Anwar's principled position against ISA, Sedition Act .... Will Pakatan Rakyat take a similar stand?

At last, Anwar Ibrahim has come out with a principled stand - and hopefully all Pakatan Rakyat component parties and other Opposition parties, including those parties in BN that are for human rights and justice should also adopt the same.

We should not call for the ISA and/or any other Detention Without Trial Laws to be used against any person - irrespective of how 'hurtful' a statement he/she makes - and this is because we are for freedom of speech, expression, opinion and peaceful assembly. We should be consistent in our position that these are bad laws that should all be repealed immediately.

Likewise, we should not be calling the police to stop, arrest, detain and/or charge persons who exercise the right to protest and peaceful assembly even if it targeted against PR State governments, Pakatan Rakyat and/or any of its parties, or personalities. It would be a contradiction to our position that all laws and/or provisions of laws that deny persons the right to peaceful assembly and protest be repealed. 

It is also wrong for us to be calling for the revocation of printing/publishing permits and/or banning of certain media agencies from certain functions that are open to the media - for its a violation of our our call for press freedom.

It is also wrong for us to be calling for action to be taken against certain bloggers, twitters, websites....because we are angry and/or not happy with what they said. 

We should not be calling for de-registration of certain societies, associations, .... as this would be against freedom of association. 

It is OK to call for a boycott of certain publications, persons, etc.... it is OK to come out with statements expressing our feelings and disagreements - but not call on the Malaysian government and/or the police to use the powers given under the very same 'bad laws' that we want to be seen deleted from our body of Malaysian laws...

In the past, sadly some of the Opposition parties and personalities have called for the utilization of these same 'bad laws' against those who said or did things that made them angry...unhappy. The past is the past...and this must be stopped... and we must act 'differently' from the government of the day - and demonstrate that we are truly principled and will not advocate the using of any anti-freedom anti-rights laws even against the worst of our 'enemies'....

Beware also the 'tricks' of government in trying to get support for new laws that will curtail freedoms and rights.... There has been talk that there may be new laws to 'control' freedom of expression though the internet... and, I wonder whether the highlighting of 1 or 2 blogpost about this whole "Christian PM...official religion of Malaysia' issue which generated much 'anger' and reaction was just another attempt to convince Malaysians that we do need laws to 'control' freedoms now available in cyberspace... No to 'internet' control and censorship laws....

PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim does not support calls for sedition laws nor the Internal Security Act be used against Ibrahim Ali, the leader of Malay right-wing group Perkasa.

Anwar said that Malaysians must, instead, collectively decide whether they were willing to condone the incitement of religious or racial hatred by Perkasa and other right-wing groups.

"People who are angry with Ibrahim asked for him to be charged with sedition or ISA. I don't," he said in an exclusive interview with Malaysiakini yesterday.

"As a matter of principle, I don't support ISA or the Sedition Act and therefore I do not condone the use of these (laws), even as a temporary measure.

"(But) should a civilised country, after half a century of independence, condone these sorts of sentiments?"

Ibrahim, who is also Pasir Mas parliamentarian, had come under fire for calling for a 'crusade' and 'jihad' (holy war) against Christians, who were accused of trying to undermine Islam's position in Malaysia.

His remarks last Saturday at a 1Malaysia event was in response to a heavily-refuted Utusan Malaysia's report that a group of church leaders had taken an oath to make Christianity the country's official religion and to install a Christian prime minister.

'Ibrahim singing gov't tune'

Both the opposition Pakatan Rakyat and some BN leaders have called for Ibrahim to be punished.

However, Anwar said that while Ibrahim could investigated under laws other than ISA or the Sedition Act, he believed that no action would be taken against the vocal MP because such incitement was condoned by the ruling regime.

"There are laws to investigate (Ibrahim), but how do investigate when you know it is being promoted and supported by the ruling establishment?" he asked.

On Tuesday, de facto law minister Nazri Abdul Aziz told Malaysiakini that it would be unfair to take action against Ibrahim as he is only one of many people who utter seditious comments lately.

Meanwhile, Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein also skirted the issue, dismissing the Independent MP's views as not representative of the majority of Malays and Muslims in Malaysia.

Ibrahim: I said 'jihad' for shock value

Meanwhile, in a statement late last night, Ibrahim sought to clarify that he was using the word 'jihad' to shock the Muslims into realising that Islam was being ridiculed.

"Jihad does not only mean perang salib (crusade), it does not mean the killing of Christians and Muslims, (but it) includes acts of prevention (by) using one's hands, mouth, writing and other means.

"Everyone lost their cool (in response to Saturday's speech) but they don't realise what they do sometimes also demean Islam, and when this happens no one is reprimanded," he said.

Ibrahim lamented that the only media which gets criticised all the time is Utusan, and that new media, be it news portals, blogs, Facebook pages or Twitter users, get away scot-free by posting insulting articles and photos that insult the religion.

