Pipeline Fires - Investigate, Identify Those Responsible and make sure THEY(not Government) pay for the damages, compensation for Victims?

PETRONAS (a government linked company) must be SOLELY responsible for the damage caused by its PIPELINE fire...Why should the government use the peoples' monies?  

This is not like a natural disaster like FLOOD or earthquake - where it is OK use government funds. In this case, it must be PETRONAS(the corporate entity) that should bear the cost.

We are still in the DARK as to what caused the FIRE? That should be the priority of the government - a comprehensive investigation to investigate the cause of the FIRE...was it because of poorly maintained pipelines - Is the fault solely PETRONAS? or also some local government or government agency that failed to ensure proper construction and maintenance of the pipes... the BLAME for the disaster lies on someone?

Was it OLD pipes, due to be replaced but was not replaced wrongly by Petronas to save money? Did the government say OK?

Is Petronas wholly wholly owned by the government, or NOT - are there other owners too, being individuals and other corporation. Is Petronas owned in part by some foreign entity like BlackRock?? We need to know - because all the shareholders must foot the Bill and not just the Federal Government and/or State governments?

Who built the PIPELINE - some 'crony' or some trusted company? Who approved the construction, and ensured that the construction was according to SPECIFICATIONS and standards set by the government? 

WHAT happened and whose fault is the PRIORITY - and if it is PETRONAS or those who are responsible who should bear the cost of damages, and compensation of VICTIMS?

Anwar Ibrahim is the Finance Minister, hence wholly responsible for PETRONAS - should he not at least APOLOGIZE, or even RESIGN for this disaster - not try to get the government to take the blame, and use people's monies yet again - the TRUTH first.

It comes so soon after the 'Sapura Energy Scandal' where the government again 'bailed out' a company - by settling its debts to vendors. There too, no investigation - no identifying of the people responsible for the LOSS. Just pump in government money, which belongs to the PEOPLE not Anwar.

Debt-laden Sapura Energy Bhd (KL:SAPNRG) has received a lifeline in the form of a RM1.1 billion investment from the Minister of Finance (Inc) through its special purpose vehicle Malaysia Development Holding Sdn Bhd (MDH). - Edge, 11/3/2025

Same thing happened with FELDA or FELDA Settlers - again paid for Felda Settlers Debt - There too,. no explanation of how come the debt arose, no identification of the wrongdoers, no action against the wrongdoers...just settled the DEBT. 

"The RM8.3 billion settler's loans remained on the financial books of Felda and were not written off during the administration of the PN government or BN-PN government but rather on or after the formation of the unity government. - NST, 27/11/2023

This is not the way the GOVERNMENT should be run, or more importantly peoples' MONIES be used...

Foolishly Anwar Ibrahim is trying to push the blame to the Government? And we will pay the VICTIMS damages/compensation for the losses they suffered.  

Will the victims be tricked into signing some document that they accept these monies as full and final settlement, and surrender their right to sue or claim damages from Petronas and those responsible? 

The priority is to find out the TRUTH - what happened, and who is responsible? If needed, take criminal action against them, and maybe even civil action. Help the victims prepare their legal action against those responsible - which may at the end of the day also include the Local Government, State government and Federal Governments?

This was NO ACT OF GOD like a flood, earthquake or Tsunami... 

Even, in the FELDA and Sapura issue, there was not even a Government WHITE PAPER - basically the government's explanation, that usually is tabled in Parliament. So, money spent - but no explanation, identification of the 'culprits' and faults that caused the loss, etc..

NO RCI also - this is a lot of money of the people, more precious now as we are in debt RM1.5 Trillion or more...

I worry about Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, and his style of governance - his easy 'forgiving' of perpetrators, and no action taken against the wrongdoers... OH, its OK, the government will help... 

Govt, Petronas, to repair and rebuild properties damaged by pipeline fire

By Shahrul Shahabudin - April 1, 2025 @ 7:07pm

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim announced this after visiting the site of the now-extinguished blaze this evening. - BERNAMA pic

SUBANG JAYA: The federal government and national energy company Petronas, with the help of the Selangor government, will repair and rebuild properties damaged by today's gas pipeline blaze in Putra Heights.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim announced this after visiting the site of the now-extinguished blaze this evening.

"The responsibility of restoring this residential area, repairing or replacing (damaged properties), will be fully undertaken by us, The Federal Government and Petronas, in cooperation with the state government.

"There is no need to worry, it will just take a bit of time," Anwar told reporters at the site.

Anwar said rebuilding the area and affected properties may take around a year.

"It's not like a flood that sometimes takes a week or two (before people can return home)."

