Was recent appointment of judges LEGAL? Was the JAC and/or Heads of Judiciary involved in premature removal of AG/PP? When will Anwar 'OBEY' Conference of Rulers?

End of February - No Chief Justice of the High Court of Malaya >> WHY did it take over 8 MONTHS  - Should we BLAME the Judicial Appointment Commission(JAC) for not giving PM Anwar Ibrahim the name of the NEW Chief Judge of Malaya? Or was it a problem with Anwar himself - who wanted the POWER to pick 'his Judge' for that role, and thus delayed appointment until the JAC forwarded the name that Anwar wanted? We urge the PM to be TRANSPARENT and explain the delay....

With regard to JUDGES, the problem has always been the issue of the sitting Prime Minister choosing the JUDGES... 

NOBODY wants a situation where a sitting Prime Minister can choose and appoint judges ... more so, when it has been acknowledged a FACT that sitting Prime Ministers, Ministers,etc...can commit crimes, and it is ABSURD for them to be tried before Judges chosen by them... Does this mean that everyone who has a case against Anwar Ibrahim, because the presiding Judge was chosen by PM ANWAR? That is why the Prime Minister should have NO ROLE in choosing Judges...the choosing should be by a INDEPENDENT body...

On or about 2007,

“latest crisis in the judiciary” as shown by the expose through a video clip of a lawyer’s lengthy discussion with a senior judge and the alleged brokering of the appointment and promotion of judges,...

This led to about 2,000 lawyer members and the Malaysian Bar acting - they exercised their right of Peaceful Assembly to highlight this issue, including the demand that there be an INDEPENDENT Judicial Appointment Commission(JAC)

On September 26, 2007, about 2,000 lawyers gathered at the entrance of the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya, before marching to the Prime Minister’s Office to deliver the Bar Council’s memorandum.Malaysian Bar urged the prime minister to strengthen the independence of the judiciary through judicial reform and to introduce a Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) to restore public confidence in the judiciary.

On April 17, 2008, then prime minister Tun Abdullah Badawi announced that the government proposed to set up a JAC, with the aim of making the nomination, appointment and promotion of judges a more transparent process.

Well, the government responded by tabling the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill - which created the Judicial Appointments Commission(JAC) but still gave the power to the PRIME MINISTER to 'influence' the selection process -  because 5 members of the JAC were persons determined by the PM.

The Conference of Rulers today proposed the removal of the prime minister's power to appoint five representatives to the nine-member Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), the body which proposes candidates to be made judges in the superior courts...In its statement, the conference said the JAC in its present composition had weaknesses, adding that its membership was critical to ensure that only those with intergrity are appointed to judicial posts. Presently, four of the nine JAC members are made up of senior judges, while the remaining five are appointees of the prime minister. Tuanku Muhriz said a more balanced membership was needed so that appointments would not be biased towards any parties.

"To ensure the independence of JAC in carrying out its responsibilities, I propose that the appointment of its five members should not be made by the prime minister. "Instead it should be given to other institutions such as the Malaysian Bar Council, the Sabah Law Society, the Sarawak Bar Association and the Parliamentary Select Committee," he said.... Malaysia Now, 30/11/2022

2 YEARS LATER, and PM Anwar Ibrahim has still failed to act on the recommendation of the Conference of Rulers. WHY?

And, recently 4 of his political appointees were again appointed to the JAC -

(Nov 18): Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has appointed former attorney general Tan Sri Idrus Harun, former Federal Court judge Tan Sri Zainun Ali, former Sarawak AG Datuk Seri Talat Mahmood Abdul Rashid and Universiti Teknologi Mara law lecturer Dr Hartini Saripan as members of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC). - Edge, 18/11/2024

After the enactment of the Judicial Commission Act, it is legally mandatory that the JAC makes their RECOMMENDATIONS to the Prime Minister of all NEW Judges to be appointed, and also Judges to be elevated - BUT the problem was the VACANCY in the JACs - a vacancy that made a problem for the JAC to meet the requisite QUORUM. So, the question is WHETHER the recent appointment of the Chief Justice of the High Court in Malaya Datuk Seri Hasnah Mohamed Hashim, some  eight Court of Appeal judges, Fifteen High Court judges,...is LEGAL or ILLEGAL?  

...the JAC’s role in selecting candidates for judicial appointments with integrity and independence.  Their appointments also restore the JAC’s ability to convene after a quorum issue rendered it inoperative since September 2024. - Malaysian Bar President's Statement, 12/11/2024

Noting that the JAC was 'crippled' by reason of a quorum issue BECAUSE Anwar Ibrahim again was INCOMPETENT when he failed to immediately fill the vacancy, when the previous 4 appointees terms expired on 4/9/2024. A competent Prime Minister will ensure that there is NO GAPS - so that the JAC would have been always been operational. The new members of the JAC should have appointed the day the term of the previous batch of appointees expired.

Chief Justice of the High Court in Malaya is also a member of the Judicial Appointment Commission (JAC). There are 4 members of the JAC -Chief Justice, President of the Court of Appeal, the Chief Justice of the High Court in Malaya, and the Chief Justice of the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak. Court of Appeal president Tan Sri Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim performed the duties and functions of Chief Justice of the High Court in Malaya until the position was permanently filled recently. What this meant for the JAC was significant as the heads of the Judiciary's votes was reduced to 3 persons(with 3 votes) not 4 person - noting that the other 5 were politically choosen by the PM?

Chief Justice of the High Court in Malaya also has a ROLE to play with the appointment of High Court Judges and Judicial Commissioners - as per the Federal Constitution. Was the delay of appointment of the CJ of HC of Malaya intentional - to prevent participation in choice of Judges/Judicial Commissioners? Think about it.

ANOTHER ISSUE - did PM Anwar Ibrahim appoint Judges as recommended by the Judicial Appointments Commission(JAC) OR did Anwar ignore the JAC and appoints persons he wanted to be Judges. All ANWAR needs to do now is to come out and STATE that he appointed Judges as per the JAC's recommendations - will he speak out.

BUT THEN, there is a problem with Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh. Personally, i do not think that the JAC would have ever considered or recommended a sitting Attorney General/Public Prosecutor to be appointed a Federal Court Judge... different, if he had already retired some months back. But Terriruddin was said to be 56 - many years before he retires...

PUTRAJAYA will name solicitor-general (SG) Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh the new attorney-general (AG) to replace Idrus Harun, said sources...Terrirudin is 55, and was appointed SG in March 2022. - Malaysian Insight, 1/9/2023

Ahmad Terrirudin is DIFFERENT. Terrirudin  was not a Attorney General/Public Prosecutor appointed for a fixed contractual term - which happens for some AG/PP before him - Appandi, Tommy Thomas, Idrus...i.e. those who were over tetirement age, or those brought in not from the public service. As a public officer, Terrirudin ought to have remained Attorney General/Public Prosecutor until his retirement at 60.

So, in my opinion, the PREMATURE REMOVAL of a sitting Attorney General/Public Prosecutor is WRONG - but the method used, however creative, as in this case by the appointment as a Federal Court Judge is still unacceptable? Did Terrirudin even have the RIGHT to oppose his 'wrongful dismissal'? Can he say NO when told that the KING approved your appointment as Federal Court Judge? By the way, for a AG to be appointed a Federal Court Judge, I see it as a DEMOTION... 

