ON HUMAN RIGHTS, JUSTICE AND PEACE ISSUES, LABOUR RIGHTS, MIGRANT RIGHTS, FOR THE ABOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY, TOWARDS AN END OF TORTURE, POLICE ABUSES, DISCRIMINATION...
Anwar is READY TO DECLARE HIS ASSETS immediately - what a non-sensical statement, as it Anwar's own government that is YET to do PUBLIC Asset Declarations - the reason was they were working of some NEW FORMAT - and till today there is still NO ASSET DECLARATION.
So, I am calling Anwar out on his statement - PLEASE DECLARE YOUR ASSETS NOW TO ME AND THE MALAYSIAN PUBLIC. I bet Anwar will have his own 'excuse' - maybe he will say he will declare his assets to MACC, to his Cabinet, ...no what we want is for is PUBLIC Asset Declarations.
PUTRAJAYA,
Jan 17 (Bernama) – Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said the
ministers’ asset declarations must be made in a responsible and
transparent manner rather than just a political gimmick....“Declaration
of assets was a farce in the past as far as I’m concerned. You can find
people having hundreds of millions of ringgit and still declaring RM11
million or RM12 million. So I think what we need to do is to make sure
parameters are clear.”He
said this when asked whether his Cabinet ministers had declared their
assets to him and when it could be made public during the press
conference after the 2023 Budget Dialogue Council themed ‘Developing a
Madani Nation’ here today.Saying
it was shocking, Anwar said that some of the declarations did not
represent the real wealth of the particular person after looking at the
figures and files. - BERNAMA,17/1/2023, Ministry of Finance Portal
## Anwar again did not answer clearly whether Ministers declared assets or not? We assume that Ministers never declared their assets. Anyway, a better format that reflects the TRUTH better is good. Make it into a LAW - where false declarations are most serious crimes. BUT, the problem is that after 19 MONTHS since that Statement, the new format yet to be out, and MPs and Ministers yet to Publicly Declare their assets - GOOD promises but extremely SLOW implementation, hopefully before GE16..
Anwar tell US, the people of Malaysia,
1) Since you became Prime Minister, how much more money have you accumulated - and, where is it placed, in Malaysian Bank Accounts, Overseas Bank Accounts, Accounts under your family names or under your 'agent's names'? How exactly was this money earned - salary, pensions, investment dividends, bank interest, rental, ...GIFTS from people(who exactly and for what purpose)?
2) Since you became Prime Minister,what are the GIFTS that you received - from foreign and local dignitaries, businesses, companies, etc - disclose the LIST of GIFTS, and why was it given, and what has happened to these gifts?
3) Since you became Prime Minister,how many new shares/stocks in companies and corporations that you acquired or got? Under your name, your family member's names, your 'agents' names, etc?
4) Since you became Prime Minister, how many new houses or land?
5) Did you receive and monies, wealth on behalf of PKR, PH or the Unity Government, or some 'charity"?
6) How much 'POLITICAL DONATIONS' did you receive.
REMEMBER the reason for PUBLIC ASSET DECLARATION is to ensure that people when they assume power do not abuse their power/position to enrich themselves, their family members, their cronnies, their agents... WRONGFULLY or UNLAWFULLY - their wealth and accumulation of wealth must tally with their income be, it salary or other legitimate income like dividends, rental, etc.
That is WHY this 'Asset Declaration' is done immediately after the assume power - and then PERIODICALLY (every 6 months or a year) - so that people can compare to ENSURE no wrongful accumulation of wealth be reason of the power they possess, or abuse of power, etc. IT IS TO DETER WRONGFUL ENRICHMENT whilst in office.
PUBLIC Declaration - this gives the public to also detect LIES - the public can then make known they you did not declare or 'hid' this wealth/monies/etc.
WHO MONITORS? It is best that it is PARLIAMENT - not any agency that the PM has influence over. Parliament, after all, has the role of monitoring the EXECUTIVE(PM, Cabinet and even senior Public Officers), and also other MPs/Senators. It is best that Parliament Committee that plays this role must be made up of majority Opposition MPs, and a lesser number of government backbencher MPs(who has not received any extra 'benefit' from the Executive, be it GLC or some Agency position) - with powers to investigate, summon witnesses,etc...
Anwar, we are not talking about the MACC's power to ask for a declaration of asset under section 36 - Powers to obtain information(Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission Act 2009) . That will, and should only be used if there is 'reasonable
ground to believe, based on the investigation carried out by an officer
of the Commission, that any property is held or acquired by any person
as a result of or in connection with an offence under this Act' - and MACC will use that power according to law, when it needs to.
ASSET DECLARATION IS VERY DIFFERENT, and I believe Anwar knows this, but is trying to be 'smart' or ...'...Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim says is ready to declare his assets immediately should he be investigated...'
We want the PUBLIC ASSET DECLARATION now, not only when MACC is investigating some offence... If MACC, uses section 46 - then MACC has reasonable grounds to believe said Minister/MP committed an offence - so they will all be SUSPECTED CRIMINALS. That is why PUBLIC ASSET DECLARATION is very different from MACC required declarations. Do not abuse MACC or the MACC Act
36 Powers to obtain information[MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION ACT 2009]
(1)
Notwithstanding any written law or rule of law to the contrary, an
officer of the Commission of the rank of Commissioner and above,if he
has reasonable ground to believe, based on the investigation carried out
by an officer of the Commission, that any property is held or acquired
by any person as a result of or in connection with an offence under this
Act, may by written notice-
(a) require that person to furnish a statement in writing on oath or affirmation-
(i)
identifying every property, whether movable or immovable, whether
within or outside Malaysia, belonging to him or in his possession, or in
which he has any interest, whether legal or equitable, and specifying
the date on which each of the properties so identified was acquired and
the manner in which it was acquired, whether by way of any dealing,
bequest, devise, inheritance, or any other manner;
(ii) identifying every property sent out of Malaysia b...
(b) require any relative or associate of the person referred to in paragraph (1)(a),
or any other person whom the officer of the Commission of the rank of
Commissioner and above has reasonable grounds to believe is able to
assist in the investigation, to furnish a statement in writing on oath
or affirmation-
(i) identifying every property, whether movable or i
(c)
require any officer of any financial institution, or any person who is
in any manner or to any extent responsible for the management and
control of the affairs of any financial institution, to furnish copies
of any or all accounts, documents and records relating to any person to
whom a notice may be issued under paragraph (a) or (b)
(2) Every
person to whom a notice is sent by the officer of the Commission of the
rank of Commissioner and above under subsection (1) shall,
notwithstanding any written law or rule of law to the contrary, comply
with the terms of the notice within such time as may be specified
therein, and any person who wilfully neglects or fails to comply with
the terms of the notice commits an offence and shall on conviction be
liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and to a fine
not exceeding one hundred thousand ringgit....