"I used the word 'jihad' to jolt people into realising (that Islam is being maligned)," he said.

'Naive' to expect action against Utusan
Asked to comment on the Home Ministry's caution letter against Utusan, Anwar said that it would be "naive" to believe that action would be meted out against the Umno-owned newspaper.

Citing his experience as a Umno deputy president, he claimed that the "it is an unwritten law of the country" that Utusan gets its instructions straight from the party's boss.

"Clearly (it is) naive to assume that Umno will take action against their own party newspaper which functions under the direction of the president of the party, who happens to be the prime minister of the country.

"I'm not ... fatalistic or dismissive (about the matter). I'm saying that this must be made known. (Prime Minister) Najib (Abdul Razak) can go on saying 'Oh, Utusan - tough!' but I know Utusan and how it is run," he said.

The Home Ministry had last week issued a caution letter against Utusan for publishing the report on the alleged Christian conspiracy but this was deemed by its detractors as too lenient.

Malaysiakini will be publishing the full interview with Anwar Ibrahim next week.- Malaysiakini, 20/5/2011, 'Don't use ISA or sedition laws against Ibrahim Ali'

Everyone has the freedom to have their say - and the people will listen and decide on their own position and stance. Malaysians are mature and reasonable and will think for themselves and make their own position.

SUARAM: Detention under the EO is Arbitrary! Repeal Detention Without Trial Laws

PRESS STATEMENT: 18 MAY 2011

Detention under the EO is Arbitrary!

 

Suaram expresses disappointment and concern over the detention of the three youths under the Restricted Residence Act (RRA) 1933 for 2 years. The detention orders under the RRA were issued by the Home Minister on 17 May 2011.  This has made the habeas corpus applications that Suaram has planned to file has been made academic. The three individuals are Muhamad Arif bin Abu Samah (19 years old), Mohamed Ramadan bin Muhamed Ali (22 years old) and Mohamed Rafe bin Mohamed Ali (20 years old).  Muhamad Arif was send to Mersing, Johor (for 2 years), Mohamed Ramdan to Chenon, Pahang (2 years) and Mohamed Rafe to Kulim, Kedah for 2 years as well. 

 

The three were arrested by the Gombak District police officers on the 8^th of March 2011 allegedly for involvement for possession of a stolen vehicle in their residential area in Selayang. But until today these allegations against them have not been proven in any court. On the other hand, the three of them have also been brought on a 'remand roadshow' by the police before being pinned under the Emergency Ordinance (Public Order and Crime Prevention). On 19 March 2011, they were served with detention orders under the EO which allows for detention without trial. 

 

The three have been detained for 60 days and they were tortured physically and mentally by the police during the entire duration of their detention. They were severely kicked and beaten with iron pipe, wire and aluminum. Other than that, they were also not allowed to meet with lawyer for nearly two months. Besides that, the family members  of Mohamed Ramadan and Mohamed Rafe  has also been duped by a man calling himself as an Inspector to extort money of RM 13,000 from them.

 

SUARAM is appalled at the increasing number of youngsters detained under the EO. SUARAM strongly condemns the Minister’s decision to pursue the detention of the youths under the RRA. Worst still, the detainees will most likely face traumatic experiences and difficulties in their new restricted area. Their rights to move freely, rights to education and more importantly, rights to live a better life with their family have been deprived. This is an outright abuse of power by the Minister who has been blindly signing the detention orders. The gross misuse and abuse of the EO on ordinary citizens of the country does not merely lie with the police but with the slipshod manner of the Home Ministry itself.

 

As of now, more than 1000 persons were being detained without trial under the EO at Simpang Renggam Detention Centre and other detention centres around the country. This number does not include those detained without trial in other police stations around the country. Going by this number of people detained, the EO can be deemed to be ten times worse than the infamous Internal Security Act (ISA) which also allows for arbitrary detention.

 

SUARAM recognizes the responsibility of the Malaysian government to curb crime and to deal with criminals, gangs and syndicates. But the government should not resort to means that violates human rights such as the EO in efforts to address criminal activity. Unfortunately in Malaysia, EO has been frequently abused by the police and government to deal with suspects of petty crimes. This is an outright misuse of power by the police and the Home Ministry in dealing with the EO detainees, particularly when they have absolute power and their decision cannot be challenged in court. Detention of any individual without trial is a violation of fundamental human rights.

 

SUARAM urges the government to withdraw the restricted order that have been served to the three detainees that have been mention above and immediately release them without any further conditions.

 

Detention without trial is a gross human rights violation. It violates Article 9, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and Article 8 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Federal Constitution which guarantees due process and security of persons.

