INSAF 143(2006) XXXV No 1
More Important Than Rights is the Access to Justice
Charles Hector
Whilst the majority are economic migrants, there is also a significant number of political migrants and/or refugees, and this would include the Acehnese, Burmese, Thais and also Filipinos. Migrant workers are employed primarily in the construction, plantation, manufacturing and service sectors. There is also 320,000 registered foreign housemaids in Malaysia, of which 308,000 or about 96 percent are Indonesians.9
MIGRANTS AND THEIR RIGHTS UNDER MALAYSIAN LAW
Arrest and Detention
Generally when a person is arrested in Malaysia, he/she must be brought before a Magistrate within 24 hours if the police wants to further detain him/her for purposes of investigation, and the police can with remand orders obtained from the magistrate detain a person up to a maximum of 14 days only.
Although, there is no provision that allows the police to resort to torture in the conduct of their investigation, there has been many reported incidence of torture in police custody. In February 2005, it was revealed that from 1990 until September 2004, there was a total of 1,583 deaths amongst prisoners recorded in the 28 prisons nationwide, with the highest number being in 2003 when 279 inmates died. During the same period 150 detainees died in police lock-ups or custody. 12
It must be pointed out that till this day in Malaysia there is no right to one phone call after being arrested and no right to immediate access to a lawyer (let alone friends, family and/or employer) in Malaysia.
In the past, it was a popular perception that it was near impossible for a migrant worker charged with a criminal offence to be released on bail pending his trial and sadly many did not even apply, let alone try to apply for bail.In a case, that I personally handled some years ago, which involved 6 foreign nationals13, the court in the first instance refused bail. But persistence, which included an application to the High Court for a revision finally resulted in the Magistrate allowing bail for these foreigners. In this case, the foreign nationals came to Malaysia on a social visit pass, which had expired during their detention,but even this did not stop the court from allowing the said accused persons to be released on bail. The Magistrate in this case even went further to direct the Immigration Department to issue Special Passes so that these foreigners could remain in Malaysia legally whilst waited for their day in court. The Court also did issue the necessary letters to the Immigration Department to facilitate in the application for Special Passes for these persons.
MIGRANTS AND THE EMPLOYMENT LAWS
In Malaysia, migrant workers have access to the Labour Court 14 and the Industrial Courts15 just like the local worker. The problem is that when Migrants come to the country, their very presence and their ability to work legally is linked to a work permit, which stipulates a particular employer. And when a migrant worker wants to refer his rightful claim to the Labour Court and/or the Industrial Relations Department, the usual thing that happens is that the employer immediately terminates his work permit and cease giving him employment, wages and board. Without a valid work permit, a migrant worker cannot legally work and earn a living in Malaysia. As such although a migrants has a right in law, the claiming of this right is practically impossible.
The case of Rajakannu Boopathy & 39 Others (The Gopis Construction Case) – at the Labour Court
In the case of Rajakannu Boopathy & 39 other Indian nationals, donations had to be sought to pay for food and board of these migrant workers whilst they pursued their claim against their employer, one Gopis Construction (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd, at the Seremban Labour Court. The minimum cost of maintaining one of this migrant was about RM5-00 per day, and that did not include money required for rental, utility bills and travel cost to and from the court.
At all times during their struggle for justice, these migrant workers ran the risk of being arrested and detained for not having proper travel documents and/or visa to allow them to continue to stay in Malaysia. They could legally not work and earn a living and had to rely on donations and goodwill of others. The Immigration Department finally agreed to issue Special Passes to allow them to stay legally in Malaysia, but not to work. RM100-00 was needed for a one-month special pass for each worker Their claim was for wages of 3 to 6 months that their employer did not pay, and for the balance of wages based on their initially agreed wages right from the first day they started working in Malaysia until the day they filed their action in the Labour Court.
In this case the employer had gone to India, conducted interviews and skills test and thereafter made each worker a definite offer which included salary. Thereafter, in accordance to the requirements of Indian Law, they signed the standard form employment agreement which very clearly stipulates the wages they will receive, as well as their other employment rights. The workers signed the employment agreement before an authorized agent of Indian Protector of Emigrants (POE), and thereafter the employer signed the agreement before a designated officer of the Indian High Commission in Kuala Lumpur. Unfortunately original copies of the agreement were not given to the worker, and finally only a photocopy of this agreement was obtained from their agent in India.
