ON HUMAN RIGHTS, JUSTICE AND PEACE ISSUES, LABOUR RIGHTS, MIGRANT RIGHTS, FOR THE ABOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY, TOWARDS AN END OF TORTURE, POLICE ABUSES, DISCRIMINATION...
Will the call receive positive action by Anwar Ibrahim's PH-led government, or will we still have to wait for a government that upholds justice and human rights? Has Pakatan Harapan compromised on its principles and values? Bills can always be tabled, despite having no unanimous support in Cabinet, and then let Parliament decide.
Resolution Adopted at the 77thAnnual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar (Held on 18 Mar 2023)
Resolution on Respect of Privacy, End of “Spying” and Intervention of Internet without Due Notice, and Repeal of Sections 233, 252 and 263 and Other Such Draconian Provisions in the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (“CMA”)
(1) The Malaysian Bar in 2016 adopted the “Resolution on Internet Censorship, The Malaysian Insider, and Freedom of Expression and Opinion”, whereby, amongst others, it was resolved as follows: “(C) That we, the Malaysian Bar calls for the repeal of section 263, section 233 and such vague provisions in the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998.”
(2) The Bar in a press release in December 2015 said, amongst others, that: Section 233(1)(a) of the CMA is a serious encroachment on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 10(1)(a) of our Federal Constitution. . . . Section 233(1)(a) of the CMA is also repugnant to the rule of law, as it is broad in scope, vague and ambiguous, with entirely subjective terms such as “offensive” and “annoy”. It can easily be misused to stifle speech and expression, to shut out contrary views, to quash dissent, to deny democratic space, and to suppress Malaysians. It is this imprecision that gives rise to the perception that the provision is yet another dressed–up political weapon in the armoury of the Government.
(3) Disappointingly, this draconian law continues to be used by the Malaysian Government, now being the Pakatan Harapan-led Government under Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim. It is used not just for lawbreakers, but also to “threaten” internet users. Thinking about or talking about a crime is not a crime. It becomes a crime when there is actual planning and when it is committed.
(4) Thus, the existence of laws for preventing the commission of crimes is draconian, more so when the alleged suspect has yet to do anything in preparation to commit the crime. Intercepting or blocking internet communication or activities of a person because the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (“MCMC”) or any other authority believes or suspects the person may commit a crime, is totally unreasonable.
Disrupting Internet / Communication Rights Without Notice
(5) Anyone’s internet access, website / blog and application’s access can be blocked by the Government and/or MCMC or any other authority, without the alleged suspect or lawbreaker knowing why or who is behind this.
2 (6) Section 263(2) of the CMA states (emphasis added):
(2) A licensee shall, upon written request by the Commission [MCMC] or any other authority, assist the Commission or other authority as far as reasonably necessary in preventing the commission or attempted commission of an offence under any written law of Malaysia or otherwise in enforcing the laws of Malaysia, including, but not limited to, the protection of the public revenue and preservation of national security.
(7) Justly, the suspect or alleged lawbreaker must be given notice with the reasons immediately, preferably prior to the action of blocking or depriving access. The right of the aggrieved to be heard and the right to appeal must also be given and, naturally, also the right to judicial review.
Spying on Private Communication and Internet Activity
(8) Section 252 of the CMA provides that the Public Prosecutor may “authorise the officer to intercept or to listen to any communication transmitted or received by any communications”. Under the CMA, “interception capability” means “the capability of any network facilities or network service or applications service to intercept communications under section 265”.
(9) Section 265(1) states that “[t]he Minister may determine that a licensee or class of licensees shall implement the capability to allow authorised interception of communications.”
(10) All that is needed now is the authorisation of the Public Prosecutor and, justly, it is better that the requirement be a court order made by a judge, who will have to consider our right to privacy before allowing for any such “spying”. It could be an interim ex parte order, where the aggrieved will have the right to be heard in the inter partes hearing.
(11) Interception means not just listening in or spying, but also the capacity to block communication to all, or maybe to a certain group of individuals. Is that why some of our communication to a group reaches some but not others?
(12) How many persons are being “spied” on? Are they opposition politicians, lawyers, human rights defenders, etc?
(13) For lawyers, privacy is crucial — no one is supposed to listen in, or spy, on the communications between lawyer and client, more so when most communications today are being done through the internet or over telephones. It makes a mockery of solicitor-client privilege.
Therefore, the Malaysian Bar resolves to:
(A) Reiterate the call for the repeal of sections 233 and 263, and other such vague provisions in the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (“CMA”);
3 (B) Call for the respect of privacy and an end to “spying”, and intercepting and listening in on our communication over the internet or telephones;
(C) Call for the end of blocking or interrupting internet communication or activity without according due notice including reasons to the alleged suspect or lawbreaker, with the right to be heard or right to appeal. The right to judicial review must be accorded;
(D) Call for the repeal of section 252 and other rights-violating provisions in the CMA;
(E) Call for a moratorium on the use of sections 233, 252, and 263, and other such provisions in the CMA, pending repeal;
(F) Call for the acknowledgement of the right to privacy, which would best be included and recognised in the Federal Constitution; and
(G) Call for the respect of human rights and justice for all.
Peaceful Assembly Act which violates peoples’ REAL right to peaceful assembly
must be repealed
Police must stop harassment of participants of peaceful assembly like Women's
March Malaysia (WMMY) 2023
The police subsequent crackdown
on participants of Women's March Malaysia (WMMY) 2023 held
on 12/3/2023 in conjunction of the International Women's Day, which saw about
200 participants.
At night the police said that they
were now investigating pursuant with regard offences under Peaceful Assembly
Act 2012 and Minor Offences Act 1995.(NST, 12/3/2023) Worse, notices to be present at police station
for investigation were send out to about 7 in the middle of the night according
to the organisers of the March.(Star, 13/3/2023)
Peaceful Assembly is a RIGHT, recognized in Article 10(1)(b) of the
Federal Constitution, whereby Article 10 also gives us the right to freedom
of speech and expression. Thus, participants in a peaceful assembly can shout
out and even hold placards calling out for matters, issues, concerns or rights
that even the government of the day may not support.
