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...
Press Release | The Malaysian Bar Calls for an End to Public Caning and Corporal Punishment
26 Dec 2024 12:44 pm
The Malaysian Bar expresses its profound
concern regarding the impending public caning of a carpenter in
Terengganu tomorrow, 27 Dec 2024.1 This marks the first
instance of such a punishment being carried out in public under the
Syariah Criminal Offences (Takzir) (Terengganu) Enactment Amendment
2022. We reiterate our unwavering stance against all forms of corporal
punishment, including caning or whipping, as they are inherently cruel,
inhumane, and degrading. Such punishments strip individuals of their
dignity.
While we acknowledge the significance of
upholding laws that preserve public morality and societal harmony,
punishments that are carried out must align with Malaysia’s commitments
to uphold the rule of law, the Federal Constitution, and human rights.
Public caning exacerbates the humiliation
and anguish experienced by the punished individuals, thus reducing them
to objects of public shame rather than encouraging rehabilitation or
repentance. This approach undermines the dignity of the individual and
can be seen as violating Article 5 of the Federal Constitution.
Furthermore, the implementation of public caning exceeds the
jurisdictional limitations of the Syariah Courts as set out in the
Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 [Act 355]. While Act
355 allows for whipping, it does not envisage the punishment being
carried out publicly.
Malaysia aspires to be a nation respected
for its adherence to human rights standards, yet allowing public caning
contravenes international human rights principles, including those
enshrined in the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“UNCAT”).
It is noteworthy that several Muslim-majority countries have ratified or
acceded to UNCAT — an example that Malaysia should follow.2
The Malaysian Bar urges the Terengganu
State Government and the Federal Government to reconsider public caning
practices by reviewing and amending laws that permit such punishments to
ensure they are proportionate, rehabilitative, and respectful of human
dignity.
Additionally, we call for the total abolishment of corporal punishment
in Malaysia. The justice system must strive to balance morality,
compassion, and the rule of law.
Mohamad Ezri b Abdul Wahab President Malaysian Bar
Press Release | Abolish Corporal Punishment Once and For All5 Sep 2018 5:08 pm
The Malaysian Bar condemns the
caning of two women by the Syariah Court in Terengganu on 3 September
2018, which was carried out in public within the court premises.
The Malaysian Bar reiterates the position expressed in our
press statement dated 29 August 2018, entitled “Halt the Caning of the
Two Women in Terengganu, and Abolish Corporal Punishment”. We stand
unequivocally and unreservedly against all forms of corporal
punishment, including caning or whipping, in accordance with the United
Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (“UNCAT”), and international human rights
norms. We reaffirm our stance that corporal punishment must be totally
abolished as a form of punishment for all offences.
Further,
the Malaysian Bar is appalled that the caning of the two women was
carried out before an audience, and thus made into a public spectacle.
Caning in itself is a cruel and degrading form of punishment that strips
an individual of dignity and self–respect. This is exacerbated by the
very public manner in which the caning was carried out, the harmful
effects of which cannot be justified by any perceived retributory,
deterrent or educational value.
Any
comparison of this type of caning with whipping under civil law is
misplaced. All kinds of corporal punishment are harsh and barbaric, and
cause harmful and long–lasting physical and/or psychological effects.
Fifty–three
countries around the world have instituted country–wide bans on all
forms of corporal punishment. Four of them are member states of the
Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (“OIC”). Malaysia must follow
suit.
Who Decides Whether Hotel Fees Increased or Not - The Mayor or the Chief Minister
Penang Island City Council (MBPP) mayor Rajendran Anthony
As mentioned, Malaysia has 3 levels of Government - the FEDERAL government, the STATE government, and the Local Government. Sadly, Malaysians only NOW elect in the Federal Government and the State Government. The right to democratically elect the LOCAL government was STOLEN from the people - first because of the 'Indonesian Confrontaion' which suspended Local Government Elections, and then by the Federal Government(with no objection from State Governments) who enacted an Act that prevented democratic elections, and put in place 'political appointments' by State of persons who will be in the Local Government.
Local Government, like State Government and Federal Government, have their OWN separate areas or jurisdictions. It is Local Government power to decide who can do business within their jurisdiction - they decide on permits/licences/advertisements/approval of building or development.
Recently, local media reported that Penang was considering raising hotel
accommodation fees, a form of local tax levied by the Penang Island
City Council (MBPP), by at least 50 percent.
Now, in Penang Island - it wasthe Penang Island City Council (MBPP) that decided that all hotels need to pay a new 'tourism tax/fee' at a certain rate. Now, there is talk that this fee/rate may be doubled. Money collected by the Local Government will be used by the Local Government...
SO, why is the Penang Chief Minister being a busy body? He is NOT in the Local Government - even if he now has the power to appoint the mayor and Local Councillors...
“However, the state government has not opted to increase hotel fees, as
alleged, and no discussions on the matter have ever taken place,” he
[Penang Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow]told reporters after inaugurating Pos Shop Datuk Keramat in George Town
today.
Penang Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow
Must the LOCAL Council(Government) OBEY the Chief Minister or the State Government? NO unless there is some law that says so...
The Chief Minister of the State and/or as a person residing in within the Local Council jurisdiction, has the right to express his views/opinions - BUT he certainly should not have the power to decide how the Local Council should do or not do.
However, if the imposition of this hotel 'tax' is by the State Government by State law - then, of course, the Chief Minister and government have every right to increase, decrease or even abolish this 'tax' - so, clarify, is this 'hotel tax' imposed by Local Government or State Government?
Now, sometimes the State Government wrongly believes that LOCAL GOVERNMENT is under them - and must do as the State Government orders...IF SO, why don't we just abolish Local Government and transfer all its powers/responsibilities/obligations directly to the State Government - no need for political appointments and the local council will be just a State Department...??
ODD also matters of the Local Government are being raised in the State Assembly - 'During the Penang state legislative assembly sitting in May 2024, it was
revealed that RM72 million had been collected from hotel fees since
their introduction in 2014, up to April 2024.' - the question now is whether the Local Government collected fees is being transferred to State Government to use as it pleases?The law now requires Local Government to furnish information to the State - but I do not believe it includes monies.
For, the Federal Government - we have the Parliament (open to public, live telecast, HANSARD(minutes of proceedings) available to public)
For State, we have the State Legislative Assembly (open to the public, HANSARD, etc - available to the Public
For the Local Government - we have the Local Council Meetings (however, although the law says are opened to the public is 'closed to the public' by choice of the Local Council itself, access to Hansard or minutes also ???) The law
23 Meetings of local authority to be public[LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1976]
All
meetings of the local authority shall be open to the public and to
representatives of the Press unless the local authority by resolution at
the meeting otherwise decides:
Provided that this
section shall not apply to any Committee of the local authority unless
such Committee by resolution otherwise decides.