SO,

DID the JAC participate in the premature removal of Terrirudin? Did they even recommend a sitting Attorney General to be appointed a Federal Court Judge? IF YES, I will be dissapointed and would be curious as to how the JAC members voted???

Did the heads of Malaysian Judiciary agree to this? 

The issue is also about the INDEPENDENCE of the Public Prosecutor(and here in Malaysia also the Attorney General for now) - I believe that the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(at least) must be INDEPENDENT and certainly not be a "Yes-Men" or persons whose actions can be dictated by the Prime Minister or government of the day. 

One safeguard - SECURITY FOR TENURE - and that means Terrirudin should have remained Attorney General/Public Prosecutor until he RETIRED as a Public Officer at the Age of 60. 

Malaysia is in the PROCESS of separating the AG and Public Prosecutor...and this is BEST, for at the end of the day, the Attorney General is the government's lawyer - who also acts in defence of public officers, Ministers and Government against other Malaysians. The AG is really more a 'political appointee', very different from the Public Prosecutor who is more about law enforcement and prosecution of criminals...who can also be sitting Ministers,...

Malaysian Bar calls on Mohamed Apandi Ali to immediately resign as Attorney General, for the good of Malaysia.. Malaysian Bar Resolution on the Attorney General, Public Prosecutor and Improvement of Public Perspective of Administration of Justice in Malaysia

ONE QUESTION needs further discussion - Was AG/PP Terrirudin REMOVED by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim or NOT? Being a Public Officer, I do not believe that Terrirudin's appointment was for a fixed contractual term - which means he cannot be easily REMOVED until he retires at the retirement age?

 

A siting AG/PP should never have been recommended to be appointed Judge, by the JAC or any of the Heads of Judiciary? If they did, it was WRONG as it is tantamount to REMOVAL or DISMISSAL, and when it comes to REMOVAL of AG/PP - the same policy and practice that is used for the Removal of Judges should apply.

 

The Federal Constitution must be amended - thus amendment of the JAC Act only will not do. The King should appoint judges based on the ADVICE of the JAC, and importantly the JAC too must be independent - and the Prime Minister shall have no way of getting his 'people' into the JAC...this was the advice of the Conference of Rulers too...

See some earlier posts: 

Questionable appointment of Dusuki b4 previous AG reaches retirement age? Dusuki and link to Zahid's case? We need an Independent Public Prosecutor..

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS COMMISSION BILL 2008 - not at all what the people asked for...

Amend Federal Constitution and Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009 to remove Prime Minister’s role in appointment and elevation of judges in Malaysia. PM must disclose whether recent appointments is as per recommendation of the Judicial Appointments Commission or not. (MADPET)  

 

 

Appointment of former AG Idrus Harun, three others to Judicial Appointments Commission confirmed

By Hafiz Yatim / theedgemalaysia.com
18 Nov 2024, 01:22 pmUpdated - 05:27 pm
main news image

KUALA LUMPUR (Nov 18): Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has appointed former attorney general Tan Sri Idrus Harun, former Federal Court judge Tan Sri Zainun Ali, former Sarawak AG Datuk Seri Talat Mahmood Abdul Rashid and Universiti Teknologi Mara law lecturer Dr Hartini Saripan as members of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC).

Their appointment for a two-year period under Section 5(1) of the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009 is effective from Nov 1 this year to Oct 31, 2026, the JAC secretary said in a statement on Monday.

“Their appointments are to replace former chief justice Tun Md Raus Sharif, former Federal Court judge Tan Sri Suriyadi Halim Omar, former Sarawak AG Datuk Abdul Razak Tready and law lecturer Datuk Dr Shamrahayu Ab Aziz, where their term expired on Sept 3 this year.

“JAC would like to thank the contribution made by Md Raus, Suriyadi, Abdul Razak and Shamrahayu for the duration of them being a member,” JAC added in the statement.

The statement confirmed The Edge’s earlier report on Nov 11 that announced Idrus, Zainun, Talat and Hartini’s appointment to the JAC.

Newly appointed Chief Judge of Malaya (CJM) Datuk Seri Hasnah Mohamed Hashim, by virtue of being the CJM, will replace her predecessor Tan Sri Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah as the fifth member.- Edge, 18/11/2024

King confers appointment letters to 25 judges, including new Chief Judge of Malaya

His Majesty Sultan Ibrahim hands appointment documents to Chief Justice of the High Court in Malaya Datuk Seri Hasnah Mohamed Hashim at the presentation ceremony and awarding of appointment documents for judges of the Federal Court, Court of Appeal and High Court at Dewan Singgahsana Kecil, Istana Negara November 12, 2024. — Bernama pic

Tuesday, 12 Nov 2024 4:59 PM MYT

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 12 — His Majesty Sultan Ibrahim, King of Malaysia, today granted an audience and handed over instruments of appointment to 25 judges at Istana Negara here.

The ceremony, held at Dewan Singgahsana Kecil, began with the conferment of the appointment letter to the Chief Judge of Malaya, Datuk Seri Hasnah Mohamed Hashim, followed by Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh.

His Majesty then conferred appointment letters to eight Court of Appeal judges, namely Datuk Noorin Badaruddin; Datuk Seri Mohd Firuz Jaffril; Datuk Dr Alwi Abdul Wahab; Datuk Faizah Jamaludin; Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid; Datuk Ismail Brahim; Datuk Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh and Datuk Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin.

His Majesty Sultan Ibrahim hands appointment documents to Federal Court Judge Tan Sri Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh at the presentation ceremony and awarding of appointment documents for judges of the Federal Court, Court of Appeal and High Court at Dewan Singgahsana Kecil, Istana Negara November 12, 2024. — Bernama pic

 

Fifteen High Court judges among them Azizan Md Arshad; Narkunavathy Sundareson; Noor Ruwena Md Nurdin; Jamhirah Ali; Noor Hayati Mat; Azlan Sulaiman and Kenneth Yong Ken Chinson St. James also received their instruments of appointment at the ceremony.

The other High Court judges were Leong Wai Hong; Noor Hisham Ismail; Roz Mawar Rozain; Wan Fadhilah Nor Wan Idris; Rofiah Mohamad; Wong Mee Ling; Datuk Raja Ahmad Mokhzanuddin Shah Raja Mohzan; and Suria Kumar D.J. Paul.

Also present to witness the ceremony were Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat; Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform), Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said; Court of Appeal, president Tan Sri Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim; and Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, Tan Sri Abdul Rahman Sebli.

Also in attendance were the Chief Secretary to the Government, Tan Sri Shamsul Azri Abu Bakar; Chief Registrar of the Federal Court of Malaysia, Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Zamri Bakar; and Judicial Appointments Commission secretary, Salinah Ismail.

After the conferment of the appointment letters, His Majesty graciously posed for a photograph with the newly appointed judges. — Bernama, Malay Mail, 12/11/2024

 

Bung Moktar & Wife Zizie ordered to enter Defence on three corruption charges involving RM2.8 million

On Sept 7 2023, the session court ruled that the prosecution had proved all the ingredients of the charges against the duo and that the presumption of corruption under Section 50 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009 had been triggered.

