe Jones, Global Women's Strike, USA       
Susan Englander, Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club, USA
Sukhdev Reel, Justice for Ricky Reel
Kate Raphael, LAGAI Queer Insurrection, USA
Nina Lopez, Legal Action for Women, UK 
Alice Griggs, Lesbians and Gays Support the Migrants, UK
Brahm Press, MAP Foundation, Thailand
Sam Weinstein, Momentum Camden, UK
Leslie Miles, New Future Foundation, USA
Laura Connelly, Northern Police Monitoring Project, UK
Giorgio Riva, Payday, Italy
Ben Martin, Payday men's network, UK,
Eric Gjertsen, Payday men's network/Phila, USA
David Gibson, Peace, Justice, Sustainability NOW!, USA
Lisa Pedersen, Peace Builders of Orange County, USA
Temma Fishman, Philadelphia Ethical Society, USA
Rumana Hashem, Phulbari Solidarity Group, Bangladesh
Shandre Delaney. Human Rights Coalition Fed-Up, Pittsburgh PA, USA
Didi Rossi, Queer Strike, UK
Michael Kalmanovitz, Refusing to Kill initiative, UK
David Swanson, RootsAction Education Fund, UK
Kim Sparrow, Single Mothers’ Self-Defence, UK
Jacob Berkson, Sussex Refugee and Self Support Group, UK
Puni Selvaratnam, Tamil Women for Peace & Justice
William Mitchell, Toxicology & Industrial Hygiene Consulting, USA
LASSCAST collective, UK
Rachel West, USPROStitutes Collective, USA     
Cardiff People’s Assembly, Wales
Margaret Prescod, Women of Color/Global Women’s Strike
Sara Callaway, Women of Colour Global Women's Strike, UK
Roz Jones, #MeToo Survivors, USA

INDIVIDUALS
 

Adjeley Akwei, Ghana           
Adrienne Fong, USA
Adwoa Sey, Ghana
Agnes Williams, USA
Alissa Trotz, Canada/Guyana
Anna Thorburn, UK
Anne Hall, retired health care lecturer, UK
Anne Phoenix, UK
Anuradha Banerji, India
Barbara Gurley, USA
Berit Jordahl, USA,
Bill MacKeith, UK
Bob Goupillot, UK
C. Gill, UK
Carol Fern Culhane, USA
Carolyn Hill, USA
Chris Barraclough, UK
Clem Simon, BPP University, UK
David Tejeda, USA
Dawn Sanders, UK
Devon Ferrucci, USA
Diana Bohn, USA
Dorothea Leicher, USA
Dr Felicity de Zulueta, Emeritus Consultant Psychiatrist in Psychotherapy at SLaM NHS Foundation Trust and Honorary Senior Clinical Lecturer in KCL, UK

Dr Jonathan Fluxman, UK
Dr Laura Connelly, Lecturer in Criminology, University of Salford, UK
Dr Remi Joseph-Salisbury, Presidential Fellow in Sociology, University
of Manchester, UK

Dr. Susan Curtis, USA
Ellen E Barfield, USA
Estelle Cohenny, Thailand
Evelyn Bradley, UK
Farhana Yamin, UK
Fidel Asante, UK
Fitnat Adjetey Esq., Ghana   
Frances Gilmore, USA
Geoff Francis, RMT (personal capacity)
Gray Davis, UK                        
Halil SAVDA, Conscientious Objector and Human Rights Defender, UK
Jane Welford, USA
Janet Love, UK
John McCormick, USA
Julius Williams, Ghana          
Katharine Johnson, USA
Laura Sedgy, UK
Linda Ray, SEIU 1021 Delegate to San Francisco Labor Council, USA
Liz Hilton, Australia
Lorry Leader, UK
Maggie Ronayne, Lecturer at the National University of Ireland, Galway,Ireland
Manjeet Panesar, UK            
Marcella Pedersen, member of National Farmers Union, Canada
Marta Guttenberg, USA
Nana Asante, UK
Naomi Caplin, UK
Naomi L Vinbury, USA
Nasreen Mahmud, USA 
Nell Myhand, USA
Nohad Nassif, author, USA
Olivia Qasir, Pakistan
Pamela Hall, USA
Rona Rothman, USA
Salai Yaw Aung, Thailand
Shoda Rackal, UK
Shreena Shah, UK                  
Shreena Shah, UK
Sidney Ann Ross-Risden, USA
Sophia Vassilakidis, USA
Symran Saggar, UK  
Teresa Muldrow, USA
Yvonne P Benn, High School of Economics & Finance, USA

This Open Letter can also be found on the website of Global Women's Strike

 

Logging firms apply to cite villagers, lawyer for contempt(Malaysiakini)

 

I, Charles Hector, being a lawyer for me clients, who wrote a letter in performance of my professional duties, is currently facing Contempt action - An application for LEAVE to commence Contempt proceedings against me and my 8 clients, is now fixed for hearing at the Kuantan High Court on 25/3/2021. The Plaintiffs claim to be Logging Contractors, and the 8 Defendants come from a Malay community who have been protesting logging of the Jerantut Permanent Forest Reserve since about 2013. 

Look forward to your support

Below a relevant media report .. 

See also earlier/relevant posts 

Initiation of contempt proceedings against lawyer acting for his clients is a travesty of justice - ALIRAN

Syarikat balak mohon prosiding menghina terhadap peguam, penduduk kampung(Malaysiakini)

 

Logging firms apply to cite villagers, lawyer for contempt

Annabelle Lee

Published 20 Mar 2021, 7:28 pm

Modified 1:10 pm

6

• UPDATED March 23: A representative of the logging firms' lawyers has declined to comment.

