Friday, May 31, 2024

Malaysia’s Death Row will continue to have occupants, existing and new, until Malaysia totally abolishes the Death Penalty ### Inconsistency arises since Malaysia already abolished Life Imprisonment

 

Media Statement – 30/5/2024

Malaysia’s Death Row will continue to have occupants, existing and new, until Malaysia totally abolishes the Death Penalty

Inconsistency arises since Malaysia already abolished Life Imprisonment

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) notes sadly that on 29/5/2024, the Federal Court upheld death sentence of former businessman for murder of UUM graduate 18 years ago The court dismissed Shahril Jaafar’s review application to commute his death sentence to life imprisonment under the Revision of Sentence of Death and Imprisonment for Natural Life (Temporary Jurisdiction of the Federal Court) Act 2023.(Malay Mail, 29/5/2024). It must be noted that in most cases, death sentence has been commuted to imprisonment plus whipping, and there has been no public outcry when this happened.

Despite the abolition of the Mandatory Death Penalty when Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023, when it came into force on 4/7/2023, the death penalty remains. All that the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act did was to provide an alternative sentence to death, being the sentence of long imprisonment and whipping.

Other examples in revision of sentence cases - on 4/1/2024, the Federal Court also upheld the death sentence for ex-guard who was convicted for 2 murders. (Star, 4/1/2024). On 5/3/2024, the Federal Court upheld the death sentence against four men who caused the death of a 32-year-old Batu Kawa woman in 2007. (Borneo Post, 5/3/2024). On 16/5/2024, The Federal Court upheld the death sentence of a Singaporean man for the murder of his eight-year-old Thai stepson in 2008. (Star, 16/5/2024).

In these Revision cases, prejudice lies in the fact that these cases were then defended on the basis that conviction carries the mandatory death penalty, as it would be different if the sentence then could also be prison sentence that had a range. In cases, more so when there are multiple accused, then lawyers would have raised factors that would mitigate sentences and most unlikely that all would get the exact same sentence – death.  

On 14/3/2024, the Court of Appeal upheld the death sentence of six men convicted of murdering Deputy Public Prosecutor Datuk Anthony Kevin Morais nine years ago. (Malay Mail, 14/3/2024). This was an appeal of a High Court decision made in 2020, before the mandatory death penalty was abolished. It is difficult to adduce new evidence during an appeal. After the mandatory death penalty was repealed, it more likely that the ‘leader’ may get a highest sentence.

Languishing in Death Row after Malaysia Abolished Life Imprisonment? 

This puts Malaysia into a serious dilemma, considering that Malaysia had publicly committed to the abolition of the death penalty, when they voted in favour of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 73/175 of 17 December 2018, 75/183 of 16 December 2020 and 77/222 of 15 December 2022 to impose a moratorium on execution pending the abolition of the death penalty. These resolutions was supported by the post GE14 Pakatan Harapan Government in 2018, the Perikatan Nasional government in 2020, and Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s Pakatan Harapan led-coalition (also known as ‘Unity Government) in 2022. This indicates that all major political parties in Malaysia have taken the stance that Malaysia will abolish the death penalty, and until then, no one will be hanged to death.

When Malaysia’s Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act came into force, it did not just abolish mandatory death penalty, but also life imprisonment.

Thus, what will happen to persons still being sentenced to death by courts. Will they be put on death row until they die? This goes contrary to the fact that Malaysia has abolished life imprisonment.

Now, those on death row now whose death sentence is upheld by the Federal Court during the review application, or those who may still be sentenced to death as the death penalty is still an available sentence in law for more than 30 offences, their death sentence can only be commuted to imprisonment if they are pardoned by the King or Rulers, or if they are successful in some subsequent application to court.

Be True To Commitment To Abolish Death Penalty

Malaysia, being a member of the United Nation Human Rights Council did on 13/10/2023 did vote in favour of Resolution on the Question of the death penalty (A/HRC/54/L.34) which was supported by 28. 11 member States voted against, and 7 abstained.

In so doing, Malaysia did “…Strongly deploring the fact that the use of the death penalty leads to violations of the human rights of the persons facing the death penalty and of other affected persons’ and took the position ‘…that derogation from the right to life is never permitted, even during a state of emergency…’

Parliament, Not Courts, To Be Blamed for New and Existing Tenants of Death Row

Until and unless the death penalty is abolished in law, there will always remain the possibility that some will remain in death row, and new persons will be sentenced to death. Blame will lie not with the courts and Judges, but with Parliament who need to totally abolish the death sentence.

Given the public stance taken by this government, and by the Opposition Perikatan Nasional when they voted in favour UN General Assembly Resolution in 2020, MADPET do not foresee any objections if this government tables laws now to totally abolish the death penalty.

It is sad that death sentence is available for offences that even does not directly result in death or serious bodily injury of victims.

A person languishing in prison continue to be punished for years, with time to repent or reform, whilst a person once executed ceases to suffer for his/her crimes.

MADPET calls for the immediate repeal of the death penalty, and for the continued imposition of the moratorium on execution pending abolition of the death penalty, and

MADPET also calls on Malaysia to accede to or ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Note that this was  part of the UN General Assembly Resolutions and Human Rights Council Resolution that Malaysia supported.

Charles Hector

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

 

 

 

 

 

Federal Court upholds death sentence of former businessman for murder of UUM graduate 18 years ago

Federal Court upholds death sentence of former businessman for murder of UUM graduate 18 years ago
In 2015, Shahril, 43, was found guilty by the Alor Setar High Court of killing Chee, a Universiti Utara Malaysia graduate, near the Cinta Sayang Club in Taman Ria Jaya, Sungai Petani, between 5.30pm on January 14 and 3.05am on January 15, 2006. He was sentenced to death, and his subsequent appeals at the Court of Appeal and Federal Court were dismissed in 2016 and 2018, respectively. — Bernama pic

PUTRAJAYA, May 29 — The Federal Court here today upheld the death sentence of a former businessman for the murder of a female marketing executive 18 years ago.

The three-member panel comprising Justices Datuk Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal, Datuk Nordin Hassan, and Datuk Abu Bakar Jais dismissed Shahril Jaafar’s review application to commute his death sentence to life imprisonment under the Revision of Sentence of Death and Imprisonment for Natural Life (Temporary Jurisdiction of the Federal Court) Act 2023.

