BERSIH 3.0 - Must be an INDEPENDENT inquiry - certainly not one led by former police chief

Now, when it come to BERSIH 3.0 and an INDEPENDENT investigation or inquiry, we have to acknowledge that the allegation of violation of rights is, amongst others, against the police, the government of Malaysia - Minister of Home Affairs, Minister of Information, Communications, and Culture Minister, etc, and also the DBKL (i.e. the Kuala Lumpur mayor and KL's Local Authority which is not a democratically elected entity but one that is appointed by the Federal Government), and as given these facts, any independent panel or inquiry must be independent of the Federal government. 

The suggestion of an independent inquiry headed by the former Inspector General of Police, as such, is absurd more so since the alleged violators of rights is also the police, prior to the event and on the day itself.

Malaysia has its own Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM), and that would have been the natural choice for the independent investigation and inquiry - and they, in fact, had also done previous similar inquiries involving the exercise of the freedom of peaceful assembly and protest - but sadly the government choose to instead set up some other panel. [It must be pointed out that the Human Rights Commission is made up of  government appointed HR Commissioners - and also the fact that even when they do come up with their report and/or recommendations in the past, this Malaysian government have failed to act on them. The same is also the respond of this BN government when it comes to findings and recommendations of even other Royal Commissions of Inquiry.]    

As such, when the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression Frank La Rue offered to be involved in the independent inquiry, it would be best for the Malaysian government to seize this opportunity and allow them to lead and conduct this inquiry. Malaysian lawyers also takes the same position.

Hopefully, our Malaysian government, currently the BN government led by Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, will without FEAR allow such a body to conduct this independent inquiry...

More importantly, the BN government must commit to implementing the recommendations made by such independent inquiries... [History has shown that this BN government have generally not followed all recommendations of such bodies - even one's that have been appointed by the King...Let's hope that there will be changes...]

Bar Council to boycott panel, wants UN rapporteur instead

Hafiz Yatim 8:02PM May 11, 2012

The Bar Council will not participate in the independent panel formed by the government to probe last month’s violence at the Bersih 3.0 rally.

The powerful body representing 14,000 lawyers nationwide wants a United Nations special rapporteur to head the independent panel instead of former inspector-general of police Mohd Hanif Omar.

“Otherwise, the Bar Council will not participate in it,” said council chairperson Lim Chee Wee (right) at a press conference following an extraordinary general meeting of the Bar, called to discuss the police crackdown on the mammoth Bersih 3.0 rally on April 28.

“The Bar prefers a UN special rapporteur to oversee the running of the panel and if this is complied with, then the Bar Council will reconsider its participation.”

He said the independent panel formed lacks any legal framework as it is ordinarily found in a royal commission of inquiry or the Malaysian Human Rights Commission of Inquiry (Suhakam).

“It does not have such features as legal immunity for itself or any participating persons involved in the proceeding. By immunity I mean immunity against defamation,” he said.

“Secondly it lacks the legal power to call or subpoena witnesses or call for the production of documents. Under these constraints, the panel has limited utility.”

1,300 lawyers at EGM

A total of 1,270 members attended the EGM to condemn the police’s heavy-handed use of force on Bersih protesters and without giving them ample time to disperse.

A total of 939 voted for the resolution while 16 voted against.

Lim also pointed out that the existing panel does not have any legal standing as it has no powers to summon witnesses to testify before the panel, unlike a royal commission of inquiry.

He said Hanif had also made adverse comments on the Bersih 3.0 rally, describing some of the protesters as communists seeking to overthrow the government.

According to Lim, it was not proper for the government to appoint Hanif to chair the panel as he had espoused such biased views.

“We do not even think Hanif is appropriate to chair the panel. We think the most appropriate person to chair it would be the retired Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Steve Shim,” said the Bar Council president. 

On Sunday, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression Frank La Rue offered to be part of the independent panel. - Malaysiakini, 11/5/2012, Bar Council to boycott panel, wants UN rapporteur instead

 

See also:- Resolution condemning actions of police at BERSIH 3.0, and demanding apology passed (11/5/2012)

Has Malaysia become a US crony? Are we now anti-Iran and North Korea? Let's not be taken in by propaganda ....