Two logging firms have applied to initiate contempt of court proceedings against eight villagers and their lawyer.

This is part of a lawsuit between the firms - Beijing Million Sdn Bhd and Rosah Timber & Trading Sdn Bhd - and Kampung Baharu, a village in Jerantut, Pahang.

The companies obtained an injunction on Nov 5, 2020, to stop the eight defendants from accessing a contested 202.61ha area in the Jerantut Tambahan forest reserve. They are also suing the villagers for making accusations about them.

The defendants previously protested their logging activities, saying the villagers relied on the forest reserve to earn a living.

Speaking to Malaysiakini, lawyer Charles Hector Fernandez said the contempt of court action was initiated over a letter he sent to a Jerantut Forestry Office officer on Dec 17, 2020, on behalf of his clients in preparation for the case.

The logging firms contend that the letter constituted a violation of the injunction order.

“On Feb 20, 2020, a letter was issued by a Jerantut Forestry Officer. In his letter, he seemed to state as fact that there were a protest, disturbance and blockade by the villagers. It was for this reason that he immediately suspended all logging activities until the issue was over.

“The application for leave to commence contempt proceedings is based on a letter I sent privately only to this officer seeking clarifications, which the plaintiff alleged is a breach of the injunction order,” he explained when contacted.

Fernandez contended that his actions did not violate the injunction and will be represented by lawyer M Ramachelvam in the contempt proceedings.

The Bar Council has applied to hold a watching brief for the case.

The logging firms, represented by Messrs Jacob Goldie S.S. Chew, filed the ex-parte application in January, but the hearing was postponed due to the second movement control order (MCO 2.0).

The hearing for their application for leave to commence contempt proceedings has now been fixed for next Thursday (March 25) at the Kuantan High Court.

The defendants’ application to transfer the case to the Temerloh High Court and amend their pleadings are also fixed for the same date.

“The big worry is whether I, who has been appointed as counsel for the eight defendants, can even defend my clients at the hearing,” Fernandez said.

‘Don’t deprive lawyers of rights’

NGO Aliran has since condemned the move.

“This initiation of contempt proceedings against Fernandez and the eight defendants is extremely worrying and can be seen as a travesty of justice.

“Silencing a lawyer through contempt proceedings is essentially preventing lawyers from carrying out their professional duty to their clients,” it said in a statement dated March 16.

Aliran further said that a lawyer ought to be able to obtain all necessary documents before a trial.

“Lawyers should not be deprived of their right to prepare for a trial, including obtaining all the salient facts to argue their case in court.

“The defendants should not be denied their right to a counsel of their choice,” it said.

When contacted, the logging firms' lawyers' representative declined to comment due to sub judice concerns. - Malaysiakini, 23/3/2021

NEWS

16 Shares

Logging firms sue Jerantut villagers in row over forest reserve

Yasmin Ramlan

Published 17 Oct 2020, 10:42 am

Modified 18 Oct 2020, 10:42 am

Logging companies Beijing Million Sdn Bhd and Rosah Timber & Trading Sdn Bhd have filed legal action against eight individuals from Kampung Baharu in Jerantut, Pahang over allegations that the latter prevented the companies' workers and contractors from carrying out works in a nearby forest reserve.

The plaintiffs, through legal firm Jacob Goldie SS Chew, filed a writ of summons against the villagers at the Kuantan High Court on July 14.

According to the writ, the companies had applied an injunction order to stop the eight defendants from preventing the plaintiffs from accessing the forest area known as Kompartment 1A Hutan Simpan Jerantut Tambahan, Mukim Tebing Tinggi, which covers 202.61ha.

The companies claimed to have obtained approvals from the Forestry Department through letters dated Sept 15, 2019.

They seek the court to stop the defendants from disseminating false information or pictures through the Facebook page "Bantah Pembalakan di Kawasan Tadahan Air di Kampung Baharu, Jerantut, Pahang" or any media.

The eight defendants are Mohamed Said, Mohamed Zarrif Mahmud, Mohamad Hafizi Rosnan, Saifulnizam Sulaiman, Sukmarizal Nazman, Shukran Firdaus Nazman, Mohammad Zakirin Hasan and Mohamad Lozi Mohd Nasir.

The writ stated that in April 2019, the plaintiffs learned about postings on the said Facebook page which hurled serious allegations against them.

Hence, the plaintiffs demanded general damages, aggravated damages and exemplary damages against the defendants.

However, in an affidavit dated Sept 28 by one of the defendants, Mohamad Hafizi, claimed that the plaintiffs had initiated the writ with ill-intention and wrongly applied for the ex-parte injunction without issuing notices to him and other defendants.

"I would like to state that other defendants and I believe that the plaintiffs' ill-intention is probably to deny the defendants' rights to oppose and highlight the issue.

"The defendants' hopes are that the forest and its nearby area which the locals rely on to earn a living should remain a forest reserve and be prohibited from logging," said Mohamad Hafizi in his affidavit sighted by Malaysiakini.

He added that if the logging activities were allowed, the locals would have to bear huge losses in economic activities and this would affect their fish farms.

Mohamad Hafizi said the villagers' protest against the logging in the forest area was conducted “legally and peacefully, where the focus was more towards the authorities, and/or the government”.

Villagers not consulted

He questioned the change of the forest status which had allowed the logging activity to take place without consulting the locals.

"I don't believe that the state government conducted an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) and/or Detailed Environment Impact Assessment (DEIA), social impacts, and other research on the impact of logging to the environment and the locals,” said Mohamad Hafizi.