After this POE employment agreement was executed, to comply with the requirements of the Malaysian Immigration Department, the employer that required the duly executed employment agreement to be submitted together with the application of a work permit, the employer rather than submitting the POE agreement did prepare another agreement, whereby in this agreement was far less than the sum stated in the POE Employment Agreement.
Before departure, the workers had to sign a whole lot of documents, whereby the workers unknowingly were made to sign yet another simple employment agreement, and this was on an official stamp paper (i.e. a document equivalent to a Statutory Declaration which had to be affirmed before a Judge and/or a Commissioner of Oaths). The employer left the space where the wages per month should have written in blank, and thereafter kept the originals of this stamped agreement with him.
It must be stated that the workers were generally unaware that they had in fact signed 2 other employment agreements, and they only knew and believed that was only one agreement being the POE Employment Agreement.
When it came to the labour court trial, objections were made about the admissibility of the photocopied POE Employment Agreement, and as such we had to try and get an original copy of the said POE Agreement, which should have been kept by the POE in India and/or the Indian High Commission in Kuala Lumpur. To our dismay, both these parties did not have any copy of the original POE Agreements, let alone a photocopy of the said agreements in their possession.
The Immigration Department of Malaysia also did not have an original copy of the employment agreement submitted to them during the work permit application, and all they had was the copy of the agreement that was scanned into the computer record of the individual migrant worker.
The consent judgment was recorded on 6/12/2000.18 As such there was no judgment of the court, and there was nothing that others could use to further advance migrant rights in Malaysia.
The taxing officer taxed the cost at RM10,000-00 to be paid to all the 36 applicants, and this works out to slightly more than RM250-00 per person, and this was gross injustice done to these migrants, who had no work or wages by reason of the action/omission of the Respondents for almost 30 months. The applicants applied for a review of the cost awarded by the taxing officer and until this date the matter is still at the review stage.
But on the next date, the Judge had a change of mind and asked the Federal Counsel to submit on his technical objections 20 , both of which were minor objections that could have been cured, and normally court would have asked the Plaintiffs to do the necessary to remedy these irregularities but this Judge stating that it was finally his discretion allowed the government’s lawyer’s objections and struck off the migrant workers suit with cost on 12/8/2002. The workers have since appealed to the Court of Appeal and this appeal is yet to be heard.21 All we can hope for is that these migrants workers ultimately gets justice.
RIGHT TO LOVE, MARRY AND HAVE A FAMILY
The fact that Malaysia today has ratified/acceded the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child would have a bearing in such cases since Article 3(1) is most clear that now the “..best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration”.
The fact that there exist children of migrants in Malaysia has just recently been acknowledged by the Malaysian government. In Sabah, one of the 13 States of Malaysia, where it was recently reported that there are about 36,000 children of migrants. It is good to note that special schools will be set up to cater for these children. What exactly is the number of children of migrants is still a mystery? What about children of a migrant with a Malaysian? Would the Migrant Parent be allowed to stay on in Malaysia with their children or would they be forced to return home? Will they be given multiple entry visas to enable them to have frequent visits to be able to spend adequate time with their children? Maybe, in the Maruly Azis case, the court will finally provide some answers to many of these questions.
MARULY AZIS CASE – THE RELEVANCE OF THE CRC.