 

Therefore, we call up on the government to:

1. Immediately repeal the EO, DDA and ISA; 
2. Stop arresting youths and minors under the EO and respect their rights as laid out under CRC;
3. Stop re-arresting individuals under the same law (or any other preventive laws) especially those released by the courts through habeas corpus applications or through the recommendations of the Advisory Board ; if need be, they should be charged under existing criminal laws;
4. The police should immediately stop making any further arrests under EO ;
5. All those who are currently detained or restricted under EO should be released immediately or be charged in open court under existing criminal laws.

 

Released By, 

Nalini.E

Detention without Trial Coordinator,

SUARAM

019 3758912

 

We, Malaysians 'murdered' 441 since 1960 - and may kill another 696...unless

Yes, we Malaysians did intentionally deprive 441 persons of their lives since 1960, and we are going to kill another 696...

We may not have been the person who put the noose on the neck ...or pulled the lever that caused these persons to hang to their death...but we cannot run away from blame... for it was our laws...our government (i.e. the government that we voted in who made the laws or allowed the laws to be).... that is responsible for the death of those 441 - and possibly the deaths of another 696 in the near future..

And the killing was certainly intentional - was it not? And many who were killed never personally deprived any human person of their lives... 228 were involved in 'drug trafficking' - most likely some foolish 'mule' who may not even be actively involved in any drug trafficking business/trade

441 hanged to death since 1960, another 696 on death row as at 20/2/2011

Time to abolish death sentence

Athi Shankar | April 3, 2011 

A total of 441 persons had been sentenced to death since 1960 while another 696 are waiting for execution of their death sentences in Malaysian prisons.

GEORGE TOWN: A DAP parliamentarian today called on the government to give a serious re-thinking to abolish the death sentence and substitute it with a more ‘humanely’ life imprisonment

Describing it as ‘a cruel sentence against human rights’, Bukit Bendera MP Liew Chin Tong said the death penalty had proven not to be an effective tool to deter crime.

“Convicts can be prevented from reoffending via life sentence, without the necessity to take their lives,” he argued.

He pointed out that given to the imperfect nature of the justice system, it was impossible to eliminate human error.

However, he said, this flawed system was still being continued to enforce an irreversible and cruel capital punishment that could not deter criminals and prevent crime.

He said a justice system that had not been infallible shall never pass an irreversible and cruel sentence in the name of justice.

“The government should initiate a comprehensive bipartisan discussion on the death penalty.

“It is time for serious rethinking on the death penalty,” said Liew in a statement.

He said in a civilised nation that respected humankind dignity, regard should be had for the legal maxim “better 10 guilty men go free than an innocent man die”.

He cited many nations of seriously rethinking capital punishment as “a barbaric and abhorrent punishment” fundamentally opposed to the nature of human rights.

According to Amnesty International, 30 countries have stopped the use of capital punishment in the last decade.

Liew said in the larger scheme of national safety and crime deterrence, it was crucial for the justice system to ensure that criminals were brought to justice through strong police investigative work with integrity.

“The country’s judicial system shall be just and seen to be just.

“Taking away lives in form of capital punishment has proven could not help to eliminate crime,” he said.

696 awaiting execution

He suggested that for a start, the government should amend the Dangerous Drugs Act to return the discretion of sentencing to the judge.

Currently, the hands of the judges are tied upon conviction as the death penalty was mandatory under Section 39B of the Act.

According to Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein’s reply to Liew’s question last Thursday in Parliament, 441 persons had been sentenced to death since 1960.

As of on Feb 22 this year, another 696 are waiting for execution of their death sentences in Malaysian prisons.

Of the 441 persons hanged, 228 were involved in drug trafficking and 78 were convicted for murder.

Another 130 were for illegal processions of arms, while four more were convicted for waging war against the King. The remaining one was involved in kidnapping.

Among those awaiting the gallows, 479 convicts were involved in drug trafficking, 204 in murders and 13 in illegal processions of arms.

Some of them are in the process of appealing to overturn their convictions and sentences, while several others are seeking pardons from the Pardon Board of respective states.

Among them, 676 are males while 20 are females, while some 90 percent are between 21 and 50 years old. - Free Malaysia Today, 3/4/2011, Time to abolish death sentence

The trade of asylum seekers for refugees between Malaysia and Australia (Law Council of Australia)

Media Release

Law Council concerned over Australian Malaysian Asylum Seeker Agreement

Published: 13-May-11

The Law Council of Australia is concerned with the implications of the recently announced agreement between the Commonwealth Government and Malaysia to exchange asylum seekers for refugees.

Law Council of Australia President, Mr Alexander Ward said the Law Council does not agree the trade of asylum seekers for refugees is an appropriate solution to this substantial issue.

“The Law Council has significant concerns in relation to how this agreement will be managed and how the human rights of asylum seekers and refugees will be protected,” Mr Ward said.

Malaysia is not a State Party to the United Nations Convention (Convention) relating to the Status of Refugees, a Convention to which Australia is a party and therefore obligated by its Protocols.

