Friday, July 29, 2022

How can Malaysian MPs say SOSMA detention for 28 days for investigation without Magistrate's monitoring and remand orders is OK or safe? Torture, Abuse of Police Powers?

Media Statement – 30/7/2022

111 MPs vote to extend SOSMA provision 28 day post-arrest detention without Magistrate’s supervision indicates a lack of commitment for Human Rights.

MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) is most disappointed in the 111 Members of Parliament of Malaysia in the Dewan Rakyat that voted in favour of extending the power of the police under Section 4(5) to hold suspects of the offences listed under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012(SOSMA) for not more than 28 days for the purpose of investigation, without the need to bring these detained suspects before the Magistrate to obtain remand orders. The Magistrate plays a most important role in preventing or reducing police abuse, and even possibly torture.

On 27/7/2020, the extension of the Sosma provision, as required by section 4(11) SOSMA was approved after 111 MPs voted in favour and 88 against, with the remaining 21 absent.

Section 4(5) SOSMA provides that ‘Notwithstanding subsection (4), a police officer of or above the rank of Superintendent of Police may extend the period of detention for a period of not more than twenty-eight days, for the purpose of investigation.’

However, Section 4(11), however imposed an obligation on Parliament to review the continued applicability this Section 4(5), and it states, ‘Subsection (5) shall be reviewed every five years and shall cease to have effect unless, upon the review, a resolution is passed by both Houses of parliament to extend the period of operation of the provision.’

The last extension is set to expire on July 31, and that is why it came before Parliament.

It must be noted that if Section 4(5) is not extended, then police after arrest would have to bring arrested suspect before the Magistrate within 24 hours, and application for further remand by the police for the purposes of investigation. The maximum remand 14 days, which is really more than sufficient for investigations to be completed by competent officers, and these suspects could then be charged in court, and once charged they will be in detention as SOSMA still unjustly says no Bail for any of listed SOSMA offences.

It is disappointing that some MPs, even Ministers, seem to have forgotten about the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in court. Those arrested by the police are mere suspects and the purpose of the detention post arrest is only for one purpose, that is investigation. It is not to punish and not for any other purposes. Maybe the government should now disclose how many persons were arrested for SOSMA listed offences, and at the end of the day were not even charged but released.

Hence, it was shocking to read that our Home Minister Datuk Seri Hamzah Zainudin said, “It is unfair to say that those nabbed are oppressed when we know they are in the wrong,”(Star, 27/7/2022).

MADPET reiterates that it is not for the police or the Home Minister to say someone is in the wrong or a criminal, for that right of determining the guilt or innocence is only with the Courts who will decide after a fair trial.

Section 4(5) SOSMA legalize the violation of the right of a suspect of certain crimes in Malaysia, and it also goes against Article 5(4) of the Federal Constitution which states that ‘(4) Where a person is arrested and not released he shall without unreasonable delay, and in any case within twenty-four hours (excluding the time of any necessary journey) be produced before a magistrate and shall not be further detained in custody without the magistrate"s authority’.

The bringing before the Magistrate is to ensure that the police do not abuse their powers, and to also make sure that the detainee is not subjected to illegalities by the police including torture. When brought before the Magistrate, he/she can make sure that everything is done according the law, and the detainee suspect and/or his/her lawyer have the right and/or ability to disclose to the Magistrates the wrongdoings and abuses of power of the police, and the Magistrate can do the needful to end future wrongdoings, or even act of past abuses. The Magistrate’s role is a most necessary check and balance against abuses and wrongdoings of the police.

In the past, remand for the purposes of remand was 14 days, and some Magistrate did simply order 14 days remand on the first application by the police, which puts the detainee suspects at risk of abuses and wrongdoings of the police.