As time of the expiry of the “spouse visa” drew near, a court action25 had to be filed, and an application was made to enable Romita to continue to stay with her 4 children on 23/9/2006. On 26/9/2003, the applicants managed to get an ex-parte ad-interim order allowing Romita to stay until this application was heard and disposed off inter-parte. At the inter-parte hearing, the Federal Counsel proposed that a consent order be recorded to the effect that Romita could continue to stay with the children until the end of this case, and that the immigration Department would issue her a gratuitious special pass, whereby she would not have to make any payment until the whole suit is heard and disposed of. This order was recorded on 28/11/2005. Again, there will be no judgment recorded in this matter where there was reliance on the Child Rights Convention 26
MIGRANT DOMESTIC WORKERS
With regard the domestic servant, it is clearly stated that the following sections and/or Parts of the Employment Act are not applicable to them, being:-
Š Sec. 12 (Notice of termination of Contract)
Š Sec.14 (Termination of Contract for Special Reasons)
Š 16 (Employees on Estates to be provided with minimum number of days work in each month)
Š 22 (Limitation on advances to employees)
Š 61 (Employers Duty to Keep Register)
Š 64 ((Employers Duty to display notice boards)
Š IX (Maternity Protection)
Š XII (Rest Days, Hours of Work, Holidays And Other Conditions of Service)
Š XIIA (Termination, Lay-Off And Retirement Benefits
In short, there is no protection for domestic workers under the Malaysian employment laws. Jordan has legislation to provide some rights and protections to domestic workers. In Taiwan, an Household Services Act is before their Parliament. In Malaysia, with over 320,000 domestic workers, it is time for some legislation to protect the rights of these domestic workers. Although, the Malaysian Immigration Department “policy” or “guidelines of employment” do stipulate that a domestic worker is entitled to one day off – but in practice save for the Filipino worker, none of the other domestic workers seem to be getting any day off, let alone any time off. They are treated more like “property” than human beings. More like slaves than workers. Many do not even have the liberty to make phone calls to their families back home. Some are even given just 2 basic meals a day.
There has also many cases of abuse of domestic workers that have come to light – but alas without the freedom to leave the home (or their employers watchful eye), many may be suffering abuses in silence. Employer also hold on to passports and other travel documents of migrants, all with the alleged reason that they are afraid that the maid may run away (oh yes – run away maybe with their property or children.) Hence, there is very little opportunity for victims of abuse to even escape the abuser – let alone complain to their embassies, the Human Resource Ministry and/or the police. It comes as no surprise when the Deputy Human Resources Minister recently disclosed that only about 110 such cases mistreatment of Indonesian housemaids27 and other workers by their Malaysian employers were reported annually to the ministry since 2002 28
It must also be noted that many Malaysian employers of migrant workers, other than domestic workers, also do hold on to travel documents, wages and do deprive their employees freedom of movement and access to communication.In one shop, a Nepali worker, I spoke to recently, who has been in Malaysia several months have not even been allowed to step out of the shop – all he has seen and knows about Malaysia is what he sees from the shop entrance.
UNDOCUMENTED MIGRANT WORKERS
Some of these are really refugees from Aceh, Southern Thailand, Southern Philippines29 and Burma, and of course they cannot come to Malaysia with the blessings of the sending country.Some others come across the border because they just cannot afford the payments that they have to fork out to pay the agents and/or the various government authorities, and the fact that it is so easy and cheaper to just sail over or cross the border and find jobs here. But alas being undocumented makes them vulnerable to abuse by the authorities, police and even “employers”. 30
MIGRANTS ARE HUMAN NOT SAINTS
DISCRIMINATION OF MIGRANTS BASED ON NATIONALITY
For the same work done, Indonesian migrants get the least remuneration compared with those from other countries. 31 When it comes to Filipinos, they are the highest paid of all migrants. 32 The cause could be that some government are more determined to protect their citizens than other government.
A BLEAK FUTURE UNLESS...
There are many other aspects of migrants and human rights that should be looked at but have not been done in this paper. Work Conditions, Exploitation by the Middle Man, Detention Conditions, Local Reaction to Migrants, Migrants and the Worker Unions and Crackdowns by the State are just some of the areas that could not be covered here.
What has been touched on is maybe just chapter one of a many chaptered book on migrant workers. Being human persons there is so many different aspects and facets of existence that need to be analyzed and discussed, and this paper only deals with a few.
There is definitely a need for legislation to protect labour rights and other rights of migrants. The 300,000 over domestic workers especially need legislation to protect their rights, There must also be a development of a mechanisms and procedures to ensure that there is real access to justice.
With the ratification/accession of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the CEDAW, there is great possibility that rights of migrants provided directly and indirectly in these conventions could be relied upon for greater recognition and protection of migrant rights.
