RESOLUTION OF THE MALAYSIAN BAR FOR THE ABOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY
(which was adopted at the 60th AGM of the Malaysian Bar on 18/3/2006)
WHEREAS every human being has the inherent right to life;
WHEREAS Malaysia has hanged at least 358 persons between 1981 and 2005;
WHEREAS about 173 persons are on death row as at December 2005;
WHEREAS :
a) studies conducted throughout the world over the past seventy years have failed to find convincing evidence that capital punishment is a more effective deterrent of crime than long-term imprisonment;
b) studies conducted in Australia show that abolition of the death penalty had no effect on the homicide rate and in Canada there in fact was a sharp decline in the homicide rate after abolition;
c) in the United States over the past twenty years, states with the death penalty in general have had a higher homicide rate than states without the death penalty;
WHEREAS on the other hand the execution of human beings by the State gives an ‘example of barbarity’ to society and legitimizes the taking of human life;
WHEREAS Malaysia lacks safeguards that would ensure a fair trial such as the right to immediate access to a lawyer upon arrest, right to full disclosure of evidence in the possession of the police and prosecution, and has to the extreme prejudice of accused persons loaded a capital crime statute such as the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ( which generates the largest number of death sentences annually ) with presumptions of trafficking that compromise the presumption of innocence which is integral to any fair and just criminal justice system;
WHEREAS:
a) it is not possible in any system of human justice to prevent the horrifying possibility of the execution of innocent persons; and
b) the infliction of the death penalty makes wrongful convictions irreversible;
WHEREAS :
a) 122 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice as opposed to 74 countries which retain the death penalty;
b) An average of three countries have abolished the death penalty each year over the last decade;
c) the trend worldwide has been for the abolition of the death penalty;
WHEREAS the UN Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2005/59 passed in 2005 calls upon all states to abolish the death penalty and states that the abolition of the death penalty is essential for the protection of the right to life of every human being;
WHEREAS Article 1 of the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides that ‘ No one within the jurisdiction of a State party to the present Optional Protocol shall be executed ’.
WHEREAS the death penalty has no place in any society which values human rights, justice and mercy;
NOW IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the Malaysian Bar calls for the:
1) Abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia;
2) An immediate moratorium on all executions pending abolition;
3) Commutation of the sentences of all persons currently on death row;
4) Ratification by Malaysia of the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Proposers: N.Surendran , Charles Hector, Amer Hamzah Arshad, Sreekant Pillai
* the facts and statistics relied on here are from Professor Roger Hood’s The Death Penalty( A Worldwide Perspective) OUP 2002, Amnesty International and statistics released by the Government of
Sunday, December 02, 2007
FOR THE ABOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY - Malaysian Bar Resolution
U.N. panel votes for death penalty moratorium (Star)
Remember that the United Nations General Assemble will be voting on this resolution calling for a moratorium on the death penalty on or about 10th December 2007.What we have now is only a U.N. committee vote - we need to lobby for our Malaysian government to vote in favour of this resolution calling for a moratorium on the death penalty. Remember at the UN commitee level, Malaysia voted against the said resolution.
Let us all call on our Malaysian government to vote in favour of this resolution. Write letters. Send memorandums. (Check out the Malaysian Bar resolution(also found in this Blog) - that could serve as a guideline as to the wordings of your own call to the Malaysian government.)
In fact, we should also lobby the Malaysian Bar to maybe reiterate its call and also maybe take the lead in a nationwide campaign. MADPET have been thinking of getting as many Malaysian NGOs as possible to support the call of not just a moratorium of death sentences - but for a total abolition of the death penalty. The following wording is proposed.
We, the undersigned Malaysians, peoples' organisations, civil society groups, non-governmental organisations, trade unions, professional groups, religious bodies, cultural groups, political parties, groups, communities and human persons call for
1) Abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia;
2) An immediate moratorium on all executions pending abolition;
3) Commutation of the sentences of all persons currently on death row;
4) Ratification by Malaysia of the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
U.N. panel votes for death penalty moratorium
By Claudia ParsonsUNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - A U.N. committee voted on Thursday in favor of a resolution calling for a moratorium on the death penalty in a key step toward the passing of the nonbinding motion by the world body.
Opponents had tried to derail the resolution in the U.N. General Assembly's human rights committee by inserting amendments on the right to life of unborn children.
