Hindraf 31: AG drops attempted murder charge....

So, someone threw a brick and 31 get charged for attempted murder... If there had NOT "...written to him, disassociating themselves from the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) - which had organised the rally in Kuala Lumpur - and undertook to not participate in an illegal assembly again..." - would the charges be dropped. If the Prime Minister had not urged him (the AG) ...would the charges be dropped. In any event - if you do not yet know who threw the brick ....or whether you do have sufficient evidence --- you, the AG, should not have charged them with attempted murder....this is NOT fun and games - and persons were wrongfully denied their liberty... and family and friends were put to a lot of suffering... put yourself in the place of one of the 31 ----- and would you consider that it was JUST.... I believe that you should compensate the 31 somehow --- and apologize - your position is a noble position and its powers must be exercised sparingly and justly...MR A-G sir.... Hindraf 31: AG drops attempted murder charge

Soon Li Tsin | Dec 17, 07 12:41pm

Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail today dropped the attempted murder charge against the 31 individuals - dubbed the Hindraf 31 - who had allegedly taken part in an illegal assembly and were also accused of causing severe injury to a policeman at the Batu Caves temple on Nov 25. He also withdrew all charges against six others - five of them university students - while the remaining 25 pleaded guilty to charges including illegal assembly and causing mischief. Shah Alam Sessions Court judge Nursinah Adzmi fixed bail at RM500, with one surety each, until she delivers sentence on Dec 27. They face up to five years in prison or a fine, or both, when they are sentenced next week. Approached to comment on why the charges were dropped, Abdul Gani said it was difficult to pinpoint exactly who threw the brick that had injured officer Dadi Abdul Rani. “I could be very strict but not this is not the time. This is not a goodwill gesture (to them). This is the fairest thing to do,” he said briefly. He also said the 31 had written to him, disassociating themselves from the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) - which had organised the rally in Kuala Lumpur - and undertook to not participate in an illegal assembly again. The Hindraf rally saw 30,000 disgruntled Indians taking to the streets of Kuala Lumpur. Police had used chemical-laced water and tear gas to disperse them. Family-members present Family members of the accused had initially gathered at the Shah Alam High Court as early as 9am, to hear the outcome of a bail revision hearing that had been postponed last Thursday. Abdul Gani told justice Zaharah Ibrahim that lawyers for the accused had decided not to proceed with the revision, and the matter reverted to the Sessions Court. The crowd of close to 150 then packed into Sessions judge Azimah Omar’s court and waited for an hour before they were informed that the judge was on leave. The matter was transferred to Nursinah’s court. The crowd almost brought proceedings to a halt in the courtroom, while police tried to restore order. With hardly any room to move, family members remained standing to catch a glimpse of the accused when they were brought into court. They had been detained in the Sungai Buloh prison for almost two weeks. Relatives, who were in tears, managed to embrace some of them. When the court adjourned, the crowd cheered as the 31 were released. Many family members were seen thanking lead defence counsel, GK Ganesan. Plea bargain Ganesan (right) told Malaysiakini that he was happy with the AG’s decision. “The AG showed extreme compassion and understanding. The parents of the accused are all very grateful that the charges have been withdrawn,” he said. He also affirmed that he had made representations for plea bargaining to the AG on behalf of his clients last Thursday, to have the attempted murder charge withdrawn. “I wrote to the AG to state that my clients are sincerely remorseful and deeply regret the event. All they want to do is to go back to work and be reconciled with their families,” he added. Another lawyer for the accused, A Sivanesan (left), ticked off MIC for seeking to take credit in the dropping of the attemped murder charges. "(MIC leader S) Samy Vellu was misleading to make such statements. The representation was made by the lawyers, not MIC," he said. S Ramash Kumar, 22, one of the students who was discharged, described his time in Sungai Buloh prison as “hell”. “The treatment was bad, the food was bad. I just want to thank all the Indians for their support,” said the soft-spoken first-year civil engineering student of the Universiti Industri Selangor. Vasanta Rao, a 19-year old student at a teacher's training college, was one of the five released unconditionally. "I thank the government. I only went to the temple ... for prayers that day and was arrested. I'm now very happy to be free," he told reporters. PM urged AG to drop charges Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had earlier urged Abdul Gani to drop the murder attempt charges after appeals by family members. But Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang (right), who was present in court today, called for all the charges to be withdrawn. "Although I welcome the dropping of the attempted murder charge against the 31, I'm disgusted that the attorney-general had not withdrawn all the charges against the other 26," he told AFP. Abdullah said those detained were misled by ethnic Indian rights group Hindraf, who had organised the Nov 25 rally that drew at least 30,000 people to the streets of Kuala Lumpur. Abdul Gani said most of the 31 accused had submitted affidavits saying they did not support Hindraf and many vowed not to take part in future illegal assemblies. Meanwhile, MCA in a press statement released after the party's central committee meeting today welcomed the AG's decision to drop the attempted murder charges. "The party reiterated its stand against illegal gatherings and street demonstrations and rejects accusations of Indian ethnic cleansing and unlawful demonstrations as well as attempts to use foreign governmental bodies to be involved in our domestic affairs. "The prime minister has reaffirmed that he is the prime minister for all races and that he is committed to resolving problems and issues of the Malays, Chinese, Indians and others in this rapidly developing economy." It said that the prime minister has a duty to to prevent any racial tensions from escalating. "Under such difficult circumstances, the government was compelled to take stern actions including the use of ISA to maintain peace and stability."