“We wish to reiterate this court is always aligned to compassion and mercy. In our view this is an exceptional case with exceptional facts,” said Justice Harmindar.

He said the deceased (Chee Gaik Yap) had suffered exceptional violence at Shahril’s hands. He pointed out that the 25-year-old woman was abducted, sodomised, raped, and killed by Shahril.

He said the crime caused public uproar and shock, adding that the incident took place in broad daylight.

“We are constrained to dismiss Shahril’s application and the death sentence is upheld,” said Justice Harmindar.

In 2015, Shahril, 43, was found guilty by the Alor Setar High Court of killing Chee, a Universiti Utara Malaysia graduate, near the Cinta Sayang Club in Taman Ria Jaya, Sungai Petani, between 5.30pm on January 14 and 3.05am on January 15, 2006.

He was sentenced to death, and his subsequent appeals at the Court of Appeal and Federal Court were dismissed in 2016 and 2018, respectively.

Earlier, Shahril’s lawyer Rosli Kamaruddin asked the court to commute the death sentence imposed on his client to life imprisonment.

He conveyed Shahril’s remorse and appealed to the court for a chance at redemption, citing his client’s active participation in prison rehabilitation programmes as a testament to his commitment to repent.

Deputy public prosecutor (DPP) Datuk Dusuki Mokhtar, who was assisted by DPP Solehah Noratikah Ismail objected to Shahril’s application and urged the court to uphold the death sentence, noting that this is the rarest of rare cases.

He said it was a brutal kidnap, rape, sodomise, and murder of a young lady who had gone jogging with her younger sister, adding that her semi-nude body was found nine hours later in a bush near the jogging track.

Dusuki said forensic pathologists found 50 wounds on Chee’s body, including around her private parts where Shahril’s DNA was found.

He said Shahril fled to Australia for three years to avoid investigation and arrest. He was finally detained six years later at KLIA upon his arrival from Perth in January 2012. — Bernama - Malay Mail, 29/5/2024

Appeals Court upholds death sentence of six men convicted of murdering Kevin Morais

Appeals Court upholds death sentence of six men convicted of murdering Kevin Morais
The six men convicted of murdering Kevin Morais are former pathologist, Colonel Dr R. Kunaseegaran, 61; money lender, S. Ravi Chandran, 53; and four unemployed, R. Dinishwaran, 32; AK Thinesh Kumar, 31; M. Vishwanath, 34; and S. Nimalan, 31. — File picture by Choo Choy May

PUTRAJAYA, March 14 — The Court of Appeal here today upheld the death sentence of six men convicted of murdering Deputy Public Prosecutor Datuk Anthony Kevin Morais nine years ago.

They are a former pathologist, Colonel Dr R. Kunaseegaran, 61; money lender, S. Ravi Chandran, 53; and four unemployed, R. Dinishwaran, 32; AK Thinesh Kumar, 31; M. Vishwanath, 34; and S. Nimalan, 31.

A three-judge panel consisting of Datuk Hadhariah Syed Ismail, Datuk Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim and Datuk Azmi Ariffin unanimously dismissed the appeal filed by the six men to set aside the decision of the High Court on July 10, 2020, which convicted and sentenced them to death for the murder.

In the court's decision, Judge Hadhariah said after examining all the grounds of judgment by the High Court judge and the evidence presented in court, the Court of Appeal found that the High Court judge did not err in terms of law and facts.

“The conviction imposed (against the six men) by the High Court was correct,” she said.

Judge Hadhariah said the murder was carefully planned and the condition of the body when it was found showed the cruelty of all the accused.

“If killing the victim was not enough, the deceased's car was also burned and his personal belongings were disposed of.

“This murder incident is categorised as extraordinary from an ordinary murder incident. Therefore, in our opinion, the punishment that commensurates the offence committed is hang to death,” said Judge Hadhariah.

She also said that when Morais’ body was found, it was fully clothed (but) without shoes and the hands tied behind his back with a tie.

“There are seven pressure marks or compression on the chest, shoulders and back of the body, which is placed in a sack in a fetal position. The sack is tied with iron wire and then put into the drum. Then cement is poured into the drum barrel which is then dumped into a swamp area,” she said.

She said forensic experts testified that the cause of Morais' death was due to suffocation.

The judge also said there was a common intention among all the accused to kill Morais because Ravi Chandran, Dinishwaran, Thinesh Kumar, Vishwanath and Nimalan were together during the deliberate collision between the Triton car and the deceased's car.

Judge Hadhariah said Kunaseegaran was also involved based on the fact that he only smiled and advised G. Gunasekaran to keep calm and not interfere in the affairs of the other accused when Gunasekaran told him about the blood flowing from the drum barrel.

“Kunaseegaran also showed a picture of the deceased’s burning car in his mobile phone to Gunasekaran and Kunaseegaran also said that he would bear the legal fees of the other accused because all the problems stemmed from him,” she said.

Judge Hadhariah said Kunaseegaran had a motive to kill Morais and the other accused were his agents.

Gunasekaran was initially accused of murdering Morais but the charge was later withdrawn after he pleaded guilty in the Sessions Court to the charge of disposing of Morais' body and was sentenced to two years in prison for the offence.

The prosecution then called Gunasekaran as a prosecution witness in the trial against all the accused.

On July 10, 2020, the High Court sentenced the six men to death after finding them guilty of killing Morais.

They were charged with killing Morais, 55, at a location along Jalan Dutamas Raya Sentul and Jalan USJ 1/6D, Subang Jaya between 7am and 8pm on September 4, 2015.

The deceased was reported missing on the date in question and was last seen leaving the condominium in a Proton Perdana car from Menara Duta, Kuala Lumpur, to his office at the Attorney General's Chambers in Putrajaya.

His body was found in a drum filled with concrete at Persiaran Subang Mewah, Subang Jaya, on September 16 of the same year. ― Bernama, Malay Mail, 14/3/2024

Federal Court upholds Singaporean's death sentence for killing stepson


facebook sharing button
twitter sharing button
whatsapp sharing button
telegram sharing button
linkedin sharing button
  • Nation
  • Thursday, 16 May 2024

PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court here on Thursday upheld the death sentence of a Singaporean man for the murder of his eight-year-old Thai stepson in 2008.