“For Australia to enter into an agreement with a country that is not party to the Convention raises significant concerns regarding the treatment of asylum seekers who are sent to Malaysia.

“Previous concerns have been expressed about the treatment of illegal immigrants in Malaysia,” Mr Ward said.

While few details regarding the Australian Malaysian Asylum Seeker Agreement have been released, the Law Council has noted the statement issued by the President of the Malaysian Bar on 9 May calling for the Australian and Malaysian Governments not to proceed with the Agreement given “the legal situation and conditions of life of asylum seekers and refugees and their families in Malaysia is degrading, demeaning and dehumanising, and wholly unacceptable to any civilised society”.

The Law Council will closely review the details of the agreement when they are released by the Commonwealth Government.

Forum on Mandatory Death Penalty - 7.30pm, 11/5/2011, SCAH KL

A coalition of NGOs and other concerned citizens have organised a Forum to review the mandatory Death Penalty, in particular with regards it's use against drug traffickers/drug mules.

We have oftentimes read in the media of the plight of the drug mules - the stories are similar.  They are comparatively young unsuspecting men or women, duped into carrying the drugs, either because they were informed that the "package" contained something other than drugs, or that whatever contraband they were carrying would result in them having to serve a prison sentence of 4-5 years (in exchange for plenty money).

While we are not excusing their actions, the question is whether a mandatory death sentence is commensurate with the offence, given that the law relies on many presumptions in achieving a conviction.  Also, does the Death Penalty resolve or curb the prevalence of drug trafficking?

Details of the forum is as follows:

Date:   11 May 2011 (Weds)

Time:   7:30 p.m.

Venue: Kuala Lumpur Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (KLSCAH), 

 1 Jalan Maharajalela, Kuala Lumpur

Please invite your friend and associates.  Amnesty International will be having an exhibition on the Death Penalty.  Among the speakers are Mr. Gobind Singh Deo, MP and Mr. M. Ravi (lawyer for a Malaysian facing the death penalty in Singapore).

Come! Hear the views of the speakers and consider the reasons why Malaysia should abolish the Death Penalty.

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION - RESTRICTIVE LAWS MUST BE REVIEWED (SUHAKAM)

PRESS  STATEMENT

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION - RESTRICTIVE LAWS MUST BE REVIEWED

In commemorating the World Press Freedom Day, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) strongly urges full respect for the fundamental right to freedom of expression as enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Themed ‘21st Century Media: New Frontier, New Barrier’, this year's commemorative day takes note of both the empowering impact of the free exchange and flow of information brought about by the digital age of online media and social networking, as well as of its continuing impediments.

In moving with the times, it is opportune for the nation to liberalise its restrictive media laws so as to allow the people to reap the full benefits of this new medium of online information exchange in a sensible, ethical and responsible manner.The Commission therefore reiterates its call for a review of existing laws relating to the media, in particular, the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, and to adopt a more liberal approach to the approval and renewal of printing and publishing permits and licenses by providing for their automatic renewal. In upholding transparency and accountability and ensuring checks and balances, the Commission reiterates its stand that laws affecting the duties of the press must be reviewed and the rights to equal access of information must be safeguarded.

In this regard, the Commission looks forward to the early establishment of the proposed National Media Consultative Council, as a self-regulated body to be managed by media practitioners, which will be a great boost for press freedom, while ensuring ethical and responsible journalism.

TAN SRI HASMY AGAM
Chairman
The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
6 April 2011

From 'asylum seekers'in Australia to 'illegal immigrants' in Malaysia

So Australia is 'exporting' people who have arrived in Australia and are seeking asylum..to "Malaysia" - but when they arrive in Malaysia, what will happen to them? Is Australia also providing for food and board in some facility to be built in Malaysia - or will they just be released into the local population to fend for themselves, facing the usual RELA, police and other enforcement officers threats of arrest, detention, 'whipping', and maybe even deportation.Of course, there is also the access to healthcare issue - whereby you do need a valid passport - do this people have this? And even then, Malaysia charges 1st class rates to all foreigners, including refugees and asylum seekers. Who then is going to pay for the additional personal needed to look after these persons? Australia? 

Would Malaysia be providing a better or differential treatment to these 'asylum seekers from Australia'? If they do, would that not be going against the Federal Constitution guarantee for equality for all persons (not limited to citizens). What then happens to those who after being processed, are not granted asylum in Australia - will Malaysia have to shoulder this burden? So when Malaysia deports them back to their country of origin, Malaysia will get the 'bad name' - not Australia.

Malaysia already has over-crowded detention centers - and is struggling to cope with possibly more than 5 million undocumented migrants, which include asylum seekers and refugees - and it makes no sense whatsoever. 

Malaysia have no laws that recognizes asylum seekers and/or refugees at this time. Thus, even those that have been processed by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and were successfully granted 'refugee status' are considered illegal immigrants in Malaysia.  