On 29 April 2024 - a High Court using his REVISIONARY powers. High Court Judge Datuk Azhar Abdul Hamid said that  the sessions court judge’s finding of a prima facie case was ‘incorrect and perverse’. Bung and Zizie were acquitted...

On 18/11/2024, The Court of Appeal today ordered Kinabatangan Member of Parliament Datuk Seri Bung Moktar Radin and his wife Datin Seri Zizie Izette Abdul Samad to enter their defence on three corruption charges involving RM2.8 million.

It's GOOD that there has NOT been a U-TURN on all the efforts of law enforcement and prosecution that started after GE14(2018)...

Still waiting on the Public Prosecutor/AS 

Court of Appeal orders Bung Moktar, wife Zizie Izette to enter defence over three corruption charges involving RM2.8m

File photo of Kinabatangan MP, Datuk Seri Bung Moktar Radin (centre), attending a hearing at the Kuala Lumpur High Court Complex in September 2023. — Picture by Hari Anggara.

Monday, 18 Nov 2024 10:21 AM MYT

PUTRAJAYA, Nov 18 — The Court of Appeal today ordered Kinabatangan Member of Parliament Datuk Seri Bung Moktar Radin and his wife Datin Seri Zizie Izette Abdul Samad to enter their defence on three corruption charges involving RM2.8 million.

A three-man bench comprising Justices Datuk Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim, Datuk Mohamed Zaini Mazlan, and Datuk Noorin Badaruddin made the decision after allowing the prosecution's appeal against the couple’s acquittal by the Kuala Lumpur High Court on Sept 7, 2023.

-Advertisement-

On Sept 18, 2023, the prosecution filed an appeal against the decision of High Court Judge Datuk Azhar Abdul Hamid on Sept 7, 2023, which had acquitted the couple of the charges.

The High Court arrived at the decision after allowing Bung Moktar and Zizie Izette’s application to review the Sessions Court’s ruling on Sept 2, 2022, which had ordered them to enter their defence on the charges.

Justice Mohamed Zaini, when reading out the unanimous decision, said that the critical issue in this appeal is whether the High Court has a right to subject the findings of a prima facie case for revision.

He explained that a criminal trial generally begins when an accused person faces charges, after which the prosecution starts its case by calling witnesses and presenting evidence to support its claims.

“At the end of the prosecution’s case, the trial court must analyse the witness testimonies and the evidence produced on a maximum evaluation basis and determine if the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused.

“A prima facie case is established when the prosecution has presented credible evidence proving each element of the offence, which would justify a conviction if left unchallenged or unexplained,” he said.

Justice Mohamed Zaini further said if the court finds that the prosecution has not established a prima facie case against the accused, the court shall acquit the accused.

“If the court finds that the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused on the offence charged, the court shall call upon the accused to enter his defence. The decision to acquit or to call for defence would have been arrived after a maximum evaluation exercise by the trial judge.

“These procedures and criteria are set up under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the provisions under this section are mandatory. Once the court finds that the prosecution has made up a prima facie case against the accused, it shall call upon the accused to enter his defence because of the word shall the court has no other option,” he added.

Justice Mohamed Zaini said it is established law that the accused cannot appeal a decision to call for defence.

“The court’s findings at this stage are not subject to appeal, as they do not constitute a final resolution of the respondents rights requesting a revision of these findings is essentially the same as filing an appeal against them. The due process of the trial must continue, allowing the respondents to present their defence,” he said.

Justice Mohamed Zaini said the High Court’s findings on the Sessions Court judge’s decision to call for defence was premature.

“The learned Sessions Court judge’s oral ruling was brief and does not contain comprehensive reasoning for her decision. The oral ruling was not a judgment that contains the grounds for her decision.

“The learned Sessions Court judge, in fact, has no obligation to give any reasons at this stage in calling for defence. That obligation only arises at the end of the trial, whether she chose to acquit or convict the respondents (Bung Moktar and Zizie Izette). These are insufficient material in a brief or a ruling for the learned High Court judge to revise, assuming that his lordship has the powers to do so,” he said.

Justice Mohamed Zaini also pointed out that the right to a fair trial applies equally to the prosecution.

He said, allowing an application for revision of a prima facie ruling disrupts a trial, creating an insufferable situation in which the trial court must accede to numerous requests for postponements to enable each party to appeal against an order made during the trial.

“This will frustrate the progress of trials, wasting precious judicial time and public expense, and must be stopped. Based on the aforesaid, we allow the appeal by the appellant.

“The High Court’s ruling is therefore set aside. The Sessions Court ruling is restored, and we order this case to be remitted back to the Sessions Court for the trial to continue without further delay,” said justice Mohamed Zaini. The court then fixed Dec 5 for mention at Sessions Court.

Bung Moktar, 65, who was then the non-executive chairman of Felcra Berhad, was charged on May 3, 2019, with two charges of accepting bribes of RM2.2 million and RM262,500 as an inducement to obtain Felcra approval to invest RM150 million in Public Mutual unit trusts.

He was alleged to have accepted the bribes from Public Mutual Berhad’s investment agent Madhi Abdul Hamid through Zizie Izette, 46, at Public Bank Taman Melawati Branch here between 12.30 pm and 5 pm on June 12, 2015.

Bung Moktar was also charged with receiving RM337,500 in cash from Unit Amanah consultant, Norhaili Ahmad Mokhtar, under the name of Zizie Izette for the same reason and place on June 19, 2015, while Zizie Izette was charged with three counts of abetting her husband over the matter at the same place, date and time.

Speaking to the press after the proceedings, Bung Moktar, who is also Sabah Barisan Nasional Sabah chairman, said he accepted the court’s decision today.

“Insya-Allah, if that is the court’s ruling, it must be accepted... thank you,” he said with a smile, accompanied by Zizie Izette. — Bernama, Malay Mail, 18/11/2024

Bung, wife acquitted as order to enter defence unjust, says High Court judge

V Anbalagan

-29 Apr 2024, 06:10 PM

Justice Azhar Abdul Hamid says the sessions court judge’s finding of a prima facie case was ‘incorrect and perverse’.

The prosecution is appealing the High Court’s exercise of its revisionary powers to acquit Kinabatangan MP Bung Moktar Radin and his wife, Zizie Izette Abdul Samad, of corruption charges. (Bernama pic)

PETALING JAYA:

A High Court judge said he exercised his revisionary power to acquit Kinabatangan MP Bung Moktar Radin and wife, Zizie Izette Abdul Samad, of corruption charges over a RM150 million Felcra investment as there was no basis for the trial judge to order the couple to enter their defence.

Justice Azhar Abdul Hamid said he was of the opinion that the sessions court judge’s finding of a prima facie case was “incorrect” and “perverse”, and had caused “great injustice” to both the accused.

“It is my view that this is a fit and proper case for this court to exercise its revisionary power.

“Both the applications are, therefore, allowed and the session court’s decision is set aside and substituted with an order of acquittal and discharge without calling for them to enter their defence,” he said in a written judgment released last week.

On Sept 7 last year, the session court ruled that the prosecution had proved all the ingredients of the charges against the duo and that the presumption of corruption under Section 50 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009 had been triggered.

In his 10-page judgment, Azhar said the trial judge’s decision ran contrary to the evidence tendered in court by the prosecution.