This followed the rejection of Shawal Senin’s application by the three-member panel of judges to commute his death sentence to life imprisonment under the Revision of Sentence of Death and Imprisonment for Natural Life (Temporary Jurisdiction of the Federal Court) Act 2023.

"Application is dismissed and the death sentence is maintained,” said Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, who chaired the panel with Federal Court judges Datuk Zabariah Mohd Yusof and Datuk Abu Bakar Jais.

Shawal, 47, was sentenced to death by the High Court on Nov 18, 2011, for killing Siwakorn Sukuntha at his residence in Kondominium Pulai View, Taman Kobena, Tampoi, Johor Baru between 9pm Dec 24 and 1pm on Dec 27, 2008.

His appeals to the Court of Appeal and Federal Court were dismissed on April 22, 2013, and Jan 29, 2015, respectively.

Shawal’s counsel Bustaman Menon Abdul Hamid Menon pleaded for leniency to commute the accused's death sentence to a prison sentence of between 33 years and 35 years.

He submitted that although it was a tragic case involving a small boy who was beaten over three days, Shawal’s act did not stem from "a heart of evil” or that he had intended to kill the boy.

Shawal, who had lost his job and was using drugs at the time, beat the child to discipline him, he added.

Deputy public prosecutor Dhiya Syazwani Izyan Mohd Akhir objected Shawal’s application and asked the court to uphold the death sentence imposed on him.

She said Shawal had repeatedly hit his stepson with his hand, a clothes hanger, feather duster, and a hammer and it was an act of blatant disregard for the sanctity of human life.

According to the facts of the case, Shawal got angry and assaulted the child by hand, a hammer, a clothes hanger, and a feather duster and also kicked him when the boy did not respond to his questions. His wife tried to stop him but was warned that she would face the same fate.

The boy's mother testified that Shawal told her he had used a lighter to burn the child’s private parts.

Shawal's last resort is to seek clemency from the Johor Pardons Board. - Bernama, Star, 16/5/2024

Federal Court upholds death sentence against four men for murder

Police escort the four men after the proceedings at Kuching Court Complex.

KUCHING (March 5): The Federal Court upheld the death sentence against four men who caused the death of a 32-year-old Batu Kawa woman in 2007.

A three-member panel of the Federal Court comprising justices Tan Sri Datuk Amar Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim, Tan Sri Datuk Abdul Rahman Sebli and Datuk Mary Lim Thiam Suan made the unanimous decision against Goh Wee Khian, Farose Tamure, Saidina Sarbeni and Abdul Hadi Sarbeni after dismissing their appeal to commute their death sentence to imprisonment term.

In April 2010, the High Court here had sentenced the four men to the gallows.

They were charged under Section 302 of the Penal Code read together with Section 34 of the same Code which provides for death sentence or imprisonment for a term of not less than 30 years but not exceeding 40 years and if not sentenced to death, punishment with whipping of not less than twelve strokes.

Goh, Farose, Saidina and Abdul Hadi murdered Catherine Chong Jang Joon at a parking lot in front of a nightspot in Central Park Commercial Centre here around 1.30am on Aug 9, 2007.

Based on the facts of the case, Goh hatched a plan to cause hurt to his girlfriend, Chong, and had asked Farose, Abdul Hadi and Saidina to injure her face.

Farose and brothers Abdul Hadi and Saidina searched for Chong and found her at the aforementioned nightspot.

In less than five minutes, the brothers stabbed Chong in the neck and upper chest area and she was later found dead on the spot.

Farose, Abdul Hadi and Saidina were then paid RM1,600 to be shared among them after they informed Goh that they had completed their tasks. They received the blood-money underneath the Bintawa Bridge.

During the proceedings today, DPP Mangaiarkarasi Krishnan submitted that based on the facts of this case, an imprisonment term was not suitable for their punishment.

She said the deceased in this case feared for her life about a week before her murder as the first applicant (Goh) threatened to kill her by asking three to four persons to cut off her hands and legs and disfigure her face.

“The deceased didn’t deserve to die in this manner. The stab wound to the right side of her neck had severed the internal jugular vein which led to excessive bleeding.

“The first applicant paid off the other applicants (Farose, Saidina and Abdul Hadi) a sum of RM1,600 to be shared among them. Is the deceased life worth only RM1,600?” said Mangaiarkarasi in her submission.

Goh was represented by counsels Chong Chieng Jen and Sim Kiat Leng, while Farose, Saidina and Abdul Hadi were represented by assigned counsel Daniel Ling. - Borneo Post, 5/3/2024

 

Federal Court upholds death sentence of ex-security guard for double murder

Federal Court upholds death sentence of ex-security guard for double murder
The Federal Court here today upheld the death sentence imposed on a former security guard for the murder of his two co-workers whom he slashed with a parang when they were asleep seven years ago. — Reuters pic

PUTRAJAYA, Jan 4 — The Federal Court here today upheld the death sentence imposed on a former security guard for the murder of his two co-workers whom he slashed with a parang when they were asleep seven years ago.

A three-member bench comprising Court of Appeal president Tan Sri Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim and Federal Court judges Datuk Mary Lim Thiam Suan and Datuk Abu Bakar Jais dismissed Mohd Ferdaus Suwardi’s appeal against his conviction and death sentence.

-Advertisement-

In delivering the court’s decision, Justice Abang Iskandar said the court maintained the death penalty imposed on Mohd Ferdaus by the lower courts in light of the gruesome manner the crime was committed, which was without any mercy.

He said the court declined to invoke its discretion to substitute the death sentence on Mohd Ferdaus for a custodial sentence.

Earlier, in dismissing Mohd Ferdaus’s appeal against his conviction, Justice Abang Iskandar said the lower courts were correct to find him (Mohd Ferdaus) guilty of killing the victims and that he (Mohd Ferdaus) failed to prove the balance of probability that he was legally insane when he committed the crime.

Mohd Ferdaus, 37, was sentenced to death by the High Court on November 12, 2019, after he was found guilty of killing Syed Mohd Fazrul Syed Mohd Ridhuan, 23, and Wan Amir Hamzah Abu Hassan, 48, at a chicken processing factory in Jalan Bukit Kuda, Klang, Selangor between 6.30am and 9am on July 31, 2017.

