Wednesday, June 19, 2019

IGP, clarify if 250 plus 'would be militants' were detained for 're-habilitation'? Is this role of police, and what law was used?

IGP reported saying  Special Branch succeeds in de-radicalising 97% of suspects detained(see media report below). 

BUT IS IT LEGAL TO ARREST AND DETAIN PEOPLE THE POLICE BELIEVE MAY BECOME TERRORIST JUST TO 'DE-RADICALISE' THEM? Is it legal for police to do this kind of 'rehabilitation work"?

Federal Special Branch deputy director and CTD head DCP Datuk Ayob Khan Mydin Pitchay told theSun that from 2001 to 2012, a total of 239 would-be militants, mainly from the Southeast Asian terror group Jemaah Islamiyah, were enlisted by police into the rehabilitation programme while from 2013 onwards, 113 from the Islamic State group were engaged.

The duty of the the police is BASICALLY to investigate crime.

 
Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Datuk Seri Abdul Hamid Bador

They may arrest suspects and detain them for the purpose of investigations ... to help them get evidence for the purpose of prosecution - to charge them in court. It is the COURT after a fair trial that decides whether a person is guilty or innocent? Certainly not the police ...certainly not even the prosecution.

If the person arrested and remanded, and the police found that there is NO evidence or  insufficient evidence to charge them in court, then they are released. The decision of whether someone is to be charged in court is generally with the prosecution - the Public Prosecutor decides usually whether to charge or not.

Remember, there are so many terrorist-related crimes in Malaysian law, and even preparation or inciting others to do acts of terrorism is a crime. Remember Siti Noor Aishah Atam's's case...the offence was something about being in possession of books related to terrorism...

Siti Noor Aishah Atam - Ditahan lagi di bawah SOSMA? 

Release Siti Noor Aishah Atam from Poca restrictions, kata 36 kumpulan (Malaysiakini, 20/12/2016)

Siti Noor Aishah Atam - victim of SOSMA, found Not Guilty by High Court, then re-detained under POCA?

Terrorist - Who does Malaysia consider 'Terrorists', Terrorist Ideology/Books? Siti Noor Aishah Atam? What happend to 8 arrested?

Terrorist - Mufti also asks who Malaysia say they are..? HAMAS? PLO? IRA? - Siti Noor Aishah Hatam?

There surely was some law that this 'would be militants' may have violated - so charge them and the courts decide. If guilty, maybe time to also give courts the power to sentence for so many days of rehabilitation.  Police should not decide who is 'would be militant' and who is not - leave it to the court. Police must stop these 're-habilitation' activities but let the court decide whether they be sentenced to rehabilitation or not...

IN MY OPINION, Malaysian police really do not have the full trust of the people. Remember Anwar Ibrahim's black eye - the police denied causing it, and finally it was revealed that the then Inspector General of Police(IGP) did it...Remember also recent outcome of SUHAKAM inquiry ...

fter an extensive public inquiry, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) announced today that the Special Branch, the special police intelligence team from Bukit Aman, was involved in the abduction of pastor Raymond Koh, similar to that of activist Amri Che Mat. - Victims of Enforced Dissapearance by police officers - Amri and Pastor Koh? HR Commission's findings
So do we trust the police to identify 'would be militants' on their own...OR even 're-rehabilitate' them. Leave it to the PROFESSIONALS after the Court decides to sentence them to receive counseling and re-rehabilitation ..POLICE need work hard to regain the peoples' trust

IS THERE ANY LAW THAT ALLOWS THE POLICE TO DO THIS? Educate us AG Tommy Thomas?

I do not know of any law that allows the police to influence or 'de-radicalize' detainees during these remand detention...or is there some new law that I am unaware of?

Are the police arresting and detaining people and doing 're-habilitation' during detention? Or are they simply visiting or inviting them to some sessions ...Detaining and re-habilitating is wrong, in my opinion, but if it just some visits and counselling, it may be OK? The IGP needs to clarify...

In either case, the Inspector General of police must satisfy us that they are not using the arrest and detention powers for this 're-habilitation'...Concern about this 'abuse' is raised following news report of a ex-SOSMA detainee, whilst attending a police'buka puasa' talks about 're-education' during detention under SOSMA?

Afy, a SOSMA victim, at police 'buka puasa' saying SOSMA helped him? Re-education during detention? JOKE?

Maybe, the Attorney General should tell us the law that allows the police to do these 're-rehabilitation'  OR if there is none, maybe the AG should advise the government to stop this...

NEXT, which law have they been using ...are they using SOSMA or even the Detention Without Trial Laws for this 'de-radicalizing' activities ...again so wrong?

The police going to schools, colleges, universities, some other public places and giving talks or offering counseling sessions where the  attendees/invitees are free to attend or not may be OK - but then should this be the role of the police?

HOW DID YOU DECIDE WHO IS A 'WOULD BE MILITANT'?

For drug users, one can determine that they are users by urine or blood tests - and there are laws about 're-habilitation'?

But, how do you come to identify persons who may possibly become a terrorist in the future? Guess work? Hence, the IGP's claim that they de-radicalised 250 plus persons? Maybe hem were really not even thinking of becoming terrorist in the first first place?

If anyone is to determine someone is a 'would be militant', it must be the Courts not the police or the Special Branch?

'Would be criminals' is an absurd notion - when a person starts preparing to commit the crime, it is an offence...when he commits the crime, he commits an offence? 

Should we start 're-habilitation' programs for Ministers, MPs, public servants to prevent them abusing their power, committing the offence of corruption, etc??? 

Everyone may be a would be criminal - but until he actually commits a crime, he has done no wrong.

IGP claims 97% of the persons did end up militants ...maybe these 97% never would have with or without rehabilitation by the Special Branch...maybe 97% were unnecessarily 'rehabilitated'...how much peoples' money was wasted? Was it also peoples' money spend for these 'buka puasa' functions with these alleged 'rehabilitated' 'would be militants'?

“Out of the total, only 10 failed. We managed to de-radicalise over 97% of them and have them move away from extremism. Many countries have approached us to learn and adopt our programme,” he said.

“Once rehabilitated, we arrange to get them jobs and they become our friends. We constantly keep in touch and monitor them to make sure they do not return to their old ways.”
How many crimes have yet to be investigated? How many crimes have been unsolved? How many murders still remain unsolved? How many corruption cases to be solved..

Clearly the police have lot of work to do..and they should stop this 'rehabilitation work' with people they allege are 'would be militants"...a program which they say cost a lot of money
It is a costly affair but it has to be done. This approach has been quietly done behind the scenes,” he said during an exclusive interview with theSun.

