| Contributed by Charles Hector | |
| Monday, 23 January 2006, 11:12pm | |
| Detention Without Trial Laws in Malaysia - Different Names But Similar Elements AND Can Be Used Against Anyone By Our Government - Introduction Preventive Detention by administrative power, as opposed to judicial detention, is defined as detention without judicial intervention or sanction. This form of detention, inter alia, may be due to detention by the police (executive) for purposes of investigation[1] and also for the purposes of preventing some supposed ‘crime’ which has not yet occurred (preventive detention). Preventive detention is what we know as Detention Without Trial (‘DWT’). In this report, we will not be considering Administrative Detention by the police for purposes of investigations prior to being charged but will only be dealing with Preventive Administrative Detention (Detention Without Trial (‘DWT’)). When we talk about detention, we will not limit ourselves to the narrow interpretation which would only consider incarceration of persons in prisons, lockups and/or detention centres. We will be looking at the word ‘detention’ from a broader perspective and this would include the imposition of any forms of restrictions and conditions on a person’s liberty by the executive without judicial intervention. This will include the imposition of restrictions and/or conditions on an individual’s freedom of movement, association, speech and expression. This will also include the restriction of a person to a town, district and/or specific area or place. When we talk about detention without trial, we should be talking about the meting out of punishment by the executive, not the judiciary, irrespective if the said ‘punishment’ takes the form of detention in detention centres or the imposition of restrictions and/or conditions that restrict a person’s movement and freedoms. An individual ‘punished’ without the benefit of a fair and open trial. Many a time, these ‘punishments’ (hereinafter referred to as Detention Without Trial or ‘DWT’) are imposed and/or withdrawn at the discretion of one person, being the Minister (that is the Home Minister). Laws that allow for DWT (or preventive detentions) have been amended so as to oust the jurisdiction of the courts to review this exercise of the Minister’s discretion. Only procedural aspects of the imposition of these detentions can be reviewed by the courts. The rationale for the ousting of judicial review could be drawn from the words of the Prime Minister when tabling the Internal Security (Amendment Act):
Administrative detention in Malaysia In Malaysia, generally under the Criminal Procedure Code administrative detention is allowed only for a period not exceeding 24 hours after a person has been arrested. In Part II of the Federal Constitution which carries the heading ‘Fundamental Liberties’, in particular Article 5(4), it is enshrined most clearly that ‘where a person is arrested and not released he shall without unreasonable delay, and in any case within 24 hours (excluding the time of any necessary journey) be produced before a Magistrate and shall not be further detained in custody without the magistrate’s authority. However the provisos of Article 5(4), create two exceptions, being :
Article 5(5) creates a further exception being enemy aliens. Part IX, the heading of which is‘Special Powers Against Subversion, Organised Violence, And Acts And Crimes Prejudicial To The Public And Emergency Powers’ , in particular Art 149 and 150 provides for the enactment of laws that allow for preventive detentions. Pursuant to Article 149, two acts have been enacted that allow for preventive detentions, namely:
Pursuant to Article 150, the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 which allows for preventive ‘administrative’ detention has been enacted. Detention without trial (‘DWT’) There exist four types of laws in Malaysia that allow for DWT and they are:
With regard to the first three, as long as the police or the minister are satisfied that reasons for the detention or the imposition of a restriction order as provided by the respective Acts exist, he can make one of the two (or three) orders available, that is:
The length of these orders can be up to two years, but all these Acts also empower the minister to renew these two-year orders for an unlimited period. The police have the power to arrest and detain a person under these Acts for a period which shall not exceed 60 days, provided that there is at the very least exist ‘reason to believe’ that there are grounds which would justify his detention (ie that the Minister would be satisfied to make a Detention Order or Restriction Order). Upon arrest, the person detained has no right to an open trial. He has however the right that his detention order be reviewed by an Advisory Board at least once every six months. The findings and the recommendations of this Board will be submitted to the Minister. The Minister will have the final say. There appears to be no such review by any Advisory Board when it comes to Restriction Orders. There is however the right to seek a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to arrest and detention. In 1989, the laws that allow for DWT were amended, and judicial review of Ministerial Acts has been removed, save for non compliance with any procedural requirement in these Acts governing such act or decision. As long as the Minister is satisfied … Any person may fall prey to DWT as long as the Minister is satisfied. The ISA, E(POPC)O and the DD(SPM)A provides that the Minister should be satisfied for specific different reasons why a person should be subjected to DWT, but since the courts have no power to review the basis for the Minister’s satisfaction which brought about the imposition of a detention or restriction order, there is always the possibility of abuse of this power. History has shown that these unfettered powers have been utilised in the past to suppress dissidents and opponents of the ruling elite, party and/or coalition. In 1987, some 106 opposition party members, NGO[5] activists, trade unionists, church workers and academicians were arrested under the Operation Lalang under the ISA. With regard to the E(POPC)O, in 1995 two worker leaders were arrested and subjected to restriction orders under this Act on baseless allegations that they were members of a gang. Recently in 2002, this Ordinance was also used by the police to re-arrest 10 persons who were found not guilty and acquitted by the High Court sitting in Ipoh[6]. Therefore as long as the Minister is satisfied, a person may fall victim to the laws that provide for DWT. Was the decision making process bona fide or not? Was there any justification at all to subject a person to DWT? These questions have no answer, because as of 1988, amendments were introduced to all the abovementioned Acts to the shut the door on judicial review of the exercise of this Ministerial discretion[7]. What the Minister needs to be satisfied with is illustrated below. Note that there is no mention of any requirement of evidence to be presented to the Minister, there is also no listing of matters that the Minister must consider before becoming ‘satisfied’. The discretion of the Minister could therefore be exercised arbitrarily. ‘If the Minister is satisfied that the detention of any person is necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to the maintenance of essential services therein or to the economic life thereof, he may make an order (hereinafter referred to as a detention order) directing that that person be detained for any period not exceeding two years’. (s 8(1) Internal Security Act 1960) ‘If the Minister is satisfied that with a view to preventing any person from acting in any manner prejudicial to public order it is necessary that that person should be detained, or that it is necessary for the suppression of violence or the prevention of crimes involving violence that that person should be detained, the Minister shall make an order (hereinafter referred to as a ‘detention order’) directing that that person be detained for a period not exceeding two years’. (s 4(1) Emergency (Public Order And Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969) ‘Whenever the Minister ... is satisfied with respect to any person that such person has been or is associated with any activity relating to or involving the trafficking in dangerous drugs, the Minister may, if he is satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of public order that such person be detained, by order (hereinafter referred to as a ‘detention order’) direct that such person be detained for a period not exceeding two years’. (s 6(1) Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985) The provisions of the Restricted Residence Act 1933 are drafted in very wide terms. All that seems to be required is that there ‘are reasonable grounds for believing that any person should be required to reside in any particular area ...’