Has Malaysia now become a US crony? a Western crony?

What is Malaysia's position with regard to Iran? ...and Iran's own right to develop its own nuclear technology(something that they have a right to do even under the NPT ?

What is Malaysia's position with regard to North Korea?

There was a time when Malaysia was seen as a 'champion' of the poorer...weaker nations of the world. Malaysia stood firm against the US and other global giants.... but where is Malaysia today? 

Have we lost our principles - and is now just another US crony? When US says 'jump' - Malaysia 'jumps'.

According to the AFP report, Malaysia has not really banned 'weapons of mass destruction' in the area. That means it is OK for a US submarine, ship, plane to be around with their 'weapons of mass destruction'

One of the biggest violator of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT) has been the US. Disarmament was one of the treaty's obligation but the US still have nuclear weapons and continuing develop more. Not only that, they (during the Bush Presidency) threatened the usage of nuclear weapons against even non-nuclear states (and states where they claim had Weapons of Mass Destruction).

The 5 nuclear weapon states, i.e. US, Soviet Union, France, China and United Kingdom, agreed not to transfer "nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices" and "not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce" a non-nuclear weapon state (NNWS) to acquire nuclear weapons. But today, we find that Israel has nuclear weapons - but of course there has been no investigation, sanctions, etc... Many of the NATO Nations is also said to have nuclear weapons in their territory. But the US & Western double standards do not make this an issue at all.

So, we come back again to the question of where Malaysia stands on these issues...

KUALA LUMPUR — Malaysia has outlawed the shipment through its waters of weapons of mass destruction which could end up in the hands of rogue states, reports said on Tuesday.

Activists say the country's lack of export controls meant fugitive arms dealers were able to ship nuclear weapons to pariah states like North Korea and Iran, a charge the government denies.

But Malaysia will now control the shipment of military hardware through its waters and the "designing, development and production of WMD and its delivery", law minister Nazri Abdul Aziz was quoted as saying by the Star daily.

The new law follows the government's denial late last year of involvement in the illegal 2008 export of nuclear weapons to Iran although it confirmed the involvement of one of its nationals.

"The act also calls for the protection of Malaysian exporters from being used as a channel for providing strategic arms illegally," Nazri added.

No new agency will be created to monitor the movement of "dual use" components -- technology that can have military or commercial applications -- manufactured in Malaysia, he told the New Straits Times newspaper.

An aide to the minister confirmed the reports but would not comment further.

Last November, the government admitted Malaysian Brian Kaam and Iranian Majid Seif, who lives in Malaysia, along with two local firms, were among eight people and eight companies charged in connection with the export of thousands of US strategic goods to Iran.

Kaam and Majid were named in a 13-count Justice Department indictment in September 2008 that included charges of conspiracy, violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the United States Iran Embargo.

It said the eight individuals had bought and then illegally exported dual use items to buyers in Iran.- AFP, 6/4/2010, Malaysia bans WMD shipments to rogue states: reports

MADPET : TORTURE IN POLICE LOCK-UPS MUST END

MEDIA STATEMENT – 21/6/2008

TORTURE IN POLICE LOCK-UPS MUST END

- Install CCTV with recording capabilities

to ensure rights be respected and abuses end -

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) is shocked at the allegation that persons arrested by the police were beaten up and sexually abused, including being forced to perform oral sex on one another at the Kajang police station. (Malaysiakini, 20/6/2008 “Detainees claim forced oral sex in lock-up”). One of the victims was a juvenile.

What was even more shocking was that the same officer allegedly, after a complaint was made to the Magistrate, did again torture the detainee-victims because “…they informed the magistrate about it…” It was reported that the victims’ lawyer did say that the alleged perpetrator/s“…then made them lick his boots, sprayed Ridsect (insect repellent) on their face and they were beaten up with pipes…"

MADPET also wonders whether the Magistrate, after receiving the complaint, did cause immediate investigation to be commenced about the alleged torture, for any failure on the part of the Magistrate to act speedily should also be investigated.

In many of the police stations in Malaysia, especially in the lock-up areas and interrogation rooms, apparently there are close-circuit television (CCTV) installed but unfortunately it does not have any recording capacity. If there was recording capacity, then investigation would have proceeded speedily, and the perpetrator/s would have been easily identified.