A funny picture or a image depicting the TRUTH?

57 years' jail for trafficking in 86 illegal immigrants???

Just recently they said about 500 companies found to have committed offences with regard to migrants, and many were let of with reprimands. Now, here a poor driver, is sentenced 86 years - what about the owner of the bus? what about the agents who arranged for the transportation to Malaysia, what about the people who received delivery... TRAFFICKING - was it really? It is very different from the word SMUGGLING. More often than not, people are smuggled over the borders. Trafficking implies that it was done without the consent of the person being brought in. Trafficking implies these persons were akin to slaves. The word "trafficking" have been promoted by the US and we, too sometimes use the wrong words. From the report, it seems that it was one trip -he picked them up at the Bukit Kayu Hitam Immigration Complex exit >>> therefore the question is where is the "trafficking" or even "smuggling" - all he could have been charged for was possibly harbouring undocumented migrants - but then this was a bus driver (Are we saying that all bus drivers, taxi drivers and train operators have now been placed with the burden of determining the legal status of all their passengers.... let us be reasonable...) Was it only the DRIVER that they caught? What happened to the REST - noting that they were taken from Bukit Kayu Hitam Immigration Complex. Driver jailed 57 years for transporting illegals

Monday, 17 December 2007, 08:55am

©The Star (Used by permission) JITRA: A bus driver from Ipoh was sentenced to more than 57 years' jail for trafficking in 86 illegal immigrants into the country last year. A magistrate's court here found M. Elangoran, 36, guilty yesterday of transporting the Myanmars on the bus he was driving early this year. He was sentenced to eight months’ jail for every illegal immigrant he allowed on the bus at the Bukit Kayu Hitam Immigration Complex exit route at 7.30am on Feb 3. Magistrate Nabisha Ibrahim ordered the 688 months' sentence to be carried out concurrently. Elangoran’s counsel, S. Kuppusamy told the court he would appeal the decision and asked that the sentence be postponed. Nabisha allowed the postponement and set bail at RM15,000 in one surety for Elangoran. She also ordered the bus to be forfeited. The case was prosecuted by Nar Azaman Ibrahim.

Foreign workers: 490 agencies commit offences

2007/12/16

Foreign workers: 490 agencies commit offences

KANGAR: Close to 500 companies that hire foreign workers were caught for committing various offences during a nationwide blitz that started on Nov 1.

Peninsular Labour Department deputy director-general Sheikh Yahya Sheikh Mohamed said all 490 companies were agencies for foreign workers.

The offences included operating without being registered with the Labour Department, failing to take out workers' compensation insurance, and failing to inform the department within 14 days of hiring new foreign workers.

Certain companies had also deducted sums from workers' salaries without permission from the department.

