Complain about Malaysian Immigration - Risk of being Refused Entry for 6 Months? - Justice Demands Revocation of the ‘6-month Refusal to Entry’ of Singaporean Couple who were allegedly dissatisfied with Malaysian Immigration Officer/s

Media Statement – 22/5/2023

Justice Demands Revocation of the ‘6-month Refusal to Entry’ of Singaporean Couple who were allegedly dissatisfied with Malaysian Immigration Officer/s

Public Officers Must Always Be Courteous

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) is shocked and ashamed that Malaysia had banned a Singaporean couple from entering Malaysia for 6 months just for wanting to complain about the actions of Immigration officers (New Straits Times, 22/5/2023).

Malaysia should be welcoming of public complaints from anyone against public officers and government departments/agencies, and not be perceived as ‘retaliating against any that dare to complaint’.

According to the NST news report, the couple’s complaints or dissatisfaction was, amongst others, about the stamping of the Malaysian Immigration entry stamp on the passport, where allegedly the officer had left a blank page on the passport, and stamped the page following. ‘…"I think this needs to be standardised because its not fair for us (Singaporeans) to be paying for our passports and the officers are just wasting our pages…’

This may not be a big deal for people who sometimes travel overseas, but for those who regularly travel between countries, this may mean that the passport pages may run out early before the passport expires, thus requiring the passport holder to expend monies to get another NEW passport.

When the alleged victims asked about how to lodge a complaint, they were allegedly told to do it online – and when requesting assistance on how to do it online, they ended up being banned from entering Malaysia for 6 months.

‘"He told us to do it online, without explaining it to us. He also raised his voice and told us to do it outside the office. There was no need for him to act that way…’

‘"After my wife asked him a few times on how to do it on the website, he was irritated and took our passports from us. We were taken to another office on level 2 where we were issued with a 'Refusal of Entry' letter by one 'Asisten Superintenden Rexsus', an Indian female officer," said Qayyum…’

‘…He said when they asked for an explanation as to why they were issued with the 'Refusal of Entry' letter when they just want to know the reasons, she couldn't give them an answer. "Instead, she raised her voice and sarcastically gave us a choice of being banned from Malaysia for either 6 months or 1 year. After which, she told us we were banned for 6 months from entering Malaysia for no valid reason."…’

The conduct of Malaysian public officers, if true, is appalling and a national embarrassment. Public officers must at all times be respectful to people who seek their assistance, irrespective whether they are rich or poor, as in this case apparently the couple was travelling on a motorcycle.

In Malaysia, we have heard before about ‘bad’ behavior of public officers, even law enforcement. Ideally, they should always be courteous. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim should ensure that public officers should always be courteous to the public, and a failure to do so ought to be a misconduct.

Complaint procedures should be made easy, and in fact where one cannot directly make a complaint to an officer on site, then there must be at least someone who is there to assist if complaints are to be lodged online.

The response to these dissatisfied clients of Malaysian immigration who wanted to seek clarification and/or lodge a complaint was the issuance of a Refusal of Entry into Malaysia for 6 months, which is shocking and unjust.

One must acknowledge that some amongst us are just FEARFUL of complaining against public officers or the government, and the State is duty bound to eliminate this fear, including the fear of retaliation by the government.

MADPET calls on Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, the Minister and the government of Malaysia to immediately revoke and cancel the said ‘Refusal of Entry’, and to apologize to the victims.

An inquiry should also be done on the incident, and the alleged complaint with a view of ensuring justice be done, which may also include compensation for the victim/s and disciplinary actions. The problem may also have been caused by the inadequacy of staff, resulting in the few being overworked. If the couple committed a crime, charge them in court.

MADPET also calls on the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) to investigate, where the Immigration Department of Malaysia is under EAIC’s jurisdiction, and EAIC has the power to investigate any complaints of misconduct it receives from a member of the public or that are referred to it by any person. MADPET will try to also lodge a complaint.

EAIC should have the power to investigate any matter within its jurisdiction comes to its attention, without any requirement of a complaint lodged by anyone.

 

Charles Hector

For and on behalf of MADPET

 

Re: New Straits Times, 22/5/2023, Singaporean couple banned from Malaysia for questioning Immigration officer > https://www.nst.com.my/news/nst-viral/2023/05/912024/singaporean-couple-banned-malaysia-questioning-immigration-officer

 

Singaporean couple banned from Malaysia for questioning Immigration officer

By New Straits Times - May 22, 2023 @ 1:56pm

A Singaporean couple who had questioned the way an Immigration officer stamped their passports upon entering Malaysia, ended up being banned from entering the country for six months. - Pic credit Facebook/Abdul Qayyum Rahim

KUALA LUMPUR: A Singaporean couple who had questioned the way an Immigration officer stamped their passports upon entering Malaysia, ended up being banned from entering the country for six months.

Sharing his ordeal on Facebook, Abdul Qayyum Rahim said he and his wife were heading to Johor Baru via the Tuas checkpoint (Second Link) on March 20.