. There is no mention about the reasons why such an order, take as for example the DD(SPM)A whereby it is stated that ‘such person has been or is associated with any activity relating to or involving the trafficking in dangerous drugs ...’. Hence, the power accorded to the Minister under this Act is disturbingly excessive. ‘Whenever it shall appear to the Minister on such written information and after such enquiry as he may deem necessary that there are reasonable grounds for believing that any person should be required to reside in any particular area or be prohibited from entering into any particular area or areas the Minister may issue an order ...’ (s 2(1) Restricted Residence Act 1933) Arrest and detention by the Police With regards to arrest and detention, and the laws that provide for DWT, the police (and in the case of the ISA and the E(PCPO)O, any member of the security forces) may arrest without warrant. The arrest may be done if the said arresting officer has reasons to believe that there are grounds which would justify an issuance of a detention order/restriction order. An example of the provision that provides for arrest is as follows:
Administrative detention by the Police Thereafter the police may detain the said person for a period not exceeding 60 days, but there are requirements for the authority of different ranks of police officer for the varying periods of detention. The relevant provisions of the Internal Security Act 1960[8] are set out below:
Provided that –
During the period of the 60-day detention During the 60-day period, the detainee does not have the right of access to his family, friends and even to his legal counsel. The police, even on inquiry by the family members, sometimes do not even confirm that the said person is in detention. The location of the detention is also not revealed to the family, friends and even legal counsel. From the experiences of ex-detainees of DWT laws, it is said that during this period of detention, the detainee is subjected to interrogations and even torture, mentally and/or physically. Detainees have been subjected to solitary confinement, beatings with pieces of wood, stripping[10], etc. Below are extracts taken from sworn testimonies by four detainees who described their treatment in detention in the course of their application for a writ of habeas corpus. These extracts[11] should provide an idea of what happens to some during detentions. ‘During the first two weeks of my detention, I was interrogated very vigorously by Special Branch officers about my personal faith and my religious activities. I was not allowed sleep for days at a stretch and was warned that I would not get my food if I did not cooperate. One Inspector threatened to disturb my girlfriend ... On one occasion, I was knocked down to the ground and I injured my back. Since then, I have been passing blood in my urine and have suffered pain in my lower back constantly ... On one occasion, Inspector (name withheld) forced me to strip naked and enact the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. [He] also forced me to crawl on the floor in a naked state ...’. ‘The cell was windowless, the only ventilation being some holes in the upper portion of a wall. It was lit by a single light which was kept on all night ... For a full month ... my entire bedding was a thin plywood sheet on a cement slab. I was beaten with a stick about 1cm x 4cm x 120cm on my legs and the soles of my feet several times ... and was also slapped on the face with the back of my hand …’. ‘A police officer put fear in me ... by saying, ‘If I squeeze your balls, how long can you last?’ ... I was also subjected to the cold treatment during interrogations with very cold air directed through louvres onto my head causing me to shiver ... [i] experienced hallucinations and woke up in cold sweat. For two or three nights, I hallucinated that a big cobra was crawling beside me ... It was under such harsh and oppressive circumstances that I was requested to make statements ...’. ‘I was forced to stand on a leg with arms outstretched and head bent backwards for long periods until I collapsed onto the floor ... Immediately I was kicked by the police officer to stand up again on one leg, and this was repeated many times ... I was forced to walk blindfolded towards the wall resulting in knocking myself against the wall and this was repeated many times. The police officers stamped on my toes and fingers causing excruciating and prolonged pains. I was subjected to the ‘cold treatment’ which consisted standing in front of a very cold air conditioner either naked or half naked several times ... and on one occasion the police officer had thrown cold water all over me ... I was forced to strip naked. A police officer ... rolled a bundle of newspapers, lit one end and threatened to burn my genitals [by] bringing the lighted end close to my genitals ... A police officer stated that he would ... make sexual advances to my wife ...’. The detainee is also many a time alleged to have committed outrageous acts but since there will be no trial, these remain bare allegations. The detainee has no right to an open trial, let alone any trial at all. The police and/or the prosecution therefore do not need to produce any evidence, let alone prove the allegations to the usual standards of proof. In the case of Dr Syed Husin Ali[12] who was detained for about six years, he was asked to admit that he was associated with the Communist Party of Malaysia and to implicate Dr Mahathir Mohammad, the Prime Minister of Malaysia. The Home Minister[13] at that time was Tan Sri Ghazali Shafie. ‘They wanted me to use the communist bogey on Mahathir and Musa [the then Deputy Prime Minister] ... they told me that I would be released if I implicated Mahathir and Musa. They slapped me, denied me sleep, spat in my face, told lies about my wife and even placed a pistol in front of me. It was a terrible lie and being a Muslim, I would not be part of it’[14]. In a recent case, it was alleged that one former Youth leader of a political party was arrested and detained apparently to make him put in a letter of resignation from his post[15]. In some cases, it is to be wondered why persons are detained under DWT laws. Is it because there is insufficient evidence to prove that the person is guilty beyond reasonable doubt? Or is merely to protect others who might be in high positions of power, who are linked to some serious offences? No definite answers can be given, for we will never know for sure because there is no trial in open court. Former victims of the laws that allow for DWT often do not talk about what happened to them whilst in detention – and the main reason for this is the fear that they might be re-arrested and made guests in the detention centres under the same kind of laws. Documentation of persons detained under the laws that allow for DWT is also scarce because for many there is no publicity in the media or otherwise. Frequently, families are ‘conned’ by the police into silence, by the empty promises of quick release if the family do not make an issue of the detentions. Lack of legal awareness and fear for their loved ones often would result not only in silence of the family, but even requests by these families to NGOs, human rights activist and/or politicians, not to raise the issue at all. After the 60-day detention by the Police: Detention/Restriction Orders After the 60-day detention by the police, the Minister usually issues a Detention Order or a Restriction Order. Restriction Order Besides the Detention Order, the Restriction Order is an alternative DWT order available to the Minister under the ISA, E(POPC)O and the DD(SPM)A. In my opinion, this is a more repressive order, because a breach of the conditions or restrictions makes a person liable to a criminal offence which on conviction is punishable with imprisonment up to two years. The RRA only allows for the imposition of a Restriction Order. To appreciate the kind of restrictions and conditions that can be imposed on a person subjected to a Restriction Order, s 8(5) ISA is set out below:
In the case of the E(POPC)O, the conditions and restrictions which cover similar areas, are elaborated even further and one significant addition is the inclusion of Police Supervision Orders[16].