Parliament, in its wisdom, amended the Criminal Procedure Code vide Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 2006. A new version of section 117(2) was inserted, which today reads,

‘The Magistrate before whom an accused person is produced under this section may, whether he has or has no jurisdiction to try the case, authorize the detention of the accused in such custody as follows:

    (a) if the offence which is being investigated is punishable with imprisonment of less than fourteen years, the detention shall not be more than four days on the first application and shall not be more than three days on the second application; or

    (b) if the offence which is being investigated is punishable with death or imprisonment of fourteen years or more, the detention shall not be more than seven days on the first application and shall not be more than seven days on the second application."

For lesser offences, the Magistrate could now order remand for not more than 4 days on first application by the police, and not more than 3 days on 2nd application. For serious offences, even murder, on 1st application remand could be no more than 7 days. This was done by Parliament to end the possibility of abuses by the police, that can arise through long uncheck periods of detention for the purposes of investigation.

Home Minister was wrong when during the debate, he said that more time was required to turn suspects into witnesses to catch bosses. He said, “For cases of gangsterism, it is difficult for us to nab the bosses, if we don’t have those working for them as witnesses. Sometimes, it takes one to two weeks to convince them to be a witness,”(Star, 27/7/2022).

MADPET reminds the Minister that the purpose of detention of suspects is just for the purpose of investigation of the suspect’s alleged crime – it is certainly not for ulterior motives of ‘pressuring’ detained suspects to turn into prosecution witnesses. It is not to get evidence for crimes of another.

Post arrest detention is only for purpose of investigation, and is not for punishment or any other ulterior purposes.

Now, the extension of the application of Section 4(5) SOSMA will now need the approval of Senate, and MADPET hopes that Malaysian Senators will act justly and reject extending this provision for another 5 years.

MADPET calls for the abolition of Section 4(5) SOSMA, and for Malaysia to maintain the important monitoring and check and balance role Magistrates play in this aspect of the administration of justice. The bringing of arrested suspects before the Magistrate within 24 hours, and no further detention orders until the Magistrate after hearing both parties allows. The maximum period of each remand order even for the SOSMA listed offence must be limited to not more than 7, or using the same formula as provided for in our Criminal Procedure Code, being depending on the maximum sentence each offence.

MADPET reminds that there have been too many deaths in police custody, some of which the police have been directly responsible for. There is also possible a lot of torture and other abuses that happen during this detention for investigation, but many a victim is afraid to report or seek justice for fear of possible repercussions.

MADPET reiterate the call for the abolition of SOSMA, and let all criminal cases investigated and prosecuted in accordance to the Malaysian Criminal Procedure Code and Evidence Act. In the interim, a reduction of the list of SOSMA offences just limited to offences that caused harm and/or death to victims would be good.


Charles Hector

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

Nod for 28-day detention under Sosma

Wednesday, 27 Jul 2022

DESPITE strong opposition, the motion to extend the detention period of suspects under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma) was passed in the Dewan Rakyat in the second attempt.

The motion was put for a bloc vote with a total of 111 MPs voting in support. Another 88 voted against it while 21 were absent.

Datuk Seri Hamzah Zainudin in his winding up speech on the debate of the Bill said it takes time to investigate bigger cases.

“For cases of gangsterism, it is difficult for us to nab the bosses, if we don’t have those working for them as witnesses. Sometimes, it takes one to two weeks to convince them to be a witness,” he said.

Hamzah added the Bill was not “cruel” and was in the interest of the country.

“It is unfair to say that those nabbed are oppressed when we know they are in the wrong,” he added.

A fiery moment occurred in the House when Mohamed Hanipa Maidin (PH-Sepang) interjected and labelled Hamzah as “goblok” (imbecile) and “bodoh” (stupid).

Hamzah was visibly taken aback and Speaker Tan Sri Azhar Azizan Harun, who was chairing the session, said he will be issuing a final warning to MPs in the House against using such language.

Several MPs demanded Hanipa retract his words, but Hamzah said there wasn’t a need to do so, as such an uncouth behaviour displayed in Parliament will be witnessed by Malaysians who will be voting in the upcoming national polls.

“That is why we should reject him beginning today and God-willing, Malaysians will realise that this man cannot be given a place in this noble House,” added Hamzah.