Malaysia, with its 26 million population, has the largest disparity between the rich and the poor in Southeast Asia33 . Malaysia’s top 10 percent of the population is 22.1 times richer than the poorest 10 percent. There is also growing unemployment within the local population. One of the reasons is the fact that Malaysian government, companies and institutions have been working towards becoming more efficient to be able to compete with the foreign companies, institutions and banks when the doors are open to free trade in compliance with the obligations of Malaysia under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreements, the Asean Free Trade Agreement (AFTA) and the various other Free Trade Agreements it has entered into. In this drive to become more efficient, it is labour that is sacrificed and more persons are becoming unemployed. Jobs, especially permanent jobs, are getting more and more difficult to come by. With the recent 40 cent increase of petrol price, the cost of living will also further increase. Bleak times are ahead for Malaysians, and this would also affect migrants/refugees in Malaysia.
Foot Notes
1 Vietnam News Agency (VNA), 22/9/2005 “Malaysia calls for regional cooperation against illegal migrant workers” stated the figure to be 1.7 million,
2 Bernama Report, 6/3/2006 “Malaysia Ready To Accept More Indonesian Housemaids” By Mohd Nasir Yusoff
3 According to a report by Amnesty International, government statistics indicate that through 1 June 2004, there were at least 1.3 million documented migrant workers working in Malaysia (an increase of about 500,000 since 2003) and between 700,000 to 1.2 million undocumented migrant workers.
4 (Star 27/9/2005), Records show that 15,452,112 foreign nationals entered Malaysia in 2004 but only 9,599,125 people left the country during the year – meaning that there were about 5,852,997 or 38% of the total arrivals overstaying.
5 Statistics obtained from the Department of Statistics, Malaysia website , http://www.statistics.gov.my
6 In 2003, the Deputy Home Minister stated that over 25% of prisoners on Malaysian jails were foreigners, while by June 2004 there were now more foreign prisoners than Malaysians in jails. Now, it must be factored in that many a time foreigners either are not offered bail and/or cannot afford bail – and it is also not certain whether the figures include remand prisons, being where
persons not yet convicted are held.
7 Malaysiakini(an AFP Report), 30/3/2006 “June Signing of Pact for Indon Maids”
8 Statistics obtained by the Bar Council Legal Aid Centre (Kuala Lumpur) showed that migrant breakdown in 2004 at the Sungai Buloh prison was: Indonesia(174), India(75), Burma(67), Bangladeshi (47), Pakistani (24) and Others (41). Others include migrants from Iran, Cambodia, Namibia, South Africa, China, Singapore, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Thailand, Nigeria, Peru and
France. Statistics obtained showed that migrant breakdown in the Kajang Women Prison prison was: Indonesia(167), China(70), Philippines(57), Thailand (45), Vietnam(27), Taiwan(18),Burma(17), Cambodia (17) and Others(50). Others were migrants from Bangladesh, Columbia,Congo, Argentina, Uzbekistan and Sri Lanka.
9 Bernama Report, 6/3/2006 “Malaysia Ready To Accept More Indonesian Housemaids” By
Mohd Nasir Yusoff
10 Malaysiakini, 22/3/2006 – “More foreign sex workers arrested last year”
11 Article 5 (Liberty of the Person), Article 6(Slavery and Forced Labour Prohibited), Art.7 (Prohibition against retrospective criminal laws and repeated trials), Art. 8(Equality), Art. 11(Freedom of Religion) and Article 13 (Right to Property) are amongst the 8 Articles under Part II (Fundamental Liberties) of the Federal Constitution that applies to all persons. Art. 9(prohibition from Banishmjent and Freedom of Movement), Art.10(Freedom of Speech, Assembly and Association), Art.12 (Rights in Respect of Education) uses the word “citizen”and not “persons”.
12 Malaysiakini, 7/2/2005 - In Malaysia “...from 1990 till September last year[2004], a total of 1,583 deaths among prisoners were recorded in 28 prisons nationwide, with the highest number in 2003 when 279 inmates died. During the same period, 150 detainees died in police lock-ups or custody” (statistics from a 49-page parliamentary written reply by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi)
13 Kuala Lumpur Magistrate Court (2) Criminal Case No: NO: D83-1427-99, D83-1428-99, D83-1429 -99, D83-1430-99, D83-1431-99 and D83-1432-99, Charles Hector & Amin Hafiz acted for the 6 persons from Uzbekistan
14 Employees who generally have a monetary claim against their employer can make a complaint and the Labour Department, and if there is no resolution, then the Labour Court will convened and this will be chaired by a Labour Officer. Complaints of non-payment of wages, wrongful holding back of part wages,etc can be referred to the Labour Court.