Peaceful Assembly is a means of advocating issues and concerns to the
public to create awareness and garner more support. That is why a peaceful
assembly rightly should be organised in a place where it can be seen and heard
by the public. So many times, have permission to have a peaceful assembly in
Dataran Merdeka been denied when really it is a good venue for a peaceful
assembly. It should be a right to have a peaceful assembly in any public space.
A peaceful assembly attracts participants
from all walks of society, not just members of organisation or political
parties, and, as such, it is absurd to hold responsible the organiser for actions
of some individual participants who may have come to join the protest on
becoming aware of it.
Itmust be remembered that the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 was
enacted despite protest from the Malaysian Bar, SUHAKAM, civil society and many
others.
On 29/11/2011, the Malaysian Bar
organized the “Walk for Freedom 2011:
Peaceful Assembly Bill Cannot and Must Not Become Law!”, which reportedly
was attended by about 1,500.
Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 is a
draconian law that restricts and deters the exercise of the REAL right to
peaceful assembly.
Police the ‘permission giver’ for a human right to be exercised makes
no sense
It simply gives the police too
much power even to impose conditions and restrictions. Even after ‘giving
approval, the police can suddenly change their mind and impose other
restrictions.
On 17/6/2022, Malaysian Bar’s ‘Walk
for Judicial Independence’ attended by about 500 lawyers were suddenly
prevented by the police from marching to Parliament from the assembly point in Padang
Merbok. Previously, the could march to Parliament and restriction was placed on
number of representatives that could go beyond the Parliament gate.
No immediate peaceful assembly in Malaysia
People in Malaysia cannot
speedily exercise the right to peaceful assembly because of the 5-day notice to
police requirement and the other onerous obligations imposed by the law. So, for
example, when Israel commits atrocities against the Palestinians or the
government tables a ‘bad’ law, people in Malaysia can no longer can organize an
immediate peaceful assembly, something which often happened before the Act. A protest more than 5 days later is simply too
late, and will likely not get much public support or media attention.
No right for children, and even18, 19 and 20 year olds who already can
vote
UNDI18 allows those who are 18 or
above to vote but the PAA says they cannot organize a peaceful assembly unless
they are 21 and above. It denies the right of children to organize and
participate in peaceful assemblies despite Malaysia being a signatory of the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Denial of non-Malaysians the right to peaceful assembly
PAA unjustifiably denies Non-Malaysians
the right to peaceful assembly. Hence, Myanmar nationals could not protest the
violation of rights of the Rohingya people, or even dangerous rare earth factories.
Onerous obligations and duties imposed on ‘organisers’
The organisers are, amongst
others, made responsible for all participants not breaking any laws, arranging ‘security’
to be in charge of the orderly conduct. bear the clean-up cost and get the consent
of the owner or occupier of the place of assembly.
Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 is a tool to control and restrict the exercise
of the right to peaceful assembly. It is also used to deter, as often
actions like that taken against the participants of the of Women's March. All
in all it deters, when it should be protecting the exercise of the right. The
government, including the police, should be protecting those that exercise this
right, and not the opposite.
Before Peaceful Assembly Act, things were generally better?
Before the enactment of Peaceful Assembly Act 2012, there was a better right
to peaceful assembly but the problem then was the gathering of more than 3 or 5
was considered a crime, and as such the risk was being charged for taking part
in a peaceful assembly – but then when peaceful assemblies do happen, the
police ask the people after some time to disperse and that it that. Seldom did
we find persons investigated or charged, save for the later 1998 Reformasi
protests which saw hundreds arrested and charged.
Section 141 of the Penal Code – that prevents the assembly of 5 or more
It must be noted, that despite
the enactment of Peaceful Assembly Act 2O12, Section 141 of the Penal Code strangely
is still not repealed, where it says that ‘An assembly of five or more persons
is designated an "unlawful assembly", if it, amongst others, cause
mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence. As we know excessive noise is
an offence under the Minor Offences Act, and we recall that in 2015, 11 workers
from National Union of Tobacco Industry Workers (NUTIW) was arrested from the legal
picket for ‘excessive noise’.
MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) calls for the immediate
repeal of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012. Another Act that truly respects the
right of peaceful assembly could always be later enacted.
MADPET also calls for the repeal of Section 114 of the Penal Code that
criminalizes or deters the right to peaceful assembly.
MADPET calls for the police to stop ‘harassing’ participants of Women's
March Malaysia (WMMY) 2023 and other persons who exercised their right of peaceful
assembly.
MADPET calls for Malaysia to recognize and defend peoples’ right to
peaceful assembly.
Charles Hector
For and on behalf of MADPET(Malaysians Against Death
Penalty and Torture)
Women's March Malaysia organisers slam police action against speakers, participants
The
organising committee of the Women's March Malaysia (WMMY) 2023 today
condemned the actions taken by the police towards its participants,
speakers, organisers and observers. Pic courtesy from Women's March
Malaysia IG
KUALA
LUMPUR: The organising committee of the Women's March Malaysia (WMMY)
2023 today condemned the actions taken by the police towards its
participants, speakers, organisers and observers.
It said the Notice 111 sent out to seven participants, speakers, and
organisers of WMMY in the middle of the night marked a troubling
precedent against democratic action under the newly-elected unity
government.
"We recall and remind this current government of its long history of
democratic actions and expressions and the use of public assembly and
protests over the last several decades before it came to power.
"We are disheartened and disappointed at being penalised for exercising our democratic right to fight for a better Malaysia.
"Do
we not deserve to express our thoughts, talk about the issues that
plague the lives of one too many people, and ask for changes that will
create the Malaysia Madani that the unity government wants," it said in a
statement today.