There has just been too many deaths in custody, and allegations about police torture in Malaysia, and that makes it imperative that all police stations, including lock-ups and interrogation rooms, be immediately equipped with CCTV, with recording capabilities. This would definitely ensure that rights of those arrested and detained are respected and protected. It would also definitely deter incidents of torture and even killing.

In Hong Kong, lawyers of accused persons have access to these recordings. It can then be determined whether rights provided for in law have been accorded to a particular person, and also to confirm that has been no torture, threat, promise or other non-permissible actions.

MADPET is also disappointed that Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)’s response to this complaint, as reported, was to just send letters to get details of the arrests and the remand.

SUHAKAM should have immediately gone down to the venue of the alleged torture, and started gathering evidence. Being a police station, many potential witnesses may not be accessible later, and there is definitely the real possibility of witness tampering by the perpetrators, more so when they are police officers.

MADPET reiterates the call that the government immediately set up The Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC), as was intended and proposed by 2 Royal Commissions. We do not need any other kind of “IPCMC”.

MADPET calls for an urgent investigation into this allegation of torture, and that the perpetrator/s be thereafter charged and tried in open court. Any other internal form of discipline is not acceptable.

Charles Hector

N. Surendran

for Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET)

21st June 2008

Hindraf wants Suhakam commissioner out (malaysiakini)

Hindraf wants Suhakam commissioner out

Syed Jaymal Zahiid | Apr 25, 08 12:12pm

Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) lawyers have accused the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) of deceit and demanded for one of its commissioners to step down. Lawyer N Surendran claimed that Suhakam’s report by commissioner N Siva Subramaniam was utterly incorrect in suggesting that detained Hindraf leader P Uthayakumar is fine. "It’s a lie. The report is totally incorrect. Uthayakumar is in bad shape. He has been denied medical attention for more than a month now," he told reporters at a Hindraf gathering outside Istana Negara this morning. About 30 supporters gathered outside the palace gates to submit a memorandum seeking royal intervention for the release of Uthayakumar and four others held under the Internal Security Act (ISA). The memorandum was handed to a palace official by Vaishnavi, the five-year-old daughter of Hindraf chairperson P Waythamoorthy who is currently in self-exile in London. 'Blatant lie' Meanwhile, PKR Kapar MP S Manickvasagam, who was also present, claimed that Uthayakumar’s blood sugar level (right) had increased to a worrying point. This was caused by deliberate medical negligence on the side of the government, alleged the politician. Hindraf lawyer and DAP MP for Teluk Intan M Manogaran also lambasted the alleged denial of medical treatment, which he described as "inhuman." "We deplore Suhakam’s report, it is a blatant lie. Siva Subramaniam must step down immediately," he added. On Wednesday, Subramaniam, after visiting the Kamunting detention centre, said that Uthayakumar was given proper medical treatment by the authorities. He, however, did not meet Uthayakmar or any of the other four Hindraf detainees during his visit. Threat to BN, not nation In their memorandum to the King, Hindraf lawyers appealed to his highness to facilitate the release of the five. This action followed a recent media report stating that the King had consented to the government’s recommendation for the Hindraf leaders to be detained for two years [see letter below]. This decision was reportedly conveyed in letters sent by His Majesty to the five. Manogaran stressed that the use of ISA to detain the Hindraf leaders was utterly unjust and appealed to the King to raise the matter in his parliamentary address next Monday. "ISA is evil and the government that carries it is an evil government. We urge the King to look into the matter and justly react by releasing all of them," added Surendran. They argued that Hindraf is not a threat to national security but to the ruling coalition Barisan Nasional. The other Hindraf leaders under detention are M Manoharan, V Ganabatirau, R Kenghadharan and T Vasantha Kumar. All five were detained on Dec 13 shortly after they had organised a mammoth street rally which drew some 30,000 people. Watch 2-min video in Malaysiakini.tv

MADPET:- Conduct proper inquiry into complaints concerning P. Uthayakumar

MEDIA STATEMENT – 24/4/2008

SUHAKAM’S CONDUCT UNBECOMING OF A HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

- Conduct proper inquiry into complaints concerning P. Uthayakumar

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) is disappointed by the fact that the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM) made and pronounced conclusions about complaints about detention conditions and health care of an Internal Security Act (ISA) detainee in Kamunting Detention Centre without even meeting with the said P. Uthayakumar. This was reported by Malaysiakini(23/4/2008) in a report entitled “Suhakam: Uthaya wasn't denied treatment” and also by Bernama(23/4/2008) in a report entitled “Uthayakumar's claim of improper medical care untrue: Suhakam”

The Malaysian Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM) should never come to any conclusions or findings without at least meeting and talking to both sides.