Special Branch succeeds in de-radicalising 97% of suspects detained, says IGP

17 Jun 2019 / 12:22 H.

KUALA LUMPUR: A soft approach by the Special Branch has succeeded in keeping 352 individuals from turning into full-fledged terrorists since 2001.
Apart from de-radicalising would-be militants, the Special Branch counter-terrorism division (CTD) also works behind the scenes, sniffing out sympathisers before subtly engaging them and enlisting them in its rehabilitation programme.

Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Datuk Seri Abdul Hamid Bador (pix), who commended the CTD for its success, said the police have a two-pronged approach.

“One way is to take on the militants directly and have them face the full brunt of the law while the other is psy-warfare, where we engage them for rehabilitation. They are put through counselling by religious and psychological experts who enlighten them on how they have been misled and subsequently guide them on the right path of Islam. We gauge the level of their involvement in militancy. If they have not ‘crossed the line’, we use this method. It is a costly affair but it has to be done. This approach has been quietly done behind the scenes,” he said during an exclusive interview with theSun.

Abdul Hamid added that often, when such terror cell members were identified and approached, police rope in their families to assist in the programme. He said the families have contributed immensely to its success.

Federal Special Branch deputy director and CTD head DCP Datuk Ayob Khan Mydin Pitchay told theSun that from 2001 to 2012, a total of 239 would-be militants, mainly from the Southeast Asian terror group Jemaah Islamiyah, were enlisted by police into the rehabilitation programme while from 2013 onwards, 113 from the Islamic State group were engaged.

“Out of the total, only 10 failed. We managed to de-radicalise over 97% of them and have them move away from extremism. Many countries have approached us to learn and adopt our programme,” he said.

“Once rehabilitated, we arrange to get them jobs and they become our friends. We constantly keep in touch and monitor them to make sure they do not return to their old ways.”

Ayob said there are no longer large militant cells in Malaysia.

He said those that exist now were “lone wolves” and “wolf packs” of five or six members. - Sun Daily, 17/6/2019

Tuesday, June 18, 2019

52 Days - Still NO Human Rights Commissioners in Malaysia? We miss the voice of SUHAKAM..

Without HR Commissioners, SUHAKAM cannot do anything - the powers are with the HR Commissioners. See earlier post...and now it is going to be about 52 days ..see earlier post.

NO Human Rights Commissioners in Malaysia for past 37 days - Is government not committed to HR?

If there were HR Commissioners, SUHAKAM would have been SPEAKING UP about the various Human Rights issues... maybe about the Orang Asli rights when it was highlighted that about 15 had dies and the sad state of their living situation...maybe about the detention conditions at Immigration Detention Centres and prisons ... They may have also made an immediate visit to some of the Immigration Detention Centres...they may have even decided to start a public inquiry on some of these issues....

68 year old Singaporean sues Malaysia's Immigration Dept for RM2.67m over 'inhuman’/wrongful detention? Time for prison reforms?


HUMAN RIGHTS in Malaysia suffers...and it is all Malaysians hope that the new Chairman and HR Commissioners will be following the ways of the previous Chairman and Commissioners...remember that they were brave enough to even announce their finding that points the finger at the Malaysian police(the Special Branch)  as being responsible for enforced disappearance...

After an extensive public inquiry, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) announced today that the Special Branch, the special police intelligence team from Bukit Aman, was involved in the abduction of pastor Raymond Koh, similar to that of activist Amri Che Mat. - Victims of Enforced Dissapearance by police officers - Amri and Pastor Koh? HR Commission's findings

Will the next Chairman and Commissioners be equally strong to uphold human rights without fear or favour....or will they be 'cautious' or 'diplomatic' - not to be seen pointing the finger at the government or the police for its failures to protect and promote human rights...They will, of course, speak out at the procrastination to repeal the bad laws and provisions...

Who will the PH government select and the King appoint? This will be indicative of their commitment to Human Rights ...would it not?

Sadly, I have not seen any reported comment by the Minister or the PM ...or the government as to the reasons for the delay? Even the MPs who hold themselves out as Human Rights advocates seems to be silent on this major issue ...WHY?

Leaderless Suhakam ‘a sign of flagging PH commitment’




PETALING JAYA: The federal government has been accused of slowing down its commitment towards better human rights by allowing the human rights commission, Suhakam, to go leaderless for two months.

The accusation came from Denison Jayasooria, a Suhakam commissioner from 2006-2010, who said the Pakatan Harapan administration must explain why new commissioners and a chairman have not been appointed to take charge of Suhakam for two months.

Suhakam’s previous chairman, Razali Ismail, resigned two weeks before the end of his term, following an inquiry by the commission into a pastor and two religious activists. Suhakam accused the police of being involved in their abductions.
On April 25, seven commissioners ended their three-year terms of office. The commissioners – Lok Yim Pheng, Mah Weng Kwai, Aishah Bidin, Nik Salida Suhaila Nik Saleh, Francis Johen, Godfrey Gregory Joitol and Jerald Joseph – have served a maximum of two terms as commissioners and cannot be reappointed.

Jayasooria, who is also a human rights activist and academician, said: “Term periods are fixed and the government must have known the time needed for renewals. There should not be gaps.”

“For institutional reforms (to take place), these commissions must not be without their leaders,” he told FMT, noting that a gap in service had also happened with the Election Commission earlier this year.

In 2016, prior to Razali taking over as chairman, Suhakam was left without a chairman and any commissioners for 58 days.

“I understand it is about selecting the right chairman,” another former commissioner told FMT. 

“Normally the chair serves for two terms for a total of six years (but) with (the) sudden resignation of the past chairman, the process has become stuck.”

Jayasooria urged the Parliamentary Select Committee for Rights and Gender Equality to look into the matter.

Jayasooria said the annual Suhakam report had yet to be debated in Parliament, despite it being an election promise by Pakatan Harapan in 2018. “This must be a priority for the coming Parliament meeting in July,” he said.

Suhakam sources told FMT last week that the closing date for applications for appointment as a commissioner was in November last year, and a selection committee had met earlier this year.

Under the Suhakam Act, the committee is headed by the Chief Secretary to the government, the former Suhakam chairman and three other independent persons. The committee submits a list of candidates for the Prime Minister to recommend to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

FMT has contacted the office of Chief Secretary to the Government Ismail Bakar and is waiting for a response.