The length of the Restriction Orders is not clear, but s 4A(2) of the E(POPC)O seems to imply that this period could be up to five years. But note that in the DWT laws, the Minister also has the power to renew the detention/restriction orders for periods of not more than two years at a time, for an indefinite period. As was mentioned earlier, a contravention of a restriction or condition would result in a commission of an offence, and if this contravention is proved, the said person ‘shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and not less than two years’[18] under the E(POPC)O. Under the DD(SPM)A, he can ‘be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and not less than three years’[19]. Suspended Detention Orders This third kind of Order is provided by s 4B E(POPC)O[20] and a reading of this section as set out below is sufficient to understand this kind of order. ‘The Minister may at any time direct that the operation of any detention order be suspended subject to all or any of the restrictions and conditions he is empowered to impose by a restriction order ...’ (s 4B Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance). Detention Orders Detention Orders are provided for under the ISA, E(POPC)O and the DD(SPM)A and as mentioned above, all that is needed before a Detention Order is made is that the Minister must be satisfied of certain matters. The words used in describing these matters are so wide, that any mildly creative individual could ensure that satisfaction is achieved. The Minister can order that a person be detained for any period not exceeding two years[21]. Detention Orders be extended for such further period, not exceeding two years at a time[22]. This can be done based on the same grounds and/or on different grounds. Some persons in our Malaysian history of DWT laws have been arrested and detained for periods even exceeding 10 years[23]. (i) Detention Centres The detainee will be placed in Detention Centres and this detention will be governed by the Internal Security (Detained Persons) Rules 1960[24]. A perusal of these rules seem to imply that there are two kinds of detention camps, namely the ordinary detention camp and the special detention camp[25]. The rights and privileges of the detainee varies depending on the kind of camp that he is placed in. In the case of the special detention camp, there are increasing rights as the length of the detention increases and the Superintendent (of the Detention camp) is satisfied that he has been of good behaviour, and if so satisfied the detainee will slowly move from the First Stage to the Third Stage. The added rights, for example is the right to send a letter; whereby a detainee in the first stage can only send and receive one letter from friends or relatives once in three weeks, whereas if he has been promoted to the Third Stage he has a right to send and/or receive one letter once every week. The privileges affected are, amongst others, the frequency of receipt of parcels, frequency of visits by relatives/friends, amount of time let out of the cell, the rate of pay, the quality of meals and the number of times the detainee is allowed to visit the canteen for the purpose of purchasing articles sold there. A detainee in a detention camp[26] shall be entitled to visits[27] from his relatives and his legal advisers. For visits from friends, special permission of the Camp Superintendent is required. A detainee is entitled to one visit a week, and not more than two persons shall be admitted to visit a detained person at anyone time. These visits shall not last for more than 30 minutes. How can the detainee even brief his legal counsel in 30 minutes? Judicial Review or Judicial Intervention Since the coming into force of the amendments[28] to the laws allowing for DWT, judicial review has been limited to questions of compliance with any procedural requirement in this Act. The Prime Minister when tabling the Internal Security (Amendment Act) said as follows:
The meaning of judicial review was defined by s 8C Internal Security Act[30] to ‘include proceedings instituted by way of (a) an application for any prerogative orders of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari; (b) an application for a declaration or an injunction; (c) a writ of habeas corpus; and (d) any other suit, action or other legal proceedings relating to or arising out of any act done or decision made by the Yang di-Pertuan Agung or the Minister in accordance with this Act’. By virtue of s 8B Internal Security Act[31], judicial review was ‘limited to any question on compliance with any procedural requirement in this act governing such act or decision. Section 8A further limits this, and the said section is laid out as follows:
By virtue of s 8D[32], ss 8B and 8C were made applicable to any proceedings instituted by way of judicial review whether such proceedings were instituted before or after the coming into force of the amending Act. Only proceedings in respect of which a final decision of the court had been given and/or to any appeal or application to appeal against such final decision survived. An analysis of the applications of judicial review reveals that the mode used has generally been by way of a writ of habeas corpus. Even before the coming into force this new amendment, the courts were reluctant to go into the question of whether there existed any reasonable cause for a person to be detained under the laws allowing for DWT, on the grounds that it was a matter of opinion and policy, and a decision that only the executive could make. The court also did not want to evaluate the facts/evidence, if any, that led to this executive ‘satisfaction’ and ultimate decision. The court was also of the opinion that the executive has no obligation to even disclose facts that led to believe that detention was needed. To get a brief picture of the judicial pronouncements, extract of judgments of some of the pre-amendment cases are set out below. Karam Singh v Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri (Minister of Home Affairs), Malaysia (Federal Court, 25 April 1969) (1969) 2 MLJ 129: ‘whether there was reasonable cause to detain a person under Section 8(1) of the Internal Security Act 1960 [ISA] was a matter of opinion and policy, a decision on which could only be taken by the executive, and which therefore the courts could not go into ...’ Re Tan Sri Raja Khalid bin Raja Raja Harun; Inspector-General of Police v Tan Sri Raja Khalid bin Raja Harun (Supreme Court) (1988) 1 MLJ 182): ‘the detaining authorities are not obliged to disclose the facts which led them to so believe nor are they required to prove in court the sufficiency or adequacy of the reasons for such belief in any proceedings for habeas corpus instituted by the detainee. It is sufficient if the detaining authorities show that the person has been detained in exercise of a valid legal power. The onus is then on the detainee to show that the power has been exercised mala fide or improperly or for a collateral or ulterior purpose ...’. It was also held that ‘where the detaining authorities invoke national security as the grounds for non-disclosure of facts leading to the making of an order of detention, the test to be applied by the court in any proceedings for habeas corpus would be a subjective test. The court cannot in those circumstances compel the disclosure of such facts.’ Minister for Home Affairs, Malaysia & Anor v Karpal Singh (Supreme Court) (1988) 3 MLJ 29: ‘... while the grounds of detention stated in the order of detention were open to judicial review, the allegations of fact upon which the subjective satisfaction of detaining authority was based were immune from judicial scrutiny ...’. Theresa Lim Chin Chin & Ors v Inspector General of Police (Supreme Court) (1988) 1 MLJ 293: ‘police power of arrest and detention under Section 73 of the ISA could not be separated from the ministerial power to issue an order of detention under Section 8 thereof ...’