More than 15 amendments were voted down in two days of acrimonious debate that touched on whether the death penalty was a human rights issue or a domestic matter. Some Caribbean and other countries accused the European Union, a key backer of the text, of seeking to impose its values on other nations.
The resolution, which calls for "a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty," was passed 99-52 with 33 abstentions. It is likely to go to the full 192-member assembly in mid-December where supporters say they expect few countries to change their position.
"It's a question of coherence -- a country that votes in a certain way here will do so there," Italian Ambassador Marcello Spatafora told Reuters shortly before the vote.
Eighty-seven countries -- including the 27 EU states, more than a dozen Latin American countries and eight African states -- jointly introduced the draft resolution, though opponents singled out the EU as the driving force.
Two similar moves in the 1990s failed in the assembly. This time, the text of the resolution stops short of an outright demand for immediate abolition.
ANGRY OPPOSITION
Vanu Gopala Menon, ambassador of Singapore which has a mandatory death penalty for most drug offenses, accused those who brought the resolution to the committee of being "sanctimonious, hypocritical and intolerant."
Barbados was among the most vocal in complaining that "a group of countries" was trying to impose its will, saying it had been threatened with the withdrawal of aid over the issue.
Human rights organization Amnesty International welcomed the vote as a "historic resolution and a major step towards the abolition of the death penalty worldwide."
"Although the resolution is not legally binding on states, it carries considerable moral and political weight," Amnesty International said in a statement.
China, Iran, Iraq, the United States, Pakistan and Sudan account for about 90 percent of all executions worldwide.
According to Amnesty, 133 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice -- a statistic that opponents of the resolution contested. They said more than 100 countries retained capital punishment on their statutes, even if they did not all use it.
Botswana's representative Rhee Hetanang said the death penalty was a domestic criminal justice issue. "No amount of intimidation and bullying will cause us to go against the expressed wish of the people of Botswana," he said.
Egypt and Iran were among countries proposing a last-minute amendment that would have urged member states "to take all necessary measures to protect the lives of unborn children."
The United States, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe were among the countries voting for that amendment. It was rejected 83-28 with 47 abstentions.
"We are in agreement with the view expressed in this amendment that the lives of the unborn deserve the strongest protection, and we agree that countries that advocate for the abolition of the death penalty should be at least equally scrupulous in showing concern for innocent life," U.S. representative Joseph Rees said.
The United States abstained in a vote on a more strongly worded amendment that would have said abortion was only admissible in necessary cases, "in particular where the life of the mother and or the child is at serious risk."
Copyright © 2007 Reuters
Sunday, November 25, 2007
A Gandhi-inspired mass civil disobedience (Malaysiakini)
| Yet again the Malaysian Government under Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and the Malaysian police have embarassed MALAYSIA and Malaysians - by their display of intolerance and unreasonableness - and a blatant disrespect for human rights. Their intolerance to peoples' rights of assembly and expression, and the use of unnecessary "violence" - in the form of tear gas and water cannons on ordinary un-armed non-violent Malaysians is SHAMEFUL. (Hopefully this time there will be no Minister or Human Rights Commissioner coming out and proclaiming that there was no violence on the part of the police) It is said that about 400 persons have been arrested - another embarassment. Who can now not say that the Malaysian government (and its police force) is not just like the Burmese government and its police force? Malaysian government likes to campaign for PEACE and UNITY - and it is the peace of docile lambs that they want. It is the UNITY of wearing "Unity Bands" and singing "Unity Songs". But Malaysians are waking-up from their slumber and are no more FOOLS. Now what we want is human rights and JUSTICE - and that is first. We want PEACE and UNITY but a peace and unity, which has as its foundation Justice and Human Rights and FREEDOM. IMMEDIATELY RELEASE ALL THOSE ARRESTED AND STILL BEING DETAINED (tomorrow's papers - we wonder what it will say or maybe there will be no report about any protest in Kuala Lumpur...or maybe it will be in page 2_...) A Gandhi-inspired mass civil disobedience | ||||
| ||||
| Hindraf legal advisor P Uthayakumar, has declared the movement’s rally today “a success” despite not being able to hand a petition to the British High Commission.