Anwar said the entire government machinery including the Housing and Local Government Ministry will meet to submit proposals on the way forward after discussions with residents groups.

In the meantime, the government will provide RM5,000 to those whose homes were destroyed, while those whose houses were damaged will receive RM2,500.

Anwar said if needed, the government and Petronas would look at the need to increase aid.

The fire was reportedly accompanied by several explosions that shook the ground. The flames also caused fires at several houses as the pipeline was located near residential areas.

Earlier today, a massive explosion and fire broke out at a Petronas gas pipeline in Putra Heights, Subang Jaya, causing widespread panic as huge flames shot up into the air.

The heat from the flames — felt kilometres away from the burning site — were said to have melted plastic and rubber objects within a wide radius of the pipeline.

A total of 145 people were injured and are receiving treatment in several hospitals.

In terms of property damage, 227 houses were affected, of which 78 were razed to the ground.

Meanwhile, 365 vehicles were damaged, including 275 cars and 56 motorcycles.

Firefighters managed to extinguish the fire at the source at 3.45pm. - NST, 1/4/2025

 

 

 

 

GENDER DISCRIMINATION - No Raya at home for MEN accussed of SOSMA listed offences, for LAW discriminate based on Gender, contrary to the Federal Constitution. Discrimination against women or men is GENDER DISCRIMINATION.

GENDER DISCRIMINATION - Most often it has been discrimination against WOMEN, and we opposed it. But, there are is also discrimination against MEN - and, it is also Gender Discrimination - and, as such, our position must be same on principle if we oppose discrimination based on Gender. We must oppose all forms of Discrimination based on Gender - there is no CHOICE...

GENDER DISCRIMINATION in SOSMA - Women can get BAIL but not men because the law says so, and this is DISCRIMINATION based on GENDER...

Section 13  Bail (SECURITY OFFENCES (SPECIAL MEASURES) ACT 2012)

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

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1)-

(a) a person below the age of eighteen years;

(b) a woman; or

(c) a sick or an infirm person,

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

So, ALL MEN in the GISBH case had their Bail application rejected because they were MEN, but all the 8 women that applied were released on Bail because they were WOMEN. The Court did try to use the exception of 'sick or an infirm person' but that could not be applied

Latifah, in allowing the applications by the eight women, said they fell under the exemption category stipulated under Section 13(2)(b) of Sosma.“There is no evidence in the (public prosecutor’s) reply affidavit to show the applicants have a risk of absconding. The affidavit only states that there is a very high probability the applicants will contact or meet with witnesses or victims and may try to influence them.

“However, the applicants have given an undertaking not to meet or contact the witnesses if bail is granted. “Taking this into account, the court exercises its discretionary power provided in the Act to grant bail to all the applicants,” she said.She ordered the women to report themselves at a nearby police station every two weeks, appear in court on every date set, and not to disturb any of the witnesses in the case.

The men could have been granted bail on the same conditions - but the BAR was their GENDER - they were MEN, not women.

Discrimination based on GENDER was effectively eliminated in Malaysia on 8/9/2001 when CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) ACT 2001 came into force, and thereafter NO more discrimination against citizens on the ground of GENDER in any law - and that reasonably includes SOSMA.

Article 8 Federal Constitution - Equality

(2) Except as expressly authorized by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.

Thus, Section 13(2)(b) SOSMA is most likely ULTRA VIRES the Federal Constitution... and as such invalid.

In Malaysia, under the administration of criminal justice, other provisions that discriminate based on Gender is the judicial punishment of WHIPPING...

Section 289 Criminal Procedure Code - Sentence of whipping forbidden in certain cases

No sentence of whipping shall be executed by installments, and none of the following persons shall be punishable with whipping:

(a) females;

(b) males sentenced to death;

(c) males whom the Court considers to be more than fifty years of age, except males sentenced to whipping under section 376, 377C, 377CA or 377E of the Penal Code.

Women cannot be whipped but men can, is another case of Gender discrimination. 

The presumption that men are stronger than women, and can withstand being whipped is wrong. Even men are not the same, some are physically stronger and some are at higher risk of sustaining serious injury, even death, if they are whipped.

The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) has urged the government to join other nations in taking a firm stance against torture, including corporal punishment, following the recent death of an inmate at Pokok Sena Prison, allegedly resulting from whipping. - NST, 22/10/2024

Whipping as a criminal punishment should have been abolished a long time ago. It is a form of corporal punishment that inflicts TORTURE, physical pain - that can inflict even permanent physical and psychological injury on persons, totally different from other judicial sentences like imprisonment, fines, community service. 