. It was also held that ‘in the matter of preventive detention the executive alone is the best judge and that the court will not be in a position to review the fairness of the executive’s decision-making process having regard to the Constitutional bar on disclosure of the relevant information by the executive’. This case also held that ‘the ISA was a valid piece of legislation and that there was nothing in the wording of the Act to show that its operation was restricted to persons suspected of communist activities’. Although judicial review has been restricted to the question of compliance with any procedural requirement, writs of habeas corpus continue to be filed and some of them have been successful. An example of the issues raised in these applications is in the case of Haji Omar Din bin Mawaidin v Minister for Home Affairs, Malaysia & Anor (1990) 3 MLJ 435 (High Court) where the issue was whether the Minister can revoke a restriction order and substitute it for a detention order without first complying with the requirements of the Act. However in the case of Karpal Singh, he was successful in his application for a writ of habeas corpus, and was released by the court only to be subsequently re-arrested again under the ISA. This indicates that a successful judicial review may not be sufficient, as these laws that allow for DWT can be used again to arrest and detain again. Recently, in the Federal Court case of Mohamad Ezam Mohd Noor –v- Ketua Polis Negara & Other Appeals (2002) 4 CLJ 309, the court looking at the period of administrative detention by the police, being the period prior to the issuance of the Detention Orders by the Minister, held that “the court is entitled to review the sufficiency and the reasonableness of the respondent’s [i.e. the Police] reasons for believing that there were grounds to justify the appellants’ detention under s.8 ISA and that the appellant had acted or was about or likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the security of the nation. The court said that the objective test, and not the subjective test, applies and what this means is that the court would now look and see whether a reasonable police officer would in that particular situation have arrested and detained the said detainee. In this case, interestingly, the court did not consider just the facts that existed prior to the arrest, but also went on to considered what happened after the arrest during the period of detention, to determine the real reasons for the arrest and detention. This case was concerning the ISA, but logically it should also apply to other detention without trial laws. Review by the Advisory Board According to the DWT, there are provisions for the setting up of an Advisory Board whose function is to review every order or direction made or given by the Minister not less than once every six months but sad to say that all that they are empowered to do after that is to ‘submit to the Minister a written report ..., and may make therein such recommendations as it shall think fit’[33]. In the case of DD(SPM)A[34], the detainee has more explicit rights[35], like the right to be informed of his right to make representations, and if he chooses to do so, the Advisory Board shall sit within three months[36] from the date of receipt of the said representations. There is also similar provision where every order and/or direction be reviewed not earlier than 12 months from the date of such order/direction[37]. Here, the opinion of the Advisory Board carries more ‘weight as seen in s 11(3)[38] which is set out below:
Concluding Remarks For a long time too much attention has been focused on the ‘injustice’ of the ISA, but today more attention is being placed on all laws that allow for DWT. Previously, attention was only given to the detention of persons in detention camps but today there is also an increasing awareness about the other orders available to the Minister under these DWT laws, like the Restriction Orders - which is really more unjust. On 6 December 1997, participants of the Bar Council Human Rights Seminar on ‘Detention Without Trial: Has the time for Abolition Come?’ adopted the position that all laws providing for arrest and detention without trial, and for restriction of residence and movement of persons are contrary to the rule of law, international human rights standards and established religious values and norms, and called for the repeal of all laws that allow for DWT. Only at the Extraordinary General Meeting in 1998 did the Malaysian Bar adopt a similar position. The Malaysian Bar has now in July 2002 set up a Special Task Force to campaign for the repeal of all preventive detention laws. And finally in end 2003, the Bar Council launched the Abolish Detention Without Trial Campaign. The campaign against preventive detention or DWT laws in Malaysia has made slow progress and this is primarily due to the lack of awareness or conscientisation. There is firstly a need for an understanding of the different aspects of DWT laws, and the reasons why we must all support this on-going call for the repeal and abolishment of all laws that allow detention without trial, not merely the more popular ISA. This article hopes to merely give a broad overview about DWT laws, and as such I have stayed away from dealing with developments in specific aspects of DWT laws. The ISA which was originally enacted against persons suspected of communist activities[39] has been used increasingly against political and/or personal opponents by those in power. Similarly, the E(POPC)O was supposed to be used to suppress gang-related crimes and crimes of violence, but past experience has shown that it has been used against workers’ leaders as well. The DD(SPM)A is supposed to be used as a weapon to combat the offence of drug trafficking but alas, there is always the room for abuse, for after all a person arrested, detained or restricted under any of these DWT laws do not have the just access to a fair and open trial. But irrespective of its stated purposes, all these laws that allow for DWT, can be abused. These laws, which goes against principles of natural justice and human rights must be repealed. Judicial review should be revived for these laws, giving effect to the doctrine of separation of powers, so that at least the judiciary will be able to check any mis-use of these laws, at least until it is abolished in toto. All actions of the executive, be it the police and/or the Minister, should be subject to judicial review and it is most important that there be no exceptions. Charles Hector * this article is adapted and updated from a treatise on Administrative Detention in Malaysia written in 1996. The effect of the Federal Court case of Mohamad Ezam in 2002 is included. [1] Art 5(2) Federal Constitution allows the police to arrest and detain a person (a citizen) for a period of less than 24 hours. [2] Extracted from a paper by Karpal Singh entitled ‘Administrative Detention in Malaysia’. [3] Referring to the Restricted Residence Act 1933 which gives very broad powers to the Minister to restrict residence and/or inhibit movement if ‘… there are reasonable grounds for believing that any person should be required to ...’ (see s 2(i) of the Act). This Act unlike the other laws that allow preventive detentions does not specify any grounds or reasons why a person should be so restricted and/or inhibited. The Internal Security Act 1960 for example, allows for preventive detentions if, and only if, the Minister is satisfied that it is ‘... necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to the maintenance of essential services therein or to the economic life thereof ...’