Sheikh Yahya said that 47 of the employers were fined and 30 would be charged in court. The rest had been issued with warnings.

Of the 500,000 employers registered with the Labour Department, about 100,000 are known to handle foreign workers.

"This operation will continue until all the companies registered with the department have been checked," he said after a career carnival organised by the state government on Friday.

He also urged job seekers to check the company registration number with the Labour Department of any employment agency they dealt with.

AG(or is it really the PM) that is considering the appeal of the 31

“They also told the A-G that they will not participate in such activities in the future. .. how does the Prime Minister know this.. Now who is the PP, the Public Prosecutor, the AG or the PM? Reference to the Public Prosecutor to re-consider the charge, and maybe withdraw the charge is a usual procedure employed by the accused. The question is how will the Public Prosecutor decide.. Will there be some plea-bargaining -- i.e. maybe "hey you 31, admit to a lesser charge of causing hurt to that police officer and the attempted murder charge be withdrawn....or maybe also could you come out in public (maybe TV also) and denounce the alleged leaders of HINDRAF and maybe also say that Indians are all well-treated in Malaysia.....", I am just wondering out loud... The powers of arrest, detention, charging a person, conducting a trial ....are powers that must never be abused - and used justly and honestly by those who have those powers... PM: Murder charge protesters regret actions

Sunday, 16 December 2007, 09:07am

• A-G urged to consider appeals by parents ©The Sunday Star KUALA LUMPUR: The 31 Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) protesters facing an attempted murder charge have voiced regret over their actions to Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said. “They also told the A-G that they will not participate in such activities in the future. “I pity them. I have told the A-G to please consider this representation of theirs and decide as soon as possible,” he told reporters after chairing the Umno supreme council meeting at the PWTC here yesterday. Abdullah said this when asked whether the attempted murder charge against the 31 would be dropped following appeals from various groups, including MIC president Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu, for their release. Abdullah added that the 31 protesters had said that many people had been misled by Hindraf. The 31 were slapped with the charge after they allegedly injured a policeman at the illegal Hindraf rally on Nov 25. Samy Vellu had said on Friday that he had conveyed the appeal of the protesters’ parents to the Attorney-General and hoped that it would be considered favourably. He added that the parents told him their children took part in the rally without realising the consequences and also claimed that they were hoodwinked into believing it was for a worthy cause.

Who are the Hindraf 31?

Having the power to choose when to charge someone and when not to, and to charge under what section and for what offence is a very BIG power, which has to be exercised HONESTLY, reasonably AND JUSTLY, not affected by any past, present or future consideration save the facts and evidence available before him. Like the JUDICIARY, the Public Prosecutor (Attorney General) need to be independent - and not behave like an agent and/or an arm of the executive. 31 persons charged for 'attempted murder'. I see this as being a case of a charge being made with 'bad intentions" and meant possibly to SCARE other persons into not participating in future peaceful assemblies and protest. You cannot do this to these 31 persons - by this unreasonable charge of "attempted murder" and also the denial of "bail" (meaning they will have to languish in remand prison until their trial is over). SENTENCES can be used as a deter ant - and that is only after a person is found guilty. Charging a person of committing an offence which carries a high penalty, or the imposition of a high Bail amount (or no Bail as in this case) are not things that you can or should use as deterrents. Let us not forget that a person is presumed innocent until he is proven guilty. That means all these 31 persons are at present INNOCENT and should be treated as such.... Our Public Prosecutor (Attorney General) seems to have forgotten his role and purpose. He behaves like the Prime Minister or government or the POLICE. He is confused. A legal remedy must be made available to those who have been wrongly charged - Compensation must be made available for these persons not just the losses they suffer by reason of such charges (including also the loss of liberty). What happens to the family and dependants of these 31? How may children have been affected here - and this is important as Malaysia is a signatory to the Child Rights Convention - and the welfare of the child is of paramount consideration - and I wonder whether this was even considered by the courts when they decided not to grant bail. (Remember, a person charged with murder can also be granted Bail - and it has happened here in Malaysia - why not in this case of this 31? Was it because of their economic standing? One wonders.... I urge the Public Prosecutor (Attorney General) to re-consider the charge of "attempted murder", and withdraw it. I urge the Public Prosecutor to at least withdraw his objections to BAIL - and urge the court to allow these 31 persons be released on bail. I call upon the Public Prosecutor to remember his role and function - and the need for him to be independent and also to act in an independent manner. Who are the Hindraf 31?