It said Article 10 of the Malaysian Federal
Constitution clearly states that every citizen has the right to freedom
of speech and expression, and all citizens have the right to assemble
peaceably and without arms.
"The organisers took all the
necessary steps to inform relevant authorities and follow the rules and
regulations in place before the march."
The committee said
Malaysia has an obligation as a signatory to the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women to ensure the
full protection of human rights for women and girls, including
transgender people and sexual minorities.
"The heavy-handed
reaction of the police against peaceful protesters at the Women's March
will reflect badly on Malaysia's upcoming CEDAW review this year,
shining light on the disproportionate use of police powers on a national
and international level."
It said the police should desist from
investigating and charging anyone merely for exercising the fundamental
right to peacefully assemble, instead of allocating priority towards
more pressing injustices raised during the march, such as child
marriage, online and physical gender-based violence, and protecting
groups facing marginalisation.
"This is a critical time for the
newly elected government to show their commitment towards improving its
human rights record by making it an obligation to assess the impact
towards citizens' rights in peaceful assemblies.
"We urge the
government to address the trust deficit of citizens towards our core
institutions, and restore public confidence by acting on the accepted UN
recommendation 151.147: revise the Peaceful Assembly Act to eliminate
discrimination and hindrance to the freedom of association and peaceful
assembly."
Yesterday, Dang Wangi district police chief, ACP Noor
Dellhan Yahaya, said the police are investigating the assembly and
march that took place in front of the Sogo Complex and Dataran Merdeka.
He
said police had opened an investigation paper under Section 9 (5) of
the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 and Section 14 of the Minor Offences Act
1995.
Noor Dellhan said the police were in the process of identifying all the individuals involved and would call them up to record their statements. - NST, 13/3/2023
Dang
Wangi district police chief, ACP Noor Dellhan Yahaya, said the march
involved 150 people comprising human rights activists, university
students, and members of political parties. - NSTP file pic
KUALA
LUMPUR: The police are investigating an assembly and march that took
place today in front of the Sogo Complex and Dataran Merdeka.
Dang Wangi district police chief, ACP Noor Dellhan Yahaya, said the
march involved 150 people comprising human rights activists, university
students, and members of political parties.
"The unauthorised assembly and march were held in violation of the law. Police detected the event at 10am.
"Based on police observation, the participants were found to have
gathered and marched while holding placards with words like 'Imagine If
Men Are As Disgusted With Rapes As With Periods, Child Not Pride, Trans
Women Are Women, Police Your Behaviour Not My Body' and others," he said
in a statement.
He said police have opened an investigation paper under Section 9 (5)
of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 and Section 14 of the Minor Offences
Act 1995.
Police are in the process of identifying all individuals involved and will call them up to record their statements, he said.
"The investigation paper will be completed and referred to the deputy public prosecutor for further instructions.
"The public is advised not to participate in any illegal assembly as action will be taken against them." - BERNAMA - NST, 12/.3/2023
Women's March organisers criticise cops for heavy-handed response
PETALING JAYA: The organisers of the recent Women's March 2023 have
lambasted the police for its heavy-handed response toward peaceful
protestors.
In a statement on Monday (March 13), it condemned
the actions taken by the police against the participants, speakers,
organisers and observers of the Women's March Malaysia 2023 (WMMY).
"The press statement issued by the PDRM on March 12, which was followed by Notice 111 sent out to seven participants, speakers, and organisers of WMMY in the middle of the night, marks a troubling precedent against democratic action under the newly-elected unity government.
"We
recall and remind this current government of its long history of
democratic actions and expressions and the use of public assembly and
protests over the last several decades prior to its coming to power," it
said, adding that they were disheartened and disappointed at being
penalised for exercising their democratic rights to fight for a better
Malaysia.
It asked if they did not deserve to express thoughts,
talk about the issues that plague the lives of one too many people, and
ask for changes that will create the Malaysia Madani the unity
government wanted.
"The 'I' in Madani stands for 'ihsan' which asks for us to treat everyone, especially minorities, with empathy and kindness.
"Our
demands are meant to highlight to the government nine areas that must
be addressed immediately to ensure that the basic rights of everyone are
no longer trampled upon in Malaysia," it said, adding that Article 10
of the Malaysian Federal Constitution clearly states that every citizen
has the right to freedom of speech and expression, all citizens have the
right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
It said the
organisers of Women's March 2023 took all the necessary steps to inform
relevant authorities and follow the rules and regulations in place
before the march.
"Malaysia has an obligation as a signatory to
the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
Women (Cedaw) to ensure the full protections of human rights for women
and girls, including transgender people and sexual minorities.
"The
heavy-handed reaction of the police against peaceful protestors at a
Womens March will reflect badly on Malaysia's upcoming Cedaw review this
year, shining light on the disproportionate use of police powers on a
national and international level," it said adding that the police should
refrain from investigating and charging anyone merely for exercising
the fundamental right to peacefully assemble, instead allocating
priority towards more pressing injustices raised during the Women's
March, such as child marriage, online and physical gender-based
violence, and protecting groups facing marginalisation.
It said
that this was a critical time for the newly-elected government to show
its commitment towards improving its human rights record by making it an
obligation to assess the impact towards citizens' rights in peaceful
assemblies.
"We urge the government to address the trust-deficit
of citizens towards our core institutions, and restore public
confidence by acting on the accepted UN recommendation 151.147: revise
the Peaceful Assembly Act in order to eliminate discrimination and
hindrance to the freedom of association and peaceful assembly.
"If
that is the vision for a new and improved Malaysia, why are the
authorities going against the very principle of what the Malaysian
Government claims it stands for?" it asked. - Star, 13/3/2023
Why was Muhyiddin alone charged on 13/3/2023 - Why was Bersatu not charged? Why were all the other members of the EXCO or Majlis Tertinggi not charged?