“Both material witnesses for the prosecution, namely SP24 (Norhaili Mokhtar) SP25 (Madhi Abdul Hamid) clearly stated in their oral evidence in court that no element of gratification exists in this case,” he said.

He said Norhaili had denied under cross-examination that what was stated in her written statements given during investigations had actually transpired.

“She also denied that the RM2.8 million paid to Zizie at Public Bank Taman Melawati was meant for Bung,” he said.

Azhar said Madhi had, in his evidence in court, also confirmed that there was neither any element of gratification nor request from either accused.

“He (Madhi) went on to confirm that the money (RM2.8 million) paid to Zizie was an introduction fee,” he said.

In the face of this evidence, Azhar said, the trial judge was wrong to accept the previous statements which the two witnesses gave to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission in the course of its investigation.

“The trial judge determined that the oral evidence of these two witnesses do not give effect to the charges against both the accused,” he said, adding that such contradictory evidence made such testimonies completely untrustworthy.

Azhar said the High Court decision in the case of Lim Hung Wang v. PP (2011) empowered him to use his revisionary powers under Section 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code to review the decision of the sessions court.

The prosecution is expected to file its petition of appeal this week after having received the appeal records, which included the judgment, on April 23. The petition is intended to state where the High Court had erred in law and facts.

The Court of Appeal has set July 29 to hear the prosecution’s appeal against the acquittal. - FMT, 29/4/2024

Should the King and Royalty abstain from BUSINESS whilst they serve as King or State Rulers?

WHEN the KING, His Majesty Sultan Ibrahim, the King of Malaysia, OWNS 22.3% of U Mobile - did it have an EFFECT in the government’s decision to appoint U Mobile as the second operator of Malaysia’s 5G network? That is the question - if the King did not own any shares, would U Mobile be chosen by government.

Well, Malaysians, many of whom are still 'neo-feudal', where there is not just a 'higher' RESPECT for King, Sultans and Rulers, but also leaders in incumbent government. 

Even the way public officers treat 'Datuks', Datu Seris, etc is different from the way they treat ordinary Malaysians...

This differential treatment is called 'DISCRIMINATION' - AND is contrary to our Constitutional guarantee of EQUALITY... 

PM Anwar portrays himself as a 'feudalist' who seems to project that he  listens and obeys the King and the Conference of Rulers. 

TRUE or not is up to debate. In Malaysian Constitution, most of the decision making power vests in the Prime Minister - and even the KING has no choice but to ACT on the advice of the Prime Minister. He cannot 'disobey' the Prime Minister in most cases. The King only has ABSOLUTE power in very few cases.

So, the 'RESPECT' accorded to the King and Royalty is more cultural...not based on law. That RESPECT exists...

SOLUTION - Should we consider that the KING and sitting rulers of State not be involved in Businesses, more so businesses which deal with the State to get permits/licences or even 'biddings to become the second operator of 5G Networks'....

So when they become King or State Ruler - maybe all their shares in companies should be disposed off and they be paid the value of their shares? They will be prohibited to have dealings on business - and should confine their duties to just being KING, Sultan and or State Ruler?

Same maybe should apply to PM, Ministers and members of the Cabinet?

The King, for example is briefed on a very regular basis by the Prime Minister and/or government - and there is a RISK that he may have access to information not yet available to the public? Would KING/Rulers involved in businesses use such information for the benefit of the businesses they own or are related with?

This is something Malaysians and the government need to think about....

"No One Really Like TO Criticize a Business that the King or Royalty are involved in - for it is so easy nowadays to 'turn it around' and paint it as an act of SEDITION - and PM Anwar Ibrahim's government has already threatened everyone that Sedition Act will be used for the 3R cases - where one of the 'R" is the royalty??? It does not exclude businesses where royalty is involved in.....

A SUGGESTED REFORM - affecting ROYALTY and also leaders of current government...Think about it.

Business

Decision to award 5G network deal to U Mobile comes under scrutiny

In a statement yesterday, Maxis said it will engage with the MCMC to understand the rationale for the decision and consider its options after discussions with all stakeholders.

Updated 1 week ago · Published on 04 Nov 2024

Current shareholders in U Mobile include Singapore-based Straits Mobile Investments Pte Ltd with a 48.3% stake. - November 4, 2024

THE government’s decision to appoint U Mobile as the second operator of Malaysia’s 5G network last week has come under scrutiny.

According to reports in the New Straits Times, CIMB Securities in its note today said the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission's (MCMC) decision came as a surprise to the firm and the market.

"Maxis or CDB (to a lesser degree) were widely expected to win, being the two largest MNOs in Malaysia (in terms of subscribers and earnings, with relatively stronger balance sheets)," it said.

In a statement yesterday, Maxis said it will engage with the MCMC to understand the rationale for the decision and consider its options after discussions with all stakeholders.

Maxis emphasised they are a homegrown Malaysian company led by Malaysians and principally owned by Malaysians with 77% of its shares owned by Malaysians.

Maybank Investment Bank Bhd (Maybank IB) believes that U Mobile is unlikely to independently deploy a 5G network and will likely seek a partnership with either CelcomDigi Bhd or Maxis Bhd.

Current shareholders in U Mobile include Singapore-based Straits Mobile Investments Pte Ltd with a 48.3% stake. 

The Malaysian investors are, His Majesty Sultan Ibrahim, the King of Malaysia, with 22.3%; Magnum Bhd with 7.8%; Singer (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd with 6.1% and U Telemedia Sdn Bhd, owned by Malaysian tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan, at 5.6%. 

Industry experts were also reported as asking the government to spell out why it had chosen U Mobile. - Nov 3, 2024, Vibes

Questionable appointment of Dusuki b4 previous AG reaches retirement age? Dusuki and link to Zahid's case? We need an Independent Public Prosecutor..

Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar - is suddenly the new AG. Who is HE? 

Well, he was the lead prosecutor in the Zahid Hamidi case that suddenly replaced ____, and then forwarded the application to discontinue the criminal trial for a reason allegedly needing MORE time to investigate matters in Letters of Administration - resulting in DNAA for all 47 charges...

After the 'investigation' is completed, the AG/PP would decide to RE-CHARGE Zahid for all 47 charges or .... In any event, AG/PP Terrirudin did not yet tells us his decision > and now, he has been REMOVED by way of an appointment as a Federal Court Judge. He did not RESIGN as AG/PP or say he was going to do so...and he certainly could not have RETIRED as it was reported that he was only about 56 years old,,, 

Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar - on a Google search appears as being the Industrial Court Chairman who heard the DRB-HICOM cases

Pekerja DRB-HICOM tak dapat kerja kembali walaupun dibuang kerja secara salah? RM1.1juta hanya lebih kurang RM940 sebulan?

In this case, Dusuki did not order REINSTATEMENT - but only compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Thus the company got rid of active union members...

The case also HIGHLIGHTS the INJUSTICE - because 'The workers will be receiving between RM24,000 and RM94,000 each in backdated wages and compensation in lieu of reinstatement.' The amount workers got for wrongful dismissal was as low as RM24,000 because the law as it it is UNJUST to workers - and the maximum workers get is just 24 months wages(usually lesser), so a small income worker will only get very little monies --- it all depends wages. The media reports of HIGH awards is for workers that get higher wages...usually RM10,000 or more???