"We were stuck at the checkpoint for an hour because there were only two counters open. When we arrived at the counter, the officer told us to remove our passports' covers in an impolite tone.

"I then removed the covers and gave them to her and after she verified our particulars, she proceeded to chop (stamp) the passports. Upon checking the passports, I noticed that the officer had purposely left a blank page on my passport. As for my wife's passport, she chopped on page 27 before scribbling on it and re-chopped on page 28 for no good reason," said Qayyum.

He said he then parked his motorcycle and they walked to the office where he asked a male officer the procedure on how to lodge a complaint against the officer at the counter.

"He told us to do it online, without explaining it to us. He also raised his voice and told us to do it outside the office. There was no need for him to act that way.

"After my wife asked him a few times on how to do it on the website, he was irritated and took our passports from us. We were taken to another office on level 2 where we were issued with a 'Refusal of Entry' letter by one 'Asisten Superintenden Rexsus', an Indian female officer," said Qayyum.

He said when they asked for an explanation as to why they were issued with the 'Refusal of Entry' letter when they just want to know the reasons, she couldn't give them an answer.

"Instead, she raised her voice and sarcastically gave us a choice of being banned from Malaysia for either 6 months or 1 year. After which, she told us we were banned for 6 months from entering Malaysia for no valid reason."

He said the officer at the counter was not wearing a nametag, so he couldn't get her name while the male officer at the first office wasn't wearing a proper uniform, just a t-shirt and a jacket.

"The female officer who issued us the letter at Level 2 office, her name is Asisten Superintenden 'Rexsus'," said Qayyum.

He added a friend of his also had a similar experience.

"She told me her boyfriend questioned why the officer stamped the centre of the page in his passport and the officer shouted at him and took them to the higher office," said Qayyum.

He said he just want a clarification on how and what is the proper procedure for the Malaysian Immigration to stamp passports.

"I think this needs to be standardised because its not fair for us (Singaporeans) to be paying for our passports and the officers are just wasting our pages.

"And also please look into this matter and do something about the officers on the ground. We understand this is their job, but the least they can do is treat us the way they want to be treated. I just hope with this post, Malaysia Immigration will take action on the procedure, the proper turnouts for an officer and also the proper way of treating foreigners coming in your country.

However, Qayyum's version of the incident has been disputed by other Facebook users, with some claiming that it was the couple who provoked the officer in the first place.

Others, meanwhile, said the the couple should not have questioned the way the officer carrying their duties and that it was just a small matter.

Facebook user Rahmat Mohamed commented, "Should not comment or challenge so much when you enter another country. Being Singaporean does not mean you have the entitlement. The country's immigration have every right to refuse entry to anyone if they feel you are a threat to them. I think you followed your emotion on this issue. It (is) a small matter."

Other users took pity to the officers, saying that they might have been very tired since they have to check multiple passports everyday.

Cubby Kuan commented, "Do you know in one day how many passports they have to chop? Hundreds or maybe thousands of passport especially during peak seasons. Imagine they have to turn all the passports page by page to find the recent blank page to chop (so you don't waste your page), then the last person in the line will need to sleep in the airport, no need go out, wait for 10 hours the officer still haven't chop finish because the need to find the page one by one to chop." - New Straits Times, 22/5/2023

 

 

Draconian provisions in Immigration Act must be repealed(Malaysiakini)

For the full statement, and the related reports - MADPET - Malaysia Must Respect Right To Travel Outside The Country – No Last Minute Denial Of Right Without Expressed Reasons, The Right To Be Heard And/Or Judicial Review

Draconian provisions in Immigration Act must be repealed

Charles Hector     Published 6 Jul 2017, 8:52 pm     Updated 6 Jul 2017, 9:15 pm

• 

Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet) is disappointed with the Court of Appeal’s decision, as reported in the media, that suggests that Petaling Jaya Utara MP Tony Pua has no right to be heard and that the Immigration Department director-general is not required to give any reason for imposing such a ban.

The fact that any Malaysian could at any time be barred from leaving the country, without knowing why, and without even being accorded the right to challenge the action of the Immigration Department in court is certainly unacceptable and most unjust.

Justice Idrus Harun, who delivered the unanimous decision of the court, said Article 5 of the Federal Constitution on the right to liberty excluded the right to travel abroad.

He said Pua, under Article 5 and the Immigration Act, had no right to be heard and the Immigration director-general had no duty to give reason to impose the travel ban. The quorum of the Court of Appeal was Mohd Zawawi Salleh, Kamardin Hashim and Idrus.

Section 59 of the Immigration Act 1959/63 states that "no person and no member of a class of persons shall be given an opportunity of being heard before the Minister or the director-general, or in the case of an East Malaysian state, the state authority, makes any order against him in respect of any matter under this Act or any subsidiary legislation made under this Act".

It is so wrong for a person, who had expended monies and effort, to be suddenly barred from travel at the international airport.