The whipping in the criminal administration of justice is very different from the whipping or caning in the Syariah legal system - where the purpose is shame or embarrassment, not torture, the breaking of shin, the drawing of blood, or damage to flesh, nerves, bones and body. 

Right to apply for BAIL in SOSMA is just that. It is not a guarantee that the application will succeed, and the accused will be released on BAIL. Whether Bail application succeeds or not is up to the Court(Judge) who will consider all relevant factors before deciding to grant BAIL or not.

Even, if BAIL is granted, many, mostly POOR or in the B40/M40 class, may simply not be able to get out on Bail, as they cannot afford the Bail amount, or they cannot get the needed sureties. Some, knowing this, do not even make any Bail applications - and choose to languish in detention until their trial is over - which in Malaysia now can take very very long at times. At present, NO POLICY to expedite trials to end fast, maybe in less than 6 months, for those in languish in detention because they are denied BAIL, or simply cannot meet the Bail conditions. Many a time, it is because of POVERTY.

Although, the High Court did not grant bail - some courts have. Blame lies with government and Parliament who should remove gender discriminatory provisions in law

Judicial commissioner Su Tiang Joo said this is because Section 13 of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (Sosma) is in breach of the gender equality provision under Article 8 of the Federal Constitution....“Such discrimination goes against the non-gender discrimination provision housed within the fundamental liberty of equality, which is expressly provided in Article 8(1) and (2) of the Federal Constitution,” he said in his judgment to grant bail for eight men facing charges for being members of an organised criminal group named “Kumpulan Viki Naidu”.- FMT, 11/11/2021

High Court dismisses bail bid by GISBH CEO, 12 others

FMT Reporters

-24 Mar 2025, 06:01 PM

However, eight women accused, including Nasiruddin Ali’s wife, Azura Yusof, are granted bail of RM40,000 each in two sureties.

Shah Alam High Court judge Latifah Tahar said GISBH CEO Nasiruddin Ali and the 12 others are in stable health and able to carry out their daily activities independently. (Bernama pic)

PETALING JAYA:

The Shah Alam High Court today dismissed the application by Global Ikhwan Services and Business Holdings (GISBH) CEO Nasiruddin Ali and 12 others, facing charges of being members of an organised crime group, to be allowed bail.

Apart from Nasiruddin, 66, the others are Adib At-Tamimi, 33; Shukri Noor, 54; Afdaluddin Latif, 35; Sayuti Omar, 36; Fazil Jasin, 58; Dhirar Fakhrur Razi, 35; Mokhtar Tajuddin, 61; Fajrul Islam Khalid, 29; Abu Ubaidah Ahmad Shukri, 35; Shuhaimi Mohamed, 57; Hasnan Abd Hamid, 54; and Zahid Azhar @ Nadzri, 52.

However, the court allowed the application for bail by eight women – Nasiruddin’s wife Azura Yusof, 58; Nurul Jannah Idris, 29; Nur Jannah Omar, 33; Siti Salmiah Ismail, 58; Asmat @ Asmanira Ramly, 45; Siti Hajar Ismail, 52; Khalilatul-Zalifah Jamil, 28; and Mahani Kasim, 55.

Each of them was allowed bail of RM40,000 in two sureties.

Justice Latifah Tahar, in dismissing the bail applications by Nasiruddin and the 12 men, said they failed to meet any of the conditions provided for in Section 13(2) of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (Sosma) 2012.

She said seven of the applicants – Nasiruddin, Mokhtar, Hasnan, Fazil, Shuhaimi, Zahid and Shukri – were not under the age of 18 or within the category stipulated for exemption from detention in the section.

There was also insufficient evidence in their affidavits showing they had health problems.

“Most of the applicants reported having illnesses, including diabetes and high blood pressure, and said they were taking medication provided by the medical authorities.

“The latest health report provided by the medical officer at the Sungai Buloh prison clinic showed that the applicants’ health condition was stable.

“The applicants were able to walk on their own without any disability while attending health check-ups, showed no signs of difficulty breathing and could carry out their daily lives independently,” she said at the proceedings held at the Kajang prison complex.

She said there was also no evidence to show that the other six applicants were sick or infirm, and the latest health report showed them to be in good condition and stable, without any chronic diseases, and able to carry out their daily activities independently.

Latifah, in allowing the applications by the eight women, said they fell under the exemption category stipulated under Section 13(2)(b) of Sosma.

“There is no evidence in the (public prosecutor’s) reply affidavit to show the applicants have a risk of absconding. The affidavit only states that there is a very high probability the applicants will contact or meet with witnesses or victims and may try to influence them.

“However, the applicants have given an undertaking not to meet or contact the witnesses if bail is granted.