The law under Sosma is enforceable for a five-year period and required a nod from Dewan Rakyat to extend it for a further five years.

Last Wednesday, the House passed a Bill to revoke its earlier decision not to extend Sosma.

This was done as a Bill, which was defeated, cannot be retabled again until a full year has passed unless revoked.

During the previous Dewan Rakyat meeting on March 23, the motion to extend the enforcement of subsection 4(5) of Sosma which allows for the detention of suspects for up to 28 days without trial, was voted down by MPs.

The five-year limit for the provision ends on July 31, 2022. - Star, 27/7/2022

Tuesday, July 26, 2022

Sabri Umar's freedom of movement restricted as Immigration delays in issuing 'Special Pass'?

Update: Sabri Umar have applied for a Special Pass from the Immigration Department on 25/7/2022, and the Immigration Department first said he will get it 3 days time, and now they are saying that it will take a week. 

The worry of everyone is that Sabri may speedily sent out of Malaysia - hence hindering his rights and ability to pursue justice against all that caused his wrongful conviction, wrongful imprisonment and wrongful(and illegal) whipping.

Sabri also has an application for REINSTATEMENT pending now at the Industrial Relations Department. Procedures before the Labour Department and/or Industrial Relations Department requires the attendance of the Claimant/Complainant - a failure to attend may result in an END of the process towards justice.
In Sabri's case, the Immigration Department has cause to WORRY as they send the report that they have NO RECORDS about him, FALSE as they who issue work permits must have full records. This mistake, made the Session Court, make a serious error of convicting a properly documented migrant, as a undocumented migrant sentencing him to 11 months in prison, and 5 strokes of the WHIP.
Is this 'worry' causing the Immigration Delay? 
Many a migrant worker had been sent out of Malaysia back to the country of origin, and thus the ability of claiming for monies owed to them by employer, and complaints against the employer or others to just end without the justice being done - the PERPETRATOR of rights violation escape...and the victimized migrant worker is the LOSER. 
Is that why some prefer to employ migrant workers - after all it is so easy to violate their rights, and deny them the ability to pursue their rights in Malaysia's available avenues of justice.
A 'Special Pass' is needed to remain legally in Malaysia - so, one really do not understand why the delay on the part of the Immigration Department. Sabri may want to go file police reports - but he is at risk of being arrested now, so until he gets a 'Special Pass' he has to stay in the Indonesian Consulate...

Justice for Sabri Umar: Do not deport wrongly convicted migrant worker

Monday, 25 Jul 2022 7:27 AM MYT 

WE, the 19 undersigned groups, are pleased that Sabri Umar was acquitted and released from prison in Sabah on July 22, 2022, by Justice Lim Hock Leng at the Tawau High Court.

He had been wrongly convicted on April 19, 2022, by the Sessions Court of being in Malaysia illegally when, in fact, he is a documented migrant worker with a valid work permit. This is evident from, among others, his Indonesian passport, which was seized by Malaysian police on April 5, 2022.

While awaiting the outcome of his appeal, Sabri was wrongfully caned. The Prisons Department, in a letter dated July 18, 2022, stated that the caning had only been carried out after it received a letter from the Sessions Court saying that there were no appeals from any party. This was wrong as Sabri's appeal yet to be heard.

The High Court acknowledged that the caning was against Malaysian law, which prohibits the carrying out of the sentence of caning a convicted person until appeals are exhausted. This was also confirmed by the Prisons Department.

The highlighting of this miscarriage of justice against Sabri via a media statement released on July 19 by 45 human rights groups as well as various letters – including from Sabri’s union, Sabah Timber Industry Employees Union – got the High Court’s attention and led to the calling up of Sabri’s case for revision on July 22.

Sabri has commenced a claim for reinstatement by reason of wrongful dismissal at the Industrial Relations Department, which is progressing and will be referred to the Industrial Court. Sabri wants to work and live legally in Malaysia, and his wife is also a migrant worker in the country legally.

We are now worried that Sabri may be deported in an attempt to stop investigations into possible wrongful actions by government agencies that caused an innocent man to be wrongfully charged, convicted and sentenced to 11 months imprisonment and five strokes of the rotten.