"I have yet to access the documents which are needed by the locals for the evaluation purpose."

The case mention has been scheduled on Oct 22 at Kuantan High Court. - Malaysiakini, 17/10/2020

 

Syarikat balak mohon prosiding menghina terhadap peguam, penduduk kampung(Malaysiakini)

 

I, Charles Hector, being a lawyer for me clients, who wrote a letter in performance of my professional duties, is currently facing Contempt action - An application for LEAVE to commence Contempt proceedings against me and my 8 clients, is now fixed for hearing at the Kuantan High Court on 25/3/2021. The Plaintiffs claim to be Logging Contractors, and the 8 Defendants come from a Malay community who have been protesting logging of the Jerantut Permanent Forest Reserve since about 2013. 

Look forward to your support

Below a relevant media report .. 

See also earlier/releavant posts 

Initiation of contempt proceedings against lawyer acting for his clients is a travesty of justice - ALIRAN

 

 

Syarikat balak mohon prosiding menghina terhadap peguam, penduduk kampung

Annabelle Lee

Diterbitkan 20 Mar 2021, 2:23 pm

Dikemaskini 21 Mar 2021, 11:47 am

Dua syarikat pembalakan telah memfailkan permohonan prosiding menghina mahkamah terhadap lapan penduduk kampung bersama peguam mereka yang terlibat dalam pertikaian undang-undang dengan mereka.

Ini sebahagian kes tuntutan mahkamah antara syarikat - Beijing Million Sdn Bhd dan Rosah Timber & Trading Sdn Bhd - dan Kampung Baharu, sebuah kampung di Jerantut, Pahang.

Dua syarikat itu mendapat perintah pada 5 Nov 2020 untuk menghentikan lapan defendan daripada memasuki kawasan seluas 202.61 hektar di kawasan Hutan Simpan Jerantut Tambahan.

Mereka juga menyaman penduduk kampung kerana membuat tuduhan mengenai mereka.

Defendan sebelum ini membantah kegiatan pembalakan syarikat berkenaan dengan mengatakan penduduk kampung bergantung pada hutan simpan itu sebagai tadahan air, sumber penghidupan dan pertanian.

Peguam Charles Hector Fernandez memberitahu Malaysiakini, prosiding menghina mahkamah itu dimulakan susulan sepucuk surat yang dihantarnya kepada pegawai Pejabat Perhutanan Jerantut pada 17 Disember 2020 bagi pihak anak guam yang diwakilinya sebagai persiapan untuk kes tersebut.

Syarikat pembalakan itu berpendapat surat tersebut merupakan pelanggaran perintah injunksi.

“Pada 20 Februari 2020; sepucuk surat dikeluarkan oleh Pegawai Perhutanan Jerantut. Dalam suratnya, ia seakan menyatakan fakta bahawa terdapat protes, gangguan dan sekatan oleh penduduk kampung. Atas sebab inilah dia segera menangguhkan semua kegiatan pembalakan sehingga masalah selesai.

"Permohonan keizinan untuk memulakan prosiding menghina didasarkan pada surat yang saya kirimkan secara peribadi hanya kepada pegawai ini untuk meminta penjelasan, yang dituduh oleh plaintif adalah melanggar perintah injunksi," jelasnya ketika dihubungi.

Fernandez berpendapat tindakannya tidak melanggar perintah injunksi dan akan diwakili oleh peguam M Ramachelvam dalam prosiding penghinaan itu.

Majlis Peguam telah memohon untuk menjadi peguam pemerhati untuk kes tersebut.

Syarikat pembalakan itu diwakili oleh Tetuan Jacob Goldie S.S. Chew, memfailkan permohonan ex-parte pada bulan Januari tetapi perbicaraan ditangguhkan kerana perintah kawalan pergerakan kedua (PKP 2.0).

Perbicaraan mendengar permohonan memulakan prosiding penghinaan ini ditetapkan pada Khamis depan (25 Mac) di Mahkamah Tinggi Kuantan.

Permohonan defendan untuk memindahkan kes itu ke Mahkamah Tinggi Temerloh dan mengubah permohonan mereka juga ditetapkan pada tarikh yang sama.

"Kebimbangan besar ialah adakah saya, yang telah dilantik sebagai peguam bagi lapan defendan, bahkan dapat membela anak guam saya semasa perbicaraan ini," kata Fernandez.

‘Jangan rampas hak peguam’

NGO hak asasi manusia, Aliran sejak itu mengecam permohonan prosiding menghina terhadap peguam yang mewakili lapan penduduk kampung itu.

"Permulaan proses penghinaan terhadap Fernandez dan lapan defendan ini sangat membimbangkan dan dapat dilihat sebagai suatu persendaan terhadap keadilan (travesty of justice).

"Mengunci mulut peguam melalui prosiding penghinaan pada dasarnya menyekat peguam menjalankan tugas profesional mereka kepada anak guam mereka," katanya pada satu kenyataan 16 Mac lalu.

Aliran selanjutnya mengatakan seorang peguam berhak mendapatkan semua dokumen yang diperlukan sebelum perbicaraan.

“Peguam tidak boleh dilucutkan hak mereka untuk mempersiapkan perbicaraan, termasuk mendapatkan semua fakta penting untuk membantah kes mereka di mahkamah.

"Defendan tidak boleh dinafikan hak mereka untuk peguam pilihan mereka," kata NGO itu lagi.

Malaysiakini telah menghubungi peguam syarikat pembalakan untuk memberi komen.