What is Penang's Position? What is DAP's position? Restoration of Local Council Elections or just continue with POLITICAL APPOINTEMENT where the Chief Minister and State Government, and not the people, decide on who will be Mayor and Local Councillors - The Local Government?
No plans to raise hotel fees - Penang CM
Bernama Published: Jan 17, 2025 9:33 PM ⋅ Updated: 8:33 PM
Penang Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow denied claims in media reports that his state government plans to increase hotel accommodation fees by up to 50 percent this year.
He clarified that no such proposals or discussions have been initiated by his administration.
“The revenue generated from hotel accommodation fees in the state is insufficient to fund promotional activities and maintain tourism-related infrastructure.
“However, the state government has not opted to increase hotel fees, as alleged, and no discussions on the matter have ever taken place,” he told reporters after inaugurating Pos Shop Datuk Keramat in George Town today.
Recently, local media reported that Penang was considering raising hotel accommodation fees, a form of local tax levied by the Penang Island City Council (MBPP), by at least 50 percent.
Commenting further, Chow noted that the repair of several tourist sites and the construction of new infrastructure for visitors are largely funded by state government revenue, rather than hotel fees.
“For instance, the Fort Cornwallis restoration project requires an allocation of between RM15 million and RM20 million, while the Gurney Bay development project costs RM220 million.
“All these expenses are borne by the state government, as the revenue from hotel fees is relatively small,” he explained.
During the Penang state legislative assembly sitting in May 2024, it was revealed that RM72 million had been collected from hotel fees since their introduction in 2014, up to April 2024.
Rajendran Anthony says this will aid state efforts to boost tourism revenue, improve infrastructure and preserve heritage sites.
Currently,
visitors staying in four-star hotels and above in Penang pay RM3 per
night in hotel fees, while those in three-star and below are charged
RM2.GEORGE TOWN:
Penang will consider raising its hotel fees, a form of tax levied by the city council on hotel stays, by at least 50%.
Currently, visitors staying in four-star
hotels and above pay RM3 per night for the tax, while those in
three-star and below are charged RM2.
The proposed hike comes as the state
seeks to enhance its tourism offerings and fund related infrastructure,
said Penang Island City Council (MBPP) mayor Rajendran Anthony.
“We’ve been considering this increase for
some time now. While I can’t provide an exact figure yet, a 50% rise is
likely,” he told reporters at the opening of a hotel at Farquhar Street
here.
Chief minister Chow Kon Yeow, who was
with him, said the current fees introduced many years ago had been
instrumental in supporting tourism promotions and infrastructure
development.
He said this was to meet the demands of Penang’s growing reputation as a world-class tourist destination.
Over RM72 million has been collected from
the Penang island and Seberang Perai city councils since the hotel fee
was introduced in 2014, according to a state assembly reply.
In 2014, RM3.7 million was
collected, rising to RM8.6 million in 2015. This increased further to
RM9.4 million in 2016 and RM9.8 million in 2017.
In 2018, the amount dropped slightly to RM9.6 million and to RM9.4 million in 2019.
During the pandemic, collections fell sharply to RM3.5 million in 2020 and just RM92 in 2021.
As tourism recovered, the amount increased to RM3.8 million in 2022 and hit a record RM10.6 million in 2023.
In 2024 up to September, the state has collected RM8.6 million. FMT, 15/1/2025
Will the KL Mayor or the DBKL give consent to peaceful assembly after Anwar, or through his Minister does not say YES to the anti-corruption rally? Most likely not, as it is the mayor and the DBKL Local Government representatives are political appointees of the Federal Government, and if they oppose the will of the PM and Federal government, they may lose their positions. However, if the Mayor and the Local Councillors were democratically elected by the people, their position might be different, as if those that are anti-human rights or 'pro-corruption' they will be voted out by the people....
Saifuddin Nasution Ismail, is from Pakatan Harapan and PKR, and he is Anwar Ibrahim's person. Having lost in the PKR elections, Anwar Ibrahim(as President) used his powers to 'appoint' Saifuddin as then PKR Secretary. Having lost the Parliamentary Elections in GE15, again Anwar appointed him Senator and then made him Home Minister. Hence, whatever Saifuddin does or says inadvertently is believed to be what PM Anwar Ibrahim wants. With his recent attempt to prevent the upcoming Peaceful Assembly against corruption by saying that organisers must obtain CONSENT of owners including the DBKL - one wonders whether Anwar Ibrahim too holds the same view and stand. We await to hear what Anwar says...
Anwar and Saifuddin forgets the peaceful assemblies in 1998 when the people came out protesting the manner in which Anwar was dismissed and other human rights concerns affecting the people. The law then was almost a total prohibition of peaceful assembly - it was a crime for 3 or 5 to gather. Despite this, people came out in thousands to exercise their fundamental right of peaceful assembly despite serious retaliation by the police - where people were kicked and beaten, arrested and even charged in court. One would have expected that they would be for human rights - including the right to peaceful assembly...
With the advent of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012, it really just increased the number of crimes and obstacles to the exercise of the right to Peaceful Assembly...
The Court of Appeal’s landmark decision – that it is unconstitutional to
make it an offence not to give the police 10 days’ notice of a
gathering under the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 – stands.. - Star - see Malaysian Bar website
Even, after this, Pakatan Harapan did not remove the requirement for notice - they just reduced it from 10 days to 5 days. They did not remove the requirement for WRITTEN CONSENT of owners of premises - now Minister Saifuddin is egging the police on the issue of CONSENT, even from DBKL for public spaces...???
People's protest are usually against government - so, will the anti-corruption protest be approved by the Local Government of Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) - most probably NOT, and so will be the position taken by other government entities, government linked corporations, or even ordinary businesses as they do not want to risk 'retaliation' from State/Government.
Asking owners of premises to give WRITTEN CONSENT is draconian - They may RESPECT the right of people to exercise their Right of Peaceful Assembly - but they certainly do not want to come out and give any EXPRESSED or WRITTEN CONSENT. Neither will they want to give any expressed or written OBJECTIONS. Many businesses prefer to be NEUTRAL ...
Anwar Ibrahim and the Pakatan Harapan led government MUST respects peoples' human rights, including the right to peaceful assembly...even if the peaceful assembly is a protest against Anwar, the Government or government failures...
When we hear Anwar Ibrahim talk, he appears to be for Human Rights and Justice - but sadly his actions/omissions are otherwise...