REMEMBER the ATTORNEY GENERAL/PUBLIC PROSECUTOR plays a very important role in Prosecution of Criminal Cases, and also in PARDON. Some PM will PREFER an AG who will do as the PM Wants...

Will the change of AG/PP affect the Najib's 'house arrest" case now? Remember, in Zahid's case, the lead prosecutor was removed at the 11th hour just before the case was DNAAed?

Would this impact Najib's 1MDB case?

SHOULD a new AG be the next in terms of seniority at the AGC? 

There is a Judicial Appointment Commission for Judges, should there not be an independent commission for the appointment of Attorney General/Public Prosecutor to prevent perception of abuse of power by the Prime Minister? 

AG played a important role in Najib's pardon - half the prison sentence, and fine more than quartered. 

AG/PP power to discontinue criminal cases - as was done in Zahid Hamidi's case. 

PP only has the power of appeal with regard to sentence, etc... Like recent deaf E-Hailing Driver assault by police officer in security detail of VVIP - only sentenced to Fine of RM1,000.... Rightfully, the PP should appeal the sentence... Will they do it? https://charleshector.blogspot.com/2024/11/justice-not-served-in-case-of-deaf-e.html?m=1

 

See other relevant posts-

If DPP Raja Rozela Raja Toran continues to prosecute, Zahid Hamidi will likely be convicted and sentenced? Come back and prosecute to the end..

Zahid Hamidi's DNAA - One reason was MACC needed more time to investigate? Why, after 9 months, MACC not completed additional investigation?

How long for AG/PP Terrirudin to investigate Zahid Hamidi's matters? Waiting for Judge Collin Sequerah to retire? Charge him using s.254A CPC, or keep us updated as to how long more we have to wait?

Ahmad Terrirudin,56 years old, could not be retiring yet? So, why the AG/PP removed so soon after 13 months? Did the JAC recommend Terrirudin to be appointed Federal Court Judge?

Zahid Hamidi's can always be charged again, the trial reinstated and continued - section 254A CPC? Explaining and concerns?

Dusuki to be new AG, replacing Ahmad Terrirudin

By Hafiz Yatim / theedgemalaysia.com

11 Nov 2024, 03:07 pm

KUALA LUMPUR (Nov 11): Datuk Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar will be appointed as the new attorney general, effective from Tuesday, succeeding Tan Sri Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh, who will be appointed as a Federal Court judge after one year and two months as the AG.

The announcement was made by Chief Secretary to the Government Tan Sri Shamsul Azri Abu Bakar in a statement.

Dusuki, who is presently the head of the Appellate and Trial Division of the Attorney General's Chambers, is the first AG who graduated the International Islamic University (IIU).

Shamsul said Dusuki, 57, who hails from Machang, Kelantan, holds a law degree from the IIU and a masters from the Wollongong University, Australia.

“He has 31 years of experience in the Attorney General's Chambers. The government thanks Ahmad Terrirudin for his services to the country as the AG,” said Shamsul. - EDGE, 11/11/2024

 

Ahmad Terrirudin,56 years old, could not be retiring yet? So, why the AG/PP removed so soon after 13 months? Did the JAC recommend Terrirudin to be appointed Federal Court Judge?

AG/PP Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh, about 56 years old, has been prematurely removed before his RETIREMENT Age. WHY? It is important that the Attorney General/Public Prosecutor be Independent - and that independence must be guaranteed by a security of tenure. In short, he should not be removed before his retirement age of 60.

Odd, that some media report said that Terrirudin was RETIRING - odd, since he was just 56. I thought RETIREMENT AGE was 60.

Ahmad Terrirudin, 56, was appointed as the AG on Sept 6 last year, succeeding Tan Sri Idrus Harun, whose contractual appointment ended on Sept 5.

The question is WHY was AG/PP Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh removed by the Prime Minister?

The Attorney General is appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister - Art.145 (1) The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall, on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint a person who is qualified to be a judge of the Federal Court to be the Attorney General for the Federation.

A Federal Court Judge too according to Art 122B  (1) The Chief Justice of the Federal Court, the President of the Court of Appeal and the Chief Judges of the High Courts and (subject to Article 122C) the other judges of the Federal Court, of the Court of Appeal and of the High Courts shall be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, after consulting the Conference of Rulers.

The King just appoints on the advice of the Prime Minister....hence, all the power of the Prime Minister.

SO, the question is why was AG/PP Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh removed by the PM? A previous AG/PP that was prematurely removed allegedly because he was going to charge Najib on the 1MDB cases.

Was AG/PP Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh removed because he was going to re-charge Zahid Hamidi for the 47 Charges? Was he going to charge PM or some Ministers? Ouestions that are relevant - why was he removed so soon?

ODD - nothing in media about AG Terrirudin to be made Chief Judge of Malaya? Protect Independence of Judges/AG? Free yourself from 'feudalism' or neo-feudalism? Transparency - no more 'secret' appointment process? 

No to the appointment of current Public Prosecutor as Federal Court Judge or Chief Judge of Malaysia – Protect the Independence of Public Prosecutor and the Judiciary ### Another removal of the Public Prosecutor/Attorney General?

Dusuki is new attorney-general

Published:  Nov 11, 2024 2:56 PM

⋅

Updated: 4:22 PM

Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) appellate and trial division head Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar has been appointed as the new attorney-general.

In a statement, Chief Secretary to the Government Shamsul Azri Abu Bakar said Dusuki’s appointment has received royal assent from the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and will be effective tomorrow.

He is taking over the office from current AG Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh, who was recently appointed as a Federal Court judge.

“Dusuki, 57, who hails from Kelantan, graduated with a Bachelor’s Degree in Law from the International Islamic University Malaysia and has a Master’s Degree in Law from the University of Wollongong, Australia.

“He has a wide experience with 31 years of service in the AGC.

“The government also would like to thank Terrirudin for his service as attorney-general,” he said.

Bernama previously reported that Terrirudin, who was appointed as the attorney-general on Sept 6 last year, reaches his retirement age today (Nov 11) and is set to become a Federal Court judge.

On July 9, Free Malaysia Today reported a source saying that Terrirudin is tipped for appointment as a Federal Court judge and may later be appointed to occupy the post of Chief Judge of Malaya, the third-highest post in the judicial hierarchy. Malaysiakini, 11/11/2024

AGC: Outgoing attorney general Terrirudin asks to stop ‘donation drive’ for his retirement gift

Attorney General Tan Sri Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh (left) will be retiring on November 11. — Bernama pic

Tuesday, 05 Nov 2024 6:47 PM MYT

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 5 — The donation drive to honour Attorney General (AG) Tan Sri Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh who is retiring on Nov 11, has been stopped.

The AG Chambers (AGC) in a statement said that the AG himself had requested for the donation drive to be discontinued.

-Advertisement-

"Although this donation drive was well-intentioned, the AG has requested for it to be discontinued,” read the statement, which was issued in response to the donations allegedly being sought from deputy public prosecutors to honour the retiring AG.

The matter went viral on Telegram and other social media platforms after the AGC personnel were allegedly asked to make monetary contributions to purchase a retirement gift for Ahmad Terrirudin, in recognition of his many contributions and efforts to the prosecution division.