Tamachelvy, like many other Hindraf supporters, said that the government ban on the rally was unjust, as they have limited means to collectively voice their grievances. IGP: Police exercise restraint
“We were restraining ourselves not to use force. There was no body contact,” said Musa, who was heavily rumoured to have overseen police operations in a helicopter. More than 400 detained |
20,000 Hindraf protesters rally in KLCC (Malaysiakini)
| I was in Sri Lanka a couple of years ago and witnessed a large protest rally - which was a procession not just a gathering in one location. It was an opposition protest, and the chants were against the then current government and the police. The police, unlike the Malaysian police, was present 'unarmed', with no water canons or tear gas, and they just stood peacefully by the side monitoring ensuring that all went well. Business operated as usual. Several years ago, in South Korea, again I witnessed another massive protest and demonstration - and again the police were on the fringes - ready and waiting to get into the picture if maybe things started going wrong. Business went on as usual .... The protest starts..ends....and all was peaceful.... In Malaysia, however, the problem is the police - who, by their very actions, cause traffic jams, get businesses to close down and violate the human rights and fundamental liberties of Malaysians. Now, one thing about Malaysians, when they come out to protest, is that they behave very responsibly and in a peaceful manner Most protests in Malaysia have been on Saturdays at about 3pm or on a Sunday or on a Public Holiday or during lunch-break - and that, by itself, shows a high level of maturity and a great sense of responsibility - Malaysians protest and strike during their "rest time" not during "working hours". Malaysians also protest because they really have no other effective avenue of expression. Letters to the Prime Ministers and/or Ministers and/or government departments generally do not even receive any response - not even a response that we have received your letter OR that we are looking into it. Try to get it into the newspapers through letters to the editor, press releases, etc - and you find that it is never published. Ask your member of Parliament or State Assemblyman to raise it - did I suggest that, oh no...just forget it (total waste of time most of the time..) Let us take the fuel-hike protests - If you were to look at the Malaysian newspapers and other media, the impression that one will get is that Malaysians accepted the price increase (and all its consequences) and were happy and fine with it. That is what disturbs people because it is so far from the truth - and that is why they come out to protest - because if you protest, it gets the attention of the government and its leaders (and it also gets the attention of the local and international media) - at least then (even with the risk of arrest, being sprayed by the water-cannons, being tear-gassed, being kicked and beaten-up...), I have had my opportunity to express myself and be heard.. That is why Malaysians finally protest. The government goes out and tries to brainwash us into believing that protest and demonstrations are "EVIL", "BAD" - and is "NOT PART OF THE MALAYSIAN CULTURE" - which is all UN-TRUE - for it is universally accepted as being an essential and fundamental human right especially in a nation that claims to be a democracy. HELLO Prime Minister and Malaysian Government - we do not want "Malaysian Cosmonaut", Malaysians climbing mountains, Highest Twin-Towers, etc - all we want is a JUST and FAIR government that is really democratic and allows for freedom of expression, assembly ...freedom of the media.. WHY DO YOU USE VIOLENCE ON PEACEFUL PROTESTORS ? BERSIH PROTEST - all they wanted was a clean-up of the election mechanisms ( a good thing, is it not?) HINDRAF PROTEST - was it not a protest against Malaysia's former colonial power (BRITISH) for bringing Indians to Malaysia as indentured labourers and exploiting them for 150 years - not even against the Barisan National government. (Of course, I will also place BLAME on the Barisan Nasional government who have failed all Malaysians (i.e. all Malaysian individuals and families) in allowing us to now have one of the largest gap between the rich and the poor in Asia. The 10% richest in Malaysia is about 22 times richer than the poorest 10%, and control about 35% of our wealth...Of course the government hides this fact by only looking at race/ethnic classes..and not individuals/families. **************** 20,000 Hindraf protesters rally in KLCC | ||||
| ||||
| About 20,000 protesters demonstrated under the shadows of Kuala Lumpur’s iconic Twin Towers after their efforts to petition the British High Commission was thwarted by the police with tear gas and chemical-laced water cannon. The protesters had attempted to gather outside the high commission early this morning but thousands were pushed back by the riot police to outside a two-kilometre radius of the venue. The protesters – a mix of young and old Indian Malaysians from all parts of the country - were addressed with loudhailers by Hindraf leaders, including P Uttayakumar. At 1pm, after negotiations with the police, Hindraf leader P Uttayakumar gave a short speech and urged the crowd to disperse peacefully. The crowd was seen walking back down towards Jalan Sultan Ismail, away from the British High Commission.
Today's memorandum was to petition Queen Elizabeth II to appoint a Queen's counsel to argue the case on their behalf. |
Friday, November 23, 2007
Rela to manage detention depots
And now they are to manage detention centres -- and they will be "..paid allowances to work full-time in shifts...". YES, they will still be volunteers being paid allowances.