Being outside of Malaysia may impede Sabri’s quest for justice.

The speedy deportation of migrants out of Malaysia, even when they have valid claims against employers and/or others, stops them from pursing justice because their physical presence is usually required in the courts. Calls to confirm whether migrant workers have existing claims or ongoing cases before sending them out of the country have yet to receive positive responses.

Therefore, we:

> Call on Malaysia and/or Indonesia not to cause Sabri to be sent out of Malaysia before he can exercise all his rights/claims through Malaysian avenues of justice, including his present claim for reinstatement by reason of wrongful dismissal at the Industrial Court;

> Call on all parties to not threaten, deceive and/or pressure Sabri into not exercising his right to claim for damages, compensation and justice;

> Call on the government of Malaysia to ensure that Sabri can continue to work and stay legally in Malaysia until all his claims for justice are determined and satisfied.




For and on behalf of the following 19 organisations:


Madpet (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

Building and Wood Workers International-Asia Pacific Region

WH4C (Workers Hub For Change)

North-South Initiative

Black Women for Wages for Housework, United States

Center for Alliance of Labor and Human Rights, Cambodia

Centre for Orang Asli Concerns, Malaysia

Club Employees Union, Peninsular Malaysia

Haiti Action Committee

Labour Law Reform Coalition, Malaysia

Network of Action For Migrants in Malaysia

Sabah Plantation Industry Employees Union, Malaysia

Sabah Timber Industry Employees Union

Teoh Beng Hock Trust for Democracy

The William Gomes Podcast, United Kingdom

Timber Employees Union, Peninsular Malaysia

Union of Forestry Employee Sarawak

Women of Color/Global Women’s Strike, United States and United Kingdom  - Star, 25/7/2022

Rights groups fume over migrant worker’s 'wrongful' whipping

Published:  Jul 20, 2022 12:09 PM
Updated: 12:09 PM

Forty-five human rights groups have expressed their shock that an Indonesian migrant worker, Sabri Umar, was whipped at Tawau Prison last month on June 23.

The whipping was carried out despite a pending appeal at the High Court concerning Sabri’s sentence from the Sessions Court.

The groups released a joint statement this morning that was signed off by renowned human rights activist Charles Hector and Apolinar Tolentino, the Malaysian Representative at Building and Wood Workers International (BWI) Asia Pacific Region.

The statement said Sabri’s conviction by the Sessions Court and subsequent whipping as “wrongful”.

“On 19 April, the Sessions Court convicted Sabri for committing the offence pursuant to Section 6(1)(c) Immigration Act 1959/63 and sentenced him to 11 months imprisonment and 5 whippings.

“He was unrepresented at the time,” it said.

The statement added the perusal of court documents revealed that the immigration documents tendered to the court were false.

“It stated there were no records of entry and exit for Sabri.

“It failed to disclose the truth, that Sabri was indeed a documented migrant worker for the past seven years and that he was in the employ of one Fu Yee Corporation Sdn Bhd in Tawau, Sabah.

“His work permit also has been renewed by the Immigration Department in 2022 and should be reasonably valid for a year,” it said.

The human rights groups also added that whipping as a corporal punishment must be abolished.

“Sabri’s case has come to light, but there is concern about whether others have been whipped before their appeal is heard and disposed of.

“Whipping is a corporal punishment that inflicts serious physical and psychological injury, where victims are known to pass out even before the full sentence is carried out,” they said.

The groups also called on the government to issue an apology and the abolishment of whipping as a sentence.

“We call for Malaysia to immediately apologise and do the needful to ensure justice is done for the wrongful or illegal whipping of Sabri Umar.

“We (also) call for the immediate abolition of whipping, a form of corporal punishment in Malaysia,” they said. - Malaysiakini, 20/7/2022


Already whipped Indonesian migrant worker acquitted on revision by High Court

Editor’s Note: Amendment was made to earlier version of headline

SABRI Umar (pic above), the Indonesian migrant worker who was wrongly convicted for being in Malaysia illegally – but was whipped prior to his appeal – was acquitted by the Tawau High Court in Sabah yesterday (July 22) following a revision of his conviction.