Soon Li Tsin | Dec 15, 07 3:41

Car-tinter S Sures, 18, was among those charged with attempted murder of police officer Dadi Abdul Rani during a demonstration at Batu Caves in the early hours of Nov 25, just before the mammoth Hindraf rally which rocked the city. Sures has a hole in his heart. His mother S Viswanathan, 58, who openly wailed on hearing that her son was denied bail, said her son was not part of Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) but was at the Batu Caves temple to pray for his health. When counsel GK Ganesan argued for bail for Sures, Shah Alam Sessions Judge Azimah Omar demanded to see his medical record. However, the lawyer and courts were pressed for time so the records could not be produced. Subsequently, Sures - the youngest among the Hindraf 31 - was sent to the police lock-up. Sures is one of the 31 individuals who were denied bail on the grounds of national security reasons and the severity of the charges, which also included “causing mischief”. Visibly distressed families broke down and cried foul over the harsh Dec 6 decision as the 31 will be incarcerated in Sungai Buloh prison for over a month until their trial begins on Jan 14 next year. Bail hearing on Monday However, the Shah Alam High Court will hear an appeal against the bail rejection decision on Monday. Prior to this, 14 of the 31 were also charged for illegal assembly at Batu Caves at the Selayang Sessions Court on Nov 28. The 31 are accused of wounding officer Dadi during a demonstration at Batu Caves, the site of an important Hindu temple on the fringes of Kuala Lumpur. At least 3,000 had gathered at the Batu Caves temple grounds in the early hours of Nov 25, drawing a stiff response from police who used tear gas and water cannon to disperse the crowd and made 69 arrests. Later in the morning, more than 30,000 people gathered in the streets of Kuala Lumpur to protest against the marginalisation of ethnic Indians and the crowd again faced tear gas and water cannons. While the focus has been on the top brass in Hindraf over the past few weeks, the 31 are in fact very ordinary people ranging from a 18-year-old boy to a 54-year-old odd-job worker. Some are students, while a few are lorry drivers, and together they have a monthly estimated income of between RM500 to RM2,000. A number of them are expected to lose their jobs as a result of their long absence from work. To compound their plight, some of their lawyers who are representing them, including Hindraf legal adviser P Uthayakumar, had been arrested under the Internal Security Act, which allows for detention without trial. Charged for attempted murder Malaysiakini compiles the list of the 31 individuals - some of whom are Hindraf members while others were just at the wrong place at the wrong time. 1. SS Ganishen, 39, lorry driver. 2. K Raju, 42, driver. He is hard of hearing on one side. 3. R Sakthivel, 34, technician. In court, he told reporters that he left his bike when he passed by the Batu Caves temple to see what was happening. When he returned to his bike, the police arrested him. 4. K Ganapathy, 38, lorry driver. 5. K Sukumaran, 24, foreman. 6. S Kumaran, 25, farmer. 7. B Varatharaju, 32, foreman. 8. M Kuna Sekaran, 24, machine operator. 9. V Ganeson, 40, lorry driver. 10. L Thiyagarajan, 31, sales executive. 11. S Gunaa, 21, is a farmer. He only gets salary when there is work. 12. K Thinagaranpillay, 23, manager. 13. N Balamohan, 23, part-time worker. 14. K Gopinath, 27, store keeper. 15. R Suresh, 24, runs his own business. 16. G Suman, 20, runs his own business. 17. M Buwenthiran, 24, technician. 18. M Pushparathan, 21, technician. 19. S Tail Arasu, 26, despatch boy. 20. N Ramasamy, 43, is a driver. He is also a kidney patient. He showed his dialysis card in court but this was dismissed by judge Azimah as it did necessarily prove his health condition. 21. S Ramash Kumar, 22, student. 22. R Pushpanathan,19, despatch boy. 23. S Mugilan Dever, 20, student. 24. G Thinesh Kumar, 19, foreman. 25. T Kunalan, 28, machine operator. 26. S Sures, 18, car-tinter. He has a hole in the heart. 27. A Vasantarao, 19, student. 28. N Markandan, 54, odd-job worker. 29. K Raghu, 39, technician. 30. A Rayar, 30, had an engagement ceremony planned on Dec 7 that had to be cancelled. His occupation is unknown. 31. S Ravi, 33, lorry driver.