Who then can work "full-time in shiftc"? And the answer can only be the unemployed in our community.
Rather than increasing the number of full-time professionally trained public officers, with regular salaries and other labour protetions, including pension rights - the Malaysian government is probably using RELA as a means to provide 'the unemployed' in the country temporary work and some financial relief... and this is very wrong.

Friday November 23, 2007
Rela to manage detention depots
PUTRAJAYA: Rela members will be trained to take over the full-time running of the country’s 14 immigration depots by the end of this year.
The Cabinet made this decision recently to give Rela control of all these detention centres, which currently house some 11,000 illegal immigrants.
Rela is a voluntary corps under the Home Affairs Ministry and is governed by the Emergency (Stipulated Powers) Act 1964.
Home Affairs Minister Datuk Seri Radzi Sheikh Ahmad said it would take about two years to train his ministry staff to run these immigration centres.
“So, for the time being, Rela members will be put in charge of these centres.
“They will be trained in aspects of crowd control, how to escort illegal immigrants and maintaining records, among others,” he told reporters at his office here yesterday.
Radzi added that Rela was already in charge of running two centres; one at the KL International Airport and the other at Pasir Gudang, Johor.
“And they are doing well there,” he said, adding that each centre run by Rela would have 20 to 30 of its members managing it.
They will be paid allowances to work full-time in shifts and members will be sourced from areas in the vicinity of the detention centres.
For instance, said Radzi, Rela members living around the depot in Lenggeng (in Negri Sembilan) will be given the opportunity to work there.
He said the running of the depots before this by the staff of the Prisons Department (which comes under the purview of the Internal Security Ministry) had made it difficult for Rela members to catch, detain and deport illegal immigrants.
This, in turn, had contributed to the overcrowding at the depots, he said.
So far this year, Rela had detained 30,332 foreigners for not having travel documents and had screened 156,070 others.
Radzi said Rela members carried out 30 to 40 raids a night, adding that the Cabinet had approved RM26mil to build two more detention centres and to expand an existing one to resolve the overcrowding problem.
Rela to manage detention depots
| Friday, 23 November 2007, 08:33am | |
|
|
Thursday, November 22, 2007
ASEAN Leaders Sign ASEAN Charter - The Official Media Release by ASEAN
Well, one development can be that if consensus cannot be achieved the matter can be referred to the ASEAN Summit (happens 2 times a year) for a decision. Maybe, after this there will be an ASEAN position on Burma, the happenings in Southern Thailand, etc... Before this, the biggest FLAW in ASEAN was that the decision making is by way of consensus - and as such even when there is a gross human rights violations in one of the member states of ASEAN, there can never be a consensus and as such ASEAN cannot make a stance or take a position. Likewise, when it comes to trade agreements, like the WTO - ASEAN could not take a collective position. Now, it is permissible for "ASEAN minus X" but that also depends on consensus. Will it work. To be an effective regional grouping - it must be able to also act as such where it matters. Interestingly, the signing of the ASEAN Charter by the ASEAN leaders of the 10 ASEAN member states will not bring the Charter into force --- (only a P.R. exercise after all ????) -- it comes into force only after all ten(10) member state sign and submit their "instrument of ratification". ........ "After its signing, the Charter will have to be ratified (or formally accepted to be bound) in every Member State. It will come into force on the 30th day after the deposit of the tenth instrument of ratification (or instrument of acceptance) with the Secretary-General of ASEAN." Media Release ASEAN Leaders Sign ASEAN Charter | |
| Singapore, 20 November 2007
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ASEAN CHARTER For the first time after 40 years of regional cooperation, ASEAN Member States have codified organic Southeast Asian diplomacy, listed key principles and purposes of ASEAN. The Charter represents a momentous occasion for ASEAN Member States to reiterate their commitment to community-building in ASEAN, as can be seen in the Preamble, and to reposition ASEAN to better meet challenges of the 21st century with new and improved ASEAN structure, as shown in Chapter IV. ASEAN Secretary-General Ong Keng Yong says that “the ASEAN Charter will serve the organisation well in three interrelated ways, such as, formally accord ASEAN legal personality, establish greater institutional accountability and compliance system, and reinforce the perception of ASEAN as a serious regional player in the future of the Asia Pacific region”. HISTORIC AGREEMENT The ASEAN Charter is, therefore, an historic agreement among the ten Member States to establish the legal and institutional framework for ASEAN as the premier inter-governmental organization of the region. There are 13 Chapters, 55 Articles, and 4 annexes in the ASEAN Charter. It was drafted by the High Level Task Force on the Drafting of the ASEAN Charter, consisting of one representative from each of the 10 Member States. After its signing, the Charter will have to be ratified (or formally accepted to be bound) in every Member State. It will come into force on the 30th day after the deposit of the tenth instrument of ratification (or instrument of acceptance) with the Secretary-General of ASEAN. After that, the Charter will be registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations. PEOPLE-ORIENTED ASEAN ASEAN is moving from being State-centric to be more people-oriented. At least 10 of the 15 stated purposes of ASEAN in Chapter I concern the livelihood and well-being of peoples in ASEAN.