. In the case of Loh Kooi Choon v Government of Malaysia (1977) 2 MLJ 187, the appellant had been arrested under a warrant issued under the provisions of the Restricted Residence Act 1933, and thereafter he was not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours as required by Article 5(4) of the Federal Constitution. Before the appeal was heard by the Federal Court, the Federal Constitution was amended whereby Article 5(4) was amended by the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1976, and declared not to ‘apply to the arrest and detention of any person under the existing law relating to restricted residence’. This amendment was backdated to 31 August 1957, the Independence Day of Malaysia (Dato’ Dr Rais Yatim, Detention Without Trial: Has The Time For Abolition Come?). [4] In this case, the proviso itself clearly states that the words ‘within twenty four hours’is replaced with the words ‘within fourteen days’. The application of this can be seen in the Immigration Act 1959/63 (see s 51(5)(b)). [5] Non-Governmental Organisations. [6] The Malaysian Bar issued a statement condemning this act, which was published in The Star (8 August 2002) in a report entitled ‘Bar: Police wrong to re-arrest freed men’. [7] * Section 8B, Internal Security Act 1960 (s 8B, amongst others, was inserted by the Internal Security (Amendment) Act 1989 (Act A739) which came into effect on 24 August 1989). * Section 7C, Emergency (Public Order & Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 (inserted by the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) (Amendment) Act 1989 (Act A740) which came into effect on 24 August 1989). * Section 11C, Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 (s 11C, amongst others, was inserted by Act A738 around the same time as the two above). [8] The provisions for the 60-day detention period is similar in all the laws that provide for DWT. [9] With regard to the Dangerous Drugs (SPM)A, the word ‘thirty days’ is replaced by the words ‘fourteen days’. [10] The case of Anwar Ibrahim, the former Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia should also be considered. [11] Malaysia: ‘Operation Lallang’: Detention Without Trial Under the Internal Security Act – Amnesty International (December 1988), Preventive Detention (Restrictions) Laws In Malaysia – an article that was published in ALIRAN on or about December 1994. [12] Mentioned by Dr Syed Husin in many of his discussions. He has documented his experiences in detention under the ISA in a recently published book entitled Two Faces. [13] Thereafter, I believe that the position of the Home Minister has been held by the Prime Minister, until this year Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, the new Deputy Prime Minister has taken over this portfolio. [14] Jocelin Tan, ‘An Old Warrior’, Malaysian Business, 1 June 1994, p 34. Dr Syed Husin Ali, now the President of Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM) was an ISA detainee for six years (1974-1980). After the 60-day detention period, he was also subject to re-interrogation after being sent to the Kamunting Detention Camp. Usually, after the first 60-days, detainees are no more subjected to interrogations by the police. (Also see Dato’ Dr Rais Yatim, Detention Without Trial: The Malaysian Experience). [15] This information and the condition of many others who have been detained under the ISA can easily be obtained on the Internet. [16] Sentence of Police Supervision and the obligations of persons subject to supervision are probably the same as those provided in s 295 and s 296 of the Criminal Procedure Code. [17] Similar provision as s 6(3) Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act. [18] Section 4A(4) Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance. [19] Section 6(7) Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act. [20] Also see s 10 Internal Security Act. [21] Section 8(1) Internal Security Act, s 4(1) Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance, s 7(1) Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act. [22] Section 8(7) Internal Security Act, s 7A Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance, s 11A Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act. [23] R Gunaratnam, a Party Rakyat Malaya member, was detained for 11 years 8 months beginning from 14 November 1970 until 1982. S N Rajah, the executive secretary to United Malayan Estate Workers (UMEW) was detained for 11 years 2 months, beginning on 16 November 1970 until 18 January 1981. [24] Section 8(4) Internal Security Act 1960, s 4(3) Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance also provides specifically that the Internal Security (Detained Persons) Rules 1960 shall apply to every palace of detention and persons detained under this Ordinance. [25] Rule 86 Internal Security (Detained Persons) Rules 1960, also see Rule 2 which gives the definition of ‘special detention camp’ as meaning a place declared to be a special detention camp under Rule 86. [26] Would also be similar for detainees kept in special detention camps who have been promoted to the Third Stage. [27] Rule 81 Internal Security (Detained Persons) Rules 1960. [28] Section 8B Internal Security Act 1960 (s 8B, amongst others, was inserted by the Internal Security (Amendment) Act 1989 (Act A739) which came into effect on 24 August 1989). Section 7C Emergency (Public Order & Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 (inserted by the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) (Amendment) Act 1989 (Act A740) which came into effect on 24 August 1989). Section 11C Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985, (s 11C, amongst others, was inserted by Act A738 around the same time as the two above). [29] Extracted from a paper by Karpal Singh entitled ‘Administrative Detention in Malaysia’. [30] Section 11D Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act, s 7D Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance. [31] Section 11C Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act, s 7C Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance. [32] Section 11E Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act, s 7E Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance. [33] Section 13 Internal Security Act. [34] Similar provisions found in the E(POPC)O but the powers of the Board recommendations seems to be less or more like the ISA. The frequency of a review/order is also not stated and is left to the discretion of the Chairman of the Advisory Board (s 7(1) E(POPC)O). [35] Section 9 Dangerous Drugs(Special Preventive Measures) Act. [36] Section 10 Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act. [37] Section 11 Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act. [38] See also s 11(4) Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act. [39] Theresa Lim Chin Chin & Ors v Inspector General of Police (Supreme Court) (1988) 1 MLJ 293. This case also held that ‘the ISA was a valid piece of legislation and that there was nothing in the wording of the Act to show that its operation was restricted to persons suspected of communist activities’.
(Originally published by Asian Human Rights Commission in 1990s |
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Detention Without Trial Laws in Malaysia
Monday, January 23, 2006
Rela going overboard? (Star)
Monday January 23, 2006
Rela going overboard?
PETALING JAYA: The Government should review the practice of paying Rela volunteers RM80 for each illegal immigrant arrested.
MCA Public Services and Complaints Department head Datuk Michael Chong claimed that the reward offered had made Rela volunteers desperate to nab as many illegals as possible.
“The Government should look into this matter. I don’t object to them rooting out illegals, but there has to be a proper procedure in doing this,” he said.
Rela personnel, he said, should not conduct raids out of uniform as it could cause unnecessary confusion among the public.
Chong claimed that a raid by Rela at a restaurant in Old Klang Road on Wednesday night was not conducted according to proper procedure.
 |
| GIFT FOR WIDOWS: Chong (seated at centre) handing over the RM2,400 donation to Ahmad’s wife Safiah Selawah and Edy’s wife Hami Mokhtar Sunday. |
“It is regrettable that two lives have been lost because proper procedure was not followed in this matter.”
Chong was referring to the tragic deaths of Ahmad Apik, 35, and Edy Sathurrohman, 26, who drowned after jumping into the Klang river while trying to evade the Rela personnel.
“These people may be illegals, but they are still human beings,” he added.
Chong said the widows had decided to accompany their husband’s bodies to their hometown in Java and not return to Malaysia.
He also said residents of Old Klang Road’s 4th mile area had donated RM2,400 to the widows, both of whom had two young children.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Protesters denounce Police Violence (WTO)
Protesters denounce Police Violence
For immediate release
Released by Asian Migrant Centre (AMC), Joint Committee for Migrant Workers in Korea (JCMK) and Migrant Forum in Asia (MFA)
20th December 2005
Anti-WTO activists present at the December 17 standoff with the Hong Kong police outside the HKCEC denounce the heavy-handed tactics used to disperse an assembly of unarmed protesters.