So, when Australia sends their 'asylum seekers' to Malaysia, they automatically become 'illegal immigrants' in Malaysia - 'undocumented migrants'. 

In return, what will Australia do? They will accept 1,000 UNHCR Refugees from Malaysia per year for the next 4 years. Note that Australia already have an obligation to accept refugees - and over the past years, they have an annual quota of accepting 13,450 refugees. Wonder how many they have been accepting from Malaysia? Was it 1,000 or more? Hence, would this 'new agreement' increase or decrease the number of refugees accepted from Malaysia for re-settlement in Australia? In short, Malaysia may be losing out as now the maximum that they will accept from Malaysia have been set at 1,000... and as of September 2010, there was still over 40,000 UNHCR recognized refugees waiting to be re-settled in 3rd countries. Given the current state of Europe, and the situation in the Middle East and Arab nations which is generating even more refugees, there will be lesser chances for resettlement of refugees currently in Malaysia. So, 1,000 refugees per year from Malaysia is a laughable commitment by Australia.

We really need to see the full agreement between Malaysia and Australia to understand why Malaysia accepted to this deal.

What happens to those who are send from Australia who are not successful in getting 'refugee status'? Does Malaysia send them back to Australia - or does Malaysia have to be burdened with this problem? 

Which refugee would Australia accept? After 9/11, many countries are very slow in accepting Muslim refugees. Many countries also want to accept only educated, professional and 'rich' refugees - would it also be the case with Australia? Or will Australia commit to accepting refugees selected randomly - maybe by a 'lottery' system, which would also give equal opportunities for all UNHCR recognized refugees - including Muslim refugees and those others that are not highly educated, professional and 'poor'.

Over 90,000 refugees in Malaysia

Bernama

Thursday, November 11th, 2010 15:20:00

KUALA LUMPUR: There were 90,301 refugees in Malaysia registered with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) up to September this year.

Deputy Foreign Minister Datuk A. Kohilan Pillay said Malaysia cooperated with the UNCHR and International Organisation for Migration (IOM) in repatriating refugees to their countries of origin or relocating them to a third country willing to accept them.

"Until now, 49,082 refugees have been sent to third countries, 68 per cent of them through the UNHCR and 32 per cent through IOM," he said in his reply to a question from Hamim Samuri (BN-Ledang) in the Dewan Rakyat, here, today.

Kohilan said issues related to refugees had not been raised by the source countries like Cambodia, Vietnam, the Philippines and Thailand during their bilateral talks with Malaysia.

"However, their embassies here would always assist in the documentation process for refugees to be relocated to third countries," he said.

To a supplementary question from M. Kulasegaran (DAP-Ipoh Barat) on claims that the Malaysian government allowed the exploitatiion of refugees, Kohilan said the UNHCR and IOM were responsible for looking after the registered refugees.

However, he said, Malaysia also assisted in terms of medical aid and educational programmes for them.

He said as there were no special laws for refugees in this country, issues involving them came under the Immigration Act 1959/63 and that refugees were considered as illegal immigrants.- Malay Mail, 11/11/2010, Over 90,000 refugees in Malaysia

Announcements of character tests for refugees and the reintroduction of temporary protection visas (TPVs) are distractions. So too is the recent decision by the Gillard Government of its Malaysian ‘solution’.

The deal between Australia and Malaysia proposes that Australia take 4,000 asylum seekers who have been declared refugees by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) but have not been settled in a host country. Most of the 4,000 refugees Australia is likely to take are Burmese. The rate will be 1,000 a year over four years.

The annual quota for Australia’s refugee intake will increase from 13,750 to 14,750 a year. The increase in the annual quota will reportedly cost the Federal Government $216 million and a further $76 million to fly refugees from Malaysia to Australia.

Costs of the Australian Government’s international advertising campaign with the slogan 'Don’t do it', warning people smugglers and refugees in Indonesia, Afghanistan and Pakistan to resist coming to Australia or risk ending up in Malaysia, have been undisclosed.

Recent protests at Sydney’s Villawood detention centre have again focused the public’s attention on mandatory detention. In response to the protests the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship made it clear that “asylum seekers found to be refugees will lose the right to a permanent visa if convicted of an offence”.  The Minister’s threat to deny or regulate protection of an asylum seeker because of their character distracts society from examining why we are intolerant of refugee protests.

Asylum seekers have the right to seek our protection. There is no requirement that they must accept long periods of detention with humility. The poor conditions of Australia’s detention centres have been well documented and much criticised. Neither character tests nor TPVs will halt the movement of those fleeing persecution nor ensure they accept the criminalisation of their asylum claim.

Reports in the Australian media about the reintroduction of character tests and TPVs seeks to divert attention away from the failures of the Liberal and Labor party’s refugee policies. As Green’s Senator Sarah Hanson-Young correctly acknowledges, TPV’s “won’t stop people rioting in detention centres” and they “won’t stop people making the treacherous voyage”.