Prior notice of a ‘travel ban’ is definitely more just, and accords the victim the right and opportunity to challenge the validity of such ban.

The state of affairs suggests that Malaysians may consider themselves "detained" within Malaysia for the director-general of immigration can at any time "secretly" decide that they be not be allowed to travel out of Malaysia.

Worse still, the victim of the travel ban seems to also not have a right to know the reason why the ban was imposed.

The earlier High Court judgment in Pua’s case, stated, amongst others, "… The above evidence also shows that the director-general of immigration has given his reasons even though he is not required to do so under the Immigration Act".

This goes contrary to norm in the administration of justice, where even the arresting or investigating authority is required to explain the reasons for any such arrest or investigations to persons affected.

Rights and liberties should never be denied without giving reasons to victims.

Without the right to know the reasons, for the denial of the ability to leave Malaysia (and possibly also the right to enter the country), any victim would be extremely prejudiced and subjected to serious injustice.

Without knowing, he/she could also not correct the possible mistakes, lies or false facts upon which the director-general of immigration may have wrongly relied on when he decided on such travel bans.

The denial of the opportunity to be heard even before the director-general or the minister makes it all the more unjust.

Section 59 and other sections that deny such rights must be repealed, and the right to know the reason for the imposition of restrictions and/or travel ban, and the right to be heard must be guaranteed in law.

Judicial review to prevent abuses

Judicial review is the power given to courts and judges to review executive action to determine that it is just and in accordance to the law.

It is a necessary check and balance in any democracy. It is wrong to have laws that enable the arbitrary unchecked exercise of power by the executive, be it the prime minister, ministers, police, the director-general of immigration or any other government department.

Denial of the right to judicial review of the reasons for the restrictions and/or travel ban is unjust.

Section 59A of the Act states, "(1) There shall be no judicial review in any court of any act done or any decision made by the minister or the director-general, or in the case of an East Malaysian state, the state authority, under this Act except in regard to any question relating to compliance with any procedural requirement of this Act or the regulations governing that act or decision".

It is the reasons for the imposition of bans/restrictions that need to be reviewed by court – not simply whether the procedure was followed.

This exclusion of the right of the victim to ask the court to review the reasons for the detention, and in this case, travel bans imposed on him/her, makes the Immigration Act similar to other draconian detention without trial laws like the Prevention of Crime Act 1959(Poca) and Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 (Pota).

The Immigration Act seems worse since there is not even the obligation to inform the person prevented from leaving the country the reasons for the said "ban".

Travel bans should only be imposed by the courts

It must not be forgotten that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in court.

A person being investigated is merely a suspect, and the fact that one is being investigated will really not be known to many unless, they have previously been arrested on suspicion of having committed a crime, or have been called in to give a statement in connection with an investigation that one may have committed some crime.

Note witnesses are also called in for purpose of investigation, and here they can never be considered suspects.

Restrictions of movement out of the country can generally only be imposed after one is charged with a crime, and is released on bail, where the court may, in exceptional cases, impose a "travel ban" preventing the accused from leaving Malaysia.

For suspects and potential witnesses, such powers should never be in the hand of the police, Immigration Department or government, but only the courts.

The law requires that even a suspect arrested, cannot be detained longer than 24 hours without a magistrate’s remand order.

It is absurd that the power to impose travel bans should rest solely in the hands of the Immigration Department – and not the courts.

Without the possibility of judicial intervention, the risk of abuse of power is unchecked.

In this case, however, there were no such prior restrictions imposed by the police and/or the courts.

Pua was allegedly suddenly prevented from leaving the country at the KL International Airport 2 on July 2, 2015.

Individuals subjected to "travel bans" should be notified immediately when they are being subjected to such restrictions – to not do so, and suddenly stop them after they had made plans and expended monies, at the airport or exit points is wrong and unjust.

It suggests that the Immigration authority may have had a wrong motive of causing additional suffering on the victim – prior notification would have prevented such injustice and personal losses.

Prior notice would also accord the right of the victim to challenge any such orders, restrictions and bans, and no reasonable person would have expended monies and energy planning trips if they knew there was a travel ban.

I suspect that Pua was not compensated for even the monies that he had spend purchasing his flight tickets and for other expenses already spent for that trip.

It may be a good idea that the Immigration Department at their website, also place lists of persons who are prevented from travelling out of the country.

Judges must act without fear to uphold justice

In Malaysia, a parliamentary democracy, we have three branches of government – the legislature, the executive and the judiciary is to ensure that any one branch of government, especially, the executive does not abuse its powers and do injustice.

Judicial review is the process that allows a person aggrieved by a decision of the executive to be able to take the matter to the courts, who will then decide whether what was done was just and right.

Given Malaysian parliamentary culture, whereby the ruling party backbenchers, do not seem to oppose or disagree with the executive, which is led by the prime minister/menteri besar/chief minister, who also happens to be the party leader, the role of judiciary to be a check and balance is of becomes all the more important.