"The December 17 protest has been publicized as a 'riot', when in fact most protesters were standing by, chanting, singing protest songs, and helping those injured," states Fr. Peter O'Neil of the Hope Workers Center in Taiwan, who was who was protesting as part of a group of 70 migrant workers activist. "The protest caused no disorder to the general public; no shops or private property were damaged. Only limited forceful confrontation occurred at police lines."
Though organizers and HK police had agreed on the route to be taken to the HKCEC, police blocked their passage at 5pm. In response, "a number of protestors tried to bypass police lines, and they were using their bodies to push against the riot shields," said another protester Christina DeFalco. "The police responded with pepper spray, spraying directly into the eyes of protesters, and hitting them with batons."
By-standers rushed to help those injured; some even stood between the police line and protesters, chanting in support of the protesters.
"Our objective was to march to the HKCEC designated protest area to have a peaceful sit-down rally," explains protest detainee, Kim Misun of the Joint Committee for Migrant Workers in Korea (JCMK). "We tried to shield ourselves against the pepper spray with flags attached to bamboo poles. As we were blinded by the pepper spray, some of us flung our poles towards the police."
Later, the police also used water cannons and teargas to disperse the crowd, including those not directly confronting the police. "I don't understand why the police targeted us with teargas, when we were simply staging a peaceful gathering?" questions DeFalco. She adds, "there was absolutely no warning given to us before they fired."
In contrast to the heavily armed police, the protesters were unarmed.
"I was surprised that the level of violence used against us by Hong Kong police was similar to the measures we saw in Korea under military dictatorship," states Kim. "I have hardly ever seen such violence used by Korean police since our country returned to a civilized government. The police here are clearly not used to protesters. Their lack of training was evident by their panicked and exaggerated response."
Shortly after the police fired teargas at 8.30pm, heavily armed riot police closed in on protesters from all sides. Many protesters complained they were not allowed to leave the protest area. Nurul Qoiriah, a marshal leading the migrants' groups, stated, "I tried to negotiate with the police to allow us to leave peacefully, as many of the migrant domestic workers had to return to work, but they refused to let us through. The police yelled at us to go the other direction, but we knew we had been blockaded on all sides."
Eventually, the migrants' group had to disband into small groups to slip through the police lines. Qoiriah adds, "By refusing to help and forcing us to disband our group, the police placed our safety at risk."
Local and international human rights organizations alike have denounced the Hong Kong police's response. "The tactics used by the Hong Kong police on December 17 were clearly out of line given the fact that all protesters were unarmed. The police, in contrast, were heavily armed with the most advanced anti-protest weapons, including tear-gas launching vehicles," asserts Asian Migrant Centre Executive Director, Rex Varona. "Our rights as protesters were curtailed through police action to block our protest and their subsequent heavy-handed tactics."
Charles Hector of the Migrant Forum in Asia (MFA), an Asia-wide migration advocacy network with 260 member organizations, comments that law enforcement agencies should be representative of and accountable to the community as a whole. "We were protesting in support of farmers and poor people across the world, including migrant workers, who have been adversely affected by WTO trade rules. Through its actions towards protesters on December 17, the Hong Kong government clearly showed its alliance with global corporate interests, rather than those of the world's working poor."
For more information or an interview, please contact Kim Misun in Seoul of the Joint Committee for Migrant Workers in Korea (JCMK) at (82 2) 312-1686 or misun
mumk.org, Sajida Ally of the Asian Migrant Centre (AMC) in Hong Kong at (852) 9802-3694 or sajidaasian-migrants.org, or William Gois of the Migrant Forum in Asia (MFA) in Manila at (632) 433-3508 or mfapacfic.net.hk.
Sajida Ally
Programme Coordinator
Migrants Human Rights
9/F Lee Kong Commercial Building
115 Woosung Street
Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR
Tel: (852) 2312-0031
Fax: (852) 2992-0111
Email: sajidaasian-migrants.org
http://www.asian-migrants.org
Saturday, October 22, 2005
ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION (Bar Resolution 22/10/2005)
The 59th AGM of the Malaysian Bar held at Legend Hotel,
Motion on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION
WHEREAS some private companies, banks and establishments have a practice that law firms will not be generally retained by the said institutions unless there is compliance with certain ethnic/racial quota requirements with regard the composition of the partners, lawyers in the firm or employees in the firm.
WHEREAS these discriminatory practices have no basis in law by reason that there are at present NO Act, Regulation, Rules and/or any other subsidiary legislation that permits such discriminatory practices in
WHEREAS these practices are discriminatory in nature, and goes against the universal principles of Human Rights and also
WHEREAS these discriminatory practices goes against the universally recognised and acknowledged inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and more specifically spelt out in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
WHEREAS these discriminatory practices goes against the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights, where in Clause III (c) it is clearly stated that “No person shall be denied the opportunity to work or be discriminated against in any manner or exposed to greater physical risk by reason of religious belief, colour, race, origin, sex or language.”
IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED:-
a) That the Malaysian Bar acknowledges the inherent dignity and equality of all human persons irrespective of ethnicity, race, religious belief, colour, gender or language;
c) That the Malaysian Bar shall actively take whatsoever necessary steps with the object of ending any/all forms of discriminatory practices;
d) That the Bar Council shall cause to comply a list of institutions/firms which takes into consideration racial/ethnic quotas of law firms before considering to retain a particular law firm or a particular lawyer, and shall thereafter take the necessary and appropriate action against such institutions who practice and/or propagate such discriminatory practices;
e) That the Malaysian Bar call on the Malaysian government to immediately ratify the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Paragraph (b) of the motion is to be deleted. The motion was unanimously carried.
An Ad-Hoc Committee under the Chairmanship of Charles Hector was appointed for follow up action.
Saturday, February 26, 2005
No warrants needed for Rela
No warrants needed for Rela
BY WANI MUTHIAH (Star, 26/2/2005)
PETALING JAYA: Rela members taking part in the swoop against illegal immigrants from Tuesday will be able to enter premises for inspection without a warrant.
Rela director-general Datuk Mahadi Arshad said that under the new set of rules that came into effect on Feb 1, Rela officers could enter any premises they suspected illegal immigrants were hiding in.
“In the past we had to get a warrant first before doing so but under the new powers which were recently formulated, we can just walk in and carry out an inspection,” he said.