Yet, Minister Chris Bowen has recently said: “I think that it’s perfectly appropriate to say to somebody who has misbehaved in a detention centre, "you’re not getting a permanent visa, we’ll look at sending you home, if we can’t send you home for whatever reason at the moment, we might give you a temporary visa but it’s got all these restrictions on it".

Even for a Labor government that maintains a populist hardline on asylum seekers, this is a remarkable statement given Bowen’s previous comments. The 2007 Labor Government, according to Bowen, was elected on a platform that included a more humane treatment of those seeking protection. This included abolishing TPVs, described by the Minister as “the symbol of the former government’s continued punishment of those found to be owed our protection”.

TPVs contravene the 1951 Refugee Convention’s protection mandate. As one migration lawyer recently put it: “the only [TM1] grounds on which refugee protection provisions could be revoked involved crimes against humanity” and “they’re not supposed to be denied protection for criminal matters or detention centre misbehaviour”.

Character tests and TPVs are not the answer to detention protests nor the growing numbers being detained. According to the Refugee Council of Australia there has been a 1,400 per cent increase in long-term detention in just one year. Detainees grew by 196 per cent. Those detained more than six months grew seven times faster (from 258 in March 2010 to 3,901 in March this year).

Regardless of the length of detention – be it two months or two years – criminalising protesting and denying humanitarian protection because of protesting – fails to recognise the illegality and inhumanity of mandatory detention.

Delays in processing lead to overcrowding and frustration. It is this that leads to self-harm and protests. The introduction of a character test to those that engage in “unacceptable behaviour”, including protesting, is designed to send a message to voters that Labor is tough on refugees. Apart from pandering to xenophobic nationalism, it distracts debate from the administrative problems of mandatory detention.

ASIO in 2010, for example, failed to complete security checks on 900 asylum seekers who had found to be genuine refugees, leaving them to languish in detention. It also detracts public attention and scrutiny away from those with mental illnesses, those that self-harm, and the tragedy of deaths in mandatory detention.

The character test built into Australia’s 1958 Migration Act (Section 5C) is already strong. Every refugee must pass the test before they get a visa. New character tests will mean refugees have to jump more hurdles that anyone else. Even if they are granted a TPV, restrictive conditions on family reunion will continue to punish refugees.

The Gillard Government’s plan to deny permanent visas to those caught breaking the law “even if they’re a legitimate refugee” seems legally absurd and morally repugnant.

It also contravenes international law which states asylum seekers “should not be refused refugee status unless they have ‘committed a serious non-political crime’, been involved in ‘war crimes, or crimes against humanity’, or are a serious security risk.”

The Liberal Coalition policy on refugees has been consistent if impractical. According to Tony Abbott the “two things that the Government should be doing today is they should be picking up the phone to the president of Nauru to say, ‘Let’s re-open the centre’ and making TPVs the rule for all people who come illegally by boat.”

Sadly the current problems – increasing numbers of asylum seekers in detention centres, longer lengths of incarceration, and protests – is not seen as a humanitarian issue for the Gillard Government. It is seen as a “perception” issue. Protests have highlighted the Labor Government doesn’t have an effective policy.

This leaves room for conservative commentators to recall deplorable policies such at the expensive and ineffective Pacific Solution. The Government has also realised that the East Timor ‘solution’ will not be accepted (as prime minister Xanana Gusmao had privately acknowledged and which president Jose Ramos-Horta has now publically stated).

It seems Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island and Malaysia are the next stop for Gillard and Bowen.

The best that Labor does is to distract us with character tests, TPVs, and the Malaysian ‘solution’ serve to remind us of Phillip Ruddock.

Jo Coghlan is a lecturer in politics at the School of Social Sciences and International Studies at the University of New South Wales. - Australian Broadcasting Company (ABC News ), 10/5/2011, Labor lured to the Ruddock Solution for refugees

Statement of Children During the ACSC/APF 2011

Statement of Children During the ACSC/APF 2011

Jakarta, Indonesia

4 May 2011

 

We are children leaders and members of organizations and clubs from seven ASEAN countries who have been nominated by our peers to attend the ACSC/APF. We are here to share our concerns on children’s issues to ASEAN leaders and also to adults from civil society. We are part of the ASEAN community and have the right to participate.

 

In October 18 to 23, 2010, we met during the parallel ASEAN Children’s Forum held in Manila with the theme “Making ASEAN Meaningful for Children and Young People”. And from April 30 to May 1, 2011, we met in Jakarta to prepare for our presentation during the ACSC/APF. In these workshops, we shared with our peers child rights issues and concerns we think ASEAN and civil society groups have to address. We also shared our experiences in the promotion of child rights in our countries.

 

Our worries are:

 

·         Children are not yet fully aware of their rights. Also, adults are not fully aware of and do not respect our rights.