It is sad that, in the past, Parliament, possibly under the influence of the executive, has passed laws that attempt to restrict the powers judiciary, thus weakening their ability to be a necessary and effective check and balance.

Thus, it falls upon judges in Malaysia to bravely uphold the cause of justice and the rule of law without fear or favour.

Judges in Malaysia risk the possibility of being transferred or not being promoted or confirmed when they are still judicial commissioners, but that is a risk that they must all face in the interest of justice and human rights.

Bad laws inconsistent with justice, human rights and the rule of law should never be allowed to hinder the upholding of justice.

Therefore Madpet,

Calls for the immediate repeal of laws and/or provisions of law like Section 59 and 59A of the Immigration Act that attempts to exclude judicial review and the right to be heard;

Calls for the immediate revocation of all travel bans and/or restrictions imposed by the police, Immigration Department and/or ministers, which are not imposed by courts and judges after according the intended victim the right to be heard.

Call for the Malaysian government, to immediately compensate Pua and all other victims who had expended monies, by reason of the failure of prior notification of such travel bans.

Calls on Malaysian judges and the Judiciary to uphold the cause of justice without fear or favour.

Calls on Malaysia to respect justice and human rights, and ensure that all branches of government that play an essential role of check and balance in a democracy are not impeded by law and/or other actions.- Malaysiakini, 6/7/2017

Read more: https://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/387697#ixzz4m8Fx1vOp

Torture by police(and other government officers) during detention needs more than guidelines..

Well, after the expose of the 'nude squat' incident (in 2005, I believe) and the numerous deaths in custody incidences which points to the possibility of occurrence of torture involving police or other enforcement officers, which led to amendments in Malaysia's law and the introduction of guidelines, we all expected that such incidences will no more be happening in Malaysia - but alas it still seem to be continuing.

Previously, such 'torture' after arrest may have been to get suspects to confess their crime - but then after the Criminal Procedure Code was amended, such statements and/or confessions can no longer be used to get convictions, so, why is torture  is still happening...(Now, such statements could be used only if the person is charged for making false statements...)

113.  Admission of statements in evidence. (Criminal Procedure Code)
(1) Except as provided in this section, no statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of a police investigation made under this Chapter shall be used in evidence.
(2) When any witness is called for the prosecution or for the defence, other than the accused, the court shall, on the request of the accused or the prosecutor, refer to any statement made by that witness to a police officer in the course of a police investigation under this Chapter and may then, if the court thinks fit in the interest of justice, direct the accused to be furnished with a copy of it and the statement may be used to impeach the credit of the witness in the manner provided by the Evidence Act 1950 [Act 56].
(3) Where the accused had made a statement during the course of a police investigation, such statement may be admitted in evidence in support of his defence during the course of the trial.

(4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any statement made in the course of an identification parade or falling within section 27 or paragraphs 32(1)(a), (i) and (j) of the Evidence Act 1950.

(5) When any person is charged with any offence in relation to-

(a) the making; or (b) the contents, of any statement made by him to a police officer in the course of a police investigation made under this Chapter, that statement may be used as evidence in the prosecution's case.

The problem is that those guilty of abusing their power and torturing have not been taken to task, charged and tried in an open court, and, if found guilty given a deterrent sentence. 

The problem is that we still do not CCTV with recording capabilities at all places in the police station, so that it will be easy to identify the alleged perpetrators.

The problem is that what has been recommended by 2 Royal Commissions, that is an Independent Police Complaints and Misconducts Commission, where victims could go and complaint about police misconduct was not set up by the government. To go complaint to the police about torture and/or wrongdoing of police or other enforcement personnel will not work - as the general impression is that police will protect fellow police officers, and the complainant may end up being charged with making a false report/complaint, and when it comes to witnesses, most of the time there is that one victim, and so many police officers (or others who will not go against the police for fear of repercussions..)

What about SUHAKAM? Yes, you could lodge the complaint there - but all SUHAKAM can do is investigate and then make recommendations. They do not have the power yet to prosecute the wrongdoer. Maybe, it is time we gave SUHAKAM that power..But, even with SUHAKAM, the problem is the persons appointed as Commissioners, and for a public inquiry on a complaint it requires a majority (or is it two thirds) of the Commissioners to support it, so that is why we have so little public inquiries being conducted by SUHAKAM. It still remains a 'toothless tigers' - and even the few good Commissioners can't do much for so long as the Chairman and the majority are too scared to act especially when the person complaint against is a government or public servant.

State governments, I believe can set up their own 'Commissions', committees, etc to investigate alleged human rights violations that happen in their own state - but they too have not taken steps in that direction. 

What about Parliament? Parliamentary select committees?  ...or similar structures in State legislative assemblies. 

Political will - this is what we need but alas our BN government is not really interested in such matters like human rights, and is more interested in matters of a financial nature.