The viral message also said that the donations should be made according to the donors’ grade, namely Turus (RM500); JUSA A (RM400); JUSA B (RM300) and JUSA C (RM200), as well as L44 (RM30) and L41 (RM20).

It is also learnt that the donation drive was also organised in celebration of Ahmad Terrirudin, who is set to be appointed as a Federal Court Judge.

Ahmad Terrirudin, 56, was appointed as the AG on Sept 6 last year, succeeding Tan Sri Idrus Harun, whose contractual appointment ended on Sept 5.

Before holding this position, Ahmad Terrirudin served as the Solicitor General. — Bernama, Malay Mail, 5/11/2024

 

Source: Terrirudin not on list given by CJ to PM for new Chief Judge of Malaya

Speculation that the attorney-general is poised for promotion to the Federal Court evokes fears of executive meddling in the judiciary.

MalaysiaNow

August 1, 2024 1:25 PM

Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, Anwar Ibrahim and AG Ahmad Terrirudin Salleh.

A storm is brewing in legal and judicial circles over Anwar Ibrahim's plan to appoint Attorney-General Ahmad Terrirudin Salleh as a judge of the Federal Court and Chief Judge of Malaya, raising similar concerns that the Conference of Rulers expressed not long ago about the prime minister's powers to appoint senior judges.

MalaysiaNow can now reveal, based on reliable sources, that Terrirudin's name is not among those recommended by Chief Justice (CJ) Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat to Anwar to fill the position of Chief Judge of Malaya. 

The position has been vacant since Zabidin Diah retired on Feb 29. 

Tengku Maimun is understood to have recommended a list of names to Anwar, in accordance with Article 122B of the Federal Constitution, which states that the appointment of judges to top judicial positions other than that of chief justice shall be made in consultation with the CJ.

Article 122B also states that it is only after this process that the prime minister may advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who in turn consults with the Conference of Rulers.

An official at the Prime Minister's Department declined to comment on the matter, saying only that the government was not obliged to accept the CJ's candidates.

This is a far cry from Anwar's own promise to stay out of the appointment of judges, just months after becoming PM.

"We see in the past few years, there have been changes and appointments in the judiciary, but I haven’t interfered with a single appointment. I follow the Judicial Appointments Commission’s process and then the CJ will forward (a name) and I will accept it," he was quoted as saying in an interview with RTM in January 2023.

The argument that the prime minister is not bound by the advice of the CJ does not go down well with senior judges, many of whom are still struggling to move on after a long history of government interference in the judiciary in recent decades.

"We had to learn the bitter lesson that whilst the independence of the judiciary can be destroyed in an instant, rebuilding and reestablishing its independence can take decades," warned a joint letter signed by past presidents of the Malaysian Bar recently.

"That is the crux of the current concern. There is a fear of renewed executive interference in the judiciary," said a judicial source privy to the matter, who spoke to MalaysiaNow on strict condition of anonymity.

"It is glaring that not a single name put forward by her was accepted. This defeats the constitutional requirement for consultations," the source added.

The plan to appoint Teriruddin as a Federal Court judge and then CJM has been criticised by the legal fraternity, including the former deputy minister in charge of law and institutional reforms, Ramkarpal Singh.

"Appointing an outsider to one of the country’s most senior judicial posts would certainly be a step backward and would reflect poorly on the government’s commitment to judicial reforms," said Ramkarpal, who was not reappointed to his post following the Cabinet reshuffle late last year.

Concerns of Malay rulers echoed

In November 2022, the Conference of Rulers called for curtailing the prime minister's powers in the appointment of judges.

Just a week after Anwar was sworn in as prime minister, the Conference of Rulers had called for curtailing the prime minister's powers in the appointment of judges.

The Rulers made this clear when they proposed that the prime minister be stripped of the power to appoint five representatives to the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), a nine-member body that nominates candidates for appointment to the superior courts.

Four of the nine members of JAC are senior judges, while the remaining five are appointed by the prime minister.

"To ensure the independence of JAC in carrying out its responsibilities, I propose that the appointment of its five members should not be made by the prime minister.

"Instead it should be given to other institutions such as the Malaysian Bar Council, the Sabah Law Society, the Sarawak Bar Association and the Parliamentary Select Committee," Negeri Sembilan ruler Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir had said at the time.

A few months later, Anwar vowed to protect the independence of the judiciary.

"As prime minister, not only have I not encroached upon even a single inch of the sacred terrain of the judiciary, but I shall defend, at all costs,the independence of the judiciary," he said at the Asean Law Conference last year.

Restoring public confidence in the judiciary has been almost a permanent feature of Pakatan Harapan (PH) election manifestos throughout the decades.

In 2018, it pledged to ensure the appointment of judges based on merit and experience and to remove the prime minister's power to influence the appointment of judges.

"The appointment of the chief justice and the president of the Court of Appeal through the backdoor as practised by Umno and Barisan Nasional will be stopped immediately," said the PH manifesto ahead of the 14th general election.

A similar promise was made during the last general election.

"Harapan will continue to protect the integrity of Malaysia’s administration by limiting the power of the executive, ensuring the freedom of our judiciary, and reorganising the political structures of the country," the coalition said. - Malaysia Now, 1/8/2024

Justice NOT Served in The Case of Deaf E-Hailing Driver Ong Ing Keong – Prosecution Must Appeal Sentence to High Court, And Prosecute Others Involved (MADPET)

 

Media Statement – 6/11/2024

Justice NOT Served in The Case of Deaf E-Hailing Driver Ong Ing Keong – Prosecution Must Appeal Sentence to High Court, And Prosecute Others Involved

A Mere RM1,000 Fine, No Compensation for Victim and the failure of the Court to listen first to the sufferings of the Victim before sentencing results in INJUSTICE

Justice was certainly NOT served when the alleged police officer was on 4/11/2024 charged and sentenced to a mere RM1,000 fine for the crime of assaulting a deaf e-hailing driver Ong Ing Keong on 28/5/2024, more than 5 months ago, at the front of St Regis Hotel in Kuala Lumpur where Ong was waiting for passengers.  The perpetrator, who was said to be a police officer, was a part of a security detail of a member of the Malaysian Royalty, a VVIP.

It is unacceptable that the victim was not informed in advance of the fact that the perpetrator was going to be charged in court. Malaysian law acknowledges the right for a crime victim to be heard before sentence is decided upon and imposed on the perpetrator.

In Malaysia today, one who makes a police report already has the right to be informed on the status of the investigation – and reasonably that right should also include prior information as to when perpetrators of the crime are going to be brought to the court to be charged. It is an important right especially for victims of said crime.

The Failure to Listen to The Suffering of Victim Before Sentencing

The fact that the VICTIM was not even informed of the said court prosecution of the alleged assailant is shocking, as the presence of the VICTIM in criminal cases is important. The victim has the right to tell the Court about the impact suffered by him by reason of the offence, whereby the Court will take into account when it comes to sentencing.