So, is Anwar 'misleading' - Does he not want ASSET DECLARATIONS now - and only will declare when MACC ' believe, based on the investigation carried out by an officer
of the Commission, that any property is held or acquired by any person
as a result of or in connection with an offence'.
MEDIA titles can be misleading - statements of politicians too - Anwar, at the end of the day, is still not committing to ASSET DECLARATION, i.e PUBLIC Asset Declarations NO for the PM, Ministers, Cabinet Members, Senior Public Officers, MPs or Senators - ARE they still working on the new format? When will it be finished, and everyone asked to declare assets? Will it be done before GE16?
A new format of asset declaration for members of parliament and administrative members will be implemented soon. Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional
Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman said this follows the decision of a
Special Cabinet Committee on National Governance meeting chaired by
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim on Jan 8.- NST, 25/3/2024
For now, INTRODUCE the new PUBLIC ASSET DECLARATION for all - PM, Ministers, MPs, Senators,... Then, later consider enact a new LAW on Public Asset Declaration, making it an offence for FALSE or INCOMPLETE Declarations, with the ability for people to raise/report false declarations, for a body to receive complaints, investigate and prosecute these crimes.
PUCHONG: Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim says is ready to declare his assets immediately should he be investigated.
"Some leaders, when they become the prime minister or the finance minister, amassed hundreds of millions and some even up to billions of ringgit," said the Prime Minister.
He was commenting on an unnamed individual who was lamenting the ongoing investigations for amassing an extraordinary amount of wealth while previously holding ministerial positions.
"But when we asked them to declare their assets, they hold grudges. Why do you want to retaliate if you are not wrong? Why are you scared of declaring your assets?" he questioned.
"If I was told to declare my assets tomorrow, I will. Probe me as much as you want," said Anwar in his speech while officiating the groundbreaking ceremony for the construction of SMK Integrasi Sains Tahfiz (Smista) at Bandar Kinrara, Puchong on Thursday (Sept 26).
Earlier on Thursday (Sept 26), the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) denied claims that Anwar instructed the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to investigate former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad and his sons as well as former finance minister Tun Daim Zainuddin.
According to a report by Bloomberg, the PMO also denied instructing MACC chief commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki not to investigate share purchases by Anwar's former political secretary Farhash Wafa Salvador. - Star, 26/9/2024
Palestine Issue -Anwar Ibrahim's or his government's change in position on the Palestine issue should not affect Malaysians' right to maintain a strong-principled position as was always held.
RESTORE our right to PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY - Abolish Peaceful Assembly Act that really makes it impossible to hold an immediate peaceful assembly in response to a gross injustice, creates more HURDLES to the exercise of the right, and allows POLICE to control/deny the right.
Malaysian PM and Government position on Palestine weakened...
1 - BLACK ROCK - it was clearly identified as a supporter of the Israel-Zionist regime. Last week, a group of United Nations experts in a joint statement
named BlackRock alongside dozens of companies, arms manufacturers and
financial institutions, warning them against supplying arms to Israel as
they would be complicit in war crimes and genocide. Anwar's continuation with the MAHB deal, after BlackRock came in at the end of 2023, noting that the recent onslaught by Israeli-Zionist regime since October 2023 and still continuing to today, where over 42,000 Palestinians(including over 10,000 children) have been killed is UNPALATABLE.
Palestinian
resistance movement Hamas has called on Muslim countries to continue
the economic and political boycott of the Israeli state and its backers,
saying a global campaign had so far achieved "significant
accomplishments in undermining the entity's economy, isolating it, and
delegitimising it".
In a statement issued early today, Hamas said it fully supports the
boycott efforts as part of a "comprehensive resistance against the
Zionist enemy".
"Hamas also confirms that this is its firm and strategic position,
and it has not changed, particularly in light of this brutal aggression
against our people and the daily massacres committed against our people
in the Gaza Strip.
"We call upon the peoples of our Arab and Islamic nations and the
free people of the world to support all efforts leading to boycotting
and isolating the entity and its backers," the statement reads.- Malaysia Now, 26/6/2024
2. The EXHIBITIONS where named 'arm-suppliers to the Zionist regime' participated. The non-expulsion of these arm suppliers immediately inadvertently weakened Malaysia's previous strong position on Palestine. Wonder whether the Israeli supporters were also present in the recent Selangor Aviation Exhibition(12-14 September 2024)???
Malaysia will not interfere in business relations between arms
manufacturers and other countries, its defence minister said Tuesday,
after protesters demanded that the government expel companies that
supply weapons to Israel from an international exhibition. - Business Standard, 7/5/2024
Anwar's wishy-washy weaker position on the Palestine issue - 2 Rally's organized by the government and Anwar fail to see mass participation. If some other had organized, I believe that the support would have been enormous, as many many sadly will choose not to participate in actions controlled by government or Anwar...
After all the support for Palestine(a multi-religious people - Muslims, Christians and Jews) resonates with multi-religious Malaysia, and thus cry for justice for Palestine gets Malaysians support across different religions, ethnic groups and cultures. Is Anwar weakening the Malaysians support by
3. BOYCOTT is a legitimate action by the people. It not only highlights the injustices, but also provides the ordinary people with action that they can take to express their support. It pressures BRANDS to adopt a position of speaking up against injustice. I wonder whether PM Anwar and his government will even oppose boycotts of Israeli Brands, where Malaysian companies are the franchise holders in Malaysia? Even nation states are doing it - for examplethe 'Turkish Parliament removes Coca-Cola and Nestle products from its menus to boycott Israel.'
PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY ACT need to be repealed. People organizing or participating in peaceful assembly only be advised to inform police, so that police can come and protect the right of peaceful assembly. That is all. If anyone uses violence, damage properties or do anything else against the law - they only shall be prosecuted, not the so-called organizers or others.
Now, another right to peaceful assembly is being threatened -
An anti-incinerator group today vowed to continue their rally against
Selangor state government's plan to build a waste-to-energy (WTE) plant
in Rawang, even if they face arrests....they were ready to face the consequences for pushing through with the
rally planned for 10am in front of the Selayang Municipal Council (MPS)
office, including the possibility of getting arrested...However, the group said they were later informed by Gombak police not to
proceed with the protest due to safety concerns, location suitability,
traffic congestion, and public order. - Malaysiakini, 30/9/2024
Cops detain seven pro-Palestine protesters gathered near US embassy
Police
have detained a group of around seven pro-Palestine protesters who had
gathered near the US embassy in Kuala Lumpur this morning.
One of the group members, who did not wish to be named, told Malaysiakini that the group had gathered for about an hour near the embassy’s rear entrance.
“They
first asked us to move down the street so we were not directly in front
of the embassy gates because they said we were in front of someone’s
house.
“We complied and stood in front of an empty lot. They took photos and filmed us,” said the individual.
They
added that when they tried to disperse, the police asked for their
identification cards and they were subsequently detained and taken to
the Pudu district police headquarters.