Nude squats are wrong - more importantly, we have get rid of 'torture' - and, it is not enough everytime a case gets the media attention, for the Minister to react and set up some 'multi-agency inquiry' - let's have a couple of MPs/Senators from both the government and opposition in this inquiry panel as well..to give it credibility. Maybe some persons from SUHAKAM and the Bar as well..

The Home Ministry has ordered a multi-agency inquiry into the nude squat complaint involving two Singaporeans last week.

Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said the inquiry will involve at least the Immigration Department and the police, and expects that it will start today.

"We have to get to the bottom of it," he told a press conference at the Parliament lobby today.

Hishammuddin said it is not common practice for immigration officers to order suspected illegal immigrants to perform nude squats.

He however declined to elaborate on the issue, saying that it is best to wait for the outcome of the inquiry.

Last week, Singaporean Chinese daily Lianhe Zaobao reported that the two women were detained on suspicion of being illegal immigrants after they forgot to stamp their passports en route to Johor Baru for supper on June 9.

The pair were detained at a lock-up in Pontian, where they were allegedly told to strip and perform 10 squats naked before they were given clothes meant for detainees and held for 24 hours.

Hishammuddin evaded numerous questions on the details of the incident, repeatedly stressing that it will all be made known once the inquiry is completed and a report is submitted.

'Not handled by frontliners'

He however defended the Immigration officers manning the immigration checkpoint, stating that the alleged incident was not handled by the department's “frontliners”.

“The way the issue has played out is as if it was committed by the frontliners, but it is wrong to say it was (done by) immigration frontliners. The incident happened at the detention depot,” he said.

Hishammuddin acknowledged that there may be a need to revamp the department's standard operating procedures (SOP), but stressed that any decision to do so must be based on the results of the inquiry.

“(Immigration officers') actions are based on SOP. If (the SOP) does not fulfil the atmosphere and situation of today, then it needs to be changed but it must be based on the investigations,” he said.

Last week's nude squat issue is the second such incident to hit Malaysian shores, after a short video clip made its rounds in 2005 depicting a nude woman doing squats while in police custody.

The incident eventually led to a royal commission of inquiry that came up with a list of recommendations and the mooting of an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC).- Malaysiakini, 15/6/2011, Hisham: Immediate inquiry into Nude Squat II

Illegal for employers to hold Migrant Worker's passports..

Many migrants who are legitimately in the country get arrested because they cannot produce and show their passport to the Police, Immigration Officers...and then RELA jokers.

It is so wrong for employers to deprive a migrant of his/her passport...and it is wrong for any person to be holding the passport of another without lawful authority.

And there really is no reason for an employer to be holding the passport of their workers...

HUMAN Resources Minister Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam has questioned the need for employers to keep the passports of their foreign workers.

Tamil Nesan reported him as saying it was illegal to hold another person’s passport.

However, he noted that most foreign workers in Malaysia agreed to hand over their passports to their employers due to security reasons.

Speaking at the launch of Nirwana Academy Group of Colleges’ School of Information Technology in Kuala Lumpur, Dr Subramaniam said the ministry would draw up guidelines to ensure there was no abuse of the passports.

He advised foreign workers not to hand over their passports to their employers.

He said employers must also ensure that the passports and visas do not expire or the workers would have to bear the consequences.

He said there were about three million foreign workers in the country, of whom 1.1 million were illegals. - Star, 25/10/2008 - Subra: No reason for bosses to hold passports

I came across a case a year back where a migrant worker who had just arrived in the country was arrested and detained by the authorities for about 3 plus months just because he could not show his original passport.

Guess what the passport of that migrant worker was taken by his employer to be submitted to the Immigration Department for the necessary work permit [Pas Lawatan[Kerja Sementara] to be endorsed (or attached) in his passport.

This migrant worker was arrested on 28/1/2007. The police takes the position that they will not release until they have sight of the ORIGINAL Passport - other documents insufficient.

After ORIGINAL passport is obtained back from the Immigration Department, which clearly has a Pas Lawatan(Kerja Sementara) that expires only on 11/1/2008, and is shown to the police on 9/2/2007 and the detaining authority at the Depoh Tahanan Pendatang Tanpa Izin Semenyih Selangor on 13/2/2007 .

The Migrant Worker was finally released on 13/4/2007 - and GUESS what despite demands by the Migrant Worker for his Passport - the Immigration Department hands over the passport of the Migrant Worker to the Employer.

Of course, release happelns after the application for habeas corpus is filed and served -- and just before the hearing date.

So, maybe good old HUMAN Resources Minister Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam must also stress it to the Immigration Department and the Police and the other authorities that the passport should always be returned to the Migrant Worker - and should always be with the Migrant Worker.

A brief chronology about this particular Migrant Workers case is as follows:-

28-1-2007 Migrant Worker(MW) arrested by police

29-1-2007 Employer’s representative goes to the Sunway Police station with all documents to prove that the presence of the MW was legal. They asked them to go to the Bandar Puchong police station. The Bandar Puchong Police said that they could not do anything as this was a Bandar Sunway matter.