According to the charge sheet, Muhyiddin, who is also Pagoh MP, had
allegedly, in his capacity as Bersatu president, illegally received
RM5mil from Bukhary Equity Sdn Bhd at the Amcorp Mall, Petaling Jaya
AmBank branch. He is accused of receiving the money that was deposited into the Bersatu AmBank account on Jan 7 last year.
It seems he is alleged to have committed the offence as Bersatu President, and the monies also ended up in a BERSATU account. The law allows for a 'body corporate or an association' and all persons concerned with the management of its affairs(which would be all members of the Supreme Council or Exco).
ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING, ANTI-TERRORISM FINANCING AND PROCEEDS OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES ACT 2001
87 Offence committed by any person acting in an official capacity
(1) Where an offence is committed by a body corporate or an association of persons, a person-
(a) who is its director, controller, officer, or partner; or
(b)who is concerned in the management of its affairs,
at
the time of the commission of the offence, is deemed to have committed
that offence unless that person proves that the offence was committed
without his consent or connivance and that he exercised such diligence
to prevent the commission of the offence as he ought to have exercised,
having regard to the nature of his function in that capacity and to the
circumstances.
(2) An
individual may be prosecuted for an offence under subsection (1)
notwithstanding that the body corporate or association of persons has
not been convicted of the offence.
In any democratic society or
political party, the power of governing or management rests do not only
with the President - the power and responsibility rest with the entire
executive committee or 'Majlis Tertinggi' - so, should BERSATU and all
members of the Executive Committee also be charged? UNLESS, in BERSATU the President wields absolute power...
Maybe, the Public Prosecutor should explain - why only Muhyiddin(the President) was charged, and not BERSATU and the others in committee?
The words in the Act, i.e. ' the body corporate or association of persons has
not been convicted of the offence' is clear that BERSATU can be charged, tried and convicted..
Now, in this case, Muhyiddin can walk free if he proves ' that the offence was committed
without his consent or connivance and that he exercised such diligence
to prevent the commission of the offence as he ought to have exercised,
having regard to the nature of his function in that capacity and to the
circumstances.' Why? Maybe in the meeting where the related decision was made, he opposed but was overruled by majority in the Supreme Council - Hence, best if BERSATU and all others in the Supreme Council of BERSATU are also charged for this particular offence... so the guilty does not escape after committing the crime. It better to have ONE TRIAL - rather than having several trials for the same offence in this case.
Muhyiddin pleads not guilty to receiving RM5 mil from illegal activities from Bukhary Equity
Tan
Sri Muhyiddin Yassin seen arriving at the Shah Alam Sessions Court on
Monday, March 13, 2023 morning. (Photo by Suhaimi Yusuf/The Edge)
SHAH
ALAM (March 13): Former prime minister and Perikatan Nasional (PN)
chairman Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin was charged again on Monday (March 13)
at the Sessions Court here for money laundering of RM5 million.
Muhyiddin pleaded not guilty to the charge read out to him before judge Rozilah Salleh.
Rozilah then agreed to the bail terms set at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court, where Muhyiddin was charged last week.
The bail set in Kuala Lumpur was RM2 million, which was paid by
Muhyiddin for his earlier six charges. This means that the former PM
would not have to pay bail for this charge in Shah Alam.
He was charged with using his power as PN’s component party Parti
Pribumi Bersatu's president to receive the RM5 million from illegal
activities from Bukhary Equity Sdn Bhd on Jan 7, 2022, which was
deposited into the party’s AmBank account at the bank’s Amcorp Mall
branch.
The Pagoh member of Parliament was charged under Section 4(1)b of The
Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of
Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (Amla).
For the Amla charges, he faces a term of not more than 15 years jail
time and a fine of up to five times the amount of the illegal proceeds
or RM5 million, whichever is higher.
Muhyiddin's defence lawyer Datuk K Kumaraendran (Photo by Low Yen Yeing)
Muhyiddin was represented by lawyer Datuk Datuk K Kumaraendran.
The judge then set May 26 for case mention.
The prosecution was also conducted by deputy public prosecutors Ahmad
Akram Gharib, Kalai Vani Annadorai, Maziah Mohaide, Mohd Fadhly bin
Mohd Zamry and Zander Lim Wai Keong.
Deputy public prosecutor Ahmad Akram Gharib
Muhyiddin was also represented by Chetan Jethwani, Dev Kumaraendran,
Mohamad Isa Mohamad Basir, Teh See Khoon, Varsha Chelvi, Amiratu Al
Amirat Salleh Mohamed Garbaa, Sharir Ab Razak and Raja Syuhada Raja
Khairuddin.
Muhyiddin turned up at the courthouse at around 8.20am and was
greeted by some supporters. The main entrance of the courthouse was
closed and only media and lawyers were allowed to enter.
Shortly after the charge was read out, Muhyiddin was seen leaving the court complex with his entourage.
Muhyiddin's defence lawyer Mohamad Isa Mohamad Basir (Photo by Zahid Izzani/The Edge)
On Friday (March 10), Muhyiddin pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
to six charges at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court. Four of the charges
were for corruption and the two were for money laundering.
Muhyiddin was charged with four counts of abuse of power for using
his position as then prime minister when his party, Parti Pribumi
Bersatu Malaysia, was alleged to have obtained gratification of
(received) RM232.5 million in bribes from corporate entities, namely
three companies and one individual.
Muhyiddin's defence lawyer Dev Kumaraendran (Photo by Zahid Izzani/The Edge)
He faces not more than 20 years in prison for each charge and a
summons of up to five times the amount of the bribe or RM10,000,
whichever is higher.
The other two money laundering charges involves receiving RM195
million of proceeds of illegal funds from illegal activities from
Bukhary Equity. These took place in 2021 and 2022.
Muhyiddin is the second former prime minister to have criminal
charges against him. The first was Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak, who is
currently in jail due to the SRC International Sdn Bhd trial.
Muhyiddin, 75, who was sacked by his former party Umno for speaking
up against Najib and his misgivings in 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB),
was one of the founders of Parti Pribumi Besatu who had joined the
Pakatan Harapan coalition in 2018 to topple the Barisan Nasional
stronghold in the country.