When contacted, Wangsa Maju
district police chief Mohammad Lazim Ismail confirmed that police have
rounded up several individuals for illegal gathering, but declined to
comment further, saying he would issue a press statement soon. - Malaysiakini, 30/9/2024
'Appalling': Lawyers slam arrest of pro-Palestine protesters
Lawyers for Liberty says express shock that police detain people for speaking out against genocide.
The US embassy in Kuala Lumpur is a frequent venue of protests organised by Malaysian pro-Palestine groups.
Rights
group Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) has condemned the arrest of a group of
people who gathered outside the US embassy in Kuala Lumpur today to
protest against US complicity in the ongoing deadly Israeli bombardment
of Lebanon and Gaza.
"Throughout the world, right-thinking people are protesting against the genocide in Palestine.
"It is appalling that in Malaysia protesters are being unlawfully
detained for standing up against mass murder," said LFL director Zaid
Malek.
He also rejected the police's excuse that the group was taking part
in an "illegal gathering", adding that the phrase does not appear in the
Peaceful Assembly Act.
"The concept of an'illegal assembly' in our law was removed after
amendments to the Police Act. Are the police and government not aware of
this?" he asked.
Police today arrested seven protesters who gathered for about an hour
near the US Embassy to protest Washington's support towards Israel in
the wake of hundreds of civilian casualties in Lebanon.
It is not the first time that Malaysian police have arrested
pro-Palestinian demonstrators, an action seen as going against
Malaysia's decades-long policy to support the Palestinian cause.
In June, police arrested three activists who had protested during a gathering to mark American Independence Day.
Earlier in February, PSM activist Harmit Singh was arrested for trying to hand over a memorandum to the US embassy.
Zaid said a public assembly could not be declared "illegal" as it was
right guaranteed under Article 10(1)(b) of the constitution.
"This means that the arrests made by the police on those seven
individuals has no legal basis and is unconstitutional. We call upon the
police to release them unconditionally effective immediately," he said.
He added that the Peaceful Assembly Act also does not give police any
power to arrest protesters using the excuse of "illegal gathering". - MalaysiaNow, 30/9/2024
Anti-incinerator protest to proceed, with or without police greenlight
An
anti-incinerator group today vowed to continue their rally against
Selangor state government's plan to build a waste-to-energy (WTE) plant
in Rawang, even if they face arrests.
According to the Rawang
Tolak Insinerator Network (RTI) pressure group, they are going to meet
the police tomorrow in another attempt to get the authority's nod for
their planned protest in Selayang this Tuesday, but will still continue
with the rally regardless of the discussion's outcome.
"I cannot
say that I am not afraid, but we have to continue," RTI spokesperson
Abdul Hanan Abd Mokti told a press conference in Bandar Tasik Puteri
this morning.
He said this when asked if they were ready to face
the consequences for pushing through with the rally planned for 10am in
front of the Selayang Municipal Council (MPS) office, including the
possibility of getting arrested.
This
comes after the group today reiterated their stand to hold the
demonstration, which they hope to gather at least 150 to 200
participants to object to an MPS decision which effectively makes way
for a plan to build an incinerator in Batu Arang
The local council
had recently approved a rezoning application to change the status of a
land plot earmarked for the incinerator from residential to industrial.
‘We comply with PAA’
However,
the group stressed that they have been following all due process in
protesting the plan and will continue to abide by all laws, including
the Peaceful Assembly Act.
The
group said the police shouldn't have any reason to take action against
them as they have followed all the requirements under PAA, including
submitting a notice to the police in advance.
They claimed police do not have the right to prevent their protest as they have complied with the law.
Hanan also assured that their rally would be peaceful and not break any law.
"We
will continue with the event. We will abide by all local laws,
including not engaging in any violence or provocative actions, and
(respect) traffic laws.
"Even if we are provoked by other parties, we will not respond," he added.
Local council notified
According
to Hanan, the Bar Council's Human Rights Committee has also agreed to
send a team to monitor the assembly and ensure that the rights of its
participants are upheld and the event proceeds according to the law.
The
group has also notified the MPS president of their plan to submit a
protest memorandum to the agency during the rally, he added.
Last week, RTI announced its plan to hold a rally on Oct 1 in a bid to send a strong message to MPS.
However,
the group said they were later informed by Gombak police not to proceed
with the protest due to safety concerns, location suitability, traffic
congestion, and public order.
In response to this, RTI on Friday condemned the police and urged them to respect the constitutional right to peaceful assembly.
Is Amri Che Mat and Raymond Koh ALIVE or DEAD? If alive, make sure that he is immediately released..
Special Task Force confirmed SUHAKAM's Public Inquiry finding the the 2 were abducted by POLICE - the only difference was that the were ROGUE police officers,
'...they (rogue police officers) acted on their own
without orders or the capacity of their departments, on their own
initiative, outside the control of their departments, without following
the orders or discipline of their teams,”...'
After that Special Task Force report - why have the said 'ROGUE' police officers not been charged in Court yet?
If they abducted Amri Che Mat and Raymond Koh, and they are both still alive, they should be charged for maybe the offence of KIDNAPPING or ABDUCTION, etc
However, if Amri Che Mat and Raymond Koh have been killed or are dead, they should be charged for MURDER..
As a disciplinary action, Malaysian government(the employer) should have TERMINATED these police officers....Are they still police officers?
We have heard nothing to date.
PM Anwar Ibrahim became Prime Minister in November 2022, and it has now been about 22 MONTHS since that government has come into power - and nothing has been done...???
When Anwar came into power, the would know the finding of the Special Task Force Report, which have been classified as 'OFFICIAL SECRET', but 22 months later, still no action.
First thing, PM Anwar's Government should make PUBLIC the report of this Special Task Force immediately.
Wang Kelian tragedy of 2015. The then Pakatan Harapan government, under PM Mahathir acted to establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Discovery of Transit Camps and Graves at Wang Kelian, Perlis, on 26th October 2018. The RCI report was completed in 2019, but was classified 'secret' and not released to the public. Finally, the government under PM Ismail Sabri released the report in about October 2022. I wonder whether PM Anwar Ibrahim's government would have made public that RCI Report if it was still 'secret' when he assumed office.
Anyway, Anwar Ibrahim and his government have the opportunity now to demonstrate TRANSPARENCY - and release the Special Task Force Report in full to the public.
Rogue cops may have abducted Amri, Koh: Classified report
Hidir Reduan Abdul Rashid
Published: Sep 26, 2024 5:18 PM
Updated: 5:30 PM
Social
activist Amri Che Mat and Pastor Raymond Koh may have been abducted by
rogue police officers, the Kuala Lumpur High Court heard.
This was
the finding of the Home Ministry’s Special Task Force (STF) classified
report on the disappearance of both men between late 2016 and early
2017.
Excerpts of the report classified under the Official Secrets
Act 1972 were read out during today’s hearing of a lawsuit by Koh’s
family.