He lost his appeal at the Court of Appeal on May 26, 2022.

According to the facts of the case, Mohd Ferdaus returned to his village after killing the two men and admitted to his mother what he had done.

In his testimony, Mohd Ferdaus admitted to killing the two men, but on the defence of insanity under Section 84 of the Penal Code.

However, the High Court judge, in considering the expert evidence of three psychiatrists found that Mohd Ferdaus failed to prove the defence of insanity.

In mitigation before the Federal Court today, lawyer Mohd Fadhly Yaacob asked the court to substitute the death sentence on his client to between 30 years and 33 years in jail, but deputy public prosecutor Ng Siew Wee urged the court to maintain the death penalty.

She said Mohd Ferdaus had attacked the deceased when they were asleep and the attack was exceptionally cruel, adding that Syed Mohd Fazrul suffered 45 injuries while Wan Amir Hamzah had 23 injuries on his body.

“He did not stop the attack when the deceased begged for mercy,” she said, adding that Mohd Ferdaus acted out of spite with vindictiveness which warranted the most severe condemnation. — Bernama, Malay Mail, 4/1/2024

On 13/10/2023, Malaysia was one of the 28 members of the Human Rights Council that voted in FAVOUR of the Human Rights Council Resolution on the Question of the Death Penalty

54/… Question of the death penalty    (A/HRC/54/L.34)

 

The Human Rights Council,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Recalling the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and all other relevant international and regional human rights instruments, and reaffirming that all States must implement their obligations under international human rights law, 

Recalling also the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty,


Recalling further General Assembly resolutions 62/149 of 18 December 2007, 63/168 of 18 December 2008, 65/206 of 21 December 2010, 67/176 of 20 December 2012, 69/186 of 18 December 2014, 71/187 of 19 December 2016, 73/175 of 17 December 2018, 75/183 of 16 December 2020 and 77/222 of 15 December 2022 on the question of a moratorium on the use of the death penalty,

Reaffirming the safeguards guaranteeing the protection of persons facing the death penalty set out in the annex to Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50 of 25 May 1984 and the provisions regarding the implementation of the guidelines contained in Council resolutions 1989/64 of 24 May 1989 and 1996/15 of 23 July 1996,

Recalling all resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights on the question of the death penalty, the last of which was resolution 2005/59 of 20 April 2005,

Recalling also Human Rights Council decision 18/117 of 28 September 2011 on reporting by the Secretary-General on the question of the death penalty, Council resolution 22/11 of 21 March 2013 on a panel on the human rights of children of parents sentenced to the death penalty or executed, Council decision 22/117 of 21 March 2013 on a high-level panel discussion on the question of the death penalty, and Council resolutions 26/2 of 26 June 2014, 30/5 of 1 October 2015, 36/17 of 29 September 2017, 42/24 of 27 September 2019 and 48/9 of 8 October 2021 on the question of the death penalty,

Taking note of the reports of the Secretary-General on the question of the death penalty, in the latest of which the Secretary-General focused on the relationship between articles 6 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, focusing on the right to seek pardon or commutation of sentences and the right to have one’s conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law, in accordance with the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty set out in the annex to Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50, and in which he analysed the applicable legal framework and shared available data and examples of national practices,1

Acknowledging the report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the high-level panel discussion on the question of the death penalty, according to which the panel found that the death penalty continues to be provided and applied for crimes that do not meet the threshold of “the most serious crimes”, including drug-related offences,

Stressing that the term “the most serious crimes” has consistently been read restrictively and interpreted as pertaining only to crimes of extreme gravity involving intentional killing, and stressing also that under no circumstances can the death penalty ever be applied as a sanction against specific forms of conduct, such as apostasy, blasphemy, adultery, consensual same-sex conduct or relations, establishing political opposition groups or offending a head of State, and that States parties that retain the death penalty for such offences commit a violation of their international obligations,

Mindful of the work of the special procedure mandate holders who have addressed human rights issues relating to the death penalty, including the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism,

Mindful also of the work undertaken by the treaty bodies to address human rights issues relating to the death penalty,

Recognizing the role of regional and subregional instruments and initiatives towards the abolition of the death penalty, which in some cases have led to the prohibition of the use
of the death penalty,

Welcoming the fact that the international trend towards the abolition of the death penalty is continuing, that many States are applying a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, and all measures taken by States towards limiting the application of the death penalty,

Noting that States with different legal systems, traditions, cultures and religious backgrounds have abolished the death penalty or are applying a moratorium on its use,

Recalling article 6 (6) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that nothing in that article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State party to the Covenant, and bearing in mind that, according to the Human Rights Committee, States parties that are not yet totally abolitionist should be on an irrevocable path towards complete eradication of the death penalty, de facto and de jure, in the foreseeable future,

Noting that, also according to the Human Rights Committee, States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that have abolished the death penalty are barred from reintroducing it, and noting also that the reinstatement of the death penalty by a State party to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is a violation of international law,

Recalling that derogation from the right to life is never permitted, even during a state of emergency,

Acknowledging the interest in studying the question of the death penalty, as well as in holding local, national, regional and international debates related thereto,

Emphasizing the importance for the effectiveness and transparency of debates on the death penalty of ensuring that the public has access to balanced information, including accurate information and statistics on criminality and the various effective ways to combat it without resorting to capital punishment,

Strongly deploring the fact that the use of the death penalty leads to violations of the human rights of the persons facing the death penalty and of other affected persons,

Recalling that, particularly in capital punishment cases, States are required to ensure that all persons benefit from a fair trial and a guarantee of due process, by providing adequate assistance of legal counsel from the earliest stages of their detention and at every stage of the
proceedings, without discrimination of any kind, and effective access to documents and other
evidence that are essential for their defence, and that failure to respect fair trial guarantees in
proceedings resulting in the imposition of the death penalty could constitute a violation of the right to life,

Emphasizing that it is important that States ensure that due process and fair trial guarantees and safeguards, including the right to have one’s conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law and the right to seek pardon and commutation, are effectively in place and implemented,