In this case, it was reported that the SUHAKAM team led by Human Rights Commissioner Datuk Siva Subramaniam, had meetings with “…senior officials, the doctor and police personnel at the camp, as well as medical personnel in Taiping hospital…”

It was also reported in Malaysiakini that “Uthayakumar was neither present during the four-hour probe, nor interviewed by the team…”

When Datuk Siva Subramaniam was apparently “…asked why Uthayakumar’s side of the story was not heard….He pointed out that media reports were also sufficient to highlight Uthayakumar’s plight….”(Malaysiakini).

The manner in which this “inquiry” was done and the conclusions reached are very wrong, and is a deprivation of P.Uthayakumar and his family’s fundamental right to be heard and participate in any inquiry and/or investigation.

P. Uthayakumar is already a victim of a draconian law that allows for detention without trial - where there is no right to defend oneself; no right to a fair and open trial; and no right to even go for judicial review of the alleged reasons for detaining him.

As such, the manner in which Siva Subramanian and SUHAKAM conducted themselves in this case makes it even more deplorable and is certainly unacceptable behaviour for a National Human Rights Commission.

MADPET seriously hopes that the making of such speedy “conclusions” in this case by Commissioner Siva Subramanian, was not affected by the fact that his current term expires in July 2008, and a belief that a ‘pro-government’ positioning now may assist chances of a re-appointment for another 2-year term.

Human Right Commissioners and the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM) must at all times be independent, and be seen to be independent, fearless and should only be driven by human rights and justice considerations. If a Human Rights Commissioner cannot do this by reason of fear or some other reason, then the proper and ethical thing to do is to resign.

MADPET urges SUHAKAM to immediately retract its conclusions about the complaints by P. Uthayakumar, his family and/or his friends, as reported in the media, and conduct a proper inquiry into these complaints in the proper manner – which would necessarily include that fundamental right to be heard and to participate accorded to the alleged victim and the complainants.

MADPET also calls for the immediate and unconditional release of P. Utayakumar, M. Manoharan and all those currently detained under the Internal Security Act(ISA) and other laws that allow for detention without trial.

MADPET also reiterates its call that the ISA and all laws that allow for detention without trial be repealed.

Charles Hector

for Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET)

24th April 2008

[For further information, contact Charles Hector (019-2371300/019-2371100)]

so we look forward to 16th February - and hope there will not be tear gas and water cannons ( seems to be the SOP of Malaysian Police)

In the case of the ISA and other Detention Without Trial Laws - all we can do is continuously put the pressure on the PM and the government to release them that that are detained. We cannot go to court - for the power of Judicial Review by the courts are effectively removed. Now, the only thing we can go to court for is to challenge on technical stuff ---that is all, not the ALLEGED reason for the Minister issuing the Detention Order. It is important to keep the fact that the 5 and others are still being detained in the public eye and consideration. Hence, hunger strikes, candle light vigils, going to SUHAKAM, children and wife with ROSES are all GOOD ---- and all concerned persons must join in the campaign to get those being held without trial FREEDOM.. 'Uncle, follow me' dare for Suhakam chief