Our right to defy bad laws

Our right to defy bad laws

Yeo Yang Poh | Dec 14, 07 3:51pm

I refer to the New Straits Times editorial The rule of law on Dec 11. You began by stating that no arrests would have been made on Dec 9 “If the unlawful marchers had responded to the warnings to disperse.” I take it that you meant to say “If those accused of being unlawful marchers had responded to the alleged warnings to disperse” since those allegations (and others that followed in your editorial) have yet to be established in the pending cases. This would have been in line with your paper’s usual care in distinguishing allegations from proven facts when commenting on pending cases. You have argued that defiance of any law cannot be defended in any circumstances. No law, no matter how bad it is, can be broken. Your only proposed solution to a bad law is to change it. For as long as it has not been changed, every bad law must never be broken. Breaking a bad law would, in your view, lead to lawlessness. That view is not new. It offers the language of legal rights but it is not the language of human rights. The issue, therefore, is whether the framework of legal rights is sufficient for a society. If it is, then there is no need for the language of human rights. If your view is right then there is no place for civil disobedience in any society. One would have to conclude that Rosa Parks, whose defiance of segregation law (by sitting on the bus in breach of the law) triggered a chain of events that led to its eventual change, had sparked reform in an unacceptable and indefensible way. One would have to concede that Mahatma Gandhi was indefensibly wrong when he led thousands to defy the law on salt-making of the time. Nelson Mandela would have to apologise for having been a repeated offender and law-breaker in organising and participating in countless illegal rallies during his youth. The list of examples is long. Readers such as I would be interested to know if this is the position held by one of the leading newspapers in 21st century Malaysia. If I have misconstrued your views then I look forward to a clarification and a debate on these issues in your papers in the coming days, accommodating and publishing diverse views. That would contribute towards nation building and would, I am sure, not break any law. I agree with you that society must seek to change bad laws. The process of change, however, cannot merely be limited to the election of representatives and the legislative mechanism alone, as some politicians are prone to suggest these days. All forms of peaceful expression, lobbying and demanding for change are legitimate and important parts of the change process. You suggest that the only legitimate way to deal with a law that is perceived to be oppressive is to continually debate it and (I presume) hope that such public debate will one day bring about the desired change. You have ruled out other methods. For as long as that oppressive law has not been changed, one would continue to debate the issues and suffer the oppression no matter how long the period of waiting may be. This, I deduce, is your notion of good citizenry. However, your examples relating to proposals for changes to the law on freedom of assembly chillingly illustrate to your readers how true it is that talk alone is cheap. It paints a picture of despair to good citizens if talk is all that one can do. The proposals for reform cited in your examples were not made by demonstrators or marchers, but by bodies and persons tasked by the government to do so. They were not made last week, last month or last year. Yet the law has not been changed. That, if I understand you correctly, makes no difference. You speak of the rule of law. I wish to say that there is a world of difference between “rule by law” and “rule of law”. Rule by law occurs everywhere, in the worst of places, including societies such as Zimbabwe and Burma. Laws made by military rulers are nevertheless laws of the land. Peaceful people everywhere are always ruled by the laws of the land. Rule of law, on the other hand, is a system that must conform to multiple requirements, norms, standards, expectations, checks and balances. This can be the subject of another public debate and I look forward to your paper providing the space and opportunity for such a debate. The writer is former Bar Council president. New Straits Times has refused to publish the above letter.