30-1-2007 The employer’s representative went back to the Bandar Sunway police station - who now told them that they could not do anything until they had sight of the original passport.

9-2-2007 The employer receives back the original passport from the Immigration Department, which clearly has a Pas Lawatan(Kerja Sementara) that expires only on 11/1/2008 - that makes it clear beyond any doubt that the Applicant was legally in Malaysia for work until January 2008. The police then asks the employer’s representative to go to Depoh Tahanan Pendatang Tanpa Izin Semenyih Selangor.

13-2-2007 The employer’s representative goes to the Depoh Tahanan Pendatang Tanpa Izin Semenyih Selangor, and they say they cannot release until they receive directions from the police or the Public Prosecutor. The Depoh Tahanan Pendatang Tanpa Izin Semenyih Selangor then takes and holds the original passport of the MW.

15-2-2007 The employer’s representative goes back to the Sunway Police Station, and one Sjn. Ariffin says that he needs the original passport.

21-2-2007 The employer’s representative goes back to Depoh Tahanan Pendatang Tanpa Izin Semenyih Selangor and obtains the original passport of the MW with some difficulty.

The employer’s representative returns to Sjn Ariffin (Sunway Police Station), and he now says that the Immigration Department does not have any records about the MW.

22-2-2007 The employer’s representative goes to the Immigration Department in Pusat Bandar Damansara, Kuala Lumpur and gets even additional documents verifying the MW’s existence and valid presence in Malaysia. They also went to the Selangor Immigration Department.

When the employer’s representative returns with all these proof, Sjn Ariffin wrongfully said that he did want to be disturbed about this.

When the Public Prosecutor’s office in Selangor is contacted, they say that they have no records of the arrest and detention of the MW.

26-2-2007 The employer’s representative then went back to the Immigration Department in Pusat Bandar Damansara, and they also said that they do not have any record of the MW’s arrest and detention.

The employer’s representative goes back to the Sunway Police Station, and meet with the Officer in Charge, one C/Insp Supari, who says that he cannot do anything as this case was handled by Sjn Ariffin.

15-3-2007 The MW’s friend, one Alam Zeb, sends a letter to the Public Prosecutor’s office in Selangor enclosing a Statutory Declaration that also enclosed copies of all relevant documents appealing for the release of the MW.
28-3-2007 The MW’s lawyer sends letters to all relevant parties seeking the release of the MW, enclosing also relevant documents clearly showing that the arrest and clearly the prolonged detention was wrong.

3-4-2007 The Public Prosecutor’s office in Selangor sends Alam Zeb a letter stating that his appeal that the MW be released have been allowed.

5-4-2007 The Peguam Negara Malaysia sends a letter to the MW’s lawyers stating very clearly that they have investigated the matter, and have ordered that the MW is to be released from custody. (This letter was also copied to the Public Prosecutor’s office in Selangor)

11-4-2007 After receipt of the letter from Peguam Negara Malaysia, which was sent by normal post, the MW’s lawyers sent letters to all relevant parties enclosing the Peguam Negara’s letter, asking that the MW be immediately released from custody/detention.There was also verbal communication with the relevant parties.

13-4-2007 The Immigration Department in Putrajaya contacts the lawyers of the MW stating that the applicant will be released in Putrajaya, and that the lawyers need to be present with the original passport. It was clearly made known that the lawyers were the MW’s lawyers - not the lawyers of the employer.

The original passport of the MW was taken from the lawyers, and the Immigration Department said that they had to wait for the employer to come before the MW was released.

When the employer’s representative arrived, the original passport was handed to the employer’s representative by the Immigration Department despite protests from the lawyers and the Applicant. - based on the Affidavits affirmed and filed in court, and also the oral and written submissions in court.

On the hearing date, the High Court threw out the application for habeas corpus because the Migrant Worker had been released already.

I am sure that there are many simialr cases of Migrant Workers (or Refugees even) that get arrested and detained unnecessarily because they could not produce their original passport.

HUMAN Resources Minister Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam should not be questioning the need for employers to hold the passport of migrant workers --- nor should he be only advising migrant workers 'not to hand over their passports to their employers'. He must also tell employers not to hold on to these passports. There must be strict enforcement of the law against employers who do so...

The Minister must also ensure that appropriate temporary documents are given to workers when passports are sent to Immigration Department for visa applications and/or renewals - and that all (police, Immigration, Detention Centres Authorities, and others) do recognize these appropriate temporary documents as being valid papers in lieu of the original passport.

If a MW is arrested and detained - then an EMPLOYER shall be made liable to pay the MW compensation and damages.

Migrant Workers .....mmm let's also not forget about that Malaysian pregnant mother who was detained as an undocumented migrant for almost a year because she did not have her NRIC card with her. See my earlier postings on the Rajeshvari Scandal : PM need assure us no other cases like this...