Sabri who was represented by Jhasarry Kang on behalf of the Tawau branch Indonesian Consulate was acquitted by High Court Judge Dr Lim Hock Leng after the defence contended that the learned Sessions Court Judge had failed to check the exhibits shown under “Exh P3” that Sabri indeed possessed a valid passport and work pass.

At the same time, Sabri had also misunderstood that if he were to plead guilty, he would be deported by May 2022 but instead he was sentenced to 11 months of imprisonment and five strokes of the cane, according to the notes of proceedings of the High Court.

Unfortunately, the whipping had been carried out on June 23 as per confirmed by the Prison Department.

Recently, some 45 groups and organisations led by the Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET) have cried foul over Sabri’s whipping at the Tawau Prison on June 23 despite his High Court appeal has yet to be heard following his conviction/sentence by the Sessions Court.

An investigation would have revealed that Sabri was a documented worker who cannot be charged under Section 6(1)( c) of the Immigration Act 1959/63, according to the 45 groups and organisations in a joint statement.

Sabri, a union member of the Sabah Timber Industry Employees Union (STIEU), has claimed that he was wrongfully terminated by his employer, Fu Yee Corp Sdn Bhd, on April 4 this year prior to being arrested by the police the next day and detained until he was charged and convicted on April 19.

However, he did manage to file a wrongful dismissal claim in the Industrial Relations Department on the same day (April 19) to seek reinstatement whereby this process is on-going.

“The employer who knew that Sabri was not an undocumented worker failed to bring to the attention of the police, prosecutors and court this material fact which reasonably would have meant Sabri would not be charged, let alone be convicted for being illegally in Malaysia under Section 6(1)( c) Immigration Act,” the joint media statement by the group of 45 had pointed out.

“Fu Yee Corp (the employer) should be doing the needed to end the current serious miscarriage of justice,” added the joint statement. – July 23, 2022, Focus Malaysia

High Court frees Indonesian man who was caned while waiting for appeal

KOTA KINABALU: A migrant worker, who was whipped while appealing his conviction for staying illegally in Malaysia, has been acquitted by the Tawau High Court.

Justice Lim Hock Leng acquitted Indonesian worker Sabri Umar on Friday (July 22) following his appeal against his conviction by the Sessions Court on April 19 this year.

Sabri was sentenced to 11 months’ jail and five strokes of the rotan under Section 6(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1959/63 after he pleaded guilty to the offence.

The High Court judgment came after lawyers from legal firm Jussary Kang, representing the Indonesia Consulate Tawau branch, took up Sabri's case for wrongful imprisonment.

Sabri's lawyers argued that he was in possession of a valid Indonesian passport and had a work pass from a company, Fu Yee Corporation.

The court was told that Sabri, who was unrepresented when he was charged at the Tawau Sessions Court, had pleaded guilty in the mistaken belief that he would be deported in May 2022.

They argued that though he pleaded guilty, the Sessions Court did not check that Sabri had a valid passport when pleading for the High Court to set aside the conviction.

The court was told that Sabri was caned on June 23 despite his case being appealed since April 21, this year.

Sabri's case drew strong condemnation from human rights groups after he was caned at the Tawau prison despite his appeal against the conviction yet to be heard by the Tawau High Court.

In a joint statement released on July 19, 24 NGOs led by the Malaysian Representative at Building and Wood Workers International (BWI) Asia Pacific Region said that the whipping was wrongful.

The groups also called on the government to issue an apology and the abolition of whipping as a sentence.- Star, 23/7/2022


Government not serious about 'Anti-Party Hopping' - the current Bill is only amending Freedom of Association?? Opposition also not serious?