Families visit Hindraf 5 at Kamunting (Malaysiakini)

Families visit Hindraf 5 at Kamunting

Andrew Ong | Dec 14, 07 1:40pm

About 30 relatives were able to meet five leaders of the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) this morning at the Kamunting detention camp, where they are being detained for two years under the Internal Security Act (ISA). Hindraf legal adviser P Uthayakumar, lawyers M Manoharan, R Kenghadharan and V Ganabatirau and organising secretary T Vasantha Kumar were arrested yesterday afternoon and immediately sent to the camp in Taiping, Perak. Family members rushed in a convoy from Kuala Lumpur this morning to visit them. Officers set up two tables in a room where the detainees were brought out two at a time to meet between five to six family members each. Manoharan’s family members were the first to enter the visitation room. “He said he was okay,” said a close friend of the family who also got a glimpse of him. Lawyers were also allowed in, including N Surendran who had accompanied family members of Uthayakumar and Ganabatirau during the simultaneous visits. “They are in very high spirits and determined to last it out,” he said when contacted. He added that the five, who had arrived at the detention camp about midnight, appeared to be in good health. A close relative of Uthayakumar told Malaysiakini that a handful of Hindraf supporters had gathered in front of the detention camp. “We’re not asking anyone to gather here. Instead, we have encouraged them to continue their prayers for the safety and well being of the detainees,” she said. Immediate visits upon detention under ISA are a departure from procedure.. Typically, family members are only allowed to visit detainees after two months of detention.

Five Hindraf leaders detained under ISA - straight away for 2 years???

This is shocking and an embarrassment to Malaysia - and confirms that our current Prime Minister may be much worse than the former premier.

What he has done now by using the ISA (a detention without trial law) is to again negatively tarnish the image of Malaysia in the eyes of the international community.

The normal procedure, based on my opinion, is that a person is first arrested by the Police for up to a maximum of 60 days - and during this time there is allegedly investigations done and the Home Minister then hopefully do consider the results of the investigation and only thereafter when"is satisfied that the detention of any person is necessary". Note that section 8 provides for also other possibilities like restriction orders (the imposition of restrictions and conditions), which will be used in place of detaining a person.

In this recent arrests, from the Star report, it seems that the PM had already signed the Detention Order under section 8. Just too fast - too draconian - he did not even take time to consider - he seems to be acting by reason of emotions not reasonable considerations.

Immediately and unconditionally release all those arrested and detained under the ISA and other laws that allow for Detention Without Trial. Abolish the the ISA and other laws that allow for Detention Without Trial.

No one should be deprived his liberty without being accorded an open and fair trial, with the full right to defend himself.

In this case, most of them have already been charged in court and have claimed trial. I wonder whether there was any other reason for their arrest - that is not reasons for which they have been charged with. I wonder....

"73. Power to detain suspected persons.

(1) Any police officer may without warrant arrest and detain pending enquiries any person in respect of whom he has reason to believe -

(a) that there are grounds which would justify his detention under section 8; and

(b) that he has acted or is about to act or is likely to act 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.

(2) Any police officer may without warrant arrest and detain pending enquiries any person, who upon being questioned by the officer fails to satisfy the officer as to his identity or as to the purposes for which he is in the place where he is found, and who the officer suspects has acted or is about to act 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.

(3) Any person arrested under this section may be detained for a period not exceeding sixty days without an order of detention having been made in respect of him under section 8:...."

"8. Power to order detention or restriction of persons.

(1) 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.....

(5) If the Minister is satisfied that for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) it is necessary that control and supervision should be exercised over any person or that restrictions and conditions should be imposed upon that person in respect of his activities, freedom of movement or places of residence or employment, but that for that purpose it is unnecessary to detain him, he may make an order (hereinafter referred to as a restriction order) imposing upon that person all or any of the following restrictions and conditions -...."

Nation (The Star Online)

Thursday December 13, 2007
MYT 3:59:19 PM

Five Hindraf leaders detained under ISA (2nd update)

PETALING JAYA: Five Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) leaders have been arrested and detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA).

The five are P. Uthayakumar, M. Manoharan, R. Kenghadharan, V. Ganabatirau and T. Vasanthakumar. They were picked up at various locations in Selangor, Kuala Lumpur and Seremban.

It is learnt they were detained under Section 8 (1) of the ISA after Internal Security Minister Datuk Seri Abdulah Ahmad Badawi signed their detention order.