Adherence to democratic values, and respects for human rights and fundamental freedoms are stipulated in three separate places in the Charter : the Preamble, the Purposes, and the Principles. This is to emphasize that all ASEAN Member States share the same aspiration and common desire to promote democracy, human rights, fundamental freedoms, rule of law, and good governance. ASEAN Human Rights Body The Charter calls for the establishment of an ASEAN human rights body as a new organ of ASEAN. This is a new and important commitment in ASEAN as far as promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms of peoples in ASEAN are concerned. The terms of reference for the ASEAN human rights body shall be determined by the ASEAN Foreign Ministers Meeting. ADDITIONAL PRINCIPLES The Charter includes these two among the key principles of ASEAN : “shared commitment and collective responsibility in enhancing regional peace, security and prosperity“ and “enhanced consultations on matters seriously affecting the common interest of ASEAN”. LEGAL PERSONALITY In Chapter II, ASEAN Member States confer on ASEAN a legal personality, which is separate from theirs. Details of what ASEAN can or cannot do with its legal personality will be discussed and stated in a supplementary protocol after the signing of the Charter. MEMBERSHIP CRITERIA The membership criteria are stated in Chapter III, Article 6. IMPROVED STRUCTURE Essentially, the improved structure will enable ASEAN to improve coordination, ensure prompt implementation of decisions and agreements, and speedy response to new opportunities and challenges. Important changes include :
ENTITIES ASSOCIATED WITH ASEAN Chapter V of the Charter concerns engagement with entities associated with ASEAN. Five categories of these entities are listed in Annex 2. First on the list is the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly (AIPA), which is the key partner in government of ASEAN. The Secretary-General of ASEAN is in charge of updating the list, upon the recommendation of the Committee of Permanent Representatives in Jakarta. CONSULTATION AND CONSENSUS The Charter reaffirms as “a basic principle” decision-making in ASEAN by consultation and consensus. Where consensus cannot be achieved, the ASEAN Summit may decide on how a specific decision can be made. If there is a serious breach of the Charter or non-compliance, the matter will be referred to the ASEAN Summit for decision. FLEXIBLE PARTICIPATION IN ECONOMIC SCHEMES The Charter permits flexible participation in the implementation of economic commitments in ASEAN, including the use of the ASEAN Minus X formula where there is a consensus to do so. Under the ASEAN Minus X formula, a Member State may opt out from certain economic schemes that it is not yet ready to participate, although it has taken part in determining and approving such economic schemes in the first place. NEW DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MODALITIES ASEAN may establish new dispute settlement mechanisms where necessary. Disputes in the ASEAN Economic Community may be referred to the 2004 ASEAN Protocol on Enhanced Dispute Settlement Mechanism for some solution. The ASEAN Chairman and the Secretary-General of ASEAN can be requested to provide good offices, conciliation or mediation in a dispute. This is a new initiative in ASEAN. Unresolved disputes shall be referred to the ASEAN Summit for its decision. SINGLE CHAIRMANSHIP It is possible that the ASEAN Economic Ministers Meeting (AEM) may also be included under the Single ASEAN Chairmanship. The ASEAN Chairmanship will start on 1 January and end on 31 December. ENGLISH AS THE WORKING LANGUAGE OF ASEAN The Charter reaffirms that English is the working language of ASEAN. (This is one of the few things that ASEAN has outdone the European Union, where every official EU document must be written in at least three languages.) ASEAN IDENTITY Under Chapter XI, the following will add to the creation of ASEAN identity:
(Two more things that ASEAN has outdone the EU : ASEAN will have the motto and anthem; whereas the EU has already abandoned its earlier plan to adopt “United in Diversity” as the European motto, and Beethoven’s Ode to Joy as the European anthem.) ACCREDITATION OF AMBASSADORS TO ASEAN States that are Dialogue Partners of ASEAN and relevant inter-governmental organizations, such as the EU, may appoint and accredit Ambassadors to ASEAN. But there is no Jakarta residency requirement for these Ambassadors to ASEAN.