In the future, just before GE16, Anwar's and PH's excuse may be that it was all because of the Barisan National(UMNO) that was needed to form the Unity Government - it would not have been the case if PH alone won majority seats, sufficient to form the government on their OWN?
### Thanks to the draconian Peaceful Assembly Act, there would much more protest about the Palestinian issue by the people...Protest must happen fast - not 10 plus days after a gross violation of rights that people want to respond to.
The right to a PEACEFUL Assembly is an individual's human right, and others who have differing views or even no views/position of the subject matter of the protest RESPECT this right of others. That is how things should be...
However, the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 is a draconian piece of legislation when it requires the 'bystander' to give a WRITTEN CONSENT to the right
Organisers must get consent from premises owner, says Saifuddin on anti-graft rally
By JUSTIN ZACK
Nation
Tuesday, 21 Jan 2025
PUTRAJAYA: The Peaceful Assembly Act is explicit in
its requirements, and organisers should be well-informed about their
obligations, says Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail.
The Home
Minister said this in response to a planned anti-corruption rally,
dubbed Himpunan Rakyat Benci Rasuah, to be held in Kuala Lumpur on
Saturday (Jan 25).
“Organisers should know what their
responsibilities are if they read the Act. This includes notifying the
police,” he said at the Asia International Security Summit and Expo 2025
(AISSE225) at the Putrajaya International Convention Centre (PICC) on
Tuesday (Jan 21).
When asked to comment on the need for consent
from the premises owner if the rally was held in a public space,
Saifuddin said that requirement stayed the same.
“Every premises has an owner. For example, Padang Merbok is owned by the municipal council.
“Dataran Merdeka has an owner as well. You need to get permission from the City Hall.
“The law has already stated as such,” he said. - Star, 21/2025
PUTRAJAYA:
The Court of Appeal’s landmark decision – that it is unconstitutional
to make it an offence not to give the police 10 days’ notice of a
gathering under the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 – stands.
Yesterday,
the Federal Court struck out the Attorney–General’s Chambers (AGC)
appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision last year that the charge
levelled against PKR lawmaker Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad under the Act was
unconstitutional.
The
panel did this after deputy public prosecutor Manoj Kurup, head of
Appellate and Trial Division at AGC, applied to withdraw the appeal.
The
Federal Court coram comprised Court of Appeal president Justice Md Raus
Sharif, Chief Judge of Malaya Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, Chief Judge of
Sabah and Sarawak Justice Richard Malanjum and Justices Abu Samah Nordin
and Zaharah Ibrahim.
Citing case law, DPP Manoj told the panel a matter could only be brought up twice from the originating trial court.
As Nik Nazmi’s case started in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court, the Court of Appeal would be the apex court in this case.
On
May 17, 2013, Nik Nazmi was charged with violating the 10–day notice
requirement to inform the police of the Black 505 rally, held at the
Kelana Jaya Stadium nine days earlier.
On
Nov 1, the Shah Alam High Court dismissed his application to strike out
the charge, saying the notice was constitutional. However, five months
later, the Court of Appeal reversed that position and declared Section
9(5) of the Act null and void as it was unconstitutional to criminalise
the fundamental right to gather.
Nik Nazmi said he was relieved by the decision as it did not just affect him but any other person who took part in an assembly.
His
lawyer N. Surendren said the AGC’s withdrawal of the appeal put to rest
any doubt about the permanence of the Court of Appeal declaration.
“Now
people are free to gather without submitting a 10–day notice. This will
affect the way future assemblies are managed," claimed Nik Nazmi, who
is Seri Setia assemblyman. - Malaysian Bar Website
'Sickening', says lawyer as government, police seek to prevent anti-graft rally in KL
Organisers call out PH for hypocrisy and say police demand for permission from venue owners defies logic.
Lawyer
Zaid Malek reminds Pakatan Harapan leaders not to be hypocritical and
repeat what previous governments have done to suppress public protests.
A
vocal human rights lawyer has slammed the Anwar Ibrahim government's
attempts to prevent an anti-corruption rally planned for Jan 25 in Kuala
Lumpur, saying not only the home minister and the police making absurd
demands, but it also showed the hypocrisy of the ruling Pakatan Harapan
coalition.
"This tactic of imposing unlawful and unnecessary requirements is a
tactic we have seen before under the old BN government, and it is
sickening that it continues under the unity government led by PH," said
Zaid Malek, the lawyer for Sekretariat Rakyat Benci Rasuah which is
planning a rally that will commence from the Sogo shopping centre to
Dataran Merdeka on Saturday afternoon.
"During Bersih 4, PH leaders had condemned this same demand by police
to obtain permission to enter Dataran Merdeka. It is thus sheer
hypocrisy for Saifuddin Nasution and the Madani government to insist we
now get permission to march to Dataran," he said, referring to past
anti-government protests backed by PH.
Saifuddin, the home minister, has reiterated the police's demand that
organisers obtain permission from owners of the premises where the
rally is to be held.
Zaid described the statement "most ignorant and reckless by a home minister in recent times".
"Following this absurd logic, no public gathering can take place in
Malaysia so long as surrounding building owners object to it."
He said instead of obstructing the public and warning them to stay
away from the rally, authorities should ensure that the gathering can
take place as planned and without interference.
"Why is the government so afraid of anti-corruption rally when they have made a boast of fighting corruption?" asked Zaid.
Yesterday, police said the rally was in violation of the Peaceful
Assembly Act (PAA) as the organisers had not obtained permission from
premise owners.
Zaid, however, said the police's demand lacked any legal basis as the
rally would be held in public spaces, adding that PAA only required the
organisers to notify the police.
"Even if there is non-compliance with regards to the notice, this
does not affect the right of anyone who would want to peacefully
assemble."
Zaid said organisers had fully complied with PAA.
"Permission from owner or occupier of premises does not arise as the
rally will be held in public places. Dataran Merdeka and the road in
front of Sogo would fall under the definition of 'public place' under
Section 3 of PAA."
He also questioned police for not responding to organisers' request for a meeting to resolve the matter.
In Court, oral application for GAG ORDER - then Fahmi said Government did not instruct AG to apply for GAG Order - Then formal application filed for GAG Order. A lawyer(even the AGC) cannot act except with the instructions of the Client - and here the client is the Government, etc...
GAG Order to prevent discussion on the 'Pardon Orders' or the Addendum Order that was filed by the Attorney General - means that the ORDER was filed by the Government of Malaysia and the parties named as Defendants/Respondents in the suit commenced by former PM Najib Razak - where Najib is seeking to put into effect the Addendum Order by the King that allegedly ordered Najib to serve his remaining prison term at HOME.