Suhakam in 2019 ruled that Amri and Koh - who disappeared
on Nov 24, 2016, and Feb 13, 2017 - were victims of enforced
disappearance perpetrated by members of the Special Branch from Bukit
Aman.
After
the Suhakam finding, Susanna Liew, 67, filed the civil suit against the
police and government for disclosure of her 68-year-old husband Koh's
whereabouts.
Abductors acted on own accord
During
proceedings before civil court judge Su Tiang Joo today, Koh’s family
counsel, Jerald Gomez, asked subpoena witness Zamri Yahya, who used to
be an STF member, to read out the excerpts of the STF report.
Zamri Yahya
“(The
STF) Found that the incident behind Amri and Koh may have been caused
by the actions directly or indirectly of irresponsible rogue police
officers who acted on their own individually or in a group.
“They acted on their own accord, together with outside religious groups.
“However, this is only my view,” the former police Integrity and Standard Compliance Department director testified.
It
should be noted that the STF finding did not mention if these rogue
police officers are from the Special Branch or even from Bukit Aman.
“From
my understanding, they (rogue police officers) acted on their own
without orders or the capacity of their departments, on their own
initiative, outside the control of their departments, without following
the orders or discipline of their teams,” Zamri said.
He explained
that, according to his understanding, both Amri and Koh were religious
activists who were being monitored by the state religious departments of
Perlis and Selangor, respectively.
He noted that a Toyota
Vios was present in both scenes, where multiple four-wheeled drives
surrounded the men before they were abducted.
Zamri
also revealed that the STF report recommended, among other things, that
Amri and Koh’s cases be further investigated with the assistance of
independent bodies.
Report not binding
During
today’s hearing, the police and government’s legal representative,
senior federal counsel Nurul Farhana Khalid, stated that the defendants
maintain the position that the STF report is not binding on the civil
court.
The defendants’ representative from the Attorney-General’s
Chambers (AGC) also contended that the report merely contained the STF’s
views and recommendations on the issue.
Towards
the end of today's proceedings, Gomez informed the civil court that the
plaintiff would seek to subpoena several other witnesses, including the
then STF chairperson, Rahim Uda.
The hearing before Su resumes on Oct 21.
Norhayati
Mohd Ariffin, Amri’s wife, has filed a separate lawsuit to compel the
authorities to reveal the whereabouts of her missing husband.
Allegation of POWER ABUSE surfaces again against Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. This time about alleged instructions to MACC to NOT INVESTIGATE former
political secretary Farhash Wafa Salvador and to investigate ...
On Thursday, Bloomberg cited three informed sources
as saying that Anwar had instructed Malaysian Anti-Corruption
Commission (MACC) chief, Azam Baki, not to investigate his former
political secretary Farhash Wafa Salvador over the controversial
purchase of shares in a company linked to the development of a new
billion-ringgit immigration system.
The report also claimed that Azam had told MACC officials that the
investigations into former leader Dr Mahathir Mohamad, his three sons
and former finance minister Daim Zainuddin were launched on Anwar's
instructions.
This is not the first time that a Bloomberg report was denied. The last time was about some proposed casino discussion..someone was also charged for Sedition by reason of his comments arising from matters raised in that media report...
Bloomberg News reported in April that Malaysia was in early discussions with tycoons on opening a casino in Forest City, a property development in Johor state near Singapore.
The report, which cited people familiar with the matter, said Mr
Anwar discussed the idea with Berjaya founder Vincent Tan and Genting
Group’s Lim Kok Thay. - Straits Times, 14/5/2024
In this earlier case, I believe that Bloomberg NEVER retracted the report, or made an APOLOGY for a 'False Report", based on now confirmed BAD sources. PM Anwar and others could have commenced a DEFAMATION Suit against Bloomberg, but that did not happen.
Now, in this latest 'allegations' that has been made - it is an ALLEGATION of abuse of power by our Prime Minister to MACC(or its Chief) as to not investigate/prosecute someone, and to investigate/prosecute some others.
Remember that Anwar Ibrahim was charged and convicted for similar abuse of power offences, and sentenced to jail - where the sentenced was served. One would naturally have believed that he would have repented, and will not ever again repeat similar offences of ABUSE OF POWER now that he is Prime Minister. Did Anwar abuse his power again?
For information, the charges then in 1998/1999 was as follows:
(English translation of the charges) from High Court Judgment [1999] 2 CLJ 215
First Charge
That you, from 12 August 1997 until 18 August 1997 at the Official Residence of the Deputy Prime Minister, No. 47, Damansara Road, in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, while being a Member of the administration, to wit, holding the post of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and in such capacity committed corrupt practice in that you, directed Dato' Mohd Said bin Awang, Director of the Special Branch and Amir bin Junus, Deputy Director II of the Special Branch, Royal Malaysian Police, to obtain a written statement from Azizan bin Abu Bakar addressed to YAB Prime Minister denying his allegation of sodomy as contained in his "Pengakuan Bersumpah" dated 5 August 1997, which they obtained as directed, in the form of a written statement dated 18 August 1997, for your advantage, to wit, to save yourself from embarrassment, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 2(1), Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance No. 22/1970.
Second Charge
That you, on 27 August 1997 at the Official Residence of the Deputy Prime Minister, No. 47, Damansara Road, in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, while being a Member of the administration, to wit, holding the post of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and in such capacity committed corrupt practice in that you, directed Dato' Mohd Said bin Awang, Director of the Special Branch and Amir bin Junus, Deputy Director II of the Special Branch, Royal Malaysian Police, to obtain a written statement from Azizan bin Abu Bakar to deny the allegation of sodomy as contained in his "Pengakuan Bersumpah" dated 5 August 1997, which they obtained as directed, in the form of a Kenyataan Umum, for your advantage, to wit, you used it for the purpose of protecting yourself from any criminal action, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 2(1), Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance No. 22/1970.
Third Charge
That you, from 12 August 1997 until 18 August 1997 at the Official Residence of the Deputy Prime Minister, No. 47, Damansara Road, in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, while being a Member of the administration, to wit, holding the post of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and in such capacity committed corrupt practice in that you, directed Dato' Mohd Said bin Awang, Director of the Special Branch and Amir bin Junus, Deputy Director II of the Special Branch, Royal Malaysian Police, to obtain a written statement from Ummi Hafilda bt Ali addressed to YAB Prime Minister denying the allegations of sexual misconduct and sodomy as contained in her confidential report entitled "Perihal Salah Laku Timbalan Perdana Menteri" dated 5 August 1997, which they obtained as directed, in the form of a written statement dated 18 August 1997, for your advantage, to wit, to save yourself from embarrassment, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 2(1), Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance No. 22/1970.