We may not be able to do much about what happens in the whole of Malaysia - but surely something can be done immediately in the 5 Pakatan Rakyat States of Selangor, Perak, Pulau Pinang, Kedah and Kelantan - to prevent unnecessary and/or wrongful arrest and detention of migrants (or even Malaysians).

Preference to family members in Malaysia is unacceptable

This is certainly DISCRIMINATION....Was there not another word for this...nepotism, was it not?

The Immigration Department will give priority to family members and relatives of its staff should they apply for jobs with the department.

“We believe that staff will be more obedient when they work with their family members,” he said at a press conference after visiting the Causeway on Wednesday.

He said that working together as a family would encourage the staff to be committed at work.

“In Japan, family members usually work in the same organisation and this helps them perform better as parents can share their experiences with children who are new at the job,” he said.

Mahmood said the department hoped to recruit more non-Malays as they made up fewer than 20% of the 10,000 workforce.

“We are getting 1,000 new staff in mid-October and about 200 of them will be non-Malays.- Star. 3/10/2008, Immigration Dept to give priority to staff's kin when hiring

The Star report was not clear as to who made the statement - it referred only to a 'Mahmood' but I believe it is Datuk Mahmood Adam, the Immigration Department director-general

Defence Ministry deputy secretary-general (management) Datuk Mahmood Adam will take over as the new Immigration Department director-general effective Monday, Chief Secretary to the Government Tan Sri Sidek Hassan announced Saturday.

He also announced the appointment of the Immigration Department's Foreign Workers Division director Abdul Rahman Othman as the department's deputy director-general (management) effective the same day.

Mahmood, 55, takes over from Datuk Wahid Don while Abdul Rahman, 50, replaces Yusof Abu Bakar. - Bernama, 19/7/2008 Mahmood Adam Appointed New Immigration Director-General

Father PM and party President - Government projects to companies with connection to son/relatives (eg. SCOMI) , son-in-law No.2 in party youth....

I wonder where the DG of Immigration is really getting these ideas from - of course it is not OK. The only consideration should be qualification/s, capabilities - not ethnicity, religion, political party affliations, relationships, 'who they know?', etc...

This DG blurted it out - BUT the question remains as to the extend of this practices in the country.

I believe that Najib's Brother is some CEO or something high in one of the Banks - and some reports also did suggest that he will be able to assist Najib in his new role as Finance Minister No. 1. Is this right? So, are we going to see pro-Bank policies from now on? Are we going to see a pro-CIMB positioning by the Malaysian government?

The current tumultous global environment presents one of the most challenging times for one to become finance minister, says CIMB Group chief executive Datuk Seri Nazir Razak.

He was referring to the swapping of ministry portfolios between Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Datuk Seri Najib Razak, Nazir’s brother.

“We wish him (Najib) all the best. Let’s wait for him to get back from New York,” he said after the launch of the CIMB Max InvestSave PSSIA-i yesterday.

Abdullah is the new Defence Minister while Najib has taken over the finance portfolio. - Star, 19/9/2008, Tough time to be finance minister, says CIMB chief executive

I feel that since Mohd Najib Razak is the Finance Minister, his younger brother should just resign from his position and maybe just live of his wealth, for after all he is the 40th riches man in the country or Najib should take a different port-folio.

DEPUTY Prime Minister Najib Razak's younger brother has entered Malaysia's rich list for the first time - coming in at No.40, with a net worth of US$100 million (S$136 million).

Datuk Nizar, 41, son of the late prime minister Abdul Razak, is chief executive of financial services firm CIMB and its parent company, Bumiputra Commerce Holdings. - The Straits Times, 23/5/2008, Najib's brother debuts on Malaysia's rich list

We do not want Discrimination in favour of political affiliation...and surely do want discrimination in favour of family members... at any level...

Rajeshvari Scandal : PM need assure us no other cases like this...

If you ask me now, what is my NRIC number - I will not able to recite it from memory - I need to look at it. It is now a 12-digit number. Previously, the old NRIC number was only 7 numbers.

So, not knowing the NRIC number is no justification for arresting some 6-month pregnant women having coffee in a coffee-shop in Brickfirelds and thereafter sending her to some detention camp for undocumented migrants.

From the initial report, I thought that this woman had difficulty communicating in Bahasa Malaysia - but alas she could speak BM. She did tell them her address, her previous school,etc -- "but they did not believe her..." WHY?

As one: Rajeshvari holding her temporary IC as her mother Parameswari and her sister Vigneswari who is holding Logekali look on. - Star, 10/9/2008 -Rajeshvari and son meet her mother and sister

Now, even if she could not speak Bahasa Malaysia, then surely there should have been interpreters available - not just at the police station, but also at the courts and the Immigration Detention Centress.

I wonder what would have been happened if she was disabled - not having the capacity to speak... (or even communicate...)

Rajeshvari, who was six-months pregnant then, was detained by a police party while waiting for a relative at a coffee shop in Brickfields last October.

They had mistaken her for a Sri Lankan immigrant despite her repeated pleas that she was a local. She gave birth to a boy, Logekali, while in detention.