The Attorney General's Chambers (AG-C) is seeking a gag order against
public discussion on the addendum order in Datuk Seri Najib Razak's
appeal over his house arrest issue. Senior Federal Counsel Shamsul Bolhassan made an oral application for the order at the High Court here this morning. He said the case involved sensitive issues that could potentially prejudice the ongoing judicial process.
Malaysia is a DEMOCRACY - and the BOSS is the people. We, the people, decide who governs Malaysia or the States - we elect our peoples' representatives, and they in turn decide on who shall be Prime Minister or Menteri Besar/Chief Minister. Thus, we have every right to DISCUSS openly any matters that affect Malaysia - including about the Pardon or Addendum Orders.
SUBJUDICE - that is the rule to prevent the Courts from being influenced by peoples' discussion out of court - it was there and relevant when LAY PEOPLE was part of the making of decisions in court. In Criminal Matters, Malaysia had the JURY(lay people) until it was abolished, and today all Court decisions are made by PROFESSIONAL JUDGES, who will not be influenced by matters like public discussion > Hence, the use of SUBJUDICE as the reason why there must a GAG ORDER preventing discussions is absurd and not applicable. A Judge who can get influenced by peoples' views out of the court should not be a Judge, and if any party in the Najib's suit believes that the Judge hearing the case will be so influenced can simply apply to REMOVE or RECUSE the said judge.
Then, the government claimed that they did not instruct the Attorney General to apply for a gag order - This is a SERIOUS issue, because it implies that the lawyer is acting on his own without client's instruction or against client's instructions, which no lawyer including also the Attorney General Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar(the government's lawyer) can do. They must at all times act on the specific instructions of the CLIENT/s - in this case. A lawyer acts only on the Client's instruction - that include the government's lawyers from the AGC.
The government did not instruct the Attorney-General's Chambers
(AG-C) to apply for a gag order against public discussion regarding the
royal addendum in Datuk Seri Najib Razak's appeal to serve his jail
sentence under house arrest. Unity Government spokesman Fahmi Fadzil clarified that the matter was also not discussed in today's cabinet meeting. "That matter was not discussed and the cabinet did not instruct the
Attorney-General's Chambers. We did not direct the AG-C," he said during
his weekly post-cabinet meeting press briefing.
Attorney-General's Chambers
(AG-C) is akin a law firm, it has no power to act on its own without the instruction(order) or consent of the Attorney General/Public Prosecutor Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar. The AGC is not a democratic institution(although maybe we should consider whether the AGC should be democratic in the future) - now they do as AG Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar orders.
If Minister Fahmi Fadzil is telling the truth - action must be taken by the Government against AG Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar, or the Senior Federal Counsel Shamsul Bolhassan who made that oral application. In response to the oral application, 'Judge Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz later ordered Shamsul to file a formal written application by Jan 20.' Then, it was reported on 20/1/2025 that ' The Attorney-General's Chambers (A-GC) has filed an application for a
gag order to prevent the public from discussing issues related to Datuk
Seri Najib Razak's house arrest.'
Government spokesman Fahmi Fadzil must now clarify whether this was done against the government's instruction - against the client's instruction OR whether the government changed its mind. Remember on 15/1/2023, he explicitly stated 'The government did not instruct the Attorney-General's Chambers
(AG-C) to apply for a gag order against public discussion...'
There are several named Defendants in this suit, and the AG is representing all(from the reported facts), but in such applications, the AG can file on the instruction of some not all - so, who made the application - did it include the Government of Malaysia, one of the named party? All parties are under the Government of Malaysia - maybe not the Pardons Board(which could be argued is under the King), or the Attorney General himself.
Najib, 70, filed the leave application for judicial review at the
High Court here last April 1 through the legal firm of Messrs. Shafee
& Co. He named the Home Minister, Commissioner-general of
Prisons, Attorney-General, the Pardons Board for the Federal Territory
of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya; Minister in the Prime Minister’s
Department (JPM) (Law and Institutional Reform), Director-General of
Legal Affairs at JPM and the Malaysian Government as the first to the
seventh respondent.(The Sun, 17/4/2024)
The Pardon and Addendum issue is a matter of public interest - for Malaysians need to decide whether there is a need for a Federal law on Pardons, and/or Constitutional amendments to address the existing uncertainties on the issue of Pardon - there are many. See
There are NEW ISSUES also like WHO should the King/Rulers send their Pardon Orders to. Reasonably, it should be to the Executive who is responsible for putting into effect the sentences pronounced by the Courts, as Pardon powers may affect the sentences. For the King, it should be send to the Prime Minister, and maybe also the Attorney General and the Chief Justice. Then, the Prime Minister will instruct the relevant Minister who will then inform the Prison Department,etc.
Who issues the Pardon Orders? It should be the KING, normally through the Palace or King's letterhead. The Pardons Board's role ends with the tendering of advice to the King, and at the end of the day, it is the King that pardons, not the Pardon's Board.
If the Prime Minister is UNHAPPY or unclear about a Pardon Order - what does he/she do? Does he/she 'secretly' try to get the King to change his mind, or explain? Or does the Prime Minister or government resort to the Court for a Judicial Review, and get a Court Stay Order to allow matters to stand as it is, until the Court decides for if not a 'delayed' obedience of the King's order may be wrong.
OF urgent importance, is that the Prime Minister must clarify NOW if they instructed the Attorney General to apply for a GAG ORDER, if not actions must be taken immediately and openly against the Attorney General and/or the said Senior Federal Counsel Shamsul Bolhassan that made that oral application to court...
The issue of Najib's Pardon - who is blamed for the loss of about RM50 Billion in the 1MDB Scandal, where he is alleged to not just abuse of power, but also corruption angered many Malaysians...Worse, when it was revealed that current Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim was the one who brought Najib's application to be inserted in the Pardons Board agenda - will Anwar do the same for pardon petitions of others? Anwar may have FORGIVEN Najib but I do not feel other Malaysians have...Did Najib return to the people of Malaysia the monies lost/taken - and that also angered people when the fine of RM210 million imposed by court was reduced to RM50 million.. Now, the further 'addendum order' allegedly allowing Najib to spend the remaining prison term at HOME is of course a matter of concern of many people - hence the interest in this 'addendum court matter'...
"I was the one who brought the application for (Datuk Seri Najib
Razak's) royal pardon to be inserted in the Pardons Board agenda," Datuk
Seri Anwar Ibrahim said. - NST,10/12/2024
The 'addendum order' and Pardon Powers is a matter of great concern - and A 'GAG ORDER" against everyone is a matter of concern - more so when everyone is not in Court to be heard by the Judge as he decides on any such application...Will the Court be 'CLOSED" and the hearing be done in 'SECRET" ..are other concerns of the people.