[Baca laporan asal]

Source; Malaysiakini, 20/3/2021

Syarikat fail saman pada penduduk, dakwa halang 'ambil hasil hutan'

Yasmin Ramlan

Diterbitkan 17 Oct 2020, 9:24 am

Dikemaskini 18 Oct 2020, 10:33 am

Syarikat pembalakan Beijing Million Sdn Bhd dan Rosah Timber & Trading Sdn Bhd memfailkan saman terhadap penduduk Kampung Baharu di Jerantut, Pahang atas dakwaan menghalang pekerja dan kontraktor mereka daripada masuk mengambil hasil hutan berhampiran kawasan tersebut.

Dua syarikat itu memfailkan writ saman di Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Kuantan pada 14 Julai lalu, menerusi firma guaman Tetuan Jacob Goldie S.S Chew.

Menurut salinan writ saman itu, mereka antara lain memohon satu injunksi dikeluarkan terhadap lapan defendan - iaitu penduduk kampung tersebut - agar mereka dilarang daripada terus menghalang plaintif kawasan hutan yang dikenali sebagai kompartment 1A Hutan Simpan Jerantut Tambahan di mukim Tebing Tinggi di sana, yang berkeluasan 202.61 hektar.

Plaintif juga memohon agar mahkamah melarang defendan daripada memberi dan/atau menyebabkan maklumat dan gambar yang didakwa tidak benar daripada diterbitkan di laman Facebook “Bantah pembalakan di kawasan tadahan air di Kampung Baharu, Jerantut, Pahang” atau mana-mana media lain.

“Menganggu dan/atau mencampurtangan dengan kelulusan yang diberi oleh Pejabat Hutan kepada plaintif-plaintif melalui surat-surat bertarikh 15 September 2019.

“Menyebabkan kacau ganggu kepada kerja-kerja plaintif-plaintif dan apa acara pun termasuk secara fizikal, sesawang am dan/atau komunikasi dengan pihak-pihak berkuasa,” menurut writ saman tersebut.

Lapan defendan itu ialah Mohamed Said, Mohamed Zarrif Mahmud, Mohamad Hafizi Rosnan, Saifulnizam Sulaiman, Sukmarizal Nazman, Shukran Firdaus Nazman, Mohammad Zakirin Hasan dan Mohamad Lozi Mohd Nasir.

Menurut writ saman itu lagi, pada April 2019, plaintif mendapat tahu bahawa terdapat hantaran di laman Facebook atas nama “Bantahan Pembalakan Tadahan Air di Kg Baharu, Jerantut Pahang” yang membuat beberapa dakwaan serius seperti pembalakan di kawasan tadahan air dan merosakkan khazanah hutan.

Plaintif menuntut ganti rugi am, ganti rugi teruk dan teladan, kos serta faedah atas kos, lain-lain relif yang dianggap perlu dan sesuai oleh mahkamah.

Defendan: Jejas pendapatan, alam sekitar

Bagaimanapun, afidavit oleh defendan ketiga Mohamad Hafizi Rosnan yang dilihat Malaysiakini menyatakan berkenaan permohonan meminda pembelaan dan tuntutan balas yang telah difailkan di mahkamah.

Afidafit bertarikh 28 September itu menyatakan bahawa plaintif secara salah dengan niat buruk telah memulakan tindakan writ itu dan secara salah membuat permohonan injuksi secara ex-parte (bersifat sebelah pihak) melalui notis permohonan tanpa sebarang notis diberikan kepadanya dan defendan lain.

“Saya ingin menyatakan bahawa saya dan defendan lain percaya bahawa tujuan jahat plaintif kemungkinan besar adalah untuk menafikan hak defendan membawa bantahan dan isu yang harus diambil kira dengan wajar, yang mungkin sebelum ini gagal di ambil kira.

“Harapan defendan adalah kawasan hutan, yang terletak berhampiran atau yang defendan dan penduduk setempat bergantung untuk hidup, akan terus dikekalkan hutan simpanan tetap dan tidak dibenarkan membalak (di sana),” katanya.

Menurut Mohamad Hafizi, jika plaintif dibenarkan untuk meneruskan kegiatan membalak di sana, penduduk setempat akan menanggung kerugian yang tidak terkira meliputi perniagaan dan aktiviti ekonomi dan menyebabkan kolam ikan dan pembenihan ikan akan rosak.

Malah, katanya lagi, bantahan penduduk terhadap pembalakan di kawasan hutan simpan atau hutan simpan tetap di sana dilakukan secara aman dan sah, dengan berhubung dengan pihak berkuasa dan/atau kerajaan yang bertanggungjawab.

Selain itu, dia mempersoalkan bagaimana dan bila status hutan simpan itu ditukar sehingga aktiviti pembalakan dibenarkan, memandangkan sebarang keputusan harus melibatkan konsultasi bersama rakyat terutama penduduk sekitar.

“Saya ingin menyatakan bahawa kawasan hutan tersebut adalah hak milik kerajaan Negeri Pahang, kerajaan DYMM Sultan Pahang.

“Saya tidak percaya kerajaan Pahang tidak buat penilaian impak alam sekitar (EIA) dan/atau penilaian impak alam sekitar terperinci (DEIA) dan penilaian impak sosial berhubung kesan pembalakan kepada alam sekitar dan penduduk.

“Saya masih belum dapat akses kepada dokumen tersebut yang amat perlu untuk para penduduk menilai dan mengkaji,” katanya.