“Taking this into account, the court exercises its discretionary power provided in the Act to grant bail to all the applicants,” she said.

She ordered the women to report themselves at a nearby police station every two weeks, appear in court on every date set, and not to disturb any of the witnesses in the case.

The group was charged in the Selayang sessions court on Oct 23 last year with being members of an organised crime group at a premises in Bandar Country Homes, Rawang, between October 2020 and Sept 11, 2024.

They were charged under Section 130V(1) of the Penal Code, which carries a prison sentence of between five and 20 years upon conviction. The case was later transferred to the Shah Alam High Court for trial. - FMT, 24/3/2025

Suhakam calls for an end to corporal punishment after inmate's tragic death

By Shahrul Shahabudin - October 22, 2024 @ 5:43pm

The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) has urged the government to join other nations in taking a firm stance against torture, including corporal punishment, following the recent death of an inmate at Pokok Sena Prison, allegedly resulting from whipping.

KUALA LUMPUR: The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) has urged the government to join other nations in taking a firm stance against torture, including corporal punishment, following the recent death of an inmate at Pokok Sena Prison, allegedly resulting from whipping.

In a statement, Suhakam said that several neighbouring Asean countries, such as Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Cambodia, had ratified the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).

"In light of the recent tragedy at Pokok Sena Prison, we call on the government to immediately abolish all forms of corporal punishment, including those enshrined in the Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, Prisons Act, and related legislation.

"Additionally, corporal punishment in schools, which normalises violence against children, must also be outlawed to protect the mental and physical well-being of future generations," Suhakam said.

The commission highlighted that corporal punishment, including whipping, violates fundamental human rights and human dignity, causing severe physical and psychological harm that contradicts international human rights standards.

Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights state that no one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment.

"Moreover, Article 1 of CAT defines torture as 'any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted.' Corporal punishment clearly falls under this definition and should be regarded as inhumane and degrading," Suhakam said.

Suhakam has also called for a full, independent, and transparent investigation into the incident to ensure accountability for those responsible.

However, it said that addressing this incident alone was insufficient; the country needed to reform its criminal justice system and abandon outdated practices like corporal punishment in favour of rehabilitative approaches that respected human dignity.

Recently, media reports highlighted the case of an inmate's death at Pokok Sena Prison following caning, which was attributed to a blood infection.

The Prison Department confirmed this in a statement, saying the matter was verified through an initial autopsy.

The inmate had complained of feeling unwell on the ninth day after the caning, which occurred on Sept 25.

The 33-year-old inmate was sentenced to 33 years in prison along with 12 strokes of the cane following the abolition of mandatory death sentences in Malaysia, with his sentence reviewed on Sept 10. - NST, 22/10/2024

Denying bail to men is gender discrimination, says judge

V Anbalagan

-11 Nov 2021, 11:35 AM

Court says women are as equally capable of committing security offences under Sosma as men.

The Ipoh High Court ruled that Section 13 of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (Sosma) is in breach of the gender equality provision under the Federal Constitution.

IPOH:

The High Court here has ruled that men are equally entitled as women to get bail though charged with security offences.

Judicial commissioner Su Tiang Joo said this is because Section 13 of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (Sosma) is in breach of the gender equality provision under Article 8 of the Federal Constitution.

The Sosma provision states bail will be denied to those facing security offences but the exceptions are when a person is aged below 18, a woman, or a sick or infirm person.

Su said Section 13 discriminated against men from being granted bail when such a right is given to women.

Judicial commissioner Su Tiang Joo.

“Such discrimination goes against the non-gender discrimination provision housed within the fundamental liberty of equality, which is expressly provided in Article 8(1) and (2) of the Federal Constitution,” he said in his judgment to grant bail for eight men facing charges for being members of an organised criminal group named “Kumpulan Viki Naidu”.

The eight were D Enthiran, D Ganesan, P Velmurugan, K Ganesan, S Vinodh, S Anandh Kumar, G Kesavan and K Prabu.

If convicted they could be punished with imprisonment of up to 20 years.

Su said “woman” in the Sosma provision must include “men” and they are entitled to apply for bail.

The judge said women are as equally capable of committing security offences as men and any discrimination would not qualify as a rational or reasonable classification.

Su said Sosma, a procedural law enacted under Article 149 to check subversion and acts prejudicial to public order, could remove four fundamental rights but not the right to equality.

Su imposed RM30,000 bail on each of the men in two sureties and ordered that they be fitted with an electronic monitoring device to keep tabs on their movements.

They are also to surrender their passports to the court and are prohibited from communicating with any of the witnesses until the disposal of the trial. - FMT, 11/11/2021