Recalling that the right of everyone convicted of a crime to have their conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal according to the law includes a duty on States to review the conviction and sentence on the merits, and stressing that a violation of this right in proceedings resulting in the imposition of the death penalty renders the death sentence arbitrary in nature and in violation of the right to life,

Underscoring that the denial of legal assistance by the tribunal reviewing the death sentence of an indigent convicted person precludes an effective review of the conviction and sentence by the higher tribunal, and that such denial of legal assistance constitutes a violation of article 14 (3) (d) and (5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

Reaffirming that States are required to allow individuals sentenced to death to seek pardon or commutation, that amnesties, pardons and commutations can be granted to them in appropriate circumstances, that such requests for pardon or commutation are thoroughly examined and that death sentences are not carried out in the event any appeal or other recourse procedure or other proceeding relating to pardon or commutation of the sentence remain pending or unresolved,

Reaffirming also that, under international human rights law, no category of sentenced persons may be excluded in law or in practice from pardons or commutations of a death sentence, and that the conditions for attainment of relief must not be unnecessarily burdensome, discriminatory in nature or applied in an arbitrary and non-transparent manner, and expressing concern that, while many countries provide for the right to seek pardon or commutation of a death sentence in their national legislation, certain crimes are often excluded from it, or the number of pardons or commutations may be capped,

Underlining that in all cases where the death penalty may be imposed, the personal circumstances of the offender and the particular circumstances of the offence, including its specific attenuating elements, must be considered by the sentencing court, and expressing concern, in this regard, that the use of mandatory death sentences is arbitrary in nature and irreconcilable with the right to life and the right to a fair trial,

Stressing that those convictions resulting in the death penalty based on information obtained through torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of interrogated persons violate article 15 of the Convention against Torture and articles 7, 14 (3) (g) and 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

Considering that, in order to avoid wrongful convictions in death penalty cases, States should take all feasible measures to review procedural barriers to reconsideration of convictions and to re-examine past convictions based on new evidence, including new DNA evidence,

Recalling that persons sentenced to death, their families and their lawyers should be provided with timely and reliable information on the procedures and timing of appeals, clemency petitions and executions,

Stressing the need to examine further in which circumstances the imposition or application of the death penalty violates the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including because of the death row phenomenon, the methods of execution or the lack of transparency around executions,

Emphasizing that access to consular assistance for foreign nationals, provided for in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, is an important aspect of the protection of those facing the death penalty abroad,

1. Urges all States to protect the rights of persons facing the death penalty and other affected persons by complying with their international obligations;

2. Calls upon States that have not yet acceded to or ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, to consider doing so;

3. Calls upon States that have not yet abolished the death penalty to take active steps to reduce the number of offences for which the death penalty may be imposed and to limit them strictly to “the most serious crimes”;

4. Calls upon States that provide for or apply the mandatory death penalty to end this practice;

5. Urges all States to respect international standards that provide safeguards guaranteeing protection of the human rights of those facing the death penalty, in particular the minimum standards, as set out in the annex to Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50 of 25 May 1984;

6. Also urges all States to ensure that all legal proceedings, including those before special tribunals or jurisdictions, and particularly those relating to capital offences, uphold the rights and are consistent with the minimum procedural guarantees contained in article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including:

(a) That those facing the death penalty can exercise their right to apply for pardon or commutation of their death sentence, notably by ensuring necessary procedural guarantees,
such as that conditions for attaining pardons or commutations are not unnecessarily burdensome, discriminatory in nature or applied in an arbitrary and non-transparent manner,
that clemency applications are heard within a reasonable period of time, and that certainty is
provided regarding the pardon and commutation procedures;

(b) That everyone sentenced to death has the right to have his or her conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal according to the law, and that the conviction and sentence are reviewed on the merits, on the basis of the sufficiency of the evidence and the law, while taking particular care to consider and investigate fully allegations that a death sentence is based on evidence elicited through torture or ill-treatment, noting that the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol) can provide useful guidance regarding investigations into such allegations, and that civilian courts have the right to review any death sentences issued against civilians by military tribunals;

7. Calls upon States to ensure that all accused persons, in particular poor and economically vulnerable persons and persons with disabilities, can exercise their rights relating to equal access to justice, to ensure adequate, qualified and effective legal representation at every stage of civil and criminal proceedings in cases of capital punishment through effective legal assistance, and to ensure that those facing the death penalty can exercise their right to seek pardon or commutation of their death sentence;

8. Also calls upon States to comply with their obligations under article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, and to inform without delay foreign nationals who have been arrested or detained of their right to contact the relevant consular post and to communicate with their consular representatives, bearing in mind that failure to promptly inform detained foreign nationals of their right to consular notification pursuant to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, resulting in the imposition of the death penalty, would likely violate the right to life;

9. Calls upon States that have not yet abolished the death penalty to make available systematically and publicly full, accurate and relevant information, disaggregated by gender, age, nationality, race, disability and other applicable criteria, with regard to their use of the death penalty, inter alia, the charges, number of persons sentenced to death, the number of persons on death row and the location of their detention, the number of executions carried out and the number of death sentences reversed, commuted on appeal or in which amnesty or pardon has been granted, as well as information on any scheduled execution, which can contribute to possible informed and transparent national and international debates, bearing in mind that access to reliable information on the imposition and application of the death penalty enables national and international stakeholders to understand and assess the scope of these practices, including about compliance with the obligations of States with regard to the use of the death penalty;

10. Requests the Secretary-General to dedicate the 2025 supplement to his quinquennial report on capital punishment to the consequences arising at various stages of the imposition and application of the death penalty on the enjoyment of the human rights of persons facing the death penalty and other affected persons, paying specific attention to equality of arms, the need to prevent miscarriage or failure of justice, and the irreversibility of the death penalty, and to present it to the Human Rights Council for consideration at its sixtieth session and to make it available in all languages before the session;

11. Decides that the upcoming biennial high-level panel discussion to be held during the fifty-eighth session of the Human Rights Council will address the contribution of the judiciary to the advancement of human rights and the question of the death penalty;

12. Requests the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to organize the high-level panel discussion and to liaise with States, relevant United Nations bodies, agencies, treaty bodies, special procedures and regional human rights mechanisms, as well as with parliamentarians, civil society, including non-governmental organizations, and national human rights institutions with a view to ensuring their participation in the panel discussion, and to make the biennial panel discussion fully accessible;

13. Also requests the Office of the High Commissioner to prepare a summary report on the panel discussion, also in an accessible format, and to submit it to the Human Rights Council at its sixtieth session;

14. Decides to continue its consideration of this issue in accordance with its programme of work.

Note:

The results of the vote on L.34 are as follows:

In favour (28): Argentina, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Czechia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Honduras, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Montenegro, Nepal, Paraguay, Romania, South Africa, Ukraine, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.