15 If an employee is wrongfully and/or constructively dismissed by her employee, she has to make a complaint at the Industrial Relations Department(IRD) within 60 days days from the date of dismissal. The IRD will then call for a conciliation meeting between the Employer and the employee. If conciliation fails, the matter is referred to the Minister, who then refers or does not refer the matter to the Industrial Court. If referred to the Industrial Court, then the case goes to trial. Now, if the Minister does not refer the matter, then the employee has a right to apply for a Judicial Review (but here legal charges and cost is involved), so generally the matter ends here for the employee. In the Industrial Court, the employee’s claim is for re-instatement but at the end of the trial, the Court is at liberty to also award damages in lieu of reinstatement.
16 The 40 Indian workers came into Malaysia as migrant workers under an Employment Pass (Rule 9 Immigration Regulations 1963), and with regard to this employment pass, the law stipulated that the minimum wages should be RM1,200-00 per month. This is in fact the one and only provision in Malaysian Laws that stipulate a minimum wage. The majority of the migrant workers in Malaysia only have a Social Visit (Temporary Employment) Pass (Rule 11(1)(ii) Immigration Regulations 1963) and here there is no stipulation of any minimum wage.
17 When this matter started there were 40 workers, but 4 just could not take the stress and chose to return home and in the Kuala Lumpur High Court case (Usul Pemula No: R2-25-76 Tahun 2000
18 It was sad that the High Court did not hand down a Judgment on this case, for if that was done it would have been a precedent that other migrant workers could rely on in the struggle for migrant rights. One significant point would have been the right for the migrant worker to apply for a variation of his work permit, including the change of employer. Before this and still today, it is believed that only the employer has the right to apply for work permits and/or variation of the said permits. To date, it seems that there has been no other similar cases in the Malaysian Courts.
19 At that time, it was no possible to include a claim for damages in the 1 st court action but today the Rules of the High Court has been amended and a claim of damages could be included in the 1 st action.
20 One of the objections was that the Government of Malaysia was not named as a party. It is still believed that there is no need to specifically name the Government of Malaysia as a party, more so since the DG of Immigration and the Immigration Department of Malaysia were already named as parties.
21 The lawyer was threatened with arrest under the Internal Security Act if we went further after the High Court dismissed the suit. In fact these threats, and other threats, were directly and indirectly made at the earlier stage in the first suit. One senior Minister also tried to get the workers to withdraw their suit. This is only what the lawyer understood by the words and actions. There was nothing in writing – only verbal communications to the lawyer alone.
22 Allegedly – because to date the author has not seen any such condition in the written form. This could be one of those many unwritten policies that the Malaysian government is famous for. The policy is relied on when the Government wants to use it, and many other policies are denied when others want to rely on it. This is the problem with unwritten policies. For certainty, Malaysia must start having written policies that can be accessed by the public, and better still if these policies are gazetted.
23 In Malaysia, when a child attains the age of 12, he needs to apply for his National Registration Identity Card (NRIC).
25 Kuala Lumpur High Court Suit No: S4-21-239- 2005
26 In the case of Mohamad Ezam -v- Ketua Polis Negara (2002) 4 CLJ 309, a Federal Court case, it was stated in the judgment“In the United Nations wanted those principles to be more than declaratory, they could have embodied them in a convention or a treaty to which member states can ratify or accede to and those principles will then have the force of law”. Now in 1995, Malaysia ratified/acceded the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and there is NO reservation with regard to Article 3(1), which states “In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities
or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideratoion”. Further,unlike the United Kingdom, Malaysia did not have any reservation as to the application of the CRC to “...matters of immigration and citizenship law”
27 Malaysiakini 22/5/2004; “Housewife Charged for Horrific Maid Abuse” “...three charges of voluntarily causing grievous hurt to Nirmala Bonat (from West Timor), 19, with dangerous weapon - an iron and hot water - at her house at 33B-25-6, Villa Putera, Jalan Tun Ismail here in January, March and April this year.She is also charged with voluntarily causing grievous hurt to Nirmala with a metal cup at the same place at 3pm on May 17 this year...”
28 Bernama, 6/3/2006 “Malaysia Ready To Accept More Indonesian Housemaids”
29 Malaysiakini 2/3/2005 “At least 100 Filipinos arrested in Immigration crackdown: official” “...Up to half a million Filipinos live in Malaysia, many of them families of refugees who fled a separatist rebellion on the Mindanao region of the southern Philippines in the 1970s...”