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations or ASEAN was established on 8 August 1967 in Bangkok by the five founding Member States, namely, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. Brunei Darussalam joined on 8 January 1984, Viet Nam on 28 July 1995, Lao PDR and Myanmar on 23 July 1997, and Cambodia on 30 April 1999. The ASEAN Secretariat is in Jakarta. It was established in 1976, 10 years after the organization was founded. Its homepage is at www.aseansec.org The five-year term of the incumbent Secretary-General of ASEAN, H.E. Ong Keng Yong from Singapore, will end on 31 December 2007. He will be succeeded by H.E. Dr. Surin Pitsuwan, a former Foreign Minister of Thailand.
| |
| Interesting Changes to the ASEAN Institutional Framework | |
|
|
Asean rights pact 'ignores migrant workers'
| Asean rights pact 'ignores migrant workers' | ||||
| ||||
| Migrant rights groups in Southeast Asia have slammed Asean leaders for signing a charter that ignores the issue of migrant workers. Yet, there is “not one word” that recognises the contributions of migrant workers towards the economic development of member-states, and neither are there provisions for the protection and promotion of their rights and welfare, said the groups in separate statements.
|
Expediting remand cases (The Star)
| Thursday, 22 November 2007, 07:24am | |
| ©The Star Fu said the prisons were now holding 40,821 prisoners, or 30% more than the ideal capacity of around 31,200 people. |
Renouncing citizenship: Chinese top the list (Malaysiakini)
| Now the question that we must ask is WHY did they renounce their MALAYSIAN citizenship? The other interesting point is why over 1,000 Malays have also renounced their citizenship? Maybe it was just migrating to "greener pastures" - or maybe it was marriage, etc. I wonder whether the answers given by the government were "guesses" or really the answers given by those who renounced their citizenships. | ||||
| Renouncing citizenship: Chinese top the list | ||||
| ||||
| Chinese Malaysians record the highest number of those who have renounced their citizenship, followed by the Malays and Indians, the Dewan Rakyat was told today. He also explained that 106,000 people have renounced citizenship since Independence in 1957. |
“Despite the police attempts to torture us, we still manage to gather peacefully as united Indians. We have succeeded, the police have failed,” he told a crowd of nearly 2,000 supporters who clap and cheered whenever he finished a sentence.
Crowds comprising of Indians from all over the country have gathered today in support of
Like Gandhi, the Hindraf supporters were out to show mass civil disobedience and it was prominently shown by a crowd of almost 5,000 near the Hotel Maya at Jalan Ampang.
“We felt very hurt after watching VCDs about how the government would destroy our temples. We are Malaysians but our government treats us like foreigners,” she said.
At about 8am today, police issued repeated warnings to a group of roughly 2,000 Hindraf supporters who had gathered near Plaza Ampang along Jalan Tun Razak, a stone’s throw away from the British High Commission.
There were several reports of police personnel beating Hindraf supporters.
Unlike previous demonstrations, media personnel also expressed appreciation over the police’s directive specifically for the media to get out of harm’s way when they take action.
Hindraf leader A Sivanesan condemned the police for turning Kuala Lumpur into a war zone.
Lawyer Haris Ibrahim, who led a 10-member Bar Council monitoring team, was stunned by the heavy-handed police action against the protesters.
“The Asean charter is not an instrument to achieve justice and equality for migrant workers,” said Migrant Care coordinator (Malaysia) Alex Ong in a statement jointly signed by Jakarta-based executive director Anis Hidayah and policy analyst Wahyu Susilo.
Kuala Lumpur-based Caram Asia noted that Asean is a mix of sending and receiving countries for about 5 million migrant workers - most of whom are from Asean countries - who have contributed to the region’s economic progress and prosperity.
“Often treated as secondary citizens in foreign countries, migrant workers are most vulnerable to human rights abuses. Major receiving countries like Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand have countless reported cases of abuse of migrant workers,” said Caram Asia.
•
The Home Ministry's parliamentary secretary, Abdul Rahman Ibrahim, said 14,316 Chinese (87%) have surrendered their citizenship, compared to 1,098 Malays (6.6%), 822 Indians (5%) and 238 (1.4%) others from 2000 to 2006.