Against(11): Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, India, Maldives, Pakistan, Qatar, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and United States.

Abstentions (7): Algeria, Eritrea, Gambia, Malawi, Morocco, Senegal and Viet Nam.

SOURCE: UN Website

 

Wednesday, May 29, 2024

Hannah Yeoh's Husbands Company - Not the Issue. Issue is whether OPEN TENDER or whether contract awarded to just a 'related' companies, etc? Enact law on OPEN TENDER. Where is the OMBUDSMAN?

It is NOT about Hannah Yeoh's husband's company getting a contract from the Selangor government under Pakatan Harapan - It is about OPEN TENDER - which was a 'promise' and no more direct awarding of a government contract. 

The open tender system will reduce political interference, lobbying, nepotism and cronyism. It will also reduce opportunities for corruption, said former treasury secretary-general Tan Sri Sheriff Kassim.

He was commenting on Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s (pix) recent instruction to civil servants that approval for government procurement can no longer be given without a tender process.

Anwar said his government will not allow leakages or corruption to continue in the country, and that to ensure corruption will not take place, the approval and procurement process without a tender should no longer be allowed.

Sheriff said the open tender system has always been a part of the Finance Ministry’s regulations.

As it is more transparent, bidding for a project will be more competitive and bidders will try to give the best possible price.

When any company is awarded a contract without going to an OPEN TENDER process, doubts arise whether there was some hanky panky... was the contract wrongly given to a 'connected' company...

We remember Pakatan Harapan and Anwar Ibrahim's commitment that the government will from now practice OPEN TENDER, and mind you that Selangor is a Pakatan Harapan governed state.

The open tender system will reduce political interference, lobbying, nepotism and cronyism. It will also reduce opportunities for corruption, said former treasury secretary-general Tan Sri Sheriff Kassim.He was commenting on Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s (pix) recent instruction to civil servants that approval for government procurement can no longer be given without a tender process.

Anwar said his government will not allow leakages or corruption to continue in the country, and that to ensure corruption will not take place, the approval and procurement process without a tender should no longer be allowed.

Hence, it was ODD for Anwar to come out and say 

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim says an investigation can be conducted into the award of a transport-related project to a startup linked to a minister’s husband if a report has been lodged. Anwar said the matter should then be handled transparently by the authorities.

Anwar misses the point yet again... Whether report made or not, it is already an issue, and the relevant law enforcement can make the report without waiting for 3rd parties to make a report, and investigate the matter. But without a clear law on OPEN TENDER, existing law may be insufficient. ENACT a law on OPEN TENDER now.

What we needed from Anwar was a CONFIRMATION that the project was awarded to the said company after an OPEN TENDER process, that is all. He needed to say that there was an OPEN TENDER - where any company could submit their proposal, and that after vetting and selection process carried out professionally, the said company or companies were awarded the contract. How many companies applied for the project?

SECOND ISSUE - Was the tender exercise CLEAN and focused on the ability or capacity of the company to carry out the project, without any consideration to 'political connections' or any other irrelevant factors? Was there any '...political interference, lobbying, nepotism and cronyism..' in the process?

But the problem here is that there is still NO CLEAR LAW requiring an OPEN TENDER process - to date it is merely POLICY, and that is not enough. We need a LAW to put that makes it MANDATORY that all government projects should be by way of an OPEN TENDER - no more government pick and choose to award to this and that company.

The law must stipulate the PROCESS for OPEN TENDERS = and, it must specifically criminalize political interference, lobbying, nepotism and cronyism...in the tender process.

THIRD ISSUE - Which companies ought to be disqualified in participating in tender exercises for government projects? Should companies owned or with links to Cabinet Members of the State/Federal Government or party leaders/MPs of parties in government be disqualified in trying to get government projects? Is there a requirement that such companies with such links be required to DISCLOSE this fact when they apply for government projects? Should such persons with links to these companies EXCLUDE themselves from the selection process? Should party leaders and party members of persons with links EXCLUDE themselves from the selection and awarding process. 

NEXT ISSUE - Who MONITORS to ensure that the entire TENDER PROCESS and SELECTION was clean? For the Federal Government, it should best be a Parliamentary Select Committee - where people with issues/complains/suspicions can also directly send them to such Committee. Likewise, for State Projects, there should be a similar committee in the State Legislative Assembly.

What else? There have been talk about an OMBUDSMAN - and maybe this can also be the role of the Ombudsman, who must be INDEPENDENT of the government with the powers to investigate and prosecute with regards matters concerning government projects and activities. 

Sarawak beat the Federal Government - and recently the the Minister said that the Bill will be tabled in October. 

Sarawak will be the first state in Malaysia to set up an ombudsman institution to provide independent oversight of the state's public service agencies.

This comes after the Sarawak Legislative Assembly unanimously approved the Sarawak Ombudsman Bill on Monday (Nov 20).

Deputy Premier Datuk Amar Awang Tengah Ali Hasan said establishing the ombudsman elevates the accountability standards in public administration and provides measures against maladministration by state public service agencies.

He said the Bill would enhance transparency and accountability in government agencies by allowing the public to report maladministration to the ombudsman. - Star, 20/11/2023

For Malaysia, 

On Monday, the Legal Affairs Division of the Prime Minister's Department said a law and institutional reforms committee would refine details about the structure and functions of Ombudsman Malaysia, as well as a proposed centralised agency for whistleblower protection.

The proposals would be submitted to the cabinet, and enabling bills would be tabled in the parliamentary session in October. - NST, 1/5/2024

MACC(Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission) should never have come out too quickly and say that there was no wrongdoing - Under what law did they even investigate. Normally, law enforcement will tell us that they are investigating under what law. So, Azam Baki need to elaborate - what law were they investigating under.