In 2020, Muhyiddin was an integral part in the “Sheraton Move” which
saw the Pakatan Harapan government collapse and the new coalition called
Perikatan Nasional take over as government, which led to Muhyiddin to
become the nation’s 8th prime minister and gained him the popular
moniker “Abah”.
Muhyiddin’s charging follows a spate of corruption charges against
his party members, related to the Jana Wibawa programme. They are former
Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (Bersatu) information chief Datuk Wan
Saiful Wan Jan and businessman cum Bersatu Segambut division deputy
chief Adam Radlan Adam Muhammad.
Wan Saiful had relinquished his post as Bersatu information chief after he was charged.
On Saturday (March 11), the Bersatu Supreme Council rejected Muhyiddin’s resignation as party chairman.
Bukhary Equity
According to Companies Commission Malaysia (SSM) records dated Feb
15, 2023, Bukhary Equity is a company 99% owned by tycoon Tan Sri Syed
Mokhtar Al Bukhary, while the remaining 1% is held by Syarifah Zarah
Syed Kechik. - Edge Markets, 13/3/2023
Muhyiddin slapped with seventh charge over alleged laundering of RM5m for Bersatu; previous RM2m bail maintained
Former prime minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin arrives at Shah Alam court on March 13, 2023. — Picture by Miera Zulyana
By Ida Lim
Monday, 13 Mar 2023 9:18 AM MYT
SHAH
ALAM, March 13 — Former prime minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin today
pleaded not guilty to yet another money-laundering charge — this time
involving RM5 million of funds of alleged illegal origins, which brings
the total number of charges against him to seven.
At around 9am
this morning, Muhyiddin was charged under Section 4(1)(b) of the
Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful
Activities Act 2001.
He
claimed trial to the money-laundering offence, where he was alleged of
having received RM5 million in alleged proceeds from unlawful activities
from Bukhary Equity Sdn Bhd which was deposited into Parti Pribumi
Bersatu Malaysia’s AmBank account.
He was alleged to have committed the offence at AmBank’s Amcorp Mall branch on January 7, 2022.The
Section 4(1)(b) offence which Muhyiddin was accused of was read
together with Section 87(1) of the same anti money laundering law.
Under
Section 87(1), when an offence is committed by a body corporate or an
association, a person – who is its director, controller, officer,
partner or concerned in the management of its affairs — is considered to
have committed the offence, unless the person proves that the offence
was committed without his consent and he had exercised diligence to
prevent the offence.
If convicted for the money laundering offence
under Section 4(1)(b), the penalty is a jail term that can go up to 15
years and a fine not less than five times the sum of the alleged illegal
funds or RM5 million, whichever is higher.
Deputy public
prosecutor Ahmad Akram Gharib applied for the bail conditions which were
previously imposed by the Sessions Court in Kuala Lumpur to also be
used for this case, namely RM2 million bail with two sureties and for
his passport to be surrendered to the court.
Akram also applied
for today's case to be transferred from the Sessions Court in Shah Alam
to the Sessions Court in Kuala Lumpur, as there are already six charges
there against Muhyiddin.
Muhyiddin's defence team led by lawyer Datuk K. Kumaraendran did not object to the two requests made by the prosecution.
Sessions
Court judge Rozilah Salleh allowed the previous RM2 million bail which
Muhyiddin had paid for his six charges in Kuala Lumpur to be used as
bail for today’s charge, and said all other bail conditions would also
be the same.
This means that Muhyiddin did not have to pay any additional money to secure his bail in today's case.
Rozilah also allowed this case to be transferred from the Shah Alam courts to the Sessions Court in Kuala Lumpur.
Walking
out minutes after he had been charged, Muhyiddin merely told the media
who were waiting at the lobby of the Shah Alam court complex that he had
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and that the judge had agreed to
transfer the case to the Kuala Lumpur courts.
The Perikatan Nasional chairman then left in a convoy of cars shortly before 9.20am.
Last
Friday, Muhyiddin claimed trial to six charges in the Sessions Court in
Kuala Lumpur, namely four corruption charges and two money laundering
charges.
Muhyiddin was accused of four counts under the Malaysian
Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act for alleged abuse of power as then
prime minister and president of Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia for a
total of RM232.5 million in alleged bribes from three companies and one
individual (Bukhary Equity Sdn Bhd, Nepturis Sdn Bhd, Mamfor Sdn Bhd,
Azman Yusoff) for his party during March 2020 to August 2021 period. The
penalty upon conviction is a maximum 20-year jail term, and a fine of
not less than five times the amount of gratification or RM10,000,
whichever is higher.
The remaining two counts were for alleged
money-laundering of a total of RM195 million of proceeds from illegal
funds from the company Bukhary Equity Sdn. Bhd, Muhyiddin accused of
having as Bersatu president received and deposited the funds into
Bersatu’s CIMB bank account in 2021 and 2022 at CIMB's Menara KL branch.
The penalty upon conviction is a maximum 15-year jail term and a fine
of RM5 million or not less than five times the amount involved,
whichever is higher.
These cases will next come up for mention at the Sessions Court in Kuala Lumpur on May 26. - Malay Mail, 13/3/2023
Muhyiddin charged with money laundering RM5mil
By WANI MUTHIAH, JUNAID IBRAHIM and BENJAMIN LEE
SHAH ALAM: Former prime minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin was charged at the Sessions Court here with money laundering here.
Dressed in a dark suit, without a tie, the Bersatu president, 75, claimed trial for the charge levelled against him.
He was charged on Monday (March 13) under Section 4(1)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Illegal Activities Act (AMLATFPUAA) 2001 read together with Section 87 (1) of the same Act.