“I know it’s my fault that I could not produce or remember my IC number but I did give the officers my address and school’s name only to be told that these did not exist,” she said.

She claimed she told them this several times in Bahasa Malaysia but they did not believe her.

“I was never a bright student and left school at 13 but I can still converse in basic Bahasa,” Rajeshvari added. - Star, 10/9/2008 -Rajeshvari and son meet her mother and sister

Come now, good guy Malaysian Indian Youth Council vice-president Andrew Raju (this is not MIC) could so easily verify the fact that she was indeed a citizen - and get her release recently. She got arrested 6-months pregnant, and when she came out she was with 10-month old baby boy.

Rajeshvari was released from the depot in Seremban on Friday after Malaysian Indian Youth Council vice-president Andrew Raju got her birth certificate details from her primary school in Kampar.- Star, 8/9/2008- Suhakam raps Immigration

It is baffling that a non-governmental organisation took only one day to verify that a suspected illegal immigrant was Malaysian when the arresting authority could not.

“They had her for a total of 11 months and they were unable to verify her claim that Rajeshvary Murugiah was a Malaysian.

“Unlike them, Andrew (Raju of the Malaysian Indian Youth Coun­cil) who met her at the clinic after she fell ill was able to confirm she was Malaysian by going to the Re­gistration Department,” said Su­­hakam commissioner Datuk N. Siva Subramaniam when contacted. - Star, 11/9/2008 -Inability to establish Rajeshvari ID baffling

At, the end of the day, it really goes down to attitude - and this "do not care" attitude of public servants and the courts is shocking. There must be a thorough investigations, and disciplinary actions must be taken against all those responsible.

I am shocked with the attitude of the Immigration Department enforcement chief Datuk Ishak Mohamed, as reported:-

However, Immigration Department enforcement chief Datuk Ishak Mohamed said that the burden of proof of citizenship was on the person suspected of being an illegal immigrant.

“The new Criminal Procedure Code also allows the suspect to make phone calls to anyone who can help,” he said, pointing out that the police had picked her up, not Immigration officials.

“But, please, don’t tell me that after 22 years, you cannot speak Bahasa Malaysia? You mean she would not know how to sing Negaraku either?” he added. - Star, 8/9/2008- Suhakam raps Immigration

So, what is he saying here? If I cannot speak Bahasa Malaysia - then I am presumed not to be a Malaysian. Hello, there are many Malaysians who are not able to speak Bahasa Melayu... (In any event, Rajeshwari did communicate in Bahasa Melayu - but they did not care - they did not believe her... You should have checked ...investigated... It is sad also that the Immigration guy is now allegedly trying to shift the blame...

When did being able to sing the Negaraku a proof of being a Malaysian citizen? Was Rajeshwari even asked to sing the national anthem? He is just talking non-sense. Wonder whether this Ishak Mohamad can sing the Negaraku - and we should maybe just detain him if he cannot sing it right. Absurd comment by a Malaysian public officer. Embarassing further because that man is the 'enforcement chief'.

I believe that there may be other Malaysians (irrespective of whether they are citizens or Permanent Residents) who are currently being detained wrongly in the Immigration Detention Centres - police lock-ups, etc....and after the Rajeshwari scandal, I have very strong basis for saying so.

What we need now if for an immediate check and verification of all persons being detained at these Detention Centres, lock-ups, remand prisons, etc

We MUST Liberate immediately all that are being wrongly detained...it may be Malaysians, those with PR status, Migrants who are here legally, Refugees, Asylum seekers..

Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar needed to urgently focus his attention on this matter of great concern - not bother too much about how Anwar investigations is proceeding. I believe the police and the Immigration Department comes within his Ministry..

The courts of course comes under the Judiciary and our good old AG Ghani Patail...

I believe the Prime Minister or his Minister immediately assure us within SEVEN DAYS that in our Detention facilities in Malaysia, there no more Rajeshwari's and 10-month old babies or others wrongly detained..

SUHAKAM has the power to go and check this Detention centres - so stop just making statements. HR Commissioners shall immediately go visit ALL Detention facilities and ensure that there are currently NO ONE else being wrongfully detained.

I believe that this also is a matter for Anwar and his Pakatan Rakyat parties. They should also be concerned about this matters that affect ordinary Malaysians and/or persons - not just the taking over of the reigns of power from the BN.

Name calling and saying hurtful things is one thing - but denying wrongly the liberty of a person for over 11 months is so much more serious, I believe.

Congrats and thanks to that unidentified medical staff, who brought the matter to Andrew Raju's attention.

Thanks Andrew Raju for your care and concern that ended the injustice & suffering of Rajeshwari & 10 month old Logekali.

Thank you to the Star for highlighting this issue - giving us all the opportunity now to ensure that all those wrongfully detained be released soonest - liberated from the suffering they may have had to endure by reason of the attitude, negligence and failings of some public servants and court officials... - and of course the blame is on current BN government and its PM.