·         Children suffer from child labour because their families are poor, parents forcing their children to work, and laws are not enforced.

·         Children face violence in the home, schools, prisons, community and other institutions. Adults believe that punishing us make us better persons. Violence stops us from speaking our mind and from telling others when we are harmed.

·         Children face discrimination because of their age, gender, social status, nationality, culture, religion and other background. We feel discriminated because people think that we are not capable of making decisions.

·         Children are trafficked because of lack of law enforcement and economic factors such as poverty.

·         Children are caught in armed conflict where they are at risk of becoming child soldiers.

·         Children have been affected by HIV/AIDS and other diseases yet government provides limited support for healthcare. Healthcare centers especially in remote areas do not have enough medicine, doctors and equipments.

·         Children do not have identities because of their undocumented status. Many children do not have birth certificates. There are also children who do not have citizenship and this makes them difficult to claim their rights.

·         Children have little say on issues and concern them. There is limited opportunity for us to participate, lack of encouragement from adults, limited information given to us and our abilities are underestimated by adults.

·         Children do not go to or drop-out from schools because of high cost of education. In many areas, parents discourage children from studying so they can work to help their families earn a living. Governments do not prioritize education in their budget.

·         Children are receiving less care and attention by their parents. Because of poverty, parents are forced to give more time to work and earn a living for their family. Parents have a hard time to defend and protect their children from harm.

·         Children living with and affected by disability continue to experience various forms of discrimination.

 

 

To ASEAN:

·         The rights of all children in Southeast Asia whether they are citizens or not or whether they are children of migrant workers should be respected, protected and fulfilled.

·         Our right to identity and nationality should be respected and fulfilled. Governments should promote and make birth registration accessible. Birth certificates must be given free of charge to all children in Southeast Asia .

·         All children should be informed about the UN CRC. This will empower us to speak up, monitor and report violations.

·         Ensure that there are laws that protect children from all forms of violence.

·         Ensure that laws are enforced and that government officers are capable and trained well to protect children from abuse and violence.

·         Ensure that governments provide adequate resources, and accessible and quality education and healthcare.

·         Develop national action plans for children. Children should participate in developing these national action plans. Governments should provide adequate budget for the implementation of these national action plans.

 

An anti-Press Freedom proposal by DAP State Assemblyperson - Be different PR and not like the BN

It is sad when an Opposition member of the Penang State Assembly is calling for the barring of a newspaper from the State Assembly - this is certainly against the Freedom of the Press and freedom of expression/speech. We were all very angry when the BN kept some media/journalist including Malaysiakini from official events and other functions - so, come on DAP, let us not also follow the bad examples of BN by these calls.

A way of showing displeasure is by the tabling and passing of a Motion (Usul) against the Utusan Malaysia or any report - but not barring the media (or journalist) from the State Legislative Assembly.

Respect Freedom of Speech and Expression. Respect Press Freedom. There may be some statements or positions that we may not agree with or are angry about - but there are ways to respond to this, and it certainly is not by curtailing the freedoms. Protest...Come out with a statement - a Motion of the House criticizing the reports - but not revoking permits, curtailing freedoms, etc...

Rep wants Utusan barred from Penang assembly

May 9, 11
11:26am

 

A Penang DAP assemblyperson has called for an Umno-owned newspaper to be barred from covering proceedings at the state legislative assembly today.

His request comes a day after the state government, in collaboration with NGOs, celebrated the first anniversary of the Speakers Square - aimed at free speech - at the Esplanade.

Jagdeep Singh Deo (DAP-Datuk Keramat) (left) said Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein appears to be unable to do his job to sanction Utusan Malaysia for fanning serious racial sentiments.

“So let the state assembly show him that we can do his job by asking Utusan Malaysia to get out (of the assembly),” he said.

“They have been twisting (news) too much and I am very concerned about what they would do with the proceedings in the assembly,” he added.

Jagdeep said this when responding to State exco member for Health, Welfare, Caring Society and Environment Phee Boon Poh, who was speaking on the relevance of 1Malaysia Clinics while wrapping up the Yang di-Pertua Negeri's speech in the assembly today.

The lawyer was referring to the recent controversy over the Malay daily's front page news on Friday, suggesting that the DAP was colluding with a group of pastors to amend the country's official religion to pave the way for a Christian prime minister.

The article was based on blog postings in two pro-Umno blogs - Bigdog.wordpress.com and Marahku - which alleged that a DAP leader, Jelutong MP Jeff Ooi, had attended a secret meeting with a group of pastors for the said purpose in Penang.

Hishammuddin then joined in the fray to remark that the allegations were 'a serious matter' if they were true.

Information, Communications and Culture Minister Rais Yatim said that the postings should be investigated by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission.

Dozens of police reports have been lodged nationwide against Ooi, who is a DAP central committee member, by Malay rights pressure groups such as Pembela and Perkasa.