Suhakam is empowered to advise the government and relevant authorities of complaints against them and to recommend appropriate measures, and verify human rights infringements. It is also empowered to visit places of detention and make necessary recommendations. - FMT, 17/6/2019

Suhakam ‘paralysed’ as new chairman, commissioners still not appointed


The three-year tenure of the seven Suhakam commissioners ended on April 25.
PETALING JAYA: The Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) has been left “paralysed” as the government has yet to appoint a new chairman and commissioners.

Suhakam’s most recent chairman, Razali Ismail, resigned two weeks before the end of his tenure. This was in the wake of the commission’s inquiry into missing persons where it accused the police of being involved in their abductions.

The tenure of the seven Suhakam commissioners, who sit at the very top of the organisation, came to an end on April 25.

“Under the Suhakam Act, it’s the commissioners that decide on matters, not the chair.
“There’s still no announcement yet of the appointment of all the commissioners, including the chair,” a source with knowledge on the matter told FMT.

The terms of the seven commissioners – Lok Yim Pheng, Mah Weng Kwai, Aishah Bidin, Nik Salida Suhaila Nik Saleh, Francis Johen, Godfrey Gregory Joitol and Jerald Joseph – was for three years from 2016.

“Without commissioners, it can’t really function. Even last term, the appointment of the commissioners was delayed by two months,” the source said.

According to the source, the delay in appointing new commissioners is not justified as the closing date for applications was November 2018 and a selection committee met earlier this year.

“The committee’s vetting and decision must be made public for greater transparency, as must the selection criteria. The commissioners must have the competency and experience,” the source said.

Suhakam is empowered by the Suhakam Act to advise the government and relevant authorities of complaints against them and to recommend appropriate measures to be taken, verify any infringement of human rights and issue public statements on human rights as and when necessary.

It is also empowered to visit places of detention in accordance with procedures as prescribed by laws relating to the places of detention and make necessary recommendations.

When contacted, a Suhakam spokesman confirmed that the new commissioners have yet to be appointed.

FMT is attempting to contact Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Liew Vui Keong for comments. - FMT, 16/6/2019

Monday, June 17, 2019

Adakah kerajaan PH menjaga kepentingan pekerja dan hak berkesatuan? Atau tidak peduli? Tidak prihatin?

Jika majikan mengambil pekerja berasaskan kontrak jangka pendek (biasa 1 tahun atu kurang), bagaiman pekerja boleh menubuhkan kesatuan sekerja di tempat kerja...

Pekerja berjumpa buat keputusan mahu menubuhkan kesatuan sekerja - hantar kepada Jabatan/Kementerian untuk mendaftarkan kesatuan...masa proses...katakan pendaftaran kesatuan tersebut diluluskan...

Kini, Mesyuarat Agung Pertama diadakan, Presiden dan kepimpinan kesatuan sekerja dipilih ..

Kesatuan mula bertindak kini untuk mendapatkan pengiktirafan majikan - yang perlu sebelum majikan akan duduk dan menandatangani Perjanjian Bersama(Collective Bargaining Agreement)...yang akan memberikan hak lebih kepada pekerja ...

TETAPI, satu tahun sudah tamat...pekerja hilang kerja ...Dia mungkin juga baru dilantik sebagai seorang barisan pimpinan kesatuan...

SATU tahun tamat, ramai pekerja juga habis tempoh kerja ...ahli kesatuan pun hilang..

Kesatuan Sekerja gagal...pekerja telah hilang kerja walaupun sebenarnya kerja yang ada masih memerlukan pekerja...

Majikan ambil pekerja baru...BUKANKAH INI 'UNION BUSTING' - HAK PEKERJA UNTUK MENUBUHKAN KESATUAN DAN BERJUANG MELALUI KESATUAN UNTUK HAK LEBIH DAN MEMPERTAHANKAN HAK SEDIA ADA tidak boleh berlaku jika majikan di Malaysia terus dibenarkan mengambil pekerja melalui sistem kontrak jangka pendek...

KERAJAAN BOLEH melallui undang-undang memerlukan semua pekerja diambil kerja sebagai pekerja tetap(REGULAR) sampai tarikh persaraan...

Ini tidak akan memprejudiskan majikan kerana jika majikan jika tak perlu lagi mana-mana pekerja kerana kerja tak ada boleh melepaskan pekerja - RETRENCHMENT. Prinsip bila terpaksa mengurangkan pekerja adalah LIFO(Last In First Out), yang baru masuk kerja akan dibuang kerja dulu...SELAIN daripada itu, majikan boleh membuang kerja pekerja yang tealh melakukan salahlaku kerja serius/besar atau pengingkaran kontrak yang serius...

Kalau gitu, mengapa majikan mahu lantik pakai kontrak jangka pendek --- ya, kerana dia tidak mahu KESATUAN SEKERJA...mungkin tak mahu naikkan gaji/hak yang biasa berlaku setiap tahu bergantung kepada tempuh perkhidmatan...lagi lama kerja biasa lagi banyak gaji...lagi banyak hak saperti bilangan cuti tahunan berbayar...Ambil pekerja baru setiap tahun bererti gaji/hak pun tak perlu dinaikkan...

JUSTERU, semua kini di tangan kerajaan baru kerajaan Harapan - adakah kerajaan berasaskan undang-undang mengharamkan pengambilan pekerja mengunakan kontrak jangka pendek? 

Adakah kerajaan Pakatan Harapan mahu pekerja menikmati hak menubuhkan/menyertai kesatuan sekerja ...dan berjuang untuk hak dan menentang ketidakadilan majikan bila berlaku? Atau adakah kerajaan ini juga tak prihatin hak pekerja dan hak kesatuan sekerja?

Satu tahun sudah berlalu...




90 Malaysian MPs had more people that did not vote for them compared to the number who voted for them? REFORMS needed??

90 Members of Parliament(MPs), victorious in the last General Elections, did not have the support of the majority of voters in their constituency that voted. 

In fact, the number of voters that did not choose them to be their MP was MORE than the number of voters that chose them for their MP? 

So not even the support of 50% of the voters in their constituency...they won simply because of the 'first past the post' system...(read the article below).
BASED on the GE14 result, there are 77 MP seats in Peninsular Malaysia and 13 MP seats in Sabah and Sarawak that did not return a majority winner.
SO, you are a MP but you do not even have the support of majority or 50% plus 1 of the voters in your own constituency?
Example -  Let’s take the Jerlun parliamentary seat won by Parti Pribumi Bersatu deputy president Datuk Seri Mukhriz Mahathir as an example.

Mukhriz got 18,695 votes, Abdul Ghani Ahmad of PAS 12,829 votes and Othman Aziz 12,413. He won the seat with a 5,866 majority.