Fourth Charge
That you, on 27 August 1997 at the Official Residence of the Deputy Prime Minister, No. 47, Damansara Road, in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, while being a Member of the administration, to wit, holding the post of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and in such capacity committed corrupt practice in that you, directed Dato' Mohd Said bin Awang, Director of the SpecialBranch and Amir bin Junus, Deputy Director II of the SpecialBranch, Royal Malaysian Police, to obtain written statements fromUmmi Hafilda bt Ali denying the allegations of sexual misconductand sodomy as contained in her confidential report entitled"Perihal Salah Laku Timbalan Perdana Menteri" dated 5 August1997, which they obtained as directed, in the form of a Kenyataan Umum dated 29 August 1997, for your advantage, to wit, you used it for the purpose of protecting yourself from any criminalaction, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 2(1), Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance No. 22/1970.
When the Federal Court overturned his conviction for SODOMY(the 1st charges), Anwar has already served the sentence for corruption and abuse of power, and thus he was released from prison immediately.
Anwar Ibrahim can DENY the new allegations of abuse of power, but some feel it is BEST that Anwar sues Bloomberg for Defamation. But there is a RISK here, as the truth may emerge during the OPEN TRIAL which may also prove what Bloomberg reported was true. [Most MEDIA will not simply report, unless they feel that news is TRUE, or they have reasonable proof of truth..or valid justification.] Will Anwar sue, or NOT?
Anyway, what should be done now should be the IMMEDIATE Investigation into the alleged crimes of the said former
political secretary Farhash Wafa Salvador. INSIDER TRADING and 'preferential treatment' may be something that may need to be investigated too...
Insider trading is using material nonpublic information to trade stocks and is illegal unless that information is public or not material.
The allegation about Anwar's abuse of power also needs to be investigated. Malaysians needs ASSURANCE that our sitting PRIME MINISTER is CLEAN - and have not abused his power in any way.
Azam Baki too may need to be investigated - for if he did as 'ordered','requested',etc by the Prime Minister - the INDEPENDENCE and credibility of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption
Commission (MACC) comes into question. MACC must always investigate and prosecute ALL law breakers without discrimination. No one, included the government of the day, should affect the INDEPENDENE of law enforcement, prosecution and/or the Judiciary.
'Twice too many' – Calls grow for Anwar to sue Bloomberg over claim he spared Farhash from graft probe
Saying
the allegation involves abuse of power, Rafique Rashid urges Cabinet to
question Anwar on the issue surrounding his former political secretary.
According
to a Bloomberg report, MACC chief Azam Baki (right) was instructed by
Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim to go after his enemies, while his former
political secretary Farhash Wafa Salvador was spared any investigation.
Calls
have gathered momentum for Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim to take legal
action against Bloomberg to clear his name following the financial news
outlet's second damning report against him this year, this time
involving an allegation of power abuse similar to the charges for which
he was jailed two decades ago.
On Thursday, Bloomberg cited three informed sources
as saying that Anwar had instructed Malaysian Anti-Corruption
Commission (MACC) chief, Azam Baki, not to investigate his former
political secretary Farhash Wafa Salvador over the controversial
purchase of shares in a company linked to the development of a new
billion-ringgit immigration system.
The report also claimed that Azam had told MACC officials that the
investigations into former leader Dr Mahathir Mohamad, his three sons
and former finance minister Daim Zainuddin were launched on Anwar's
instructions.
Since coming to power, Anwar has twice renewed Azam's tenure to helm
MACC despite attacking the anti-graft chief over allegations of owning
millions of listed shares.
The latest claims have been denied by MACC and the Prime Minister's
Office (PMO), in what lawyer Rafique Rashid said was a similar reaction
to Bloomberg's shocking revelation just five months ago that Anwar had
met with prominent tycoons to discuss a plan to open a casino in Johor's
Forest City.
Authorities had subsequently interrogated several Bloomberg journalists, although Anwar ignored calls to clear his name.
Speaking to MalaysiaNow, Rafique said Anwar should sue Bloomberg for
defamation, adding that a statement from PMO was not enough to convince
the public.
"It is convenient to issue an official statement every time Bloomberg
behaves like this," he said, adding that the allegation this time was
more serious.
"It has entered the realm of abuse of power at the highest level
because it involves enforcement agencies and the PMO itself," Rafique
said.
A similar allegation had led to his imprisonment in 1999, when he was
convicted on four counts of abusing his position as deputy prime
minister to thwart a police investigation into allegations of sodomy and
adultery against him.
Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and his former political secretary Farhash Wafa Salvador. Photo: Facebook
In March, it was reported that Farhash - who became chairman of
7-Eleven Malaysia Holdings, owned by billionaire tycoon Vincent Tan,
just five weeks after Anwar's appointment as prime minister - had secured a substantial stake in a company shortlisted to develop a new billion-ringgit immigration system.
The 41-year-old PKR leader took a 15.91% stake in HeiTech Padu Bhd through his company Rosetta Partners Sdn Bhd.
Farhash had said Rosetta Partners was a subsidiary of Mfivesouthsea
Sdn Bhd, which he jointly owns with Kelantan's Sultan Muhammad V.
The purchase in HeiTech Padu came just a day after MyEG Services Bhd
acquired a 14.4% equity interest in the company for RM31.25 million cash
on March 11.
That same day, HeiTech Padu announced it had received a one-year
extension of its contract to maintain the Malaysian Immigration System
(MyIMMs) worth over RM13 million.
HeiTech Padu was one of three companies shortlisted by the government
to develop the RM1 billion National Integrated Immigration System
(NIISe) project, a replacement for MyIMMs.
Rafique recalled that at the height of the controversy, Anwar had
promised to issue a statement after checking with the Treasury.
He said the Cabinet owed it to the public to question Anwar on the matter.
"It has been seven or eight months and there is still no answer.
"Maybe you are busy, but this is the right time to make a statement
because otherwise the public will be led to believe (the allegations),"
he added.
In April, Anwar denied a Bloomberg report that
he had met with tycoons Vincent Tan of Berjaya and Lim Kok Thay of
Genting Berhad to discuss a plan to open a casino in Forest City.
"Anwar, senior government officials and the businessmen had lunch and
meetings on the possibility of granting what would only be Malaysia’s
second-ever casino licence," said the report.
Anwar denied the report, calling it a "lie", but stopped short of
saying whether he would seek a retraction from the US-based media group.
Instead, he called on the parties named in the article to "take the necessary action".
This was followed by denials from Berjaya and Genting, two companies involved in Malaysia's gambling industry. - Malaysia Now, 29/9/2024
PMO denies instructing MACC to investigate Dr M
Thursday, 26 Sep 2024 3:35 PM MYT
PETALING JAYA: The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) denied claims that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim instructed the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to investigate Dr Mahathir Mohamad, his sons and former finance minister Tun Daim Zainuddin.
According to a report by Bloomberg, the PMO also denied instructing MACC chief commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki not to investigate share purchases by Anwar’s former political secretary Farhash Wafa Salvador.