According to the charge sheet, Muhyiddin, who is also Pagoh MP, had allegedly, in his capacity as Bersatu president, illegally received RM5mil from Bukhary Equity Sdn Bhd at the Amcorp Mall, Petaling Jaya AmBank branch. He is accused of receiving the money that was deposited into the Bersatu AmBank account on Jan 7 last year.
If found guilty, the former Umno stalwart faces a jail term of up to 15 years and a fine of no less than five times the amount of gratification.
The prosecution team comprised of Ahmad Akram Gharib, Mohd Fadhly Mohd Zamry, Zander Lim Wai Keong, Kali Vani Annadorai and Maziah Mohaide.
The prosecution applied for the case to be transfered to the KL Sessions Court for it to be mentioned on May 26 together with the charges levelled against Muhyiddin there last week.
It (the prosecution) also offered that the RM2mil bail with two sureties that was imposed by the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court be used for today's charge as well.
The Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court had also ordered Muhyiddin to surrender his passport.
Judge Rozilah Salleh agreed to the prosecution's application to transfer the case to Kuala Lumpur and apply the bail set there for the current case.
Last week, Muhyiddin was slapped with multiple charges for graft and money laundering at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court.
He had been charged for four counts of abuse of power involving RM232.5mil as well two counts of money laundering involving RM195mil.
The charges had been framed under the Section 23(1) of the MACC Act 2009 and the AMLATFPUAA 2001 respectively.
The former Umno heavyweight had claimed trial for all six charges.
The defence was made up of Datuk K. Kumarendran, Chetan Jethwani and Dev Kumaraendran among others. - Star, 13/3/2023
# Statement was reported in FMT, Focus Malaysia, Malaysiakini,...
Media
Statement – 13/3/2023
Remove Saifuddin Nasution As Home Minister as he has been found wanting
Home Minister must be someone who respects Rule of Law, Human Rights and
Justice, and do not fear criticizing the police and will get rid of draconian
laws like SOSMA
When Home Minister Datuk Seri
Saifuddin Nasution Ismail, in a Parliamentary Reply said that 401 was punished (not tried and convicted)
in 2022 under Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA), doubts
have arisen about his suitability to continue to be Home Minister of Malaysia.
Does this Minister not understand
the Rule of Law, and the administration of criminal justice? The law cannot be
used to PUNISH anyone, save for those already charged, accorded a fair trial, found
guilty and sentenced. The sentence is the only punishment permissible by law.
Arrest and pre-conviction detention should NEVER be abused to punish anyone.
‘..A total of 624 individuals
were detained under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (Sosma) last
year, says Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail. The Home Minister added that
140 of these detainees had already been released. “Of those detained, 71 were charged in court, 401 were
punished, 140 were released and 12 are still under investigation,” he
said in a written reply to a question by Chow Yu Hui (PH-Raub) in the Dewan
Rakyat yesterday. ..’(Star, 7/3/2023)
Only 71 out of 624 SOSMA victims
were charged in court. SOSMA is NOT a Detention Without Trial Law. Post arrest
detention without trial is only for purpose of investigation, nothing else.
Police cannot use detention or torture, even under SOSMA, for the purpose of ‘punishing’
anyone in Malaysia
Of the 624 arrested and detained
for offences were listed in SOSMA, only 71 were apparently charged and tried –
meaning that almost 550 innocent persons
have ended up becoming victims of SOSMA, and they possibly suffered
detention or prolonged detention in police custody, as SOSMA allows for
detention beyond the maximum 14 days stipulated in Malaysia’s Criminal
Procedure Code.
The Minister must disclose how many days they spend in police
custody, and how much suffering
they endured with regard to the employment, business or income generating
activities, which all affects not just the detainee but also the family and
children, more so, if the detained was the sole or primary bread winner.
Really, Malaysia, must for the sake of justice, consider how we can compensate victims of SOSMA and other
criminal laws, for their loss of liberty, rights and losses when they have
held in detention in the administration of criminal justice.
Post arrest custody for purposes of investigation ONLY – equal treatment
for all.
For suspects, police should only
keep them in police custody when absolutely needed for the purpose of
investigation. Police can always continue investigation without any arrest or
detention. Suspects can be asked to turn up when needed for questioning and
statements. We have seen this done in the cases of former Prime Minister Najib
and most recently former Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin. They never had to
spend day/s in police lock-ups.
In the administration of criminal
justice, law enforcement must never
discriminate based on poverty, ethnicity, class or position, consistent
with Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution that states, ‘(1) All persons are
equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.’
Home Minister Must Understand Human Rights, Justice and Rule of Law
A Home Minister, who is
responsible for criminal law enforcement, must be a person who understands the
Rule of Law, justice and human rights. He must understand the presumption of
innocence until found guilty by a court of law after fair trial. He must never
condone police abuse of powers, or the use of law for any other ulterior motives
like ‘punishment’ before conviction.
The Minister is not supposed to
condone wrongs of the police, but must fearlessly point out the wrongs, and
reform the administration of criminal justice. How can he not criticize the use
of SOSMA to PUNISH? Did ‘punish’ in his Parliamentary Reply mean something
else?
SOSMA needed? Maintained
and not to be repealed because not in PH GE15 Manifesto?
In December last year, Saifuddin
said the government had no intention of reviewing SOSMA. On 16/2/2023, the Minister
said SOSMA still a relevant act to
maintain national security and the government
is committed to strengthen the law. (Star,
16/2/2023) "The police
still need the law to implement any
urgent action to prevent panic among the people and address threats to the
country's sovereignty and the wellbeing of the people," he said in a
written reply yesterday [15/2/2023].(New
Straits Times).
The Malaysian police and law
enforcement, if they are professional and competent, can certainly carry out
law enforcement urgently without SOSMA. They can already investigate and charge
anyone who has broken the law.
MADPET believes law enforcement do not need
SOSMA, being an Act to provide for special measures relating to security
offences for the purpose of maintaining public order and security and for
connected matters. SOSMA wrongly allows for not certain requirements of the Malaysian
Criminal Procedure Code and Evidence Act. Why?