Ooi has denied the allegations and countered them by lodging a police report himself to urge the police to investigate the Malay daily and blogs.

Jagdeep said that Utusan Malaysia is yet to be satisfied with its '1Melayu 1Bumi' proposal, and has now alleged that his party has plans for a Christian state.

'Too much time on divisive politics'

He added that the Barisan Nasional has spent too much time on divisive politics to care for any other matter.

He decried that Hishammuddin, who is also Umno vice-president, has allowed the newspaper to continue fanning racial tension without taking any action against it.

RSN Rayer (DAP-Seri Delima) (left) questioned why Ooi was called by the police to give his statement over the issue when it was the news daily which had raised the sensitive issue.

“It is the reporter (from the newspaper) who wrote the report who should be arrested, questioned by the police, charged with sedition and put in jail,” charged Rayer.

House speaker Abdul Halim Hussein told the assemblypersons to reserve their comments for a special session of the Rights and Privileges Committee, which is expected to table their recommendations for Utusan Malaysia to be barred from the assembly proceedings.

The session is expected to be held tomorrow, when a decision would be sought from the assemblypersons on whether the pro-Umno newspaper should be given the appropriate punishment. - Malaysiakini, 9/5/2011, Rep wants Utusan barred from Penang assembly

Asylum seekers and refugees are not commodities to be traded (Malaysian Bar)

---

Press Release

 

Asylum seekers and refugees are not commodities to be traded

The Malaysian Bar is opposed to the recently-announced arrangement agreed to between the Governments of Malaysia and Australia. As we understand the arrangement, Australia will send to Malaysia 800 asylum seekers who have been detained by the Australian authorities. In return, Australia commits itself to accepting for resettlement 4,000 refugees currently in Malaysia, over a period of four years.

The proposed exchange of asylum seekers for refugees between Malaysia and Australia is a misguided approach for dealing with a complex issue with serious ramifications.

It is irresponsible of Australia, as a State Party to the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees adopted on 28 July 1951 (“Convention”), and its 1967 Protocol, to abdicate its international obligations under the Convention. Through this deal, Australia is consigning 800 people to a life of uncertainty and probable suffering, given that Malaysia is not a State Party to that Convention. Indeed, Malaysian law does not even recognise the concept of asylum seekers or refugees. Instead, it treats all undocumented persons as “illegal immigrants”, and subjects them to imprisonment and whipping.

It is untenable that Australia proposes to “pass the buck”, as it were, for the protection, care and support of these 800 asylum seekers, to Malaysia, when Malaysia has no comprehensive and organised system to provide assistance to asylum seekers or refugees. Even more astounding is the fact that Australia had reportedly rejected the use of an Australian-built processing facility in Nauru because that nation is not a signatory to the Convention, yet has no qualms about transferring asylum seekers to Malaysia.

As it is, Malaysia is already home to almost 100,000 asylum seekers and refugees who have been registered by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Kuala Lumpur. None of these asylum seekers and refugees is provided with any material or financial help by the Malaysian Government for housing, jobs, education or health care. Because Malaysia has not acceded to the Convention, there are currently no legislative or administrative provisions in place for dealing with the situation of asylum seekers or refugees in the country. They exist in a shadow society in which they have no legal rights, and even less protection and security. They live in constant fear of the authorities – the police, immigration personnel and Ikatan Relawan Rakyat Malaysia (“RELA”) members. The Malaysian Bar reiterates its concern that the legal situation and conditions of life of asylum seekers and refugees and their families in Malaysia is degrading, demeaning and dehumanising, and wholly unacceptable to any civilised society.

Thus, the Australian Government is proposing an arrangement under which it has no assurance that the asylum seekers it sends to Malaysia will be treated in accordance with international human rights norms, and in compliance with the principles of the Convention.

The Malaysian Bar calls upon the Australian and Malaysian Governments not to proceed with this arrangement. Instead, our Government must establish a proper and comprehensive framework for dealing with the situation of asylum seekers and refugees who are already in this country, and begin by according such persons due legal recognition. Malaysia must also demonstrate a proven track record of upholding human rights to the highest possible standards.

We wish to clarify that, contrary to the report titled “Pact gives refugees protection” published in today’s New Straits Times (“NST”), we did not say that the proposed plan is “generally a good one” or that “certain things needed to be done first”. Rather, our statement to NST asserted clearly that we are “stunned that Australia would have such an arrangement with Malaysia when Malaysia is not a State Party to the [Convention]”. Neither did we say that “the agreement was an opportunity for Malaysia to become a signatory to the [Convention]”; instead, we highlighted the urgent need for Malaysia to become a State Party to the Convention for the reasons outlined above.


Lim Chee Wee
President
Malaysian Bar

9 May 2011

See also :

Malaysian Detention Centres are already overcrowded - so why accept to house asylum seekers already in Australia?