However, more voters did not vote for the Kedah Menteri Besar than those who voted for him. If you add PAS and Umno votes (25,242) and minus with the Pakatan Harapan votes (18,695), 6,549 more voters did not vote for him.
Now, in many constituencies parties may have lost because their candidate did not secure the highest number of votes BUT many people supported them. So, Party A who may have contested in many seats all over Malaysia at the end of the day may have secured 20% of the popular vote( total votes cast all over Malaysia) - should that party be given some seats in parliament? 
We today have 222 Parliamentary Constituencies. What we add another 100 seats that will be allocated based of the total percentage of popular vote the party received all over the country, whether they won or lost, this will mean that Party A will get now 20 MPs

KUALA LUMPUR: The newly-concluded 14th General Election (GE14) saw Pakatan Harapan’s (PH) dominance in popular votes of about 50 per cent, as was recorded in GE13.

Popular votes is the total number or percentage of votes received by a party.

The findings were based on the data of the number of votes garnered by three main parties contesting in the election. PH led the race with 5,685,252 votes, followed by Barisan Nasional (BN) 3,624,921 votes (or 32 percent); and PAS 2,043,159 votes (18 per cent)....New Straits Times, 10/5/2018
So, if we were to allocate 100 Parliamentary seats, then a party that gets 1% of the popular vote will get 1 MP in Parliament...and based on GE14 result, PH got 50% popular vote - it will get 50 additional MPs, BN will get 32 additional MPs and PAS an additional 18...
Would that not be more fair, as it will even enable small parties to have an MP in Parliament provided they get at least 1% of the popular vote?
Should there be Electoral Reform in Malaysia - we could keep the 'first past the post' system, and ADD ON AN ADDITIONAL 100 MPs - who will be be an MP based on the popular vote they obtained in the General Elections..
Think about it - we should be ready for change to adopt a better system ...
To reform or not to reform - It's Just Politics

Sunday, 2 Jun 2019

by philip golingai





Time for change: But are Malaysian voters ready for a new electoral system?


Time for change: But are Malaysian voters ready for a new electoral system?

BASED on the GE14 result, there are 77 MP seats in Peninsular Malaysia and 13 MP seats in Sabah and Sarawak that did not return a majority winner.

Confused?

Let’s take the Jerlun parliamentary seat won by Parti Pribumi Bersatu deputy president Datuk Seri Mukhriz Mahathir as an example.

Mukhriz got 18,695 votes, Abdul Ghani Ahmad of PAS 12,829 votes and Othman Aziz 12,413. He won the seat with a 5,866 majority.

However, more voters did not vote for the Kedah Menteri Besar than those who voted for him. If you add PAS and Umno votes (25,242) and minus with the Pakatan Harapan votes (18,695), 6,549 more voters did not vote for him.

Mukhriz won because of the first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system which we inherited from our colonial master, the British. He was the first to past the post.

The MPs in the 90 parliamentary seats did not win with a majority as they had more opponents than supporters.

In the 77 seats which the MP did not win a majority in Peninsular Malaysia, Barisan Nasional won 38, Pakatan 30 and PAS nine. If the Umno and PAS votes were combined, Pakatan would have lost 30 MP seats.

“FPTP’s message to these MPs’ opponents is ‘unite if you don’t want to lose’. As Pakatan won 30 of these seats because Umno and PAS were split, Umno and PAS should now get united and close old ranks,” said Wong Chin Huat, a senior fellow at Jeffery Sachs Center on Sustainable Development, Sunway University.

“Umno and PAS need to whip up the sense of insecurity among the Malays and make the non-Malays the bogeyman. This is not good for the country,”

What Wong was saying was that to win Jerlun in GE15, Umno and PAS needed to unite – form an electoral pact – and field one candidate against Mukhriz to win the seat. He also contended that Umno and PAS would be using anti-Malay rhetoric to win the voters.

If our electoral system were under MMP (member proportional system), Wong argued, the situation would not appear.

He’s a fan of Germany’s MMP. To incentivise political parties in Malaysia towards becoming more moderate, he said, the country should move the electoral system away from the “winner takes all” system. In MMP, voters are given two ballots – one for their single-member constituency representative (exactly like our FPTP) and one for their desired party in a larger multi-member constituency (closed list PR).

“While the same problem may happen in the FPTP, most of the losers will still get representation through party list where seats are allocated proportionately based on percentages of party votes. 

Hence, parties do not feel compelled to form a bloc to block their common enemies,” he said.

On Thursday, Wong and University of Western Australia’s political science professor Ben Reilly, who is an internationally renowned electoral system expert, spoke to journalists about the alternative electoral system.

“With the MMP system, how would the general election result be different?” I asked Wong.

He said we need to look at two scenarios of GE15 using its voting pattering: 1) replaying GE14 under MMP, and 2) replaying GE14 under FPTP with Umno and PAS becoming a bloc (the very likely reality in GE15). MMP, he said will produce highly proportional results like simple List-PR so that we can use the latter as a substitute.

“Next, we assume that List-PR constituencies would be the states and territories. Taking into account of disproportional allocation of parliamentary seats, PH will fall short of 112 by a few seats, Barisan will get about the same while PAS would increase its seats to around 35,” he said.

“On the surface, one would assume BN and PAS will form a coalition government, but looking at how East Malaysian parties ditched Umno and resisted PAS, the hung Parliament will likely lead to the breakup of BN and a PH-led coalition with East Malaysian parties.”


Friends with benefit: PAS and Umno can clinch more seats if they work together in GE15.
Friends with benefit: PAS and Umno can clinch more seats if they work together in GE15.
In the second scenario, Wong said assuming Umno and PAS can keep and converge their votes for common candidates, they will add 30 MP seats (won if Umno and PAS fielded a single candidate) to 46 (Umno) + 18 (PAS) = 94, exactly a bare majority in West Malaysia’s 165 seats. This means the 
next government will also be a post-coalition government.

“In both scenarios, there will be post-election governments. The main difference is whether Umno and PAS will form a pact.”

Wong contends that Malaysia needs to change the FPTP electoral system because of four major problems which contribute to instability – as a result of its mismatch with ethnic division in society.

1) It punishes losers heavily that every ethnic community craves communal unity and dreads division.

2) It suppresses non-communal divides like class and environment-v-development, making ethnic and religious divisions always salient in society.

3) by often weakening the opposition too much, it takes away the prospect of winning power and leads them to prioritise segmental popularity over governance and take hardline/populist positions on communal issues. (Umno and PAS now playing ethno-religious issues is a telling example).

4) It does not allow coalition members to compete because constituencies are allocated on a near permanent basis and paradoxically induces the ruling coalition into implosion when it wins too much and does not have a formidable enemy to stay united.