If there is a need for certain serious
security offences, where the police need longer maximum period in detention for
the purposes of investigation, then the law can provide for it but the role of
the Magistrate must be maintained.
SOSMA excludes Magistrate role to ensure no abuse.
Article 5(4) of the Federal Constitution
says, ‘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.’
Under SOSMA, there is no need to
bring before the Magistrate, In SOSMA, after 24 hours in custody after arrest,
all it needs is that ‘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.’
Does not the Home Minister, PM
Anwar Ibrahim and the PH-led government fail to understand the role of the
Magistrate and remand hearings? It is to protect suspect’s rights and to ensure
that the police do not abuse their powers, including by torture, when police
custody post-arrest detention only permissible for purposes of investigation.
Police can only keep a suspect in
custody for questioning and other investigations requiring the presence of the
suspect. A suspect cannot be held simply to ‘punish’.
The Magistrate and the remand
hearing that give the suspect right to be heard is to prevent abuse and protect
human rights,
Remember that Parliament in its
wisdom in 2007 amended the law to set new maximums of the length of remand
orders a Magistrate can give in an application, where it is now depends on
seriousness of the offence, and for serious offences like murder, it is 7 days.
Previously, that maximum on the 1st application could be 14 days. Parliament
wanted the police to bring the suspect before the Magistrate regularly.
Sadly, our current Home Minister
and government, despite the call of the Malaysian Bar, SUHAKAM, civil society
and justice loving Malaysian fails to understand the need for the immediate repeal
of SOSMA
Saifuddin Nasution, the PKR
secretary-general and Pakatan Harapan secretary-general, maybe a good Member of
Parliament and politician but, according to MADPET, he does not qualify to
remain the Home Minister.
MADPET calls on the Home Minister to resign, or alternatively urge
Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim to remove him as Home Minister, or even from the
Cabinet. Choose a Home Minister that understands and respects human rights, and
will always uphold justice.
MADPET calls for a disclosure of how the 401 held under SOSMA that was
punished last year.
MADPET reiterates the call for the immediate repeal of SOSMA.
Charles Hector
For and on behalf of MADPET (Malaysians
Against Death Penalty and Torture)
Hundreds held under Sosma, Poca and Pota last year
Tuesday, 07 Mar 2023
KUALA LUMPUR: A total of 624 individuals were detained under the
Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (Sosma) last year, says Datuk
Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail (pic).
The Home Minister added that 140 of these detainees had already been released.
“Of
those detained, 71 were charged in court, 401 were punished, 140 were
released and 12 are still under investigation,” he said in a written
reply to a question by Chow Yu Hui (PH-Raub) in the Dewan Rakyat
yesterday.
Chow had asked about the number of those detained under Sosma, as well as the breakdown of their race and ages.
He also enquired about the number of those detained under the
Prevention of Crime Act (Poca) and the Prevention of Terrorism Act
(Pota).
Last month, Saifuddin Nasution, in a written reply to
RSN Rayer (PH-Jelutong), said Sosma was still a relevant law to maintain
national security because it allows the police to take immediate action
to defuse any threats to national sovereignty and harmony.
Repealing
Sosma was not among the pledges in Pakatan Harapan’s GE15 election
manifesto, though several DAP leaders had previously criticised Sosma as
having draconian provisions.
Meanwhile, Saifuddin Nasution said those detained under Sosma
last year were between 18 and 69 years old and included 247 Malays, 83
Chinese, 89 Indians, 47 of other races and 158 foreigners.
On
Poca, Saifuddin said that 132 individuals were detained, of which 67
were Malays, 13 Chinese, 38 Indians, 13 of other races and one
foreigner.
He said those detained were between 19 and 59 years old.
Poca,
which was amended in 2015, is a preventative law to deal with
criminals, particularly members of secret societies, terrorists and
other undesirable persons.
Saifuddin Nasution said that only one individual, a Malay, was detained under Pota and is currently under a detention order.
Pota,
which was passed in April 2015, allowed authorities to take action
against Malaysians suspected of being involved with the Islamic State or
other terrorist organisations.
To a written question by Datuk
Wan Saiful Wan Jan (PN-Tasek Gelugor), Saifuddin said that as of Jan 30
this year, 195 individuals were detained under Sosma and are currently
undergoing trial.
Of this total, 46 were for smuggling and human
trafficking, two for terrorism and 147 for organised crime under the
Penal Code. - Star, 7/3/2023
Home
Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail today reiterated that the Security
Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma) would not be amended for
now.
However, there was a possibility of Sosma being reviewed in
the future, he told reporters after visiting the Malaysia Volunteers
Corps Department (Rela) headquarters today.
"My stand is that laws are dynamic and not static, and we have Parliament to formulate and amend laws.
"We
need to respond according to the situation from time to time. And
should it be amended now? No. This is my principle and stand at the
moment,” he said when asked to comment on DAP deputy chairperson Gobind
Singh Deo’s call for him to reconsider his statement on Sosma.
Saifuddin
had said on Tuesday that he did not intend to review Sosma and that
unlike the abolished Internal Security Act 1967 (ISA), it did not
provide for detention without trial.
Yesterday, Gobind, who is
also Damansara MP, urged Saifuddin to reconsider his stand on Sosma,
saying it contradicted Pakatan Harapan’s (Harapan) longstanding view
that Sosma was oppressive in nature.
The former communications and
multimedia minister suggested that Sections 6, 13, 14 and 18A of Sosma
be amended as they were oppressive.
"There are several sections
and clauses of Sosma which cannot be retained forever and should be
given appropriate consideration (for review) from time to time.
“But for now, I have to say ‘no’ because I have been here (home ministry) for just two weeks,” Saifuddin said.
KUALA
LUMPUR: The Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (Sosma) is still a
relevant act to maintain national security and the government is
committed to strengthen the law, says Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin
Nasution Ismail.
He said Sosma is also important to maintain
public order and the police need the law to take immediate action to
avoid any threats to national sovereignty and harmony.