“The Prime Minister’s Office affirms that the Prime Minister has never issued directives or interfered in investigations conducted by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission. The MACC operates as an independent body, acting on the basis of complaints received," Bloomberg quoted the PMO.
"I didn’t take instructions from anyone regarding my investigations," Azam told The Star when contacted.
“As for Farhash, we do not have any ongoing investigations against him,” he added.
However, the report claimed that Anwar - who became Prime Minister in Nov 2022 - had reasons to target his political opponents who oppressed him for years, particularly former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
It stated that Mahathir had sacked Anwar from his post as Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, and expelled him from the party in 1998, before Anwar was arrested and imprisoned for years.
The report suggested that although Anwar had called for independent agencies like MACC to be free of political interference, it appeared that he was seeking revenge.
"The MACC, led by Azam, has opened investigations into at least three of Anwar’s adversaries and their families, including Mahathir, while not yet acting on a complaint by a politician about share purchases by one of the prime minister’s allies," Bloomberg reported.
Citing sources, the report claimed that Anwar and Azam had reached an understanding that Azam would have his term extended as MACC chief commissioner in return for taking action against Anwar’s opponents.
The report also alleged that Azam had informed MACC officials that Anwar himself instructed the agency to investigate Mahathir, his sons, and Daim Zainuddin. Sources added that Azam told agency officials in March not to investigate share purchases by Farhash Wafa Salvador, saying the instruction came from the prime minister. - Star, 26/9/2024
ALL of us are in DANGERas anyone can be subjected to an AMLA investigation. If that happens, even before we are CHARGED, let alone found GUILTY by Court, are at RISK of all our Bank Accounts being frozen, our land/property being seized, business affected, etc ... WHAT HAPPENS IF WE THEN NEVER GET CHARGED? Or after trial, we are found NOT Guilty? Would we ever be able to recuperate our losses? Or would we simply remain VICTIMS of a GROSS INJUSTICE with no remedy in sight?
To date, a total of 153 accounts
linked to GISB Holdings Sdn Bhd (GISBH) worth RM882,795.94 have been frozen,
said Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Razarudin Husain. He said 38
vehicles, estimated to be worth RM3.94 million, and 14 plots of land, the value
of which is still under investigation, were also seized. The freezing of
the accounts was carried out under Section 44(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering,
Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act[AMLA Act},
while the seizures were made underSection 45(2) of the same act. “A total of 26 animals, consisting of
nine horses, 14 rabbits, and three peacocks, as well as cash amounting to
RM18,650 and two watches valued at RM600, were also confiscated, “ (Sun,
24/9/2024)
In Malaysia, many persons have been arrested and detained for periods - and then NOT EVEN CHARGED in Court? > Government will not provide us for the loss of liberty, possible loss of job, possible destruction of business or income generation activities, sufferings of our families, ...We need a CRIMINAL COMPENSATION law to compensate losses suffered by reason of wrongful arrest, detention, etc caused by government
How many have been Charged and Tried, and then not found GUILTY? How many had to languish in detention because the could not get Bail because law(like SOSMA) said so, or the Court denied our Bail Application, or we simply could not afford to pay the BAIL amount as we were too poor,etc... > >
Government will not provide us for the loss of liberty, possible loss
of job, possible destruction of business or income generation
activities, sufferings of our families, ...we could have lost our cars, houses because we could not pay our month loan payments...We
need a CRIMINAL COMPENSATION law to compensate losses suffered by
reason of wrongful arrest, detention, etc caused by government
YES - BAD LAWS affect EVERYONE - as we too may fall victim to it someday - SO, LET US do the needful to get rid of Bad LAWS or bad provisions of laws NOW.
REPEAL draconian provisions in the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing And Proceeds Of Unlawful Activities Act 2001(AMLA) - the power to make ADMINISTRATIVE Orders (be it Orders by the ENFORCEMENT Agency, and Orders by the Public Prosecutor) - and this power must be removed, whereby such orders should justly and rightly be COURT Orders, on the application of enforcement agencies or the Public Prosecutor, where the RIGHT TO BE HEARD should be accorded to persons to whom the Order is directed to, and also to anyone affected by such orders.
URGENT - there is no problem as it can urgently be heard as an ex-parte application, whereby the court shall also fix another date to hear the applications inter-parte.
Courts are INDEPENDENT and just, and as such the Courts will judicially evaluate the need for such orders, and even the extend or scope of the orders.
Dangerous for police, enforcement agencies or even prosecution to issue such orders - as they may be biased, or may be a victim of 'tunnel vision' which can result on wrong decisions made that may result in GROSS INJUSTICE.
“tunnel vision” is when a prosecutor(or police/law enforcement) becomes attached to their own
interpretation of the right action to take and is unwilling to consider
alternatives, even in the face of contradictory evidence and legal
norms.
Enforcement officers, and even prosecutors, can be
pressured to make irrational case decisions. Some refuse, no
matter the evidence, to change positions from their initial instincts
or personal sense of right and wrong. Strong political views or prejudices, coupled
with other pressures, have the ability to
influence some prosecutors(and also law enforcement) in a criminal justice system to act
unjustly. While it is sometimes difficult to know their true
motivations for their actions, it seems it is becoming increasingly
normalized for prosecutors and/or law enforcement to be stubborn and arrogant while doggedly
holding to a win-at-all-costs mentality. Do we have a growing “tunnel vision” problem in our country?
This is more so UNJUST as this are ORDERS before conviction, or for orders before CHARGING - whereby appreciating a core principle in the administration of justice being the presumption of innocence, until proven guilty in Court after a fair trial.
In Malaysia, we have provision for the need for Arrest Warrants and Search Warrants - which are orders or warrants issued by Courts - NOT by the police, law enforcement agencies or even the Public Prosecutor.
38 Form of warrant of arrest(Criminal Procedure Code)
(1) Every
warrant of arrest issued by a Court under this Code shall be in writing
and signed as provided by the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 [Act 91], or the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 [Act 92], and shall bear the seal of the Court.
(2) Every such warrant shall remain in force until it is cancelled by the Court which issued it or until it is executed.
54 When search warrant may be issued
(1) Where-
(a)
any Court has reason to believe that a person to whom a summons under
section 51 or a requisition under subsection 52(1) has been or might
have been addressed will not or would not produce the property or
document as required by the requisition;
(b) that property or document is not known to the Court to be in the possession of any person; or
(c)
the Court considers that the purposes of justice or of any inquiry,
trial or other proceeding under this Code will be served by a general
search or inspection,
the Court may issue a search
warrant and the person to whom that warrant is directed may search and
inspect in accordance with the warrant and the provisions herein
contained.
Our administration of justice laws require COURT to issue warrants of ARREST and SEARCH WARRANTS. Even for detention beyond 24 hours for purpose of investigation requires a Court(Magistrates) Order.