Fauwaz Abdul Aziz | Feb 6, 08 4:54pm

"Uncle, I invite you to follow me to Parliament on Feb 16, 2008. If you follow me, the children and I will be safe and the people of Malaysia will understand the meaning of human rights better." With this seemingly innocuous message, five-year-old W Vwaishhnnavi, who was clad in a pink dress, issued a challenge of sorts to Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) chairperson Abu Talib Othman. The daughter of Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) chairperson P Waythamoorthy has placed the top man in the country’s official human rights watchdog in a wee bit of a spot. While Suhakam has consistently called on the authorities to recognise the people’s right to expression and peaceful assemblies, never had its commissioners - or their chairperson - been asked to assert that stand by exercising such rights themselves by taking to the streets. This was exactly what Vwaishhnnavi was asking Abu Talib to do on Feb 16 when she and about 200 flower-bearing children and their parents gather at Parliament House. They seek to petition Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to release the five Hindraf leaders who have been detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA). Apart from citing the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999, Vwaishhnnavi, in her letter (see below) to Abu Talib today, also quoted her father, a lawyer who is currently in self-imposed exile in London. "My father said under (Section) 4(1), Uncle, you have (the) power to promote awareness and educate on human rights. "Uncle, my father also said that under Section 4(2)(f) (of the Act) you have the power to follow me. So, please, uncle, come with me," she wrote. Play a more active role Among those who spoke on Vwaishhnnavi’s behalf in a meeting this morning to submit her letter to Abu Talib were Hindraf national coordinator RS Thanendran and Hindraf legal advisor N Surendran On hand to receive the letter was Suhakam commissioner Dr Denison Jayasooria. About 30 other members and supporters of Hindraf were also on hand during the hour-long meeting at Suhakam headquarters in Kuala Lumpur. Surendran called on Suhakam to take a more ‘active’ role in pursuing the cause of and protecting the human rights of Malaysians. "We are asking that Suhakam play a more prominent role in protecting Malaysians from intimidation and oppression from the state," he said in reference to the police crackdown on a previous Hindraf gathering. "We hope Suhakam will go beyond just sending letters and holding inquiries and issuing statements (and) show that Suhakam is at the forefront of the protection of human rights. We hope Suhakam will be there (on Feb 16) to assert the right to peacefully assemble," he added. Putting the same point across, Thanendran also said among the objectives of the gathering at Parliament next month is to call for the release of the ‘Hindraf 5'. He also reminded Denison that Suhakam itself had spoken against the ISA, which provides for detention without trial. "We believe Suhakam will be just. We believe we will get justice in Suhakam," said Thanendran. He also said despite the apparent 'concessions' the government has indirectly accorded to Hindraf’s demands for greater social and economic justice for the Indian community, Hindraf has itself been ignored as if it does not exist. This includes the plea for Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to be on hand to receive the roses on Feb 16, said Thanendran. Suhakam will deliberate In response to the points raised, Denison said Suhakam has been consistent in its position that peaceful demonstrations and expressions are fundamental human rights that should be safeguarded. He also said Suhakam maintained its stand that "ISA detentions and any forms of detention without trial" are violations of human rights. The possibility of Suhakam actually participating in a gathering, however, was something that would have to be deliberated on by the commission as a whole. Nevertheless, Denison said he would convey the invitation to Abu Talib. He also vowed to raise with the commissioners in their next meeting a complaint by Surendran regarding police ‘harassment’ of Hindraf followers earlier this morning. Surendran told Denison that police officers had, before the meeting, asked for the names and particulars of those at Suhakam. Click here to watch a two-minute video clip.

HRW World Report 2008 :- MALAYSIA

Malaysia

Events of 2007

Malaysia continues to confound hopes that human rights progress will parallel the country’s strong economic growth. Basic rights such as freedom of expression, assembly, and association are subject to burdensome and unjustified restrictions. A series of stringent and outdated laws and regulations, such as the Internal Security Act (ISA) and Emergency Ordinance (EO), continue to undermine basic due process rights. Routine censorship threats target bloggers; new rules impede workers’ right to organize; and indigenous communities face loss of communal land. The government has resisted widespread calls to establish an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission, as recommended in May 2005 by a Royal Commission.

Detention without Charge or Trial
Malaysian officials use the ISA and EO to indefinitely detain, without charge or trial, alleged terrorists and those suspected of organized criminal activities. Authorities have used the law against members of several Islamic groups, including the Jemaah Islamiah (JI), Kampulan Militan/Mujaahiddim Malaysia, and Darul Islam, as well as criminals engaging in human smuggling and passport and ID forgery. The inspector general of police stated in June 2007 that “there is no JI movement here in Malaysia.”