UPDATE - Recent check of the Parliament website revealed Anti-Hopping Bill, i.e. the amended Constitutional (Amendment) (No 3) Bill 2022 is so MUCH better - Earlier, when the post first released, a search of the Parliament website only disclosed the earlier,  yet to be amended version of the Bill. Demand greater efficiency of Parliamentary website - when Bills tabled, immediately it should be up on the website. When there is an amendment, that amendment must be up on the parliament website fast.

there is 

- Article 48(6) is deleted

- New Article 49A  

    - MPs that leave the party or join another party, after standing and getting elected as a candidate of a party, will cease to be MPs - and there will be elections. {For those expelled by the party, this does not apply]

    - MPs who stood as Independent, but ...more to follow


It seems that the government is CONFUSED about the anti-hopping law. 

1 - There is still NO Anti-Party Hopping Bill that has been tabled in Parliament - nobody knows the content of that law.

2.  Constitutional (Amendment) (No 3) Bill 2022 is just amending Article 10  Freedom of speech, assembly and association, to now include basically a new 3A

(3a) Notwithstanding paragraph (c) of Clause (2) and Clause (3), restrictions on the right to form associations conferred by paragraph (c) of Clause (1) relating to membership in a political party of members of the House of Representatives and members of the State Legislative Assembly may also be imposed by federal law.”.
3.    Article 10(1)(c)  now states, 'all citizens have the right to form associations.' But this right is diminished by Art. 10(2)(c) that states, '(c) on the right conferred by paragraph (c) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, public order or morality.

And Article 10(3) specifically add special provisions for associations on labour and education. '(3) Restrictions on the right to form associations conferred by paragraph (c) of Clause (1) may also be imposed by any law relating to labour or education.'. Why should there be 'special provisions' if women workers or out-station workers or even migrant workers want to form an association to promote and fight for their rights?

The new proposed amendment is trying to deal with the rights of association of political parties.

4.    Now, it has been pointed out that in the Federal Constitution, there is a specific provision in Article 48 - that deals when a MP will be disqualified - there is a specific list.   

Article 48  Disqualification for membership of Parliament  provides a specific list of situation when a MP or Senator will be disqualified. So if you want to add a new situation like when a MP, who stood for election as a PAS candidate, will be automatically disqualified if he leaves the party, then he will be immediately disqualified(meaning a by election will be called) - this party-hopping will cause disqualification must be included in Article 48, if not no future 'anti-party hopping' ordinary law, even if intends to do the same thing will be effective because of Article 48. In Article 48, there is nothing in the list that says or in any other situation as some future Federal law decides...

5.  Not amending Article 48 of the Federal Constitution is waste of time and a possible deception of the citizenship. I expected that Constitutional (Amendment) (No 3) Bill 2022 would have solved this problem, and brought in an amendment of Article 48. Sadly, it did not happen.

6.   Constitutional (Amendment) (No 3) Bill 2022, as it is now is NOT AN ANTI-PARTY HOPPING LAW. They say it is needed before a more specific anti-hopping Bill will be tabled - I thought that at this Parliamentary session this proposed REAL 'anti-hopping Bill' will be shown to us and tabled - it did not happen?

7. It looks that our political parties, and even MPs, want to still be able to 'steal' or take in MPs from other parties after GE15. It is disappointing.

8.  On freedom of association, it should be  guaranteed for all associations including political parties. If an MP chooses to leave his party and join another party, it must always be his/her right to do so. But, when a MP leaves the party, what VOTERS want is the ability to choose again by way of elections whether they still want the said MP who has after elections joined a different party or became an independent - that is all. The MP who changed parties must also have the right to contest again in the by-elections, so voters have the choice to elect back the same person, or choose another as their MP. That is what people wants.

9.  Should anti-hopping laws cover Senators as well - of course, it must cover all Parliamentarians - MPs and Senators?

10.    What about State Assemblypersons( ADUNs) - well Parliament have no jurisdiction to enact anti-hopping laws for ADUNs - the jurisdiction rest with the respective States. Has any State Goverments, noting that today State governments are under different parties - PN, BN, PH  ... The fact that no States seems to have enacted anti-hopping laws means that both Federal government  parties and Opposition parties may really be not interested in making any anti-hopping laws?