In the AMLA Act, strangely these PRE-CONVICTION, worse PRE-CHARGE orders
are issued by the Enforcement Agency, and/or prosecution - these unjust
provisions must be REPEALED, and the COURT only should have such
powers.
THUS, for any PRE-CONVICTION or PRE-CHARGE orders - it MUST be only the COURT that should have the power to issue such ORDERS - like freezing of accounts,seizure of property, closure of businesses, etc
It has been 17 days since the raid and rescue of children homes...Still no CHARGES for AMLA Crimes. How much monies are reasonably suspected to be monies that are related to money laundering, terrorist financing or proceeds of unlawful activities > should not just these be the amounts that ought to be FROZEN or seized?
In making these FREEZING ORDERS, etc, what is the amount of reasonable suspicion/grounds required - 10%,50% or 'beyond reasonable doubt?
44 Freezing of property
(1) Subject
to section 50, an enforcement agency may issue an order to freeze any
property of any person, or any terrorist property, as the case may be,
wherever the property may be, and whether the property is in his
possession, under his control or due from any source to him, if-
(a) an investigation with regard to an unlawful activity has commenced against that person; and
(b) either-
(i)
the enforcement agency has reasonable grounds to suspect that an
offence under subsection 4(1) or a terrorism financing offence has been
or is being or is about to be committed by that person; or
(ii)
the enforcement agency has reasonable grounds to suspect that the
property is the proceeds of an unlawful activity or the
instrumentalities of an offence.
(2) An order under subsection (1) may include-
(a)
an order to direct that the property, or such part of the property as
is specified in the order, is not to be disposed of, or otherwise dealt
with, by any person, except in such manner and in such circumstances, if
any, as are specified in the order;
(b)
an order to authorise any of its officers to take custody and control
of the property, or such part of the property as is specified in the
order if the enforcement agency is satisfied that the circumstances so
require;
(c) where custody and control of the property is taken under paragraph (b),
an order to authorise any of its officers to sell any frozen moveable
property by a public auction or in such other manner as may be
practicable if the enforcement agency is of the opinion that the
property is liable to speedy decay or deterioration;
(d)
an order to authorise any of its officers to hold the proceeds of the
sale, after deducting therefrom the costs and expenses of the
maintenance and sale of the property sold under paragraph (c); and
(e) an order as to the manner in which the property should be administered or dealt with.
(3)
In making an order under subsection (1), the enforcement agency may
give directions to the person named or described in the order relating
to the disposal of the property for the purpose of-
(a) determining any dispute as to the ownership of or other interest in the property or any part of it;
(b) its' proper administration during the period of the order;
(c) the payment of the costs of that person to defend criminal proceedings against him.
(4) An order made under subsection (1) may direct that the person named or described in the order shall-
(a)
be restrained, whether by himself or by his nominees, relatives,
employees or agents, from selling, disposing of, charging, pledging,
transferring or otherwise dealing with or dissipating his property;
(b) not remove from or send out of Malaysia any of his money or property; and
(c)
not leave or be permitted to leave Malaysia and shall surrender any
travel documents to the Director-General of Immigration within one week
of the service of the order.
(5)
An order made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect after
ninety days from the date of the order, if the person against whom the
order was made has not been charged with an offence under this Act or a
terrorism financing offence, as the case may be.
(6)
An enforcement agency shall not be liable for any damages or cost
arising directly or indirectly from the making of an order under this
section unless it can be proved that the order under subsection (1) was
not made in good faith.
(7) Where an enforcement agency directs
that frozen property be administered or dealt with, the person charged
with the administration of the property shall not be liable for any loss
or damage to the property or for the cost of proceedings taken to
establish a claim to the property or to an interest in the property
unless the court before which the claim is made finds that the person
charged with the administration of the property has been negligent in
respect of the administration of the property.
(8) The enforcement
agency effecting any order to freeze any property under this section
shall send a copy of the order and a list of the frozen property to the
Public Prosecutor forthwith.
(9)
Where the frozen property is in the possession, custody or control of a
financial institution, the enforcement agency shall notify the relevant
regulatory or supervisory authority (if any), as the case may be, of
such order.
(10)
Any person who fails to comply with an order of the enforcement agency
issued under subsection (1) commits an offence and shall on conviction
be liable to a fine not exceeding five times the sum or value of the
frozen property at the time the property was frozen or five million
ringgit, whichever is the higher, or to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding seven years or to both.
44A Variation or revocation of order to freeze property
(1) An
order to freeze property issued under section 44 may be varied or
revoked by the enforcement agency that issued the order-
(a)
where an officer senior in rank to the officer who issued the order is
satisfied that such property is not liable to seizure under this Act; or
(b)on the application of the person named or described in the order.
(2) For the purpose of paragraph (1)(a),
where an officer senior in rank to the officer who issued the order is
satisfied that such property is not liable to seizure under this Act, he
may vary the order in accordance with paragraph (4)(a) or revoke the order.
(3) For the purpose of paragraph (1)(b),
an application shall be made in writing to the enforcement agency
specifying the grounds on which the variation or revocation of the order
is sought and, on receipt, shall be dealt with by an officer senior in
rank to the officer who issued the order.
(4) On consideration of an application under paragraph (1)(b), the senior officer concerned may-(a) vary the order with regard to-
(i) the duration of the order;
(ii) the payment of debts incurred in good faith and due to a creditor before the making of the order under section 44; or
(iii) the provision of an allocation for reasonable subsistence and other expenses of that person, his family or employees;
(b) revoke such order; or
(c) refuse the application on the ground that there is reasonable suspicion that the property is-
(i)
the subject-matter or evidence relating to the commission of an offence
under subsection 4(1) or a terrorism financing offence;
(ii) terrorist property;
(iii) the proceeds of an unlawful activity; or
(iv) the instrumentalities of an offence.
(5)
Where the senior officer concerned varies or revokes the order under
subsection (2) or (4), he shall release the property or any part thereof
as may be relevant to the person named or described in the order.
(6)
The officer effecting any release of any property under this section
shall make a record in writing in respect of such release specifying in
the record in detail the circumstances of, and the reason for, such
release, and he shall send a copy of such record to the Public
Prosecutor forthwith.
(7) The release of any property under this
section does not affect the power of the Public Prosecutor under this
Act to seize the property subsequently if the Public Prosecutor is
satisfied that the property is-
(a) the subject-matter or evidence relating to the commission of an offence under subsection 4(1) or a terrorism financing offence;
(b) terrorist property;
(c) the proceeds of an unlawful activity; or
(d) the instrumentalities of an offence.
48 Investigation powers in relation to a financial institution
(1)
Notwithstanding the provisions of any other written law or any rule of
law, the Public Prosecutor, if he is satisfied that it is necessary for
the purpose of any investigation into an offence under subsection 4(1)
or a terrorism financing offence, may authorise in writing an
investigating officer to exercise in relation to any financial
institution specified in the authorisation all the powers of
investigation set out in Part V and in subsection (2)....