Rela assistant operations officer Kol Zubir Mustaffa (third from left), who is also Putrajaya Rela director, helping Rela members to check their equipment at their headquarters in Putrajaya on Friday.
He said Rela officers were also granted powers to detain, peruse identification documents as well as hold detainees in custody to be handed over to the relevant authorities under the new provisions.
He said he was confident that the operation would be successful given that the new set of rules would complement Rela’s operations.
According to Mahadi, 25,000 well-trained Rela officers would participate in the operations, with support from the remaining 315,000 members to be sought whenever there was a need.
Mahadi, who would oversee the nationwide operations, also said he was certain that things would not get out of hand as the new regulations also regulated Rela members involved in the operations.
Some 500,000 Rela, Immigration and police personnel would be mobilised in the operations.
In Malacca, 1,000 of the 12,000 Rela members in the state would be deployed for Ops Tegas.
State Rela director Kol Ibrahim Abu Samah and state Immigration director Abdul Rahman Md Noor, at a press conference yesterday, said that they estimated there were about 5,000 illegals in the state.
Kol Ibrahim said based on surveys, most of the illegals were hiding in forests and remote housing estates.
Source: Star http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2005/2/26/nation/10270442&sec=nation
Saturday, January 29, 2005
Malaysia's Fear Factor
| |||||||||||||||
| Malaysia's Fear Factor by Charles Hector Aliran Monthly 2004:1
Fear still is a major phenomenon in Malaysia; it keeps individual Malaysians (and even some groups of persons) silent and quiet despite the obvious and real human rights violations and the obvious lack of rights. Fear is a major problem in Malaysia and, yes, it also applies to lawyers. I remember many years ago, when I first stood up at the AGM of the Malaysian Bar and spoke my mind about some things that were not right. I was later approched by several senior members of the Bar, who were well-meaning and sincere. Do not rock the boat They took time to caution a young lawyer about the way things were. They advised me that I should not �rock the boat� and should not be so critical. They told me that if I was vocal, I would lose out as many of the senior people in the Bar Council may one day be elevated as judges - and they would then look at me negatively and this would affect the outcome of my cases. They told me that there are �government spies� all around, and if I was seen as a �trouble-maker� or an �anti-government element�, I would be blacklisted. As a young lawyer recently called to the Bar, I should have paid heed to their words of wisdom and the common sense of my caring fellow lawyers. But then I have always been one who could not hold his tongue when he sees something that is not right, something that is wrong or unjust happening around him. To keep silent goes against my very being - and if I did keep silent, my conscience would have tortured me, and I would not be true to my God. Do not talk so loud At the teh tarek stalls, a group of persons is yakking away loudly, talking about the movies, friends, the recent football games they had watched... Suddenly someone started talking about the human rights situation in Malaysia, and the volume is lowered. The crowd huddled together in hushed tones; some turn to look around, perhaps to ensure that there was no one too close to eavesdrop on the conversation.
Do not vote for the opposition? At the ballot box, the voter considers whom to vote for. Shall I vote for the DAP candidate - for after all he is a good guy, clean and concerned about the people and the nation? Then other thoughts creep in: �Ahhh...but then they will know and I will be �blacklisted�...I may not get the low-cost house that was promised to me which I have been waiting for in the �rumah panjang� I am now living in for the past 15 years � since I first came here when my �squatter community� was evicted.� �Will my promotion be affected?� �Will my business permits be taken away?� �Will they know? Will they know?� �Will I be arrested under the ISA if I do not vote for the Barisan Nasional?� ah, never mind... better play safe, I will just vote for the Barisan Nasional.� At the orientation session at the KL legal Aid Centre, the facilitator has just asked me to list out the negative things in Malaysia. What should I do? There are spies all over�now who is the police spy?... Should I be open and speak out about all the violation of human rights? Yes...no...yes...well, I�ll play safe and�OK..well, one of the negative things is that the �public toilets are dirty and smelly�, and another is that there are always �traffic jams�, and the third is that there is �flooding whenever it rains�... Well, those would be the safe answers to give. Phew, that was a close call; lucky I played smart and found three things negative and did not have to say anything about the other injustices and human rights violations around me. Being a lawyer is tough�and now the facilitator is telling me that one thing that a lawyer must do is to uphold the cause of justice without fear or favour. Do not fear Yes, Fear is still a prevalent feature in our Malaysian society - and one of the things that we have to overcome is Fear. Let us fight and campaign for Freedom from Fear. Fear keeps Malaysians silent and quiet and accepting all that is wrong in our society. They become too afraid of speaking out and/or fighting for a change. The Barisan Nasional has succeeded in silencing Malaysians and thus, people continue to be oppressed and deprived of their rights today, tomorrow and forever - a victory for the Barisan Nasional.. Peace is our promise, say the Barisan Nasional leaders, and that is what we have achieved and all Malaysians now live in Peace... Peace, however is not true peace if there is no justice and human rights. Peace is not achieved by the suppression of dissent or by the inculcation of fear. Hello, we are human beings - not sheep or cattle. We have brains and we can think. We have opinions, ideas and thoughts - and the suppresssion of these makes us inhuman. Let us all confront our fears. Let us all be human beings. Let us all live full, holistic lives. Let us all be vocal and expressive and active participants in the building of a society where justice and human rights are the foundation, thus leading to a community living in true peace - not an artificial �peace� just because we are too fearful to speak out for change. Freedom from fear Feedom to be able to express, to assemble and to voice our opinions. Freedom to choose our leaders, Freedom to participate in the governing and development of Malaysia. | |||||||||||||||
Witch-Hunting�: Un-democratic Behaviour
| |||||||||||||||
| �Witch-Hunting�: Un-democratic Behaviour The BN govt must not discriminate against non-sympathisers
Please support our work by buying a copy of our print publication, Aliran Monthly, from your nearest news-stand. Better still take out a subscription now. We also welcome donations.