30 Malaysiakini,28/2/2005 ‘100.000 Indon illegal workers ‘not paid wages’ “...About 100,000 Indonesian illegal migrant workers who have not been paid wages are refusing to return home even in the face of an imminent crackdown, claimed Indonesia’s Labour and Transmigration Minister Fahmi Idris today...”
31 Malaysiakini(an AFP Report), 30/3/2006 “June Signing of Pact for Indon Maids”
32 Malaysiakini, 13/2/2006 “Minister: No perks for Indonesian Maids” – “...The live-in maids often receive a salary averaging RM380 a month, far less than counterparts from the Philippines...” “..Home Affairs Minister Azmi Khalid said that allowing Indonesian maids to be hired under the country’s labour law - which would provide for annual and sick leave, days off and overtime payment - would complicate matters for employers, said the New Straits Times” “..foreign maids in Malaysia are prey to physical, psychological and sexual abuse because of flawed government policies and typically work 16 to 18 hour days...”
33 Malaysiakini, 2/2/2006 ‘M’sia has worst income disparity in SEA, gov’t flayed”
A group of 36 Indian migrant workers who claim to have 'been deceived' by the Immigration Department today appealed to the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) to assist them in getting valid work permits.
Fourteen of the workers representing the group handed over a memorandum to commissioner Harun Hashim at the Suhakam office this morning.
They were accompanied by their lawyers Charles Hector and Roland Engan as well as the director of Central Generative Sdn Bhd, Mohd Ali Abdul Wahid.
Their memorandum stated that their rights as workers had been violated by 'the delay and dishonesty of the Immigration Department' which they alleged issued them with expired work permits.
"We appeal to Suhakam to help us get our permits, noting that we have already paid the necessary levy and that what we are asking for is something that has already been ordered by the Kuala Lumpur High Court," the workers' spokesman Rajakannu Boopathy said.
He added that the delay by the Immigration department had deprived the group of their right to work legally in the country and had also resulted in several of the workers being arrested by police and detained at illegal immigrant detention camps.
Temporary work permit
Harun informed the workers that he will hand over the memorandum to the other Suhakam commissioners before deciding on a course of action.
"I can't decide on this issue on my own. This (memorandum) will go before the commission and we will conduct an initial enquiry to establish whether there should be a public enquiry," Harun said.
A copy of the memorandum was also handed over to the Bar Council this afternoon.
The workers' ordeal began 20 months ago when they initiated a lawsuit against their former employer, Gopis Construction Sdn Bhd, whom they alleged failed to pay them their wages.
They then applied to the Immigration Department for permission to work on their own or alternatively be transferred to another employer.
On Dec 6 last year, the High Court ordered the Immigration Department to issue temporary work permits to the workers to enable them to work legally for a construction company, Central Generative Sdn Bhd.
Contempt proceedings
The workers claim that the Director-General of Immigration issued permits on April 19, but 13 of the permits had lapsed in January and February this year while the rest lapsed on July 8.
The workers are now seeking leave to commence contempt proceedings against the former Director-General of Immigration Aseh Che Mat and five other Immigration Department officers for failing to comply with the High Court order.
Their application was filed at the High Court last week and will be heard on July 25.
According to Charles Hector, existing laws in the country only allow migrant workers to complain against their employers for violation of their rights but do no provide a mechanism for the worker to continue to work and earn legally in Malaysia.
"It is thus unfeasible for them to commence legal action," he said adding there was also no clear law and penalties against employers who violated migrant workers' rights.
"For example, an employer must provide the Immigration Department with a contract of employment as a condition for the issuance of the work permit (the expatriate identification pass), but when the employer fails to pay wages according to that contract, the department does not penalise the employer.
"There is no enforcement against employers. In fact, these workers' former employer, despite all his violations, is not blacklisted and continues to be given permits to recruit migrant workers," Hector said.
Required skills
Central Generative director Mohd Ali told malaysiakini that his company was incurring high costs due to the Immigration department's delay in issuing the worker's permits.
He said that the workers' levy fees amounting to more that RM40,000 was being borne by the company as the workers had entered a two-year contract with the company on Dec 6 last year, after the High Court order.