Malaysia’s Criminal Procedure Code in Section 183A clearly states, ‘… (1) Before the Court passes sentence according to law under section 183, the Court shall, upon the request of the victim of the offence or the victim's family, call upon the victim or a member of the victim's family to make a statement on the impact of the offence on the victim or his family…’

The failure to ORDER perpetrator to pay Compensation to Victim

Criminal Procedure Code in Section 426 (1A)  states that, ‘…Without prejudice to subsection (1), the Court before which an accused is convicted of an offence shall, upon the application of the Public Prosecutor, make an order against the convicted accused for the payment by him, or where the convicted accused is a child, by his parent or guardian, of a sum to be fixed by the Court as compensation to a person who is the victim of the offence committed by the convicted accused in respect of the injury to his person or character, or loss of his income or property, as a result of the offence committed.

In this case, the victim Ong Ing Keong, besides suffering soft tissue injury following the sudden attack on him with a hard punch on the face, where he later had to get treatment at the Kuala Lumpur Hospital, also would have reasonably suffered loss of income as an e-hailing driver following the incident and in his quest for justice, mental trauma or anguish, and other cost including legal fees. Malaysian law provides that the Court that heard and convicted this assailant could and should have order payment of compensation to the victim. A compensation to be paid to the victim would have been just, for a FINE now is just payment to the State – not the victim.

If the Public Prosecutor, failed to apply to court for the payment of compensation to the victim, it may be an indication of lack of concern or even a dereliction of duty to victims of a crime. Justice demands not just being sentenced for one’s crimes, but also payment of compensation to victim and even maybe also a public apology by the perpetrator to the victim. When a criminal does not apologize, that will lead to higher sentence. A plea of guilt is not an apology to the victim.

When POLICE Breaks the Law, There Should Be A CUSTODIAL SENTENCE

Police officers are expected to be law abiding citizens, more so since it is their public duty to enforce the law. Hence, when law enforcement personnel break the law, it is a very SERIOUS matter, and warrants a heavy deterrent sentence.

The Court of Appeal, in its decision ‘We would, however, like to take this opportunity to remind the lower courts that they should take cases of police officers assaulting anyone very seriously. When a police officer, be he of whatever rank, is found guilty of assaulting a member of the public and more so of an arrested person as in this case, the courts should send a message of the public abhorrence of such acts - by coming down hard on him and nothing short of a custodial sentence, even for a first offender, would suffice. [Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Mohd Noor v. PP[2001] 4 CLJ 9]

What about the Other Offences?

In this case, there were allegedly other offences and offenders. There was allegedly a THREAT addressed to the victim to withdraw the first police report.  ‘Ong claimed that the palace representative gave him two choices, which was to retract the case and they will return his phone, or go to court…’(Malaysian Insight, 31/5/2024)

When the crime happened, did the other persons, including police officers present, make police report of the crime. Since March 2017, Section 13 of the Criminal Procedure Code imposes an obligation on ‘Every person aware- (a) of the commission of or the intention of any other person to commit any offence punishable under the Penal Code or any other written law; commission of or the intention of any other person to commit any offence punishable under the Penal Code or any other written law…’.

There are also crimes of obstruction of justice. In short, everyone who committed crimes in connection with the assault or ‘abuse of power’ in Ong Ing Keong’s case must be forthwith charged and tried in court.

In Malaysia, a withdrawal of the police report does not mean the end of the criminal investigation. Once, law enforcement is made aware of the alleged crime, they will proceed with the investigation and/or prosecution of the perpetrator of the crime. It matters not whether the victim subsequently withdraws his/her police report, or comes to some ‘financial’ settlement with the perpetrator. A crime will still be investigated and prosecuted irrespective of any ‘settlement’.

In this case, which has been much highlighted and is known by the public, it should not be ‘swept under the carpet’ with regards to the other crimes committed, by the same and/or other perpetrators.

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) and others have called for special offences for law enforcement officers as they are expected to be law abiding citizens, tasked with the enforcing the law. In this case, the criminal L/Kpl Muhammad Taufik Ismail, was charged, convicted and sentenced under Section 323 of the Penal Code, which is a general offence of voluntarily causing hurt that applies for all persons. Taufik was fined RM1,000 in default of 20 days imprisonment. MADPET is of the opinion that when police or law enforcement officers commit this crime, more so when on duty, they should be subjected to a much higher DETTERENT sentences.

Laws like Section 323 of Penal Code should also be amended, to enable Courts to have discretion to impose higher sentences depending on the facts and circumstances.

MADPET calls on the Prosecution to forthwith appeal the sentence to the High Court, as only the Prosecution, other than the convicted, have the right and ability to appeal the conviction or sentence.

Alternatively, MADPET calls on any High Court Judge to exercise their general supervisory and revisionary jurisdiction in the interests of justice.  Section 35 Courts of Judicature Act states that ‘…the High Court shall have general supervisory and revisionary jurisdiction over all subor
dinate courts, and may in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, if it appears desirable in the interests of justice, either of its own motion or at the instance of any party or person interested, at any stage in any matter or proceeding, whether civil or criminal, in any subordinate court, call for the record thereof, and may remove the same into the High Court or may give to the subordinate court such directions as to the further conduct of the same as justice may require…

MADPET also call for the immediate termination of L/Kpl Muhammad Taufik Ismail for, amongst other, the restoration of the image and trust in Malaysian police. Any law enforcement officer that breaks the law, more so whilst on duty, is best removed immediately. Police officers on security details of VIPs are also highly trained, and we do not want to retain officers that resort to violence rather than words.

MADPET reiterates the call to enact laws that recognizes the right for persons in Malaysia to be free from torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment save in accordance to law.

Charles Hector

For and on behalf of MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

Closure for disabled e-hailing driver with bodyguard's sentence, says lawyer

---

By NURBAITI HAMDAN

• Nation

• Monday, 04 Nov 2024

  
  

KUALA LUMPUR: After five months, there is finally closure for disabled e-hailing driver Ong Ing Keong who was assaulted by a VVIP's bodyguard, says lawyer Zaid Malek.

This comes after L/Kpl Muhammad Taufik Ismail was fined RM1,000 in default of 20 days imprisonment on Monday (Nov 4) after he pleaded guilty to voluntarily causing hurt to Ong in front of the lobby at the St. Regis Hotel at about 11.40am on May 28.

Zaid said the proceedings had taken them by surprise as they were unaware that L/Kpl Muhammad Taufik Ismail would be charged today.

"This is why Ong is not here. But this (outcome) is exactly what he wanted.

“He wanted the aggressor to be brought to court and this had happened today. It was a simple, straightforward case with ample dash-cam recording and medical evidence," Zaid told the press.

Zaid, who held a watching brief for Ong, appeared before the Magistrate during the proceedings.

On Monday, Magistrate Farah Nabihah Muhamad Dan passed the sentence on L/Kpl Muhammad Taufik, 32, who pleaded guilty to voluntarily causing hurt on Ong at the lobby of St Regis Hotel, at about 11.40am on May 28.

The charge under Section 323 of the Penal Code carries a maximum one year jail term or a fine up to RM2,000 or both upon conviction. - Star, 4/11/2024

 

Disability group questions anonymity of policeman charged with assaulting deaf driver, wants case revisited

DAWN says yesterday's court proceeding raises serious questions of integrity while sending a message that violence from the authorities is tolerated.

MalaysiaNow

November 5, 2024 8:33 AM

A screenshot from Ong Ing Keong's dashcam video on May 28 which recorded the moment a policeman punched him on the face.