11.    Why do MPs leave their political parties? Is it because they no longer agree with their party's stance or position on a fundamental issue? Or is it that they have been 'wooed' to join another party with promises of MONEY, POSITIONS or even maybe assurance of not being further investigated or charged for crimes committed, withdrawal of pending cases, etc...? What do you think?

12.    Wan Junaidi seems to say that the approval of the RULERS are needed - so, are we trying to blame Rulers for the delay in enacting on an anti-hopping law? In any event, for a Federal law - Dewan Rakyat approves, then the Senate approves, and lastly the RULERS will have to give their assent - Rulers are already involved at this stage. You do not need the prior approval of the King/Rulers before tabling and passing laws in the Dewan Rakyat and Senate... Can Wan Junaidi explain the legal basis for his statement?

13.    If the government does not want to enact anti-party hopping laws, that gives voters right to CONFIRM by way of elections whether they still want a particular person as their MP or not, then be HONEST about it... And, we the voters, will have our say come next elections >>> will we vote those who do not want to enact anti-hopping laws or those who want to do so...? THE PEOPLE WILL SPEAK OUT...


WHEN THE VOTER WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE CANDIDATE SIMPLY VOTES ANY CANDIDATE OF A PARTICULAR PARTY, THAT IS WHERE THE PROBLEM LIES. Some say, put a fool as a party candidate, and he will win because the people simply vote on which party the candidate comes from...

Should we change our elections - and ask people to vote for parties, and if the parties win, they decide on the candidate? - The Party List???

Or should we maintain our system - but on a party-list for an additional 100 MPs. Not taking into account the winner's vote, the loser parties vote all our Malaysia is taken into account, and the 100 Party List MPs is chosen on the basis of the percentage obtained in the losing votes?? Think about this..


See earlier posts:-

Anti-Hopping laws - it is about VOTER rights - has it been hijacked by political parties?

People must know now contents of Anti-Hopping Bill - wrong for politicians and political parties to discuss alone, with ordinary voters kept in the dark?

Party Hopping Bill will not end deprival of voter rights, unless Art. 48 of Constitution amended - disqualifying MPs that change parties after election 

Anti-Hopping laws for people - NOT for party to 'enslave' or gag further their members who are MPs? Malaysian Bar Resolution

Azalina Othman, not voting as party 'orders' is NOT Party Hopping? Neither is being 'expelled' from your party? 

'Lompat Party'/ Party Hoping Motion to be discussed at Bar EGM

Selangor State Assembly hypocricy exposed if they do not enact State laws to prevent anti-party hopping of ADUNs?

Automatic Elections if MP hops to another party? If still enjoy confidence of people, they will get elected again?


Wan Junaidi: Senators, state reps not covered by anti-hopping law

New laws to restrict MPs from switching parties will not cover members of the upper house, said Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Parliament and Law) Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar.

Speaking to reporters in Parliament, Wan Junaidi said the matter was discussed by the select committee set up to review the relevant bill, but the committee decided that the law will only cover MPs.

He said it was up to the government to decide whether or not to include senators in the future.

"The select committee decided to concentrate (on MPs) first. If the need arises in the future, the government can decide whether to include senators," he added.

While MPs are elected by voters, senators are selected by 13 legislative assemblies (two for each state) and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the advice of the prime minister.

Unlike MPs, senators have no say over who gets to be prime minister.

Wan Junaidi was speaking to reporters after his briefing for government MPs on the Constitutional (Amendment) (No 3) Bill 2022 which will introduce new laws to restrict MPs from switching parties.

He will hold a similar briefing for opposition MPs tomorrow. The Dewan Rakyat is scheduled to debate the bill on Wednesday and Thursday.

On whether the law will cover assemblypersons, Wan Junaidi explained that the enforcement of the new law at the state level can only be done after discussions are held with the Malay rulers and governors.

"Only if it is agreed by the sultans or the governments can the law be introduced at the state level," he added. - Malaysiakini, 25/7/2022