50 Seizure of movable property in financial institution
(1) Where
the Public Prosecutor is satisfied on information given to him by an
investigating officer that any movable property or any accretion to it
which is-
(a) the subject-matter or evidence relating to the commission of an offence under subsection 4(1) or a terrorism financing offence;
(b) terrorist property;
(c) the proceeds of an unlawful activity; or
(d) the instrumentalities of an offence,
is
in the possession, custody or control of a financial institution, he
may, notwithstanding any other written law, by order direct that such
movable property or any accretion to it in the financial institution be
seized by the investigating officer or by order direct the financial
institution not to part with, deal in or otherwise dispose of such
movable property or any accretion to it, in whole or in part, until the
order is varied or revoked.
(1A)
The investigating officer effecting a seizure under this section shall
forthwith notify Bank Negara Malaysia, the Securities Commission or the
Labuan Financial Services Authority, as the case may be, of any order
made under subsection (1).
(2)
A financial institution or any agent or employee of a financial
institution shall not, on account of complying with an order of the
Public Prosecutor under subsection (1), be liable to any prosecution
under any law or to any proceedings or claim by any person under any law
or under any contract, agreement, or arrangement, or otherwise.
(3)
Any person who fails to comply with an order of the Public Prosecutor
under subsection (1) commits an offence and shall on conviction be
liable to a fine not exceeding five times the amount which was parted
with, dealt in or otherwise disposed of in contravention of the Public
Prosecutor's order or five million ringgit, whichever is the higher, or
to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or to both, and, in
the case of a continuing offence, shall in addition be liable to a fine
not exceeding five thousand ringgit for each day or part thereof during
which the offence continues to be committed.
In the Section which deals with interpretation of words/phrases,
"enforcement agency"
includes a body or agency that is for the time being responsible in
Malaysia for the enforcement of laws relating to the prevention,
detection and investigation of any serious offence;
“Due process must be observed in GISBH probe lest impropriety, bias can be levelled at authorities”
By
FocusM
in
Featured, Mainstream, Top
JUSTICE needs not only be served but must be seen to be served.
This was the point highlighted by human rights activist and lawyer
Chares Hector who noted alarming discrepancies in the investigation
process into the allegations levelled against Global Ikhwan Services and
Business Holdings Sdn Bhd (GISBH).
At one hand, the powers-that-be are under pressure to be seen to be
proactive in taking decisive measures with many serious accusations of
child abuse surrounding GISBH dominating both social and traditional
media as well as coffeeshop chatter.
However, the co-founder of NGO Malaysians Against Death Penalty and
Torture (MADPET) cautioned against playing to the gallery by
highlighting several discrepancies which are not in the interest of
justice being meted out.
First and foremost, Hector pointed out that there should be a presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.
With this case being a high profile one with it being the subject of
endless chatter, speculation and conjecture, there is a very real danger
that this case is being tried by the court of public opinion.
Secondly, Hector noted that there should be no
pre-conviction punishments. By this, the government must ensure that ‘no
punishment’ – some with irreparable damages – is imposed, more so on
the innocent persons and/or entities. If pre-conviction punishments have
already imposed, it must be speedily revoked or varied.
To date, it has been reported that various actions have been taken
against numerous business premises the group which is said to be remnant
of the banned Islamic deviant sect, Al-Arqam, by means of freezing of
bank accounts, seizure of properties/land, vehicles and livestock, to
name a few.
Herein, Hector pointed out that while there have been allegations of
wrongdoings in relation to child abuse and sexual crimes at children’s
homes allegedly run by GISBH and/or its subsidiaries, these are crimes
committed by individual persons, not business entities.
Charles Hector
Henceforth, the individual perpetrators must be identified,
investigated and charged; it is unjust to also act against sources of
income and/or companies they own or work in as such actions may have a
significant – if not irreversible – impact to one’s livelihood and life.
Thirdly, Hector highlighted the alarming precedent
of the enforcement agencies – instead of the courts – issuing orders to
seize/freeze assets related to GISBH.
To date, a total of 153 accounts linked to GISBH worth RM882,795.94
have been frozen under Section 44(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering,
Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act (AMLA)
while the seizures of vehicles and properties/land were made under
Section 45(2) of the same act.
Additionally, a total of 26 animals, consisting of nine horses, 14
rabbits and three peacocks as well as cash amounting to RM18,650 and two
watches valued at RM600 were also confiscated, according to
Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Tan Sri Razarudin Husain.
These orders require the enforcement agency to have reasonable
grounds to suspect that an offence has been committed OR that the
enforcement agency has reasonable grounds to suspect that the said
property is derived from proceeds of an unlawful activity or the
instrumentalities of an offence.
It is absurd therefore for an enforcement agency itself to issue orders based on whether it has the needed reasonable grounds.
MADPET is of the opinion that it must be the courts that issue such
Section 44 AMLA orders after determining the validity of the enforcement
agency’s reasonable grounds. If not, such powers can/may be easily
abused by the enforcement agency.
Hector further drew comparison with the case of now incarcerated
former premier Datuk Seri Najib Razak which also involved Section 44 of
AMLA. He wondered if Najib and his family also had their properties
seized and bank accounts frozen or their livestock seized as is the case
with GISBH.
Fourthly, Hector questioned why has the order yet to be disclosed to the public? Who is it against?
Note that section Section 44A accords the right to the “person named
or described in the order” to apply to revoke or vary the Order.
This Order naturally affects a lot of other people including workers
other persons and businesses with business links to these business
entities.
What is worrisome, according to Hector, is that employees, owners and
GISBH-linked subsidiaries may suffer similar irreparable injustices if
the allegations are found to be false or baseless at the end of the day.
The
Shah Alam Magistrate’s Court extended the remand order of GISBH
executive chairman and CEO Datuk Nasiruddin Mohd Ali and 23 other
individuals for a further four days upon the expiry of their seven-day
remand period on Wednesday (Sept 25)
In this respect, the legal eagle questioned the speedy action of the
police. Why the sudden swoop when apparently police reports have been
lodged on the matter as far back as 2011.
The fact that the police operation was called “Op Global” also does
not augur well as the name relates to an action against GISBH for
suspected criminal activities other than child abuse.
Last but not least, Hector also highlighted the highly sensitive nature of when it comes to allegations of “religious deviants”.
To allow for a professional and unbiased investigations against the
alleged suspects, MADPET suggested for a separation of investigations to
those related to child abuse and those of religious deviancy with the
latter to be handled by the relevant religious agencies.
Given the very high-profile nature of the case, it is indeed
pertinent that due process be followed to ensure the proper dispensation
of justice.
At the moment, as highlighted by MADPET’s statement, much seem to be knee jerk reaction to public outrage.
The seeming lack of due process also sets dangerous precedents for
which there may be far reaching consequences, not just for the parties
involved but for the Malaysian society at large. – Sept 28, 2024, Focus Malaysia