Wong proposed for a mixed member proportional (MMP) system as can provide the solution for the four problems: 

1) Ethno-religious communities can feel comfortable to split their support across a few parties.

2) Non-communal issues and parties like class inequality and environment will gain representation in legislatures and hence reduce the relevance of 3R.

3) The prospect of joining post-election governments may induce parties to be moderate.

4) Coalition partners can cooperate for FPTP as they do but at the same time compete for party votes. This preserves the existing coalition like PH and GPS for now but prepares them for a more open pattern of coalition building in the wrong run.

I asked Wong, who is a member of the Electoral Reform Committee (ERC), whether the ERC, Election Commission and political parties are ready for a change in the electoral system.

ERC, he said, had organised town hall meetings in states but consultations with major parties have yet to take place.

“Most people believe that it would be difficult because of the need for a constitutional amendment. But that is really ‘technical’ and can be overcome with cross-party consensus,” he said.

Wong said cross-party consensus, in turn, hinges on two issues:

A) are most parties feeling uncertain of their luck in GE15 and therefore prefer to hedge their risks (going for PR or propositional representation) instead of continuing to gamble (keeping FPTP)

B) and will Malay-Muslims prefer to keep multiparty competition at a lower cost (switching to PR) or to go for communal unity to minimise the cost of political division (keeping FPTP)?

Reilly, however, pointed out that electoral reform is usually difficult to push through.

“This is because the government of the day is usually reluctant to change the electoral system under which they won previously,” he said.

“Are Malaysians sophisticated enough for a new electoral system since we are still stuck with issues such as 3Rs – religion, race and royalty?” I asked Wong.

“Most people tend to misunderstand the causality in communal politics. The salience of 3Rs is very much the consequence of our failure to have non-communal divides and parties. So, the question is not whether we are sophisticated enough to adopt a new electoral system, but rather whether we want to adopt a new electoral system to be more sophisticated,” he said.

Anyone for the MMP electoral system? - Star, 2/6/2019

Sunday, June 16, 2019

Lateefa Koya 'summoned' by Parliamentary Select Committee? Open to public please?

Parliamentary Committee wants to meet and question Lateefa Koya, new MACC Chief - VERY GOOD. 
I
OPEN TO PUBLIC - it should be open to public, and televised live. It should not be a 'secret' meet or inquiry. Public inquiries by Parliamentary Committees is good and should be frequent to ensure good governance, and no abuses of power or 'corruption' or wrong doings.

This is the Parliamentary Select Committee on Public Appointments - hence it should be monitoring all public appointments be it in government or even government-owned or GLCs - Najib's trial reveals the failings of government appointed Directors and CEOs ...What about Mayors and Local Councillors... or maybe we should have MORE Parliamentary Committees (or Parliamentary Select Committees or Parliamentary Oversight Committees), made up of MPs not part of the Cabinet monitoring the executive?

In fact, this Parliamentary Committee should have monthly meetings (once in 3 months) meetings with the various persons appointed to high post like the IGP, MACC Chief, Immigration Chief..and also FELDA, SPAN, FELCRA, ...heads to require them to make their report ...as well as to ask them questions... REASON - To make sure that all is well.

Lack of monitoring by Parliament resulted in billions of ringgit being lost by various different Ministries, Agencies and GLCs... We need a more active Parliament that is on its toes monitoring all these..

Back to the Parliamentary Committee that will meet Lateefa. They want to..

- find out whether past political involvement will affect her independence > A rather lame question. Of course, when appointed to any public position, one will work independently despite one's previous political affiliation, religious/ethnicity - we should wait a few months, see what the new Chief does and if her actions show discrimination (like no leaders of her former party or PH getting investigated, etc..) - Then we can demand her answer?

- Her inexperience - how many of you MPs had previous experience before you became MPs or even Ministers? Do these people in that 'Parliamentary Committee' have past experience of conducting inquiries...or monitoring actions of political appointments? Again, this is rather lame...she would have accepted the appointment only if she believed that she can do the job. Again - if in a couple of months, there is a situation of repeated failures...then this Committee ought to summon the MACC Chief to explain..

What else?  Will they be asking the new MACC Chief whether the report filed of possible corruption in the judiciary by that lawyer, who was subsequently found guilty of contempt of court' will be investigated. [Or the MACC will not investigate allegations of corruption involving the judiciary?]...what else? 

TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Now, according to  Committee chairman William Leong, they are not even sure whether a report of the 'inquiry' will be submitted to Parliament - surely there must be a report, and it should be submitted to Parliament, or at least made public on the Parliamentary website..

It should really be open to the public and broadcasted live - dangerous because it may show the competence of the MPs that are in this Committee - Will they ask good questions of relevance? Would it raise substantive issues? Or would it be simply a 'waste of time'? 

NEXT, this Committee should call in the Election Commission Chief...and ask him what actions have been taken with regard the many complaints of election offences since his appointment - that means after the Port Dickson by-elections.... If people are allowed to continuously breach election law - including spending more than permitted, using government machinery, government using 'bribes' and/or 'threats' to secure vote including special allocations/projects promised...

If this Parliamentary Committee is only interested in Lateefa Koya...then something is very very wrong...in my opinion?

This committee really should be more 'hardworking' and they really should publish monthly reports.... Now, if any 'public appointment' (which really means chosen by government not the people) is later found to have abused their powers, practiced kleptocracy, wasted peoples' money by 'bad' decisions,...then blame may lie in William Leon and committee... So they, this Parliamentary Select Committee better work hard....

There is a need to clarify who this Committee is supposed to monitor... MINISTERS? Ketua Pengarahs? FELDA CEO/Chairman/Directors, MAS Ceo/Chairman/..., Local Councillors and Mayor's? Sadly, in the Parliament website - there is no information. About this committee - not even any past reports...? No reports - so, can we assume that this committee did nothing for the past one year since PH became government...

A very important select committee with a very important mandate - but what has it done in the past year... Maybe Chairman and Committee should show cause why they should not be sacked by Parliament...




Parliamentary panel seeks meeting with inexperienced MACC chief on ideas to fight graft


Leong said the meeting has been scheduled for June 20. — Picture by Miera Zulyana
Leong said the meeting has been scheduled for June 20. — Picture by Miera Zulyana
KUALA LUMPUR, June 14 — Concerned with her inexperience as a graft buster and her background as a politician in PKR, the parliamentary select committee on public appointments wants a meeting with Latheefa Koya to find out how she plans to lead the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) forward.