"We can't just leave these workers alone now after having invested so much in them. Furthermore, we have a lot of job opportunities and we need these workers who have the skills required.
"But we are suffering together with them because they can't work without the permits," Mohd Ali said.- Malaysiakini, 16/7/2001
Ex-detainee’s wife sues Azmi for defamation
- Nation
-
Friday, 16 Sep 2005
KUALA LUMPUR: The wife of a former ISA detainee is suing the Home Affairs Minister for defamation over remarks he made against her husband.
Indonesian housewife Romita Hasibuan, 37, named Datuk Seri Azmi Khalid and the Government as defendants in the suit filed in the High Court yesterday.
Her 47-year-old husband Abd Mutalib Taib, also an Indonesian and a plaintiff in the suit, has been deported after the Immigration Department maintained that his permanent resident status was revoked in 1996.
In the suit, the plaintiffs claimed that Azmi made defamatory statements against Abd Mutalib at the Parliament lobby at about 10pm on July 12.
They claimed that the defamatory words uttered to Romita and her four children implied that Abd Mutalib was a criminal and that his family should be banished from Malaysia.
The plaintiffs maintained that Abd Mutalib had been held under the Internal Security Act and since his detention was without trial he could not be referred to as a criminal.
The plaintiffs also claimed that Azmi distributed a document to the media entitled Jawapan ke atas Ucapan Penangguhan oleh YB Teresa Kok (Seputeh) pada 12 Julai 2005 (Reply to the Adjournment Speech of YB Teresa Kok (Seputeh) on 12 July 2005) which contained false statements.
The statements, the plaintiffs argued, implied that Abd Mutalib had falsified documents and was involved in an identity card syndicate from November 1990 to August 1994.
The Indonesian couple are seeking RM10mil in damages and other awards, as well as a public apology from Azmi. - Star, 16/9/2005
Mahkamah Tinggi benarkan permohonan isteri tahanan ISA
Charles Hector Wed, 05 Oct 2005 21:41:37 -0700
|
Mahkamah Tinggi benarkan permohonan isteri tahanan
ISA
Isteri bekas seorang tahanan ISA warnegara Indonesia, hari ini
dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur untuk tinggal di negara ini bersama
anak-anaknya yang dilahirkan di Malaysia, sehingga selesai proses permohonannya
untuk menetap di Malaysia. Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Rohana Yusuf membenarkan perintah itu di kamarnya, berikutan permohonan ex-parte oleh Romita Hasibuan, 37, seorang suri rumah. Romita yang visanya tamat hari ini dibenarkan tinggal bersama anak-anaknya yang berusia enam hingga 13 tahun, sehingga selesainya permohonan bagi "interparte" (untuk menetap di Malaysia) yang dijadual pada 26 Oktober tahun ini. Jumaat lalu, seorang warganegara Indonesia, Abdul Mutalib Taib, 47, yang mempunyai status penduduk tetap (PR), menfailkan saman sejumlah RM29 juta terhadap kerajaan kerana menangkap dan meletakkannya dalam tahanan sebelum dihantar pulang ke Indonesia pada April lalu, yang didakwanya menyalahi undang-undang. Beliau dan isterinya, menamakan 14 defendan dalam saman itu, termasuk Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Imigresen Datuk Mohamed Jamal Kamdi dan Timbalannya Saadun Mat Sabari, Jabatan Imigresen, Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara serta Menteri Hal-Ehwal Dalam Negeri Datuk Azmi Khalid. Antara lain mereka memohon pengisytiharan bahawa penangkapan, penahanan dan penghantaran pulang Abdul Mutalib dilakukan secara tidak sah dan meminta supaya seluruh keluarganya dibenarkan terus tinggal di Malaysia. Menurut laporan Bernama, pada 15 September, Romita bersama suaminya menfailkan saman malu sejumlah RM10 juta terhadap Azmi kerana mendakwa Abdul Mutalib sebagai penjenayah dan pengkhianat besar. - https://www.mail-archive.com/adil-net@yahoogroups.com/msg00177.html Romita Hasibuan dakwa diugut pegawai Imigresen Muda Mohd Noor Diterbitkan: Jun 16, 2005 6:40 PM ⋅ Dikemaskini: Jan 29, 2008 6:21 PM Suhakam akan mendapatkan penjelasan Kementerian Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri
mengapa pegawai Jabatan Imigresen mengugut untuk menangkap dan
menghantar pulang wanita Indonesia yang mahu tahu mengapa suaminya
dihantar pulang dan tidak dibenarkan masuk lagi ke negara ini.