Sebutan semula kes dijadualkan pada 22 Oktober di Mahkamah Tinggi Kuantan. - Malaysiakini, 17/10/2020

 

Initiation of contempt proceedings against lawyer acting for his clients is a travesty of justice - ALIRAN

I, Charles Hector, being a lawyer for me clients, who wrote a letter in performance of my professional duties, is currently facing Contempt action - An application for LEAVE to commence Contempt proceedings against me and my 8 clients, is now fixed for hearing at the Kuantan High Court on 25/3/2021. The Plaintiffs claim to be Logging Contractors, and the 8 Defendants come from a Malay community who have been protesting logging of the Jerantut Permanent Forest Reserve since about 2013. 

Look forward to your support

Below a relevant public statement..

 

Initiation of contempt proceedings against lawyer acting for his clients is a travesty of justice

A lawyer should not be deprived of his right to prepare for a trial

By

Aliran admin

-

16 Mar 2021

JESSICA45/PIXABAY

It has come to Aliran’s attention that lawyer Charles Hector and eight of his clients are facing legal action for possible contempt of court.

Hector is acting as the lawyer for eight defendants who are part of communities that have been protesting against logging in the forests in the vicinity of where they live and work. 

The plaintiffs are logging contractors who are appointees of the logging licence holder, Pengurus Besar Yayasan Pahang, a Pahang state statutory body. [Though the licence has been awarded to this body, approval to start logging has not yet been given.]

As part of the defence’s trial preparations, Hector had sent a letter on behalf of his clients, seeking clarification from a person, who is also a civil servant, over certain disputed facts contained in a letter that the latter had previously issued.

The plaintiffs are now alleging that Hector’s letter is in breach of an interim injunction/court order they had obtained in November 2020. This has resulted in a hearing for ‘leave of court’ to initiate contempt proceedings against Hector and the eight defendants scheduled for 25 March 2021 at the Kuantan High Court.

This initiation of contempt proceedings against Hector and the eight defendants is extremely worrying and can be seen as a travesty of justice.

Silencing a lawyer through contempt proceedings is essentially preventing the lawyer from carrying out his professional duty to his clients.

Aliran calls for the upholding of the rights of litigants to a fair trial. A lawyer should not be deprived of his right to prepare for a trial, including obtaining all the salient facts to argue his case in court. The defendants should not be denied their right to a counsel of their choice.

Aliran executive committee
16 March 2021

 

Source: ALIRAN Website

SEXUAL HARASSMENT - Malaysian Bar and now Trade Unions calls for REFORMS and enactment of Sexual Harassment law?

SEXUAL HARASSMENT - The Malaysian Bar at its recent AGM also passed a Resolution, which reaffirms  commitment to combat sexual harassment at the workplace, and also about the development of an effective mechanism of complaint and redress for victims of sexual harassment - see the said RESOLUTION at the Malaysian Bar Website.

Whilst the Bar Resolution seems concerned about internal mechanisms, one must never forget that the Employment Act today has law that covers all workplaces - and that includes all law firms as well. That law gives rights to employees - but alas, in law firms there are non-employees, being pupils and interns as well. 

Malaysia currently has law governing the complaints mechanisms/procedure concerning sexual harassment of the workplace in the Employment Act 1955, which, I verily believe, is in serious need for reform. The following Chapter and sections came into force since April 2012.

PART XVA   SEXUAL HARASSMENT 81A Interpretation

81B Inquiry into complaints of sexual harassment

81C Findings of inquiry by employer

81D Complaints of sexual harassment made to the Director General

81E Effects of decisions of the Director General

81F Offence

81G Application of this Part irrespective of wages of employee

There are many serious problems with this current law

1- Complaints are inquired into by the EMPLOYER - not the DG of Human    Resources. The only exemption is when the complaint is against the sole proprietors, then the DG will look into it.

Section 81D(1) - (1) If a complaint of sexual harassment is made to the Director General, the Director General shall assess the complaint and may direct an employer to inquire into such complaint.

Section 81D(3) -  (3) If a complaint of sexual harassment received by the Director General is made against an employer who is a sole proprietor, the Director General shall inquire into such complaint himself in a manner prescribed by the Minister.

2.    In and when the DG inquires into a complaint, then finds that the complaint is true - the penalty stipulated for the PERPETRATOR - what happens - well the complainant may resign without notice. What about the perpetrator? Nothing happens?

81E(1) Where the Director General decides under subsection 81D(4) that sexual harassment is proven, the complainant may terminate his contract of service without notice.

3) If the inquiry was conducted by the EMPLOYER - then no remedy for the VICTIM is provided, and for the perpetrator, well, disciplinary action against perpetrator if employee. If not perpetrator not employee, then refer to relevant disciplinary authority only. What be the minimum penalty?

81C  Findings of inquiry by employer

Where the employer conducts an inquiry into a complaint of sexual harassment received under subsection 81B(1) and the employer is satisfied that sexual harassment is proven, the employer shall-

(a) in the case where the person against whom the complaint of sexual harassment is made is an employee, take disciplinary action which may include the following:

(i) dismissing the employee without notice;

(ii) downgrading the employee; or

(iii) imposing any other lesser punishment as he deems just and fit, and where the punishment of suspension without wages is imposed, it shall not exceed a period of two weeks; and

(b) in the case where the person against whom the complaint of sexual harassment is made is a person other than an employee, recommend that the person be brought before an appropriate disciplinary authority to which the person is subject to.

- Note there is no minimum penalty provided for the perpetrator

- Non-employees - this could also be Company Directors - anyway, what exactly is an 'appropriate disciplinary authority' - if such even exists for certain categories of 'perpetrators'

- Is there NO REMEDY for the victim of sexual harrassment in this law? Or must the victim commence another civil suit for damages to get justice? 