A-GC seeks gag order against public discussion on addendum [WATCH]
By Rahmat Khairulrijal -
January 13, 2025 @ 12:21pm
KUALA
LUMPUR: The Attorney General's Chambers (AG-C) is seeking a gag order
against public discussion on the addendum order in Datuk Seri Najib
Razak's appeal over his house arrest issue.
Senior Federal Counsel Shamsul Bolhassan made an oral application for the order at the High Court here this morning.
He said the case involved sensitive issues that could potentially prejudice the ongoing judicial process.
"We applied for the order and asked that it remain in force pending
the outcome of the hearing as it touches on sensitive issues.
"We do not want everyone making comments and talking about it in the
media like they are now," he told reporters after a case management.
However, Judge Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz later ordered Shamsul to file a formal written application by Jan 20.
The AG-C is seeking a gag and prohibitive order to restrain the
public from discussing Najib's judicial review seeking to compel
Putrajaya to execute an alleged addendum order allowing him to serve the
remainder of his jail term under house arrest.
Meanwhile, Najib's counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah objected
to the application, describing the issue as akin to "the horses have
bolted, and now we want to close the door."
"Everybody has discussed it. Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim
has discussed it a lot more than anyone else," he said outside the
courtroom.
Shamsul also said that his side would oppose the application by Datuk
Seri Takiyuddin Hassan, Tan Sri Azhar Azizan Harun, and Datuk Seri
Zulkifli Noordin to act as watching brief lawyers in the case,
representing opposition leader Datuk Seri Hamzah Zainudin, PAS
Vice-President Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Samsuri Mokhtar, and Bersatu
Vice-President Datuk Seri Ronald Kiandee.
The court has fixed March 11 for further case management.
On Jan 6, a three-bench Court of Appeal panel, in a split decision,
allowed the former prime minister to initiate a judicial review to
review the existence of an addendum issued by the former Yang di-Pertuan
Agong.
The Appellate Court also allowed Najib to adduce additional affidavits to support his application.
Najib is currently serving a six-year prison sentence after being
convicted of misappropriating RM42 million from SRC International Sdn
Bhd.
The High Court had sentenced him to 12 years in prison with a fine of
RM210 million, and the verdict was subsequently upheld by the Court of
Appeal and Federal Court.
However, his prison sentence was halved to six years and his fine was
reduced to RM50 million following his petition for a royal pardon on
Sept 2, 2022.
Najib later filed an application on an alleged addendum order signed by the 16th Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
The addendum purportedly allowed Najib to serve the remainder of his
prison sentence under house arrest. Previously, the High Court had
dismissed his application.- NST, 13/1/2025
Fahmi denies govt ordered A-GC to apply for public gag order
Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil.-NSTP/MOHD FADLI HAMZAH
PUTRAJAYA:
The government did not instruct the Attorney-General's Chambers (AG-C)
to apply for a gag order against public discussion regarding the royal
addendum in Datuk Seri Najib Razak's appeal to serve his jail sentence
under house arrest.
Unity Government spokesman Fahmi Fadzil clarified that the matter was also not discussed in today's cabinet meeting.
"That matter was not discussed and the cabinet did not instruct the
Attorney-General's Chambers. We did not direct the AG-C," he said during
his weekly post-cabinet meeting press briefing.
On Jan 13, it was reported that the AG-C was seeking a gag order
against public discussion on the addendum order in Datuk Seri Najib
Razak's appeal to serve his jail sentence under house arrest.
Senior Federal Counsel Shamsul Bolhassan made an oral application for the order at the High Court here this morning.
He said the case involved sensitive issues that could potentially prejudice the ongoing judicial process.
The AG-C was seeking a gag and prohibitive order to restrain the
public from discussing Najib's judicial review seeking to compel
Putrajaya to execute an alleged addendum order that allowed him to serve
the remainder of his jail term under house arrest.
On Jan 6, a three-bench Court of Appeal panel, in a split decision,
allowed the former prime minister to initiate a judicial review to
review the existence of the addendum purportedly issued by the former
Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
The Appellate Court also allowed Najib to adduce additional affidavits to support his application.
Najib is currently serving a six-year prison sentence after being
convicted of misappropriating RM42 million from SRC International Sdn
Bhd.
The High Court had sentenced him to 12 years in prison with a fine of
RM210 million, and the verdict was subsequently upheld by the Court of
Appeal and Federal Court.
However, his prison sentence was halved to six years and his fine
reduced to RM50 million in February last year following his petition for
a royal pardon on Sept 2, 2022. - NST, 15/1/2025
A-GC files gag order application on Najib Razak's house arrest addendum
The
Attorney-General's Chambers (A-GC) has filed an application for a gag
order to prevent the public from discussing issues related to Datuk Seri
Najib Razak's house arrest. - NSTP file pic
PUTRAJAYA:
The Attorney-General's Chambers (A-GC) has filed an application for a
gag order to prevent the public from discussing issues related to Datuk
Seri Najib Razak's house arrest.
In a brief message to the media, A-GC Civil Division Deputy Head
Shamsul Bolhassan said, "It was filed via e-review at 7.45 pm today."
Last Monday, Shamsul made an oral application for the order at the High Court and the A-GC was directed to submit their written application by today.
Shamsul had said the application was made to protect the royal
institution as the matter involves sensitive issues regarding the
monarchy, religion, and ethnicity (3R).
The A-GC is seeking a gag and prohibitive order to restrain the
public from discussing Najib's judicial review seeking to compel
Putrajaya to execute an alleged addendum order allowing him to serve the
remainder of his jail term under house arrest.
Judge Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz has fixed March 11 for the next case management.
On Jan 6, a three-bench Court of Appeal panel, in a split decision,
allowed the former prime minister to initiate a judicial review to review the existence of an addendum issued by the former Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
The Appellate Court also allowed Najib to adduce additional affidavits to support his application.
Najib is currently serving a six-year prison sentence after being
convicted of misappropriating RM42 million from SRC International Sdn
Bhd.
The High Court had sentenced him to 12 years in prison with a fine of RM210 million, and the verdict was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal and Federal Court.
However, his prison sentence was halved to six years and his fine was reduced to RM50 million following his petition for a royal pardon on Sept 2, 2022.