“The
government is committed to improve the law to ensure national peace and
security, but it has to be balanced with societal rights, as well as
national peace and interests,” said Saifuddin in a written reply dated
Feb 15.
Saifuddin said the ministry has held discussions and internal workshops to scrutinise suggestions to improve the law.
“Stakeholders, including NGOs, academics, community, and among others,
will be involved in a feedback gathering session towards proposals to
improve the law,” added Saifuddin.
Saifuddin was responding to
RSN Rayer (PH-Jelutong), who asked the ministry to state steps taken to
restudy provisions under Sosma that have received public criticisms.
In
December last year, Saifuddin said the government had no intention of
reviewing Sosma, which provides for preventive detention of up to 28
days.
Repealing Sosma was not among the pledges listed in Pakatan Harapan’s GE15 election manifesto.
Several DAP leaders have previously criticised Sosma as having draconian provisions.
Govt studying proposals to improve Sosma
Published: Feb 22, 2023 11:12 AM
⋅
PARLIAMENT
| Putrajaya is studying proposals to improve the Security Offences
(Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma), the Dewan Rakyat was told.
Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said his ministry was holding discussions and workshops to study the proposals.
"Interested parties including NGOs, academics, community groups and others are involved in the process," he said.
Saifuddin (above) was responding to a question from P Prabakaran (Harapan-Batu), who enquired if the government will abolish or review Sosma.
Sosma
allowed for up to 28-day detention without trial for those suspected of
"security offences" - which critics said was not clearly defined and
thus subject to abuse.
Section
30 of the law has also attracted criticism because it allowed for a
person tried under the law to be held in detention "pending exhaustion
of the trial process".
In contrast, a murder suspect will enjoy freedom upon acquittal by the lower courts.
In December last year, Malaysiakini had reported on the plight of three dozen people who are still held under Sosma while pending trial under different laws.
Pakatan
Harapan's manifesto does not promise any reforms for Sosma, but many
Harapan MPs have urged Saifuddin to review the controversial law. - Malaysiakini, 22/2/2023
Group calls for removal of Saifuddin as home minister
Madpet says Malaysia needs a home minister who respects human rights and upholds justice, while calling for Sosma’s repeal.
Madpet says home minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail fails to understand the need for the immediate repeal of Sosma.
PETALING JAYA: A rights group has called for Saifuddin Nasution
Ismail to be removed as home minister, saying Malaysia needs a home
minister who respects human rights and would uphold justice.
Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet) cited how
Saifuddin reportedly said 401 people had been “punished” under the
controversial Security Offences (Special Measures) Act, or Sosma, in
2022.
Saifuddin had also said that out of the total of 624 people detained
under Sosma last year, 140 were released, 71 were charged in court, and
12 were still being investigated.
Madpet spokesman Charles Hector said the law cannot be used to punish
anyone unless they were charged, given a trial, found guilty by the
courts and meted a sentence.
“The sentence is the only punishment permissible by law. Arrest and
pre-conviction detention should never be abused to punish anyone.
“Sosma is not a detention-without-trial law. Post-arrest detentions
without trial is only for the purpose of investigations, nothing else.
Police cannot use detention, even under Sosma, for the purpose of
‘punishing’ anyone,” he said in a statement.
Hector also repeated calls for Sosma to be abolished, despite
Saifuddin’s insistence that it was still needed though its repeal was
part of Pakatan Harapan’s election manifesto.
He said there were other existing laws the police could use, as Sosma
allowed the police to detain a person for up to 28 days without
requiring a magistrate’s order. He also said this was unconstitutional.
“Sadly, our current home minister and government fail to understand
the need for the immediate repeal of Sosma despite the calls of the
Malaysian Bar, Suhakam, civil society and justice-loving Malaysians.
“Saifuddin, the PKR and PH secretary-general, may be a good MP and
politician but, to Madpet, he does not qualify to remain the home
minister.
“Madpet calls on the minister to resign or, alternatively, on Prime
Minister Anwar Ibrahim to remove him as home minister or from the
Cabinet as a whole.”
In December, Saifuddin said a review of Sosma was not needed as the
law was necessary to tackle organised crime-related cases. He also said
Sosma allowed the court process to take place.
That same month, Saifuddin’s deputy, Ramkarpal Singh, said the minister agreed to hold engagements with stakeholders on Sosma.
While Saifuddin confirmed in January that engagements on the
controversial law were ongoing, he later reiterated that Sosma was still
necessary to safeguard the nation’s security and peace. - FMT, 13/3/2023
Final Advice to Mahathir Mohamad
-
Before the 15th General Election on 19 November 2022, I advised two doyens
of Malaysian politics, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad and Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah
not ...
APA PADA NAMA
-
1. Sejarah Malaysia dikait rapat dengan UMNO, Parti Kebangsaan Melayu
Bersatu. Parti UMNO pula dikenali dengan pemimpinnya. 2. Demikian di
peringkat permul...
China and HK may be barred from Asia Team meet
-
PETALING JAYA: The status of next week’s Asia Team Champion-ships in
Manila, the Philippines, is in quandary as two badminton nations – China
and Hong Kong...
Thank you, Malaysians
-
Before the lights go out on The Malaysian Insider at midnight, we say
"Thank You" to our readers. TMI started on February 25, 2008. Today, after
eight year...
I believe in the freedom of expression - and everyone is free to use, reproduce, quote, copy and circulate, etc... materials published here. Please credit the source: http://charleshector.blogspot.com/.
For those of you who do have Blogs/Websites, it would be good if you could add a link to CHARLES HECTOR Blog. Please do promote the BLOG.
Anonymous comments or those containing profanities and obscenities (or irrelevant matters) will be rejected. Note that all comments made in post are personal opinions.
Number of Visits
Over 4 million visits. On an average, we have about 700-750 visits per day.Thank you all for your support and encouragement..
.JPG)
Posts