 

4) OTHER problem is that both Employer and/or DG can refuse to inquire for certain reasons:-

If by DG

if-

(a) the complaint of sexual harassment has previously been inquired into by the Director General and no sexual harassment has been proven; or

(b) the Director General is of the opinion that the complaint of sexual harassment is frivolous, vexatious or is not made in good faith.

If by employer...

'...an employer may refuse to inquire into any complaint of sexual harassment as required under subsection (1), if-

(a) the complaint of sexual harassment has previously been inquired into and no sexual harassment has been proven; or

(b) the employer is of the opinion that the complaint of sexual harassment is frivolous, vexatious or is not made in good faith...'

If unhappy with decision of employer not to inquire - can refer to DG and DG then will direct the employer to inquire.... 

ALL IN ALL THE LAW IS LACKING - Should it not provide for ADEQUATE REMEDIES for VICTIMS, and set clear deterrent penalties for PERPETRATORS?

Should not all the INQUIRIES be not conducted by the DG - as in all other complaints of worker rights violations? Will employers even be able to conduct inquiries against some senior employees, their fellow Directors or shareholders, or an 'important' customer or business fried?

SEXUAL HARRASSMENT really should also be CRIMINALIZED - it should be made into a criminal offence...

SADLY even the worker representative of Malaysia(Malaysian Trade Union Congress - MTUC) voted against the ILO Convention on Sexual Harassment and Violence - and our government(then the PH Plus government) embarrassingly abstained. 

Does this all mean that trade unions, employers and even the Malaysian government is simply not bothered enough about SEXUAL HARASSMENT? 

Remember that just recently Malaysian government ABSTAINED, and the Malaysian worker and employer representatives OPPOSED an ILO Convention on Sexual Harassment..

The government took a neutral stand on the ILO Convention on Sexual Harassment and Violence because it did not wish to be in conflict with its stakeholders. Human Resources Minister M Kulasegaran also pointed to a similar stance by Singapore when explaining the heavily criticised decision by the Malaysian government to abstain from voting on it with the MTUC and the MEF voting to reject the clause. - - Malaysiakini, 27/6/2019

With regard to Trade Unions, well there are still some that are concerned about the issue of SEXUAL Harassment - and in a media statement today - is calling for the enactment of a SEXUAL HARASSMENT ACT. 

The Jawatankuasa Wanita IndustriALL Malaysia(IndustriALL Women's Committee in their statement today calls for the empowerment/strengthening  of the provisions in the Employment Act 1955 and/or the enactment of specific law on Sexual Harassment to combat and end sexual harassment...sadly, the statement below was available to me only in the Malay language at the time of posting. (see full statement below) 

Kami menyeru kerajaan sekurang-kurangnya memperkasakan mekanisme siasatan gangguan seksual dalam Akta Kerja 1955, malah kami juga memberi sokongan sepenuhnya kepada inisiatif menggubal satu Akta Anti-Gangguan Seksual tersendiri.

Malaysia can act against sexual harassment and even enact an act without even having to ratify/sign any UN or ILO Convention. Even when UN/ILO Convention is ratified/signed by Malaysia, Malaysians benefit nothing until the relevant laws are amended or enacted...a sad state of affairs it is.

Maybe Malaysia need to enact a law that immediately makes the rights and obligation provided for in such UN or ILO convention becoming legally enforceable in Malaysia.  

There are rumours that a Sexual Harassment Bill will soon be tabled in the Parliament - but again, I stress, that it is important that such proposed Bills be available to the public for their comments/inputs. The tabling of Bills in Malaysian Parliament sometimes is done so fast - that even Members of Parliament do not have sufficient time to have consultation with their constituents. 

See also relevant earlier posts:-

Why 'Sexual Harassment' proposed amendments to Employment Act must be withdrawn and repealed?

Why 'Sexual Harassment' proposed amendments to Employment Act must be withdrawn? (this is a re-posting of an earlier Blog Post - still most relevant..)

(see also:- .JAG :- Employment Act amendments piecemeal and unjust)  

SHAMEFUL when MTUC vote against abolition of harassment at work?Government abstains?See full Convention

Marital Rape should be a crime - but Malaysia, unlike Singapore, says 'NO'?

 

Kenyataan Media Jawatankuasa Wanita IndustriALL Malaysia pada 22hb Mac 2021 di Petaling Jaya

 

Pekerja wanita sektor pembuatan menggesa kerajaan menjamin cuti bersalin 98 hari berbayar dan memperkenalkan Akta Anti-Gangguan Seksual

 

Jawatankuasa Wanita IndustriALL Malaysia, mewakili beribu-ribu pekerja-pekerja wanita di sektor pembuatan di Semenanjung Malaysia, menggesa kerajaan Malaysia segera meratifikasikan Konvensyen 183 dan Konvensyem 190 Pertubuhan Buruh Antarabangsa (ILO) demi perlindungan hak-hak wanita.

 

Walaupun Malaysia telah dikategori sebagai negara berpendapatan menengah ke atas (upper-middle income countries), hak-hak dan faedah-faedah pekerja wanita masih ketinggalan zaman. Misalnya cuti bersalin berbayar Filipina telah bertambah ke 105 hari, di Thailand telah bertambah ke 98 hari, pekerja wanita Malaysia di sektor swasta masih menikmati cuti bersalin berbayar 60 hari sahaja di bawah Akta Kerja 1955. Lain pula dengan sektor awam yang mendapat cuti bersalin 90 hari.