According to Suaram, a respected Malaysian nongovernmental organization (NGO), as of September 2007, 87 suspects remained in ISA detention. In June 2007, four alleged JI members held for more than four years were released but sent, under the 1933 Restricted Residence Act, to remote districts where they are required to report regularly to local police.

The Malaysian government has not responded to a request for a visit by the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, nor has it responded to his request for information related to ISA detention.

The government has insisted on retaining the EO, saying it needs the law to impede the activities of criminal gangs, despite the fact that it violates constitutional due process requirements. In October 2006, in a blow to the rights of suspects, a federal court ordered that once the internal security minister signs a detention order, any prior police abuse or other misconduct may no longer be challenged in court. The court reasoned that when court-ordered release of a suspect is followed by a new detention order, a not uncommon occurrence in Malaysia, appeal of the original order is “rendered academic.”

Migrant Workers, Refugees, and Asylum Seekers
Malaysian officials reported in 2007 that there were nearly 1.9 million documented migrants in the country. Although there is no official count of undocumented migrants, estimates suggest the total is 700,000 or more. Some 150,000 people are believed to be either refugees or asylum seekers, only a third of whom have been registered by UNHCR.

In July 2007, the government began one of its periodic roundups, seeking to deport those who had entered Malaysia illegally. Some 10,000 were apprehended during the first month of operation. In addition to deportation, those in violation of the law face up to five years’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane, as provided for by the Immigration Act 1959/63. Such round-ups, which fail to differentiate between people in need of international protection and other migrants, frequently involve violence by the authorities or their agents.

The almost half million strong Peoples Volunteer Force (RELA) is empowered by the Emergency (Essential Powers) Act 1979, as amended, to arrest and detain “undesirable persons” and suspected illegal migrants. Force members, authorized to enter and search any public or private premise without a warrant, have raided migrant housing in the middle of the night, beating up residents, confiscating valuables, and, at times, destroying the ID cards of legal migrants to justify the raids.

For example, on April 5, 2007, RELA volunteers arrested some 20 Burmese refugees and asylum seekers in downtown Kuala Lumpur. At least five had been recognized as refugees by the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). On June 25, 2007, at 2:00 a.m., Malaysian Immigration officials and RELA volunteers raided the Chin Refugee Centre and Chin communities at Jalan Imbi and Jalan San Peng, Kuala Lumpur, arresting 228 asylum seekers and refugees from Burma, most of whom UNHCR had recognized as refugees.

The migrant work force includes some 300,000 domestic workers, primarily Indonesian. They confront a wide range of abuses, including forced confinement in the workplace, excessively long work hours, lack of rest days, withheld wages, and physical and sexual abuse. Domestic workers not only are excluded from key provisions of Malaysia’s Employment Act of 1955, but their work permits tie them to a particular employer, making it difficult to report abuse for fear of deportation. While Malaysia has imposed some penalties on agencies and employers following a 2006 agreement with Indonesia, the agreement does not extend many basic labor law protections to domestic workers. Criminal prosecutions of abusive employers are rare. Nirmala Bonat, whose employer burned and brutally beat her, has remained in the Indonesian embassy since 2004 while the trial of her employer continues.

In violation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Malaysia has ratified, children of migrants with temporary residence are not entitled to free public education.

Police Abuse
Complaints directed against Malaysia’s police force include allegations of routine physical abuse of detainees. In June 2007, Suhakam, the official Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, said police responded to only 16 of the 34 cases of police brutality brought to their attention over a one-and-a-half-year period. Prison abuse at times includes beatings so severe that hospitalization is required. The police also often rely on a policy of “remand first, investigate later.” As a result, suspects spend days in detention, often without access to family members or a lawyer, greatly increasing the risk of mistreatment.

Freedom of Expression
In 2007 Malaysian officials cautioned private media outlets against abusing their privileges, advised newspapers to be wary of repeating blog criticisms of the government, and warned webmasters and bloggers to use their power cautiously. Critical bloggers have been sued for defamation, a powerful tool long used in Malaysia by the government to stifle dissent.

The Internal Security Ministry sent warnings in March and July 2007 to newspapers not to publish cyber-induced speculation on “sensitive” issues. The circular reminded journalists that publishers are required to “always comply with directives issued by the ministry.” The 1984 Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA) requires that newspapers renew their licenses every year.