Najib later filed an application on an alleged addendum order signed by the 16th Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
The addendum purportedly allowed Najib to serve the remainder of his
prison sentence under house arrest. Previously, the High Court had
dismissed his application. - NST, 20/1/2025
With
Body-Cams, Police Shooting That Resulted In 3 Deaths Can Now Be More Easily
Investigated To Determine Criminal Liability Of Police In The Killings
Do not
prematurely come to conclusions based police perpetrator’s innocence until
comprehensive investigations and Coroner’s determination
Now, with the Malaysian police now
wearing Body Worn Cameras (BWC), it is possible to finally analyze and verify
whether the oral narrative of the police officers involved in attempted arrest
of suspects, that ended up with the killings of alleged suspects are true or
otherwise.
The body-cams have been supplied
to officers in the Klang Valley since June 2024.(Malay
Mail, 10/9/2024)
Comm Wan Hassan [ The Bukit Aman
Crime Prevention and Community Safety Department director ]said the use of the
BWC will also improve the police force's image, as BWC records could be used as
evidence in any criminal case, including cases of personnel and officers who
were slandered while enforcing the law.(Star,
31/1/2024). This BWC evidence and police vehicle dash-cams will certainly
be useful in determining the criminal liability of police officers in incidents
where persons are shot dead, and not arrested, in a police operation.
It was reported on 18/1/2025 that
in yet another police encounter near Rawang on, all 3 suspects have been shot
dead.
When a person is killed when
he/she is to be arrested, or whilst in custody, he/she is victim of gross
injustice, as this presumed innocent person have been deprived the right to
a Fair Trial, which may have even found him/her innocent.
More so, when they are shot dead
in the process of arrest, the question arises whether any of those were killed
was totally innocent, then sharing the car with some criminal suspects. Who
exactly did the police want to arrest?
Federal Criminal Investigation
Department director Datuk Seri Mohd Shuhaily Mohd Zain said the incident
happened around noon. "The suspects are believed to have rented cars and
changed their number plates to search for four-wheel drive vehicles to steal...
He added: "Police officers tried to stop them and introduce
themselves, but the suspects opened fire. "A chase followed for
about 750m from a housing area in Kota Emerald. The suspects and police then
exchanged fire. "He said the three suspects were shot dead in the
incident. (NST,
18/1/2025). From the report, it seems that the police did not even manage
to identify themselves as police officers.
Will the Coroner come to same the
conclusion that police officers were not criminally liable for the killing of
the 3?
Coroner
finds police liable for killing
When all suspects are shot dead,
there is no way for any of the alleged suspects (if they were alive, shot or
otherwise) to contradict the police version of what exactly transpired, and
that is why the BWCs and/or vehicle cams very important evidence to determine
the truth.
We recall that on 31/5/2023 that
the coroner’s court, presided by Coroner Rasyihah Ghazali, that inquired into
the ‘police shooting that resulted in death of 3, ‘…. concluded that there was
abuse of power and elements of a criminal nature in the death of three men who
were shot at close range by police three years ago. “The shots were not fired
in self-defense. There was abuse of power and (actions in the nature of)
criminal elements by police in the death of the men,”(FMT,
31/5/2022). This means that in some case, the police may be held criminally
liable, and ought to be prosecuted for their crimes that killed person/s.
Police
CANNOT Kill, only arrest – that is the LAW
Now, it is the Malaysian law,
that police cannot kill suspects. Section 15 of the Criminal Procedure Code
which deals with arrest, and the use of reasonable force makes this most clear
in Section 15(3) which states most clearly ‘(3) Nothing in this section gives a
right to cause the death of a person who is not accused of
an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for a term of not less
than thirty years but not exceeding forty years or with imprisonment for life.’
These 3 persons are not even
accused persons, being persons already charged in court who are free on bail.
From the media reports, they are just alleged suspects of a crime.
That being the case, all the
police officers involved should be forthwith investigated, and charged in court
– and the court will determine whether there any available defence like
self-defence applies or not. These police officers may be guilty of murder, or
even culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
End
post death defamation of police shooting victims
In the statement on the recent
killings, the police allege that ‘Two of the three suspects had police records
for a total of 68 offences, mostly related to vehicle theft and robbery,
reported Harian Metro.’(FMT,
18/1/2025).
If that be the case, then did the
police ever before these killings call these suspects in for questioning at the
police station in relation of these crimes. Did the police send them a letter
or letters requiring their attendance at the police station for investigation?
Any summons for attendance? Any previous arrests? Any previous convictions in
court? Now. If there are NONE, then the police must really explain, and clear
all doubts.
Nobody wants to believe that this
police team went out after these suspects with the intention to KILL not arrest.
Nobody wants to believe that these police officers chose to kill the other
suspects after the police ‘accidentally’ or intentionally shot the first one
dead to cover up the truth. Were they killed to close investigations into crimes?
Were they killed to protect ‘kingpins’ or others involved? Were they killed by
reason Malaysian police lack training to shoot and arrest?
The media report, sadly, does not
reveal whether the said police officers were in a unmarked police vehicle or a
clearly marked police car? Neither is there information as to whether the
police officers were in uniform or not, or even the number of police officers
involved?
The statement of the Federal
Criminal Investigation Department director, hours after the ‘shoot-to-kill’
incident is questionable. Did he speak too soon, before even doing the required
investigation – thus ‘blindly’ relying on the oral statements (possibly
unverified or corroborated) provided by the officers involved? Did the police
investigate the crime scene, the bullet casings, the angle from which the shots
were fired or even try to find other non-police witnesses?
Such premature statements are
unbecoming of any senior police officer, who concludes as ‘truth’ even before a
thorough investigation is done, and possibly simply to ‘protect’ his police
officers.
In police shooting cases, it is
best that it is not their immediate superiors and/or police officers in the
same station/district or even state who should be investigating – it should
best be some other independent police officers or bodies.
One safeguard that already exist
in our Malaysian law is the coroner, usually a Magistrate or a Sessions Court
judge, who is independent of the police. They, according to law, would
investigate the deaths and also specifically determine whether the said police
officers that killed are criminally liable or not. It is crucial to note that
in at least one such reported inquiry, the Coroner found the police officers were
criminally liable.
Sadly, the Coroner’s Reports of
all these police shooting cases where people end up being killed is not
actively made known to the public, maybe through the media, or even placed on a
website, where the public can have easy access. Did the Coroner also, after
inquiry or inquests, find the police officers involved not criminally liable
for causing the deaths of these alleged suspects? This is an important fact we
need to know.
Abolish
IPCC, and Restore IPCMC Bill
It is most disappointing that the
Prime Minister or government, or even the Home Minister who is responsible for
the police seem to not take these police shot dead incidents seriously.
One body that could have been
tasked with independent investigations of these police-shot-dead cases could
have been the proposed truly Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct
Commission (IPCMC).