"Jika kes tersebut tidak boleh diselesaikan, saya akan menemui Menteri Hal-Ehwal Dalam Negeri, Datuk Azmi Khalid untuk mengetahui kedudukan sebenarnya," katanya. Sebelum itu beliau menerima memorandum dari Romita Hasibuan mengenai tindakan Kementerian Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri dan Jabatan Imigresen tidak melayan surat rayuannya untuk membenarkan suaminya, Abdul Mutalib Taib kembali semula ke Malaysia. Katanya, Abdul Mutalib ditangkap oleh Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara (JPN) ketika membuat kad pengenalan anaknya di Putrajaya pada 23 Mac lalu dan seterusnya dihantar pulang ke Indonesia pada 22 April lalu. Bagaimanapun, sebelum itu beliau telah ditahan di Depot Jabatan Imigresen di Lapangan Terbang Antarabangsa Kuala Lumpur (KLIA) selama sebulan dan taraf penduduk tetapnya ditarik balik. Romita menulis lima surat rayuan kepada Azmi dan Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Imigresen Datuk Mohd Jamal Kamdi untuk mendapatkan penjelasan mengapa Abdul Mutalib ditangkap tetapi tidak dilayan. Alasan tidak munasabah Jabatan Imigresen menghantar surat jawapan kepada Romita pada 22 April lalu yang menolak permohonan tersebut dengan alasan `Abdul Mutalib adalah pendatang yang tidak dikehendaki'. Menurut Hamdan, Suhakam memandang berat perkara tersebut kerana ia merupakan pelanggaran hak seseorang individu dengan alasan yang tidak munasabah serta untuk menakutkan mereka. "Perbuatan ini sangat serius dan tidak bermoral...ia tidak boleh dibiarkan kerana ia menjatuhkan imej negara di kalangan masyarakat antarabangsa," katanya kepada wartawan selepas menerima memorandum tersebut. Hamdan berkata, meskipun Romita merupakan seorang warganegara Indonesia tetapi anak-anaknya memegang kerakyatan negara ini. "Adalah merupakan satu kezaliman apabila cuba memisahkan anak-anak dengan ibu mereka setelah bapa mereka ditangkap dan dihantar pulang," katanya. Beliau berkata, Romita perlu mendapat layanan yang adil kerana beliau bukan penjenayah dan kerajaan tidak pernah mendakwa beliau sebagai penjenayah. Perlu baharui visa
Dalam aduannya kepada Hamdan, Romita mendakwa, lima surat rayuan kepada Jabatan Imigresen dan Kementerian Dalam Negeri sejak dua bulan lalu tidak mendapat sebarang jawapan. Bagaimanapun, katanya, pada 5 Mei lalu, Pejabat Perdana Menteri telah menghantar satu surat kepadanya dengan mengatakan `kes ini telah dibawa untuk pengetahuan Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri'. "Visa saya akan tamat September ini dan tanpa suami, ia tidak boleh diperbaharui kerana pembaharuan visa terpaksa dibuat oleh suami warga negara atau penduduk tetap," katanya. Romita mendakwa, beliau cuba membuat permohonan untuk mendapatkan permit masuk dan taraf penduduk tetap, tetapi Jabatan Imigresen enggan menerima permohonan beliau.
Bagaimanapun, permohonannya untuk terus tinggal di negara ini mendapat
sokongan daripada 6,517 individu di mana tandatangan mereka akan
dihantar kepada Abdullah, Azmi dan Suhakam. - Malaysiakini, 16/6/2005 |
Pesuruhjaya Suhakam, Profesor Hamdan Adnan berkata, beliau akan menemui
Ketua Setiausaha kementerian berkenaan, Datuk Seri Aseh Che Mat untuk
mendapatkan penjelasan mengapa perkara tersebut boleh berlaku.
Menurutnya, Romita perlu diberi peluang tinggal di Malaysia kerana semua anaknya mendapat kerakyatan negara ini.
Posts