Their detention is for two years.

Uthayakumar and two others namely Ganabatirau and P. Waythamoorthy were charged under the Sedition Act on Nov 23 in Klang 23 for allegedly making speeches to incite hatred at a gathering in Batang Berjuntai, Selangor, on Nov 16. Waythamoorthy is currently overseas.

Under Section 73 (1) of the ISA, the police can detain any individual for up to 60 days without a warrant, trial and without access to legal counsel if he was suspected to have “acted or is about to act or is likely to act in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to maintenance of essential services therein or to the economic life thereof."

After 60 days, the Minister of Home Affairs can extend the period of detention without trial for up to two years, without submitting any evidence for review by the courts, by issuing a detention order, which is renewable indefinitely.

MALAYSIA: Government failing to respect the right to freedom of assembly - Amnesty International

MALAYSIA: Government failing to respect the right to freedom of assembly - Amnesty International

Public Statement

AI Index: ASA 28/009/2007

Amnesty International condemns the arrests of human rights lawyers, activists and members of the public in the past few days as they exercised their right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. These include members of Bersih, a national coalition of NGOs and opposition politicians, calling for free and fair elections and the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf). Amnesty International is also concerned that there are still many individuals who remain in detention, and calls for the immediate release of all those detained.

Amnesty International is concerned that the Malaysian government appears to have begun a sustained crackdown against public assemblies. In recent weeks two large assemblies have been held which have been met by excessive use of force by police and arrests on dubious charges. On 10 November, Bersih held a large demonstration of at least 30,000 people. In a separate incident on 25 November, Hindraf gathered around 40,000 ethnic Indians in order to protest their dissatisfaction over government policies resulting in marginalisation of and discrimination against the Indian community. During both demonstrations, police used water canons, tear gas and excessive force against demonstrators, resulting in many injuries. Mass arrests and arbitrary detention also occurred following the events.

Amnesty International is concerned that the Malaysian government is obstructing the fundamental human right of all individuals to freedom of expression and assembly. A series of arrests and charges began on 6 December, when 31 Hindraf supporters were charged with attempted murder, after a policeman suffered injuries, and have been refused bail. In addition, three leaders of Hindraf, P. Uthayakumar, P. Waya Moorthy, and Ganapathy Rao, have been charged under the Sedition Act for remarks made during a speech on 16 November, and with a letter posted on their website.

Nine human rights lawyers and activists were arrested on 9 December as they attempted to conduct a march commemorating Human Rights Day. The march which began at a large department store in Kuala Lumpur central market, was stopped halfway by a large police contingent. The lawyers were arrested and now face charges of illegal assembly and disobeying police orders to disperse. If convicted, they could face up to two and a half years imprisonment. Amnesty International also expresses concern over the arrest of seventeen members of Bersih who attempted to deliver a memorandum to opposition parliamentarians, on 11 December.

In putting its signature to the ASEAN charter on 21 November, Malaysia has committed itself to the promotion and protection of human rights as stated explicitly in the Charter. Amnesty International urges the Malaysian Government to respect the fundamental rights of assembly and expression and to safeguard against arbitrary arrest and detention enshrined in the Malaysian Constitution and international human rights law. The organisation also calls on the Malaysian Government to ratify the ASEAN Charter without delay, and to give effect to the human rights principles contained within the Charter through the creation of an effective and independent regional human rights body.

Over recent years Amnesty International, along with the National Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM) and the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysian Police, has called on the government of Malaysia to amend section 27 of the Police Act. The section stipulates that a police permit is required for public assemblies. Under the Police Act anyone participating in a demonstration can be arrested and detained for illegal assembly. Amnesty International recommends that the Malaysian authorities implement the recommendations contained within the reports from SUHAKAM and the Royal Commission that also give guidance on police procedures during the dispersal of demonstrations and issuance of permits.

In light of the fact that more demonstrations are likely in the lead up to elections expected in 2008, Amnesty International urges the Government of Malaysia to respect the right to freedom of assembly and expression. The legitimate maintenance of public order must not be achieved through violating the rights of people who peacefully assemble and express their opinions.

Working to protect human rights worldwide