Sadly, when Prime Minister Anwar
Ibrahim’s Pakatan Harapan led-government came into power, they choose rather
than re-introducing the IPCMC Bill tabled earlier by the Pakatan Harapan
government in July 2019, which the Parliamentary Select Committee had amended
the bill which restored most of the contents proposed by the Royal Commission
of Inquiry (RCI) in 2005, to just simply put into force on
1/7/2023 the Independent Police Conduct Commission Act 2022(IPCC Act) that was
tabled by the PN-BN governments as a replacement to IPCMC Bill, when it came
into power post the Sheraton Move.
The IPCC sadly is nothing but a
‘sorting’ Commission, and complaints about ‘police shot dead’ cases will simply
be sent back to the police to investigate – and that totally defeats the
possibility of independent investigation and conclusion to deal with the
problem.
The IPCC Act, removed the police
from the jurisdiction of the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC),
which was enacted vide the EAIC Act by the BN regime under then Prime Minister
Najib Razak, in response to the call for the IPCMC.
The IPCC Act has less power than
the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC), who did also publish
several reports of their findings in death in police custody cases, with
recommendations that the said officers be prosecuted for their crimes. The IPCC
simply does not even have this power.
MADPET(Malaysians Against
Death Penalty and Torture) calls on the Malaysian government to repeal the IPCC
Act, and re-table the IPCMC Bill, which will finally ensure an Independent
Commission empowered with the power to investigate, and better still prosecute,
police officers that are found to be criminally liable for ‘police shot dead’
cases and other police crimes.
Over
50 persons are shot dead by police, not arrested annually?
The Home Ministry, in a
parliamentary reply in 2012, said that a total of 298 people of various
nationalities were shot dead between 2007 and August 2012. (The Sun Daily,
23/10/2012). A total of 279 suspects have been shot dead by the police between
2000 and 2009 was revealed by the Minister in Parliament in 2010(Malaysiakini,
28/6/2010). Minister Hishammuddin also revealed that the police shot dead 82
suspects in 2008, and 88 in 2009. How many extrajudicial killings since then?
MADPET calls for BWCs and
police vehicle cams for all police officers, especially those police teams that
are tasked with arresting suspects be made a priority, like the one that
recently ended up shooting dead 3 suspects in Rawang. The use of body cams and
vehicle cams is a NORM in most jurisdictions for a long time, and Malaysia
should expedite this for police and all other law enforcement personnel.
MADPET calls for an end of
‘defamation of the dead’, and urge that the focus of the investigation be
on criminal liability of the police officers that ended up shooting dead
persons who they were supposed to investigate.
MADPET calls for the full and
transparent disclosure of all Coroner’s findings of all ‘police shot dead’
cases.
MADPET calls for the respect of
principle that one is presumed innocent, until convicted in Court after a fair
trial. Only Note that the sentence for these alleged car thieves is not Death,
but imprisonment.
Charles
Hector
For
and on behalf of MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)
3 suspected car thieves killed in Rawang police shootout
Police say two of the men had a history of 68 offences, mostly related to vehicle theft and robbery.
Bukit Aman CID director Shuhaily Zain said the suspects opened fire when police ordered them to stop. (Bernama pic)PETALING JAYA: Three suspected car thieves were shot dead when they opened fire at police in Rawang at noon today.
Two of the three suspects had police
records for a total of 68 offences, mostly related to vehicle theft and
robbery, reported Harian Metro.
Bukit Aman criminal investigation
department director Shuhaily Zain said the trio were believed to have
rented cars and changed their number plates to search for four-wheel
drive vehicles to steal.
“Based on intelligence, the suspects
rented a car today and changed its number plate, so we believe they were
about to commit another theft,” he said.
“The police officers identified themselves and tried to stop them, but they opened fire.
“A chase followed for about 750m from a
housing area in Kota Emerald during which the suspects and the policemen
exchanged fire.”
He said police seized a semi-automatic
pistol, a gadget used to deactivate vehicle alarms, two masks, five
licence plates believed to be fake, three rolls of cellophane tape and
two parangs.
Shuhaily said two of the three suspects were aged 40 and 43, and the age of the third suspect has not been determined yet.
He also said police had been tracking down the group as part of Op Lejang, an operation launched last year to combat car theft. - FMT, 18/1/2025
Cops abused power in shooting of 3 men, including Sri Lankan, coroner finds
V Anbalagan
-
The
coroner’s court finds that police did not fire the shots at the three
men in self-defence as claimed and that there were elements of a
criminal nature in the shooting of the trio in Rawang.
Lawyer M Visvanathan (left) briefs family members of G Thavaselvan and J Vijayaratnam on the outcome of the inquest.SHAH ALAM:
The coroner’s court today concluded that there was abuse
of power and elements of a criminal nature in the death of three men
who were shot at close range by police three years ago.
Coroner Rasyihah Ghazali said, on the
balance of probabilities, S Mahendran, G Thavaselvan and his
brother-in-law J Vijayaratnam, a Sri Lankan national, died of gunshot
wounds on their heads and chests.
“The shots were not fired in
self-defence. There was abuse of power and (actions in the nature of)
criminal elements by police in the death of the men,” she said this
evening at the end of an inquest.
Police had claimed there was an exchange
of fire between policemen and the trio at the edge of a jungle in Rawang
and that two of the men had been armed with pistols.
Rasyihah, however, said she was unable to
conclude as to what had happened to G Moganambal, the wife of
Vijayaratnam, who was reported missing after the incident and has yet to
be found.
On Sept 14, the three men, whom police
said were suspected to have been involved in armed robbery, were killed
in a shootout with the police at Km22 of Jalan Rawang heading towards
Batu Arang, following a 7km high-speed car chase.
The coroner said today the men died between 5.20am and 5.30am on Sept 14 based on evidence collected in the inquest.
She said scientific evidence with regards
to the position of the bodies and the weapons allegedly found on the
two men did not tally with the oral testimonies of the policemen.
“The weapons described by the ballistic
expert (Izzuwan Marzuki) and the investigating officer (P Visvanathan)
were also in conflict,” she said.
She said police witnesses gave evidence
that shots were fired at the men from an upright position but
post-mortem reports stated that the bullets pierced their bodies at a
downward angle.
Rasyihah said, in totality, there were many disputable questions of fact regarding witness statements.
The four had left Kepong at about 10pm on
Sept 13 after dinner to visit friends and relatives. Moganambal’s
sister, Vasanthi, had testified that Moganambal sent a location map via
her mobile phone at about 1am (Sept 14) that indicated they were at a
food outlet in Serdang.
Vasanthi stated in her evidence that shop
owner Senizam Md Yusof admitted meeting the four that morning. However,
Senizam denied in court that he had met them at his premises.