Committee chairman William Leong said the meeting has been scheduled for June 20 at 2.30pm, though the invitation is only now being prepared to be sent to the new MACC head.

“We would like to offer her the forum to address three issues. The first is the fact she has been an active politician, how is she going to deal with that in her position as MACC chief?

“Second is also due to her lack of experience in investigation. And thirdly, what is her vision and mission for MACC and on how to combat corruption,” he told Malay Mail when contacted today.
Leong said the meeting will help the committee to table its report to the Dewan Rakyat.

“It depends on how the proceeding with Latheefa will go. If we have enough time, we target it for this session, although it will be a short session,” said Leong when asked when the report is expected to be tabled.

The next Dewan Rakyat sitting will be from July 1 to 18.

Leong said the committee will take it one step at a time, should Latheefa not respond to the invitation.

Latheefa is a human rights activist and served as an elected member of PKR’s central leadership council from 2003 to 2018, prior to her appointment as the MACC head.

Her appointment by Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was announced on the eve of Hari Raya Puasa on June 4, but took effect June 1. She tendered her resignation from PKR in an email on June 3.

She replaces Datuk Seri Mohd Shukri Abdull who said he wanted to shorten his service contract that was to end on May 17, 2020.

Latheefa’s appointment has drawn mixed responses, including from within the ruling Pakatan Harapan with several ministers defending Dr Mahathir’s decision, while others have questioned his move.

Critics said the appointment had gone against the coalition’s election manifesto and the purpose of setting up parliamentary oversight committees, which would vet major public appointments. - Malay Mail, 14/6/2019


Saturday, June 15, 2019

68 year old Singaporean sues Malaysia's Immigration Dept for RM2.67m over 'inhuman’/wrongful detention? Time for prison reforms?

Well, finally someone who was arrested and detained seem to have the guts to seek justice. Many after being arrested and detained will simply walk away from the 'experience' and so sadly we will not know their wrongdoings and also the condition of detention places in Malaysia. Many have raised about this issue, including the SUHAKAM(Malaysian Human Rights Commission who still have no HR Commissioners since end April). 

SUHAKAM reiterates 1,300 dead in 6 years in detention places - "...medical care overiding reason..."

Detention Conditions of Immigration Department Detention Centres - that is the issue that this case will highlight. Condition of Malaysian prisons is another concern, which lawyer Uthayakumar also highlighted after his release from prison. Of course, then there is condition of police lock-ups, and we remember that there has been many allegations of torture and even death in custody.

Uthaya recounts horrors of a Malaysian prison - see Prison conditions and OTHER prisoner rights? Why not, Anwar Ibrahim?

From the report, it is also odd that this 68 year old man was arrested and detained for 37 days. If he was suspected of committing a crime, he should have been brought before a Magistrate within 24 hours...Was he?

After that he should have been charged in court and given a fair trial. If found guilty, he would be sentenced - and if sentenced to jail, then he should have been in prison - not the Immigration Detention Centre.

Even if he was an undocumented migrant(which seems not the case as he says he is a Singapore citizen with a valid visa), and he was to be just deported - why did it take so long? Deportation to neighboring ASEAN nations should have been done fast...so why so long?

Those who have been wrongfully detained, can apply to court - a process known as habeas corpus. Interestingly, before the case came up for hearing, he was released the day before - and the effect is that there will be no more hearing as he had been released. The courts will be deprived the ability to see whether the arrest and detention is illegal or not? This happens often...one is released just before the court can hear the case...

The statement of claim noted that Louis had through his lawyers written to the Immigration director-general on November 1, 2018 but received no response, and had on November 9 filed a habeas corpus application at the High Court.

But just a day before the scheduled hearing for Louis’ habeas corpus application or challenge against his detention, he was released on November 14 with a seven-day special pass and he left Malaysia within that period, while his legal challenge was withdrawn from court as he had been released from detention.
Why was he kept in detention at Immigration Detention Centers for so many days? According to law, the maximum number of days of detention is 14 days - after that he should have been charged in court? Something very wrong...

Many foreigners are in Malaysia legally when arrested - but during arrest and detention by police and immigration, their 30-day social visit visa may expire. Is it RIGHT then for Immigration or police to continue to detain them, as they have now become 'undocumented migrants'? The answer must justly be 'NO'.
 
Even a foreigner, whose visa has expired, when charged in court can be released on bail if the offence for which they are charged for allows for Bail. I was successful in a case. All that was required to be done was secure a 'special pass' which allows for a one month stay or more, and the court may require the passport to be deposited in court. Was this Singaporean even charged in court?

Are detentions being used to 'enrich' some is wrong ...there are allegations of water being sold at RM10 ...maybe MACC should investigate whether there are such corrupt practices going on... more detainees should also benefit food providers, etc ...?
“A small bottle of drinking water cost RM10. Purchase was limited by amount and time,” Louis’ statement of claim said, alleging that the payments were taken from his wallet held by immigration officers and from money given by visitors. 
Now, the government's and the Attorney General's priority may be to defend the government and the Immigration Department ...BUT I SAY THAT THINGS HAVE BEEN HIGHLIGHTED ABOUT DETENTION CONDITIONS AND ABUSES - and these must now be immediately addressed. There must be an independent inquiry by relevant authorities like the police, MACC and even the Health Ministry (not the Immigration Department) - and, if true, action must be taken against Immigration officers that breached the law...and those who are 'making money'(or allowing such activities) like selling stuff in prison ..When in prison/Detention Centres, all is provided free by the authorities - selling drinks, cigarettes, drugs, etc is wrong? 

NO MORE 'COVER UP' OF IMMIGRATION OFFICERS OR OTHER CIVIL SERVANTS THAT BREACH THE LAW? 

 
 See some related posts:-

 


Singapore man sues Malaysia's Immigration Dept for RM2.67m over 'inhuman’ detention


Puis' lawsuit was filed in the High Court in Kuala Lumpur on May 28 against the Immigration Department of Malaysia’s director-general and the Malaysian government. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa
Puis' lawsuit was filed in the High Court in Kuala Lumpur on May 28 against the Immigration Department of Malaysia’s director-general and the Malaysian government. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa
KUALA LUMPUR, June 12 — A Singaporean man has filed a lawsuit against Malaysia’s Immigration Department, seeking RM2.67 million in compensation for his 37-day detention in an over-crowded cell.

Puis Gilbert Louis, who will be 68 this July, said his ordeal started with his arrest by immigration officers during a 10.10pm raid of his house in Johor Baru on October 9, 2018.

In his statement of claim filed by his lawyer Arun Kasi, Louis was said to have a valid visa then to be in Malaysia until November 7, 2018, and that the four others in the house were a female friend from the Philippines with a proper visa and three individuals invited by the friend.