 

Konvensyen 183 berkenaan perlindungan materniti mewajibkan kerajaan menjamin cuti bersalin berbayar 98 hari (14 minggu), ia menjadi satu piawaian antarabangsa apabila ILO meluluskan Konvensyen tersebut pada tahun 2000.

 

Sebenarnya, Konvensyen 103 ILO pada tahun 1952 telah mewajibkan cuti bersalin berbayar 84 hari (12 minggu). Jelasnya, undang-undang sedia ada kita telah gagal mencapai piawaian antarabangsa 70 tahun dahulu.

 

Selepas MTUC dan MEF menolak Konvensyen 190 berkenaan keganasan dan gangguan (seksual) dan kerajaan Malaysia mengambil sikap berkecuali dalam persidangan ILO di Geneva pada Jun 2019, pimpinan baru badan-badan tripartit belum menunjukkan pendirian jelas mereka dalam isu ratifikasi Konvensyen 190.

 

Ratifikasi Konvensyen 190 adalah penting kerana undang-undang Malaysia kini tidak mencukupi untuk membanteras perlakuan gangguan seksual di tempat kerja dan di ruang awam.

 

Akta Kerja 1955 meletakkan semua tanggungjawab ke atas majikan dalam siasatan gangguan seksual, mekanisme ini tidak mencukupi melindungi hak-hak pekerja wanita sebab jika pihak atasan di tempat kerja merupakan pelaku gangguan seksual, umumnya pihak pengurusan akan berpihak kepada pihak atasan.

 

Kerajaan harus memahami hubungan kuasa tidak sama rata di tempat kerja dan cuba menyelesaikan punca masalah ini.

 

Setelah meratifikasi Konvensyen 190, kerajaan harus menggubal atau meminda undang-undang untuk mencegah keganasan berdasarkan gender dan gangguan seksual di dunia kerja.

 

Kami menyeru kerajaan sekurang-kurangnya memperkasakan mekanisme siasatan gangguan seksual dalam Akta Kerja 1955, malah kami juga memberi sokongan sepenuhnya kepada inisiatif menggubal satu Akta Anti-Gangguan Seksual tersendiri.

 

Kuasa kepada wanita, Hak saksama antara wanita dan lelaki!

 

Idawati Idrus & Selvakumari Abraham

Pengerusi Bersama

Jawatankuasa Wanita IndustriALL Malaysia

 

  

Nota: Jawatankuasa Wanita IndustriALL Malaysia mewakili pekerja-pekerja wanita di:

 

- Gabungan Kesatuan Sekerja Industri Elektronik (EIEU),

- Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Perusahaan Letrik (EIWU),

- Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Syarikat-Syarikat Pembuat Keluaran Getah (NUECMRP),

- Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Pembuatan Kertas dan Produk Kertas (PPPMEU),

- Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Perusahaan Alat-Alat Pengangkutan dan Sekutu (NUTEAIW).

In Malaysia, virtual International Women’s Day celebration repeats calls for Sexual Harassment Bill to be tabled, end to child marriages

Monday, 08 Mar 2021 05:13 PM MYT

BY YISWAREE PALANSAMY

Demonstrators take part in Women’s March Malaysia 2020, in conjunction with International Women’s Day in Kuala Lumpur March 8, 2020. ― Picture by Miera Zulyana

Subscribe to our Telegram channel for the latest updates on news you need to know.

---

KUALA LUMPUR, March 8 — The 2021 International Women's Day (IWD) celebration kicked off under the new normal today, with women mostly taking to social media platforms to express their grouses, demands and hopes for the fairer sex and sexual minorities.

Despite being off the streets this year due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the virtual march dubbed the Women's March KL 2021 still made its "assembly" very much felt, with many sharing photos of the public gatherings which took place in the previous years, echoing similar sentiments and demands, accompanied by #WomensMarchMY.

Illustrator and designer Ann Li designed digital placards for social media users to type their messages and demands, sharing the designs on her Twitter account.

"Not sure if anyone’s interested in these but I made pride themed pickets for #WomensMarchMY! You’re more than welcome to write your demands onto the picket and share without credit," Li tweeted. 

Li also welcomed direct messages from those who have specific design requests.Trans-activist Dorian Wilde meanwhile called for an end to all forms of regressions against the often oppressed group.

"Malaysia in the 80s was a very different time for a trans person. You could access legal gender recognition, hormones, surgeries and counselling, no issues. Stop the regression! #WomensMarchMY #PerarakanWanitaMY Thank you @kawliflower for the template!" he tweeted.

Twitter user Tabung Pelangi called for more diversity and equality among the country's leaders, to be able to better represent the diverse community here.

"Happy International Women's Day! There should be more diversity and equality amongst our national leaders to better represent us. Do participate in #WomensMarchMy #PerarakanWanitaMY with your voice!" the tweet read.

As with previous years, many also called for an end to child marriages and for better access to education for girls, tabling of the much awaited Sexual Harassment Bill and to end violence against the LGBT community members.

Social activist Ivy Josiah called on men to join the cause and be part of the solution to the problems faced by women.

"Happy International Women’s Day. #ChooseToChallenge Challenge men to advocate for gender equality. Men must choose to be part of the solution not the problem. #WomensMarchMY," she tweeted.

Those participating in the online campaign today also did not face the onslaught of hate, anger and online abuses, contrary to the animosity they faced in the previous years.

In 2019, organisers of the IWD march, which was held in the city, were investigated by the police under the Peaceful Assembly Act 9 (5) and Sedition Act 4 (1).