Lawyer M Visvanathan, who held a watching
brief for the family of Thavaselvan and Vijayaratnam, said he had
instructions to file a civil suit following today’s verdict.
“We have four months to do so as the
three-year limitation period to file a legal action against the
government will set in by September,” said Visvanathan who was assisted
by V Sanjay Nathan.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Sean Dudley assisted the coroner. A total of 20 people gave evidence. - FMT, 31/5/2022
Body cameras for Klang Valley police: PDRM test 1,376 units at nine locations in pilot project
A
file photo of what a body camera could look like. The IGP said that the
next phase of installation will focus on the southern zone, which
includes the Johor, Melaka, and Negeri Sembilan contingents. — AFP pic
By Malay Mail
Tuesday, 10 Sep 2024 9:00 AM MYT
KUALA
LUMPUR, Sept 10 — The Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) are currently
testing out 1,376 body-worn cameras (BWC) to assess their effectiveness
in field operations.
According to Utusan Malaysia, the
devices were rolled out at contingent police headquarters, district
police headquarters (IPD), and police stations across the central areas
of the Klang Valley, in two phases, starting in June and August.
Inspector-General
of Police Tan Sri Razarudin Husain told the national daily that in
Kuala Lumpur, the installations covered five IPDs and stations: IPD Dang
Wangi, Dang Wangi Police Station, Chow Kit Police Station, Tun HS Lee
Police Station, and Jalan Bandar Traffic Police Station.
He added
that four locations in Selangor — IPD Klang Utara, Kampar Police
Station, Bandar Baru Klang Police Station, and Klang Utara Traffic
Police Station — are also part of the pilot project.
“These
nine locations, comprising IPDs and police stations, are part of a
pilot project aimed at testing the effectiveness and functionality of
the body cameras, with plans to eventually roll them out nationwide.
“The
implementation began on June 19, involving five IPDs and stations in
Selangor, with the remaining four in the capital,” he told Utusan Malaysia yesterday.
Razarudin
further explained that the installation of BWCs at the Bukit Aman
Police Headquarters, as well as the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor
contingents, started on August 12 and was completed by August 20.
“A total of 1,376 body cameras have now been installed for officers in the Klang Valley,” he said.
Looking
ahead, Razarudin said that the next phase of installation will focus on
the southern zone, which includes the Johor, Melaka, and Negeri
Sembilan contingents, before expanding to the northern and eastern
zones.
“We expect the nationwide installation of body cameras to be fully completed by March next year,” he added.
Earlier reports from Utusan Malaysia
indicated that PDRM is set to receive 7,648 body-worn cameras in
stages, beginning in September this year and continuing through February
2025.
Razarudin said that BWCs are instrumental in identifying officers involved in misconduct or integrity breaches while on duty.
He
added that the deployment of these cameras would be done gradually,
prioritising key units such as the Patrol Car Unit (MPV) and Motorcycle
Patrol Unit (URB) before expanding to the Traffic Investigation and
Enforcement Department (JSPT).
“These units play a critical role in crime prevention patrols conducted by MPV and URB personnel.
“This
initiative will also strengthen public trust and cooperation with the
police, as every interaction will be recorded,” he was quoted as saying. - Malay Mail, 10/9/2024
Cops abused power in shooting of 3 men, including Sri Lankan, coroner finds
The
coroner’s court finds that police did not fire the shots at the three
men in self-defence as claimed and that there were elements of a
criminal nature in the shooting of the trio in Rawang.
Lawyer M Visvanathan (left) briefs family members of G Thavaselvan and J Vijayaratnam on the outcome of the inquest.SHAH ALAM:
The coroner’s court today concluded that there was abuse
of power and elements of a criminal nature in the death of three men
who were shot at close range by police three years ago.
Coroner Rasyihah Ghazali said, on the
balance of probabilities, S Mahendran, G Thavaselvan and his
brother-in-law J Vijayaratnam, a Sri Lankan national, died of gunshot
wounds on their heads and chests.
“The shots were not fired in
self-defence. There was abuse of power and (actions in the nature of)
criminal elements by police in the death of the men,” she said this
evening at the end of an inquest.
Police had claimed there was an exchange
of fire between policemen and the trio at the edge of a jungle in Rawang
and that two of the men had been armed with pistols.
Rasyihah, however, said she was unable to
conclude as to what had happened to G Moganambal, the wife of
Vijayaratnam, who was reported missing after the incident and has yet to
be found.
On Sept 14, the three men, whom police
said were suspected to have been involved in armed robbery, were killed
in a shootout with the police at Km22 of Jalan Rawang heading towards
Batu Arang, following a 7km high-speed car chase.
The coroner said today the men died between 5.20am and 5.30am on Sept 14 based on evidence collected in the inquest.
She said scientific evidence with regards
to the position of the bodies and the weapons allegedly found on the
two men did not tally with the oral testimonies of the policemen.
“The weapons described by the ballistic
expert (Izzuwan Marzuki) and the investigating officer (P Visvanathan)
were also in conflict,” she said.
She said police witnesses gave evidence
that shots were fired at the men from an upright position but
post-mortem reports stated that the bullets pierced their bodies at a
downward angle.
Rasyihah said, in totality, there were many disputable questions of fact regarding witness statements.
The four had left Kepong at about 10pm on
Sept 13 after dinner to visit friends and relatives. Moganambal’s
sister, Vasanthi, had testified that Moganambal sent a location map via
her mobile phone at about 1am (Sept 14) that indicated they were at a
food outlet in Serdang.
Vasanthi stated in her evidence that shop
owner Senizam Md Yusof admitted meeting the four that morning. However,
Senizam denied in court that he had met them at his premises.
Lawyer M Visvanathan, who held a watching
brief for the family of Thavaselvan and Vijayaratnam, said he had
instructions to file a civil suit following today’s verdict.
“We have four months to do so as the
three-year limitation period to file a legal action against the
government will set in by September,” said Visvanathan who was assisted
by V Sanjay Nathan.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Sean Dudley assisted the coroner. A total of 20 people gave evidence. - FMT, 31/5/2022
Ongoing challenges in migrant worker treatment
-
Malaysia’s entry ban last year left over 17,000 Bangladeshi workers in
limbo, but a recent agreement has cleared the way for nearly 8,000 to
enter. Will ...
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...
PRU14 - Keputusan TEMERLOH - Parlimen dan DUN
-
Keputusan di Temerloh, harus kita analisa
1- Parlimen dimenangi Pakatan Harapan, yang juga menang DUN Mentakab,
tetapi BN menang DUN Lancang dan DUN Kuala ...
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..