A prominent support group for the deaf community has expressed disappointment over the outcome of the case involving a police officer who assaulted deaf e-hailing driver Ong Ing Keong, and called on authorities to revisit the case as the transparency required by a court is in question.

The Deaf Advocacy and Well-being National Organisation, or DAWN, one of many groups that had been part of a campaign to pressure authorities to charge the attacker, said Ong was never directly notified on the identity of Taufik Ismail, a 32-year-old police officer named as the accused in the charge sheet.

It said the anonymity afforded to the man, who was shielded from the press by several officers throughout his presence at the Kuala Lumpur court complex yesterday, raised serious questions about the integrity of the trial.

"Why was the assailant’s identity protected? Why was the case resolved with such haste? This absence of transparency fuels concerns that some individuals or groups may be shielded from accountability due to their positions," the group said.

"Is Taufik Ismail indeed the individual shown in the CCTV footage from the incident at Hotel St Regis?"

DAWN said without confirmation from Ong or his lawyers, it could not be verified that the right individual had been charged.

"If the authorities are confident in this identification, why was Ong not notified directly?"

Grab driver Ong Ing Keong tears up during a press conference by Lawyers for Liberty on Aug 14 as he recalls how he was assaulted by an officer accompanying a royal entourage.

"Justice must be seen to be done, and we call for more robust accountability, genuine protection, and fair treatment of all citizens, especially those within vulnerable communities," it added.

Yesterday, Taufik, a police officer who is part of Johor regent Tunku Ismail Sultan Ibrahim's (TMJ) royal entourage, escaped jail after pleading guilty to assaulting Ong on May 28, in a case that has sparked public debate over the rule of law in the country.

Instead, the Kuala Lumpur Magistrate's Court sentenced him to a fine of RM1,000, a decision criticised by Ong's lawyer Zaid Malek, who compared it to the imprisonment of Abdul Rahim Noor in 2000, after the former inspector-general of police pleaded guilty to assaulting Anwar Ibrahim in 1998.

Zaid had quoted the Court of Appeal's reasoning for imprisoning Rahim despite his guilty plea, in which it stated that it wanted to send a message to the public that the law does not condone police officers assaulting members of the public and that "there should be nothing short of a custodial sentence, even for a first offender, would suffice".

DAWN said the "extraordinarily light punishment" sends the message that violence is tolerated even by those charged with protecting the public.

"For five months, Ong and the deaf community waited, hoping the system would deliver a fair and balanced judgment. However, the outcome has left many feeling overlooked, disrespected, and unsupported by those meant to uphold justice.

It said Ong had suffered psychological distress during the five months that the authorities did not charge the attacker despite video evidence.

"The court’s decision fails to consider the long-term impact on him and the resilience shown by the deaf, the disabled, and broader communities that have stood by Ong.

"This leniency implies that harm done to the public by those in authority may be easily dismissed, setting a dangerous precedent enabling further abuses without meaningful consequence."

Taufik was accused of assaulting Ong at the lobby of the St Regis Hotel in Kuala Lumpur on May 28, an incident that was recorded by Ong's dashcam.

The video showed Ong waiting for passengers when a man shouted at him to move his car to make way for TMJ's entourage.

Ong then rolled down his car window to speak to the man before he suddenly attacked him with a hard punch on the face.

He was later treated at Kuala Lumpur Hospital for a soft tissue injury.

Public outrage increased when it was revealed that a "palace representative" had asked Ong to withdraw his complaint lodged with the Brickfields police station.

Ong rejected a claim by city police chief, Rusdi Mohd Isa, that he had withdrawn his police report as it was a "misunderstanding".

Instead, Ong disclosed that an officer had given him the choice of either accepting a sum of money from the palace representative or having his phone confiscated if the case went to court.

The delay in taking action was also criticised by the government's Human Rights Commission (Suhakam), which questioned Attorney-General Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh over his silence. - Malaysia Now, 5/11/2024

Assaulted deaf e-hailing driver wants justice, says his lawyer

---

Noel Achariam Updated 5 months ago · Published on 31 May 2024

From left layer N Surendran, Lawyers for Liberty director Zaid Malek, Latheefa Koya and the victim Ong Ing Keong.– May 31, 2024.

A deaf e-hailing driver who was assaulted by a security detail personnel last Monday wants justice and rejects any compensation, said his lawyers.

One of his lawyers, Latheefa Koya, told a press conference today that no one has been arrested over the incident.

This comes just as Inspector-General of Police Razarudin Husain said Bukit Aman will summon all officers involved in investigating the case to ensure a thorough investigation.

He said all those involved in the earlier investigation will have their statements recorded.

Earlier today, Kuala Lumpur police chief Rusdi Mohd Isa said investigation into the alleged assault was still going despite earlier reports that the case was “settled” after the victim allegedly accepted RM800 from a representative of the assailant.

Latheefa meanwhile said the victim did not agree to settle the case.

“The police have called him tomorrow to give his statement to assist with the investigation.

“We will be accompanying him tomorrow. We want the police to carry on with the investigation (wait to conclude) before looking any at legal options,” she said at a press conference in Petaling Jaya today.

Latheefa said that lawyer N Surendran and Lawyers for Liberty director Zaid Malek will be representing the victim Ong Ing Keong. 

Earlier today, Johor Regent Tunku Ismail Sultan Ibrahim has hit out at attempts to link the royal institution to the alleged assault of an e-hailing driver. 

“I do not condone any illegal action or intimidation. I urge the authorities to investigate thoroughly the incident where a police officer escort is alleged to have committed a harmful act.

“I hope the authorities will take action in accordance with the law and give the victim justice,” he said on X.

On Wednesday, police confirmed that the case involving Tunku Ismail’s bodyguard, who allegedly assaulted a disabled man at a hotel, has been amicably resolved.

Kuala Lumpur police said that was done after they received another report from the complainant late yesterday stating that the matter had resolved the matter amicably, and the victim did not want to prolong the case.

The Malaysian Deaf Advocacy and Wellbeing Organisation (DAWN) in a statement yesterday said it was alarming that the victim was allegedly pressured to settle the case for RM800.

“The victim said he felt pressured to drop the case and be compensated for his injuries instead of pursuing the matter which would see his mobile phone confiscated,” Dawn had said.

“He was told that if he were to proceed with the case, his mobile phone would be confiscated, but if he were to drop it, he would be compensated for his injuries.

“The question remains: how is the phone related to the assault incident?”

The victim had lodged a police report after he alleged he was assaulted at the hotel entrance as the VIP’s convoy was leaving.

Victim’s version

The victim, Ong. gave his version of events today.

He claimed to have accepted RM800 from a wakil istana (palace representative) as settlement when he went to lodge a police report.

“After lodging the report, the police said that a palace representative was coming.

“I then asked (the place representative) where the person who hit me was and he said the person was working.”

Ong claimed that the palace representative gave him two choices, which was to retract the case and they will return his phone, or go to court.

“The representative said they will pay for hospital treatment or go to court over the matter.

“I wanted the handphone, so I decided to drop the case. The officer then asked how much I wanted in compensation.

“They asked me to settle, and I asked for RM1,000. The place representative then gave RM800.”

Ong said that he wants fairness and justice in his case.– May 31, 2024, Malaysian Insight