Once elected, the victors and the losing candidates must put aside their differences and work together for the good and benefit of all the people in the country/state � yes, for the good and benefit of all the people and not just for the good of those who supported and or voted for them. The losing candidates are also part of these people whom the victors must now represent in Parliament and/or the State Legislative Assembly. The victors must remember that their duty and responsibility is towards all the people - not just their party members, their financiers and donors during the elections, or their supporters. If the victors forget this and discriminate against their opponents and their opponents� supporters, then the victors have forgotten the true meaning of democracy. Witch-hunt in Terengganu Idris Jusoh, who won by a majority of 2,047 votes only, whereby his opponent from PAS had obtained 4,466 votes, immediately after the swearing in as the Menteri Besar of Terengganu hastily abolished the People�s Consultative Committee(JSR) introduced by PAS during its four-year reign. About 400 members of the JSR were affected by this move. (Malaysiakini, 25 Mar 2004). In Malaysiakini, 30 Mar 2004, it was reported that there also occurred the �sacking en masse of some 400 staff of the Unit Pembangunan Insan and its director Ismail Osman.�. Also fired were Syariah court chief judge Dr Abdullah Abu Bakar, deputy state mufti Zainal Abidin Ahmad, Sultan Zainal Abidin Islamic College director Assoc Prof. Anuar Zainal Abidin and the Yayasan Terengganu director Yusof Tahir. The new Menteri Besar�s explanation was that �their contracts had to be terminated because they had clearly sided with the PAS government and would ruin Barisan Nasional�s (BN) agenda and planning if not stopped.� In my opinion, this is odd and foolish reasoning.
Keep the good to benefit the people All these termination and verbal notices have been done relatively hastily, and it affects people who are not political appointees but mere public servants. The speed by which these actions were taken (and/or decisions made) could reasonably be said to be an emotional reaction, rather that a well thought out and critically analyzed action. This is wrong for people who are public servants will lose their jobs, and their children�s education could be affected. There should have been serious study done to determine whether these PAS-created structures, these PAS-government initiated schools are good for the people of Terengganu. It is wrong for this BN Menteri Besar to just reject anything and everything just because it was done during the PAS�s term of government. Political appointees or public servants? It has been stated that these officers �clearly sided with the PAS government and would ruin Barisan Nasional�s (BN) agenda and planning if not stopped�� How does the Menteri Besar know this? Have they done anything to date that �ruined� the BN agenda and planning for the Terengganu people? Mere speculation of possible future actions is not a good enough justification for the termination of employment and the dismantling of schools and community-based structures created by the previous government. It is sad, and rather embarrassing, that this new MB is saying and doing such things as these actions and words go against the very essence of democracy. The role and responsibilities of an elected government towards its people - not just the BN supporters, but all the people of Terengganu - have been forgotten. Imagine if another party took over the Federal Government, then within five days, the most senior public servants are removed and teachers lose their jobs. This is absurd. Politicians and political parties must realize this and must be able to distinguish between what are political appointees and mere public servants. If certain positions, after serious study, are to be dismantled, then the State has the obligation to provide alternative jobs to those �retrenched�. I hope that this Menteri Besar now does not go out there and start discriminating against the 4,466 voters who voted for his opponent, and the remaining tens of thousands who did not vote for the BN by depriving them of government aid, scholarships, subsidies and other assistance. For if he does so, this man does not understand the essence of our democracy and he should be removed from his post as Menteri Besar. Serve without discrimination Once elected, the BN government of the day must not discriminate against those that did not support the BN. For if it does do so, then it might as well abolish all political parties and the general elections and erase democracy from Malaysia. How can you tell people to chose � and then discriminate against them because they did exercise �correctly� this right of choice. Elections came, the majority have spoken through their votes, so now you who have been chosen as the peoples� representatives and/or as the government, must go forth and be the representatives of the people, and must govern the people with justice and fairness. | |||||||||||||||
BN has no respect for human rights - All this talk about change and the concern for human rights is an eye-wash
| |||||||||||||||
| Malaysian General Election 2004 Special BN has no respect for human rights All this talk about change and the concern for human rights is an eye-wash by Charles Hector
Suhakam submitted three annual reports, which also contained recommendations, but, alas, to date none of these reports has been discussed or debated in Parliament. Besides that various other inquiries were made and reports containing recommendations were made, and again the government has not taken up these recommendations. Suhakam is in fact a toothless tiger in the fight for human rights.
Even Musa Hitam (a former deputy premier), whom many considered lukewarm as far as human rights was concerned, was not re-appointed as a Suhakam head. He was replaced by former Attorney General Abu Talib Othman. Abu Talib's involvement in the 1988 Judicial Crisis and the 1987 Operation Lalang (during which about 106 persons were detained under the Internal Security Act) makes him unsuitable to be a human rights commissioner - let alone Suhakam chairman. Come April 2004, the present 2-year terms come to an end. I predict that this time Prof Hamdan Adnan, who has been a pain in the government's neck for his surprise inspections of lock-ups and places of detention will be dropped. The formation of Suhakam was a white-wash. The the slow purging of those commissioners with human rights credentials and the appointment of 'yes-men' who seem to be too scared to stand up and defend human rights has shown that the BN government and the BN-dominated Parliament seem to have never had any intention of improving human rights in Malaysia. Suhakam is supposed to be made up of non-partisan individuals whose only interest must be human rights. But take a look at the Commissioners now. Even the appointment of the latest Royal Commission to look into police practices, abuses and corruption has a token few persons of credibility. Recent reports about the workings of this commission behind 'closed doors' and not in an open and transparent manner seem to indicate that this again is yet another farce. Even if they come up with a good report and set of recommendations at the end of the day, in all likelihood the BN-led government would most probably let it gather dust, in the same way as they have done with SUHAKAM reports. Our "new-broom" PM, Abdullah Badawi, started his premiership with promises of change. The arrest of an ageing prominent businessman and a senator-minister for corruption gave the impression that there was going to be a cleaner and better Malaysia. But then the nomination date and the election date was announced, and it turns out that this would be period of campaigning in Malaysian election history. This contradicted all the assurances made by Abdullah about 'change' and the respect for human rights. We all know that the main print media and electronic media do not give adequate space to the opposition parties to articulate their views and positions; it is primarily during the campaign period that they can let the people know their views and positions. So this short campaign period is indeed a serious contradiction to the words and promises of the new head of the Barisan Nasional coalition. Abdullah also had time to approve the merger of Parti Keadilan Nasional and Parti Rakyat Malaysia to form Parti Keadilan Rakyat but this was not done. Parti Socialis Malaysia's registration could have also been approved but this too was not done. And let us not forget that it was during Abdullah's term as premier that the police turned the water-cannons on those who went to Bukit Aman to hand over a memorandum of protest. About 17 of the NGO representatives were also arrested that day (though they were later released the same day). We must also not forget that Abdullah has not made any mention about the infamous Kampung Medan incident that left about six dead and about 100 injured. Many, including the Malaysian Bar, have called for an inquiry. So, all this talk about change and the concern for human rights is an eye-wash or, as some say, just part and parcel of empty election promises. Now e-mail us and tell us what you think. Your comments might be published in the Letters section of our print magazine, Aliran Monthly. Alternatively, post your comments to the message board. | |||||||||||||||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