Claiming to not know which country the three individuals belonged to or their immigration status, Louis suggested his arrest could be over the alleged illegal harbouring of the three who were allegedly illegal immigrants but noted he was not told that this was the reason and was not charged for it.

Louis was said to have managed to use his mobile phone to notify his family and friends through Facebook of his arrest while he was taken from the house to the Setia Tropika immigration office, where immigration officials allegedly took away all his belongings including his mobile phone, wallet, cash, house keys, car keys and shoes.

At the Setia Tropika immigration centre, Louis alleged he was kept in a cramped cell with 100 other detainees where he could only sleep on a “bare dirty floor” before his transfer the next morning to the Pekan Nanas immigration camp.

Louis, who is said to be a claustrophobe and suffers from asthma, was alleged to have been transported handcuffed to another detention centre in an eight-seater truck compartment with about 30 other detainees.

Louis allegedly had breathing difficulties during his trip to the Pekan Nanas immigration camp due to the cramped conditions, and had to be pushed to an open window in the truck compartment to get air; he ended up getting wet due to the heavy rain then.

‘Horrifying’ cell

Louis was allegedly detained for the next 36 days until November 14, 2018 in an overcrowded cell that was meant to be for 50 people only, but housed about 130 during his time at the Pekan Nanas immigration camp.

“The condition was so horrifying and terrifying that ordinarily it would not be expected that any human being would be kept under that condition.

“The toilet was within the cell and was dirty and open. No clean water was available for drinking. Food was provided in an unhygienic condition,” his statement of claim sighted by Malay Mail said.
Louis claimed the generally warm cell had no fan and limited ventilation, with most detainees “sweating and smelling bad”, noting that detainees also slept in cramped conditions.

He listed items that were not provided to him and the detainees, including mat, pillow, blanket, footwear, toiletries including soap and towel, change of clothing; saying that he had to walk barefoot and sleep on a dirty bare floor.

He said he wore the same clothes for the first 14 days, and only changed his clothes once when he was brought to his house after 14 days for the immigration officers to view a CCTV recording there.
“Many of the detainees did not take a bath for long... Many of them were scratching their bodies badly and diseases including herpes were spreading,” he said.

Louis said he only managed to shower after the first 10 days after he managed to buy soap at an “excessive price” from an alleged privately-operated store.

“A small bottle of drinking water cost RM10. Purchase was limited by amount and time,” Louis’ statement of claim said, alleging that the payments were taken from his wallet held by immigration officers and from money given by visitors.

Louis said other detainees viewed him as a relatively well-to-do person and that he had to purchase items for them to avoid being “disturbed or harmed”, claiming that he and the rest had to buy things for a self-proclaimed leader among those detained.

He claimed to have paid for the ferry tickets costing RM350 each for three Indonesians who were detained for about two years, as the trio lacked the money to buy the tickets or were unable to communicate with their families to arrange for the tickets.

Louis allegedly contracted diseases due to the detention conditions and lost substantial weight, but could only seek medical treatment after release, the statement of claim said.

Louis claimed to have informed immigration officials upon arrival at the Pekan Nanas immigration camp that he was under medication for his heart condition and that his life would be at threat without medication, but said he was mostly without proper medication other than when a government doctor outside the camp provided medicine for a few days.  

Arun said no lawyer was allowed to visit his client during detention, with family and friends allowed limited access and that Arun himself who came as a friend was able to speak with Louis for only 20 minutes.

Alleging that seeking access to justice was hampered by restrictions such as a commissioner of oaths being denied a meeting with Louis to have him affirm an affidavit for court purposes, the statement of claim said many detainees in the camp did not have communication with the outside world for many months.

“The conditions of detention transgressed all basic standards of detaining humans and was without regard to any minimum standards of humanity and inflicted cruelty against humanity,” the statement of claim said.

‘Degrading treatment’

In the statement of claim, Louis alleged the treatment received throughout his detention amounted to “torture” and “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment” (CIDTP) as defined under international conventions, and that it breaches Articles 5 and 7(1) of the Federal Constitution.

Article 7(1) states that no one shall be punished for actions that were not punishable by law when it was taken, and no one shall suffer greater punishment for an offence than prescribed by the laws existing then.

The statement of claim noted that Louis had through his lawyers written to the Immigration director-general on November 1, 2018 but received no response, and had on November 9 filed a habeas corpus application at the High Court.

But just a day before the scheduled hearing for Louis’ habeas corpus application or challenge against his detention, he was released on November 14 with a seven-day special pass and he left Malaysia within that period, while his legal challenge was withdrawn from court as he had been released from detention.

Louis claimed his arrest was unlawful as there was allegedly no valid reason for the arrest with no investigation carried out for any offence or no charges pressed against him, and as he was not presented before a magistrate.

Louis claims that his arrest violated the Federal Constitution’s Article 5, which provides that no one is to be deprived of their personal liberty unless in accordance to law, and that a person arrested shall be informed of the reasons for the arrest and be allowed to consult lawyers.

Article 5(4) also comes with a provision that a non-Malaysian who is arrested cannot be further detained beyond 14 days without being brought before a magistrate and with the magistrate’s authority, in contrast to a Malaysian who has to be produced before a magistrate without unreasonable delay and within 24 hours, which Louis said infringes on the Constitution’s Article 8(1) guarantee of non-discrimination and equality for all before the law.

Arguing the amendment that led to the different timeframe for non-Malaysians was unconstitutional and unlawful, Louis’ lawyer argued that this made his continued detention beyond 24 hours without being brought to court also unlawful and unconstitutional.

The lawsuit was filed in the High Court in Kuala Lumpur on May 28 against the Immigration Department of Malaysia’s director-general and the Malaysian government.

In the lawsuit, Louis is seeking RM840,000 in aggravated damages over his distress suffered during his arrest and throughout his detention as well as the alleged continued stress after release.

Louis is also seeking RM1.83 million in exemplary damages, including RM700,000 over his detention without heart medication that allegedly put his life at risk, RM370,000 for infringement of the Constitution by not presenting him before a magistrate, RM360,000 for the conditions he was detained under, and RM100,000 each for four items including for failing to provide basic toiletries and necessities, and violation of constitutional safeguards linked to arrest and for unlawful arrest.

He is also seeking a declaration that he was subjected to torture and treatment considered CIDTP, and declarations that such treatment is prohibited under the Federal Constitution due to Articles 5 and 7, as well as a declaration that the amended constitutional clause that gives rise to different treatment for non-citizens is unlawful, unconstitutional and invalid.