In the past, MACC had allegedly vetted candidates before elections - How many of those 'cleared' of corruption have been since charged, tried and convicted. MACC should be INDEPENDENT and focus on law enforcement, and not allowed itself to be used by political parties to prematurely declare 'candidates' or even cases clean and crime-free. 


Asyraf Rasid /theSunAsyraf Rasid /theSun

PETALING JAYA: The open tender system will reduce political interference, lobbying, nepotism and cronyism. It will also reduce opportunities for corruption, said former treasury secretary-general Tan Sri Sheriff Kassim.

He was commenting on Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s (pix) recent instruction to civil servants that approval for government procurement can no longer be given without a tender process.

Anwar said his government will not allow leakages or corruption to continue in the country, and that to ensure corruption will not take place, the approval and procurement process without a tender should no longer be allowed.

Sheriff said the open tender system has always been a part of the Finance Ministry’s regulations.

As it is more transparent, bidding for a project will be more competitive and bidders will try to give the best possible price.

“The treasury will make its cost estimate before the tender is open. If the bidding price is too low, it might not be a practical offer, therefore the treasury studies all open tender bids carefully before awarding the contract,” he said, adding that having open tenders do not mean corruption will be eliminated but it will be reduced.

Sherrif said in certain cases it might not be practical to have open tenders, for example when it involves military projects or there might be only one supplier for the product.

He said ministries are not allowed to depart from the standard practice of having an open tender, they have to give the reason as to why they want to hold direct negotiations with a contractor.

If they want to avoid the open tender system, the reason must be justified, he said.

Deputy Finance Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Maslan said on Wednesday the implementation of an open tender policy would lead to cost reduction for the government while boosting national income.

Economist Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam said the open tender system is best if it is done in a transparent and accountable manner. In a closed system those involved can get “a few friends” to bid for the tender before it is awarded to one of them.

“In an open bidding system, there is a set number of pre-qualifiers, such as capability and track record. The whole process is very strict and the bids cannot be shared with others, or the process will be corrupted.

“If done well, the system will reduce leakages and save money for the government, but if controls are lax, then leakages will become a problem. The possibility of corruption exists if those involved in the open tender are in cahoots with the bidders,” said the former deputy treasury secretary-general and Transport Ministry secretary-general.

Ramon also said the lowest tender bid might not be best because the winner may not be able to deliver the project or meet the required quality.

“Before a bid is awarded in an open tender system, all bidders must be carefully scrutinised to ensure the winner can deliver. Failure to deliver even in an open system will cause the government to lose money.”

Authorities must probe DRT contract if reports made, says Anwar

Published on 28 May 2024 3:06:33 PM

Let the authorities investigate the issue involving the Selangor government contract with a company linked to Youth and Sports Minister Hannah Yeoh, says Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

When met after launching the Global Forum on Islamic Economics and Finance (GFIEF) on Tuesday (May 28), the Prime Minister emphasised that any investigation on the matter involving the state government contract awarded to Asia Mobility Technologies Sdn Bhd, founded by Yeoh’s husband, must be transparent. - Star, 28/5/2024

 

Interim probe into contract awarded to company linked to Hannah Yeoh’s spouse found no wrongdoing - Azam Baki

MACC Chief Commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki - BERNAMApixMACC Chief Commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki - BERNAMApix

PUTRAJAYA: The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has clarified that it conducted an interim investigation into the awarding of the Demand Responsive Transit (DRT) pilot project contract by the Selangor government to the company owned by Youth and Sports Minister Hannah Yeoh’s husband and found no wrongdoing.

MACC Chief Commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki said as the interim investigation revealed no misconduct, the commission decided there was no case to pursue, adding that continued media coverage of the issue could have adverse effects on both parties involved.

“If a politician claims there is a moral issue in this case, that is up to them. I am not a politician or a motivational expert to comment on such matters,“ he said during the Executive Talk Editor Media Online programme today.

Yesterday, after Azam said that the MACC found no link between Hannah and the contract award, some politicians criticised him, suggesting there could have been elements of power abuse overlooked by the MACC.

Asia Mobility Technologies Sdn Bhd, owned by Hannah’s husband, is one of the two companies selected for the DRT pilot project, a state government initiative to improve public transportation services and mobility in Selangor.

When asked about Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s statement leaving it to the authorities to investigate the contract award issue, Azam said he would personally explain the case to the Prime Minister.

“As the Prime Minister said, let the authorities handle this. You have frequently asked about this matter and questioned him about it. This is not a directive from the Prime Minister, and any subsequent investigation is up to the MACC as the authority,“ he said. - The Sun, 28/5/2024





Sarawak to set up Malaysia’s first ombudsman institution

By SHARON LING Sabah & Sarawak

Monday, 20 Nov 2023 7:57 PM MYT





KUCHING: Sarawak will be the first state in Malaysia to set up an ombudsman institution to provide independent oversight of the state's public service agencies.

This comes after the Sarawak Legislative Assembly unanimously approved the Sarawak Ombudsman Bill on Monday (Nov 20).

Deputy Premier Datuk Amar Awang Tengah Ali Hasan said establishing the ombudsman elevates the accountability standards in public administration and provides measures against maladministration by state public service agencies.

He said the Bill would enhance transparency and accountability in government agencies by allowing the public to report maladministration to the ombudsman.

"The ombudsman will ensure check-and-balance elements are in place and will enable the government to improve its public delivery systems and procedures.

"This will lead to a better administration and increase public trust and respect in the government," he said when tabling the Bill.

Awang Tengah said the Sarawak ombudsman would comprise a chief ombudsman, deputy chief, and three to five other ombudsmen to be appointed by the Yang di-Pertua Negeri for a three-year term, with the possibility of reappointment.

He said the ombudsman would be empowered to investigate complaints and to form an investigation committee if necessary.

"Notwithstanding any complaint, the ombudsman may initiate any action on its own if it thinks it is necessary in the rakyat's interests," he said.

In addition, the Bill made it an offence to give false information to the ombudsman intentionally, fail to appear upon receiving notice, exercise improper influence, obstruct the ombudsman in carrying out its duties, commit contempt towards the ombudsman, and make misrepresentation.