The organising committee said public statements by police, politicians and various parties had mischaracterised the march as an “illegal LGBT assembly”, which had caused multiple forms of backlash and had shifted the focus away from the five demands made on the day.

In terms of their demands this time around, the organising committee had in a statement yesterda, stressed that their seven requests from 2020 still remain relevant today, asserting repeated violations of women’s rights and rampant abuse during the ongoing pandemic.

Among their requests include putting an end to violence based on gender and sexual orientation, a ban on all child marriages, calling for the right and freedom to make choices over one’s own body and livelihood, equal pay for work of equal value, and for the administration to legislate the Gender Equality Act.

The committee is also pushing for the government to declare that a climate crisis exists and to formulate a national plan to mitigate its effects and for equal participation between men and women in the public and political circle.

Abuses cited by the committee include incidents of sexual harassment by policemen at roadblocks, apparent neglect and failure by the Women, Family, and Community Development Ministry in prioritising the rights of women and girls, encroachment and deforestation of Orang Asli and Orang Awal lands, while also bemoaning the lack prosecution of against perpetrators of sexual harassment and blackmail. - Malay Mail, 8/3/2021

Fresh push for Sexual Harassment Bill (Updated)

Dedicated law needed to address incidence of cases outside workplaces, say women rights groups

Elly Fazaniza /

05 Mar 2021 / 09:31 H.

PETALING JAYA: There is a greater urgency now to table the delayed Sexual Harassment Bill, given the sharp rise in complaints recently.

All Women’s Action Society (Awam) said it received 162 complaints of sexual harassment last year, which was a 218% increase from 51 cases it had from 2017 to 2019.

There were seven sexual harassment cases reported during the first movement control order (MCO) from March 18 to 25 last year, but the figure spiked to 54 during MCO 2.0 and its extension from Jan 13 to Feb 28 this year.

“During those two periods was when it could also be seen that more online harassment was taking place,” Awam information and communications officer Tan Chia Ee said yesterday.

Activists are also urging the government to have a specific legislation on sexual harassment beyond the workplace.

Currently in Malaysia, the only acknowledged form of sexual harassment is listed under the Employment Act, which relates to sexual harassment at the workplace.

“A comprehensive definition of sexual harassment should not be limited to workplaces but should include public spaces,” Tan said.

“This is because the act can be through various mediums and means such as stalking, sending out personal information, pictures or videos online.”

She said under Section 2 of the Employment Act, sexual harassment means any unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, whether verbal, non-verbal, visual, gestural or physical, directed at a person that is offensive or humiliating or is a threat to his or her wellbeing, arising out of and in the course of his or her employment.

Association of Women Lawyers exco member Daniella Zulkifli said the rise in complaints could be attributed to awareness campaigns by non-profit organisations and the media’s role in highlighting the issue through its platforms.

However, there is still much to be done as most who chose to file a report still worry about being blamed, shamed or feeling guilty.

“It takes courage to speak out, and survivors need to be given space to do so,” she said.

Daniella and Tan agreed that the Sexual Harassment Bill, in the form of a separate document, is needed to address matters related to it.

The bill is expected to be ready this month and will be tabled in the next Dewan Rakyat session, Bernama reported.

Women, Family and Community Development Minister Datuk Seri Rina Mohd Harun said the draft of the bill was in the final stage for scrutiny by the Attorney-General’s Chambers. - The Sun Daily, 5/3/2021

 

New Malaysian Bar president vows to strengthen internal mechanism on sexual harassment complaints

Saturday, 13 Mar 2021 10:34 PM MYT

BY YISWAREE PALANSAMY

Newly elected Malaysian Bar president AG Kalidas said the bar is treading carefully on the matter of sexual harassment. — Picture by Ahmad Zamzahuri

Subscribe to our Telegram channel for the latest updates on news you need to know.

---

KUALA LUMPUR, March 13 — The new Malaysian Bar president AG Kalidas today vowed to enhance and strengthen the legal body’s sexual harassment complaints mechanism, following numerous cases against lawyers.

Kalidas said the Malaysian Bar has already “worked on something” to address the issues and is treading carefully on the matter.

He said complainants who are not Malaysian Bar members can also file their complaints with the body’s disciplinary board.

“What we intend to do is we will look into our internal mechanism to see if we can somehow entrench the rights of those who should not be harassed in the first place, sexual harassment victims in other words.

“We want to see what we are going to pass will not be deemed ultra vires,” he said, assuring that the Malaysian Bar would look at formulating rulings.

“Perhaps soon we will come up with a ruling as far as sexual harassment is concerned,” he told reporters during his first press conference as Malaysian Bar presidents.

During the Malaysian Bar’s 75^th annual general meeting (AGM) earlier, motions requesting that the body make a stand on issues of sexual harassment and on minimum wage for chambering pupils, abolishing the practice of child marriages were passed.

There were seven other motions presented during the AGM, which was held online for the first time due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The motion demanding that the Malaysian Bar clarify the validity of its 14-year-old internal sexual harassment mechanism which came into being in 2007, was passed with 444 votes in favour of it, while 38 voted against, with 21 abstaining.

Two other motions requesting the Bar to take a stand on minimum remuneration for pupils and also clarify a policy as to how this would be implemented were also passed.

The former was passed with 465 votes in favour with 228 voting against and 48 abstentions. The latter motion was passed with 436 votes in favour with 182 voting against and 29 abstentions.

A motion to abolish the practise of child marriages in Malaysia was also tabled, with 462 lawyers voting in support, 17 against the motion, with nine abstaining from voting. - Malay Mail, 13/3/2021