Arun said the court papers for the lawsuit have been served on the Attorney General’s Chambers.

Malay Mail has contacted the Immigration Department for its comment, but did not receive a reply. - Malay Mail, 12/6/2019


Local man sues Malaysia’s Immigration Department for RM2.67 million over ‘unlawful arrest’ and ‘degrading treatment’ during detention


A Singaporean man, who is a retired teacher and a well-known musician, is suing Malaysia’s Immigration Department for RM2.67 million over his 37-day detention in an over-crowded and badly-maintained cell.

Puis Gilbert Louis, who will turn 68 next month, said that his nightmare started when the immigration officers raided his house in Johor Bahru on 9 October 2018 and arrested him.

Based on his statement of claim filed by his lawyer Arun Kasi, the man who owns a valid visa to be in Malaysia until 2 November 2018, was in the house with four other individuals, and one of them was his female friend from the Philippines who also holds a valid visa.

However, the additional three people in the house were friends of his Filipino friend and he is unaware of their origin or their immigration status.

Mr Louis claims that his arrest could be possibly due to the alleged illegal harbouring of the three who were apparently illegal immigrants. But, he expressed that he was not informed if he was arrested for this reason or charged for it.

Detention at Setia Tropika Immigration Office

Upon his arrest, Mr Louis was brought over to the Setia Tropika Immigration Centre (STIC) and during his journey, he managed to use his mobile phone to inform his family and friends of his arrest through Facebook before the officials took away all his belongings including his phone, wallet, cash, house keys, car keys and shoes.

In STIC, he was placed in an over-crowded cell with 100 other detainees. The condition of the space was extremely bad and he could only sleep on a “bare dirty floor beside a foul-smelling squalid open toilet” before he was transferred to the Pekan Nanas immigration camp the next morning.

When he was transported handcuffed the next day to another detention centre, he was kept in an eight-seater truck compartment with about 30 other detainees. This then caused him to have breathing difficulties as he claims to be claustrophobe and suffers from chronic asthma and heart diseases.

With the help of other detainees, he was pushed to an open window in the truck compartment to breathe fresh air, but got completely wet due to the heavy rain that particular day.

Horrible cell condition

Mr Louis claimed that he was detained for the next 36 days until 14 November 2018 and placed in a cell with about 130 people under a cramped condition, although the cell should only house 50 people.

“The condition was so horrifying and terrifying that ordinarily it would not be expected that any human being would be kept under that condition. The toilet was within the cell and was dirty and open. No clean water was available for drinking. Food was provided in an unhygienic condition,” said his statement of claim.

Adding to that, he mentioned that basic necessities were not given to all detainees including mat, pillow, blanket, footwear, toiletries like soap and towel, as well as change of clothing. He also had to walk barefoot and slept on a dirty bare floor.

In fact, he wore the same clothes for the first 14 days, and only got to change his attire after he was brought over to his house so that the immigration officers can look at a CCTV recording there.

As for taking a shower, he only had one after the first 10 days as he managed to purchase soap at an extremely high rate from an alleged privately-operated store.

“A small bottle of drinking water cost RM10. Purchase was limited by amount and time,” revealed his statement of claim, adding that the payments were taken from his wallet kept by immigration officers and from money given by visitors.

Since he was viewed as a relatively rich person, other detainees also took advantage of him and he had to buy items for them in order to avoid being “disturbed or harmed”.

He also said he had to pay RM350 each for three Indonesians for their ferry tickets as they didn’t have the money to get hold of the tickets or were unable to get in touch with their families to arrange for the tickets.

Besides that, Mr Arun also noted that no lawyers were allowed to visit their clients, and family and friends were only given limited access, forcing the lawyer to enter the detention centre posing as Mr Louis’s friend.

Claiming that seeking access to justice was denied by restrictions such as a commissioner of oath not allowed to meet the Singaporean man to have him affirm an affidavit for court purposes, the statement of claim expressed that many other detainees did not communicate with anyone outside for months.

“The condition of detention transgressed all basic standards of detaining humans and was without regard to any minimum standards of humanity and inflicted cruelty against humanity”.

Cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment

Mr Louis said that the treatment he received during his detention “falls within the definition of torture and of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment (CIDTP)” as defined under international conventions. He added that it breaches Article 5 and 7(1) of the Federal Constitution.

In Article 7(1), it is said that no any individual should be punished for actions that were not punishable by law when it was taken, and no one shall suffer greater punishment for an offence than was prescribed by law at the time it was committed.

The statement of claim also revealed that the Singaporean man had written to the Immigration director-general on 1 November 2018 through his lawyers but did not receive any reply, and had also filed a habeas corpus application at the High Court, about a week later (9 November).

However, he was released on 14 November with a seven-day special pass, just a day before his scheduled hearing for his habeas corpus application or challenge against his detention.

Upon his release, the man left Malaysia and his legal challenge was withdrawn because he had been released from detention.

Mr Louis claimed that his detention was unlawful as there was allegedly no valid reason for the arrest and no investigation was done for any offence pressed or no charges pressed against him. He was also not presented before any magistrate.

As such, he pointed out that his arrest violated the Federal Constitution’s Article 5, which says that no one is to be deprived of their personal liberty unless in accordance to law, and that an individual who is arrested shall be told the reasons of the arrest and be allowed to consult lawyers.

On the other hand, Article 5(4) comes with a provision that an arrested non-Malaysian cannot be detained more than 14 days without being brought before a magistrate and with the magistrate’s authority, however a Malaysian has to be produced before a magistrate without unreasonable delay within 24 hours.

Mr Louis also highlighted that infringes on the Constitution’s Article 8(1) promise non-discrimination and equality for all before the law.

As such, he argues that amendment that caused different timeframe given to non-Malaysians shows that it is unconstitutional and unlawful.

In the lawsuit, Mr Louis is seeking a total of RM2.67 million, with RM840, 000 for damages over his distress suffered during his arrest and throughout his detention, and RM1.83 million in other exemplary damages.

He is also seeking a declaration that he was projected to torture and treatment considered CIDTP, and this treatment is prohibited under the Federal Constitution particularly seen in Article 5 and 7. In addition, he also wants a declaration that the amended constitutional clause that allows different treatment for non-Malaysians is unlawful, unconstitutional and invalid.

The lawsuit was filed in the High Court in Kuala Lumpur on 28 May against the Immigration Department of Malaysia’s director-general and the Malaysian government. His lawyer also said that the court papers for the lawsuit have been served on the Attorney General’s Chambers. - TOC, 12/6/2019