It proposed penalties of fines from RM10,000 to RM50,000 and imprisonment of six months to three years for the offences.

In addition, the Bill required the ombudsman to submit reports to the Sarawak Legislative Assembly on its activities and the result of any enquiries, including findings, recommendations and opinions.

"This ensures that the ombudsman's findings are transparent and accessible to the public, and this august House has oversight over the performance of the ombudsman and the actions or activities undertaken by him in pursuance of the provisions of the new law," Awang Tengah said.

"It portrays the independence of the ombudsman’s institution, which is free from any interference, whether political or otherwise."

To an issue raised by Chong Chieng Jen (DAP-Padungan) when debating the Bill, Awang Tengah said government-linked companies (GLCs) were not left out from the application of the law.

"The definition of public service agency under clause 2 of the Bill is all-encompassing," he said.

Chong had asked whether GLCs were subject to investigation and scrutiny by the ombudsman. - Star, 20/11/2023

Make sure Ombudsman Malaysia is formed this year, says Lam Thye

KUALA LUMPUR: The Ombudsman Malaysia watchdog, which has been talked about for decades, should finally see the light of day this year, says a social activist.

The idea first came up in the 1970s, said Alliance for a Safe Community chairman Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye.

In 2018, the then prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad announced that the Public Complaints Bureau would be known and function as Ombudsman Malaysia.

Dr Mahathir said legislation would be drafted for this purpose.

On Monday, the Legal Affairs Division of the Prime Minister's Department said a law and institutional reforms committee would refine details about the structure and functions of Ombudsman Malaysia, as well as a proposed centralised agency for whistleblower protection.

The proposals would be submitted to the cabinet, and enabling bills would be tabled in the parliamentary session in October.

Lee said the time has come for the government to set up this all-encompassing system to address public grievances against authorities.

The statement by the Legal Affairs Division about gathering feedback from stakeholders, such as government bodies, non-governmental organisations and civil society groups is a step in the right direction, he said.

"I hope the bill can be sorted out and tabled in Parliament this year.

"Having the Public Complaints Bureau alone is insufficient and it's not working out well," he said.- NST, 1/5/2024






Tuesday, May 28, 2024

Asset Declaration of Cabinet Members/MPs - when they get into power, and then annually - to ensure NO unlawful enrichment by them or family members whilst in power?

Since Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim's Pakatan Harapan led coalition government came into power in November 2022, there seems to be no ASSET DECLARATION of members of administration or MPs yet...and it is now May 2024.

REASON for Asset Declaration is to ENSURE that these Members of Cabinet and/or MPs do not unlawfully or illegally accumulate wealth for themselves and their family members by virtue of the position/power they now have.

Hence, 1st Asset Declaration when they become a member of the Cabinet or MP - this tells us HOW much they have when they come into power.

Then, regular Asset Declarations - maybe annually or bi-annually > so, the people can MONITOR that there is no UNLAWFUL enrichment of themselves or their family members. We know their salaries/allowances - so, we can monitor.

REGULAR ASSET DECLARATION will also DETER abuse of power or position to increase personal or family wealth whilst in POWER.

Thus, ONE ASSET DECLARATION only is useless....
 
Now, in this Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim's government - there seem to be NO ASSET DECLARATION of Members of the Cabinet, and/or MPs YET it seems... HENCE, how much have they ACCUMULATED unlawfully since they got into power will be most difficult to even be seen. It has been almost 18 Months....Mmmm
 
Why should ASSET DECLARATIONS be PUBLIC - because then the people who know of 'hidden wealth' not declared can also help REVEAL this and catch those who LIED to the people....People's participation in Monitoring their MPs and Ministers...

Past ASSET DECLARATIONS must always be available online - It is wrong to just keep ASSET DECLARATIONS for public just for a few months, and then it is gone. How then will we be able to compare? 
 
After delaying ASSET DECLARATION, again in March, they talked about NEW FORMAT to be enforced soon - but when is SOON?
 
ASSET DECLARATION must be LAW, where the failure to make truthful declaration must be criminalized. Sometimes, personal assets can be hidden under the names of 3rd parties - that should never be allowed. We recall Azam Baki's case, where on the face of it, the shares would belong to Azam Baki but if his assertions were true, the his brother could have hidden away his shares...This should be prevented.
The Securities Commission Malaysia (SC) said it will be in touch with Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki and the parties involved, following Azam's claim that his share trading account was used by his brother to purchase shares in 2015.
We have all heard some politicians make claims that monies in their account is NOT theirs but belong to the political party or some welfare institution... The law must be clear to ensure that all monies in your account is presumed to belong to you, unless proven otherwise. Likewise, all shares in your account is yours, unless proven otherwise...

We need a LAW - which also stipulates offences, and DETERRENT sentences.
 
 

New format for asset declaration for MPs and administrative members to be enforced soon

KUALA LUMPUR: A new format of asset declaration for members of parliament and administrative members will be implemented soon.

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman said this follows the decision of a Special Cabinet Committee on National Governance meeting chaired by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim on Jan 8.

"Following the meeting, the committee agreed to bring the proposed improvement on asset declaration format for the cabinet's further discussion in the nearest time before the format is enforced," she said in a parliamentary written reply on Monday.

She said this in response to Datuk Seri Takiyuddin Hassan (PN-Kota Bharu) on whether the government has implemented the asset declaration policy for all administrative members.

Meanwhile, Azalina said that the 17th Special Cabinet Meeting on Anti-Corruption chaired by the prime minister on July 6, last year, had also agreed that all administrative members declare their assets.

"However, the existing asset declaration format must be improved to ensure that the information provided is accurate and transparent before asset declaration is carried out again.

"Following this decision, the cabinet meeting on July 12, 2023, agreed that a new, more comprehensive asset declaration format should be prepared by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) as an improvement measure."

The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) announced that the Special Cabinet Committee on National Governance in January announced a new guideline to replace the 1998 circular letter (No. 3) in strengthening the governance of Federal Statutory Bodies (FSB).

PMO said the implementation of the guideline is a priority to support the Malaysia Madani agenda through the empowerment of statutory bodies.

It added that the committee also discussed the new format for asset declaration by lawmakers and administrative members to be reinforced, in line with the government's principle of transparency. - NST, 25/3/2024