On July 13, the police used section 8 of the Official Secrets Act (OSA) to arrest Nathaniel Tan, a staffer at the opposition People’s Justice Party, on suspicion of possessing documents related to government corruption. Tan was held on remand for four days before being released on bail. The OSA is a broadly-worded law according to which any public officer can declare any material an official secret, a certification which cannot be questioned in court. The act allows for arrest and detention without a warrant, and substantially reverses the burden of proof.

Freedom of Religion
Islam is the official state religion, but the constitution protects freedom of religion for non-Muslims. Discussions in July 2007 as to whether Malaysia was an Islamic or a secular state grew contentious after Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak declared it an Islamic state. The internal security minister then banned further media discussion, but ruled that statements by Prime Minister Badawi and Deputy PM Razak could be aired.

In a landmark ruling, Lima Joy, a Muslim covert to Christianity, lost her six-year battle to have the word “Muslim” removed from her identity card. She had argued she was entitled to freedom of religion under article 11 of the constitution. The top secular court ruled that only the Sharia court had jurisdiction.

Human Rights Defenders
The NGO community, the Malaysian bar, lawyers, and some opposition politicians are active in defense of human rights despite the serious personal and professional risks entailed.

In June 2007, during a rally in Johor Bahru organized to protest rising crime rates, police arrested two activists from the NGO Suaram for attempting to distribute leaflets supporting the proposed Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission. The Johor Bahru Magistrate Court remanded the two for 24 hours.

In October, the Putrajaya district police requested the Malaysian Bar Association president, vice-president, and secretary to appear to discuss the September 26, 2006 “Walk for Justice.” The 2,000 strong march to the prime minister’s office delivered a memorandum urging the government to set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry to investigate apparent corruption in the appointment of justices. In November, police refused to issue a permit for a rally and march by the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (Bersih). When some 40,000 Malaysians defied the ban, police used chemical-laced water and tear gas to disperse peaceful participants. Tear gas and water cannons were also used against participants in a Hindu Rights Action Force November 25 rally. A total of 99 organizers and marchers were charged in the aftermath. Prime Minister Badawi threatened to use the Internal Security Act to prevent further unauthorized street demonstrations.

Key International Actors
As a key ASEAN member, Malaysian officials initially urged Burma to agree to talk with opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi without preconditions and even suggested that Burma could be expelled from ASEAN following its violent crackdown on monks, students, and other protesters in September 2007. However, by November 19, 2007, Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar had backed away from public denunciation of Burma’s human rights record and was defending ASEAN’s failure to take any steps to censure Burma.

Despite its own lack of enthusiasm and concern over protracted negotiations, Malaysia has pressed reluctant ASEAN members to support a regional human rights body.

Malaysia has not ratified any key UN conventions other than the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

New US ambassador to Malaysia James Keith noted a “greater congruence between the interests of America and Malaysia,” especially related to counterterrorism, during his May confirmation hearing before the US Senate. US-Malaysia negotiations on a free trade agreement, however, appeared stalled at this writing, in part because of a new Malaysian labor law rescinding key worker rights.

SCC vs IPCMC: See the difference ....disrespecting the KING and the will of the people

Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission bill drafted by the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysia Police -- a ROYAL Commission - the KING's commission .....and then out comes the Special Complaints Commission (the brain child of the Prime Minister and his AG?) - THIS is total lack of respect by the Prime Minister, the Barisan Nasional government to the KING, his Royal Commission ...oh yes remember that the 2nd Royal Commission also supported the ndependent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission bill. What is the use then of setting up Royal Commissions - if we have a Prime Minister and a government who just do not follow and implement the recommendations of these ROYAL COMMISSIONs.. SCC vs IPCMC: See the difference

Chua Sue-Ann | Dec 27, 07 4:28pm

The controversial Special Complaints Commission - a much watered-down version of the independent body mooted by the Royal Police Commission - has come under intense fire for its lack of power and independence. Given the widespread opposition to this new proposal - which some ex-commissioners and opposition politicians described as a completely ‘different animal’ - the bill has been postponed to the next parliamentary sitting in March 2008. The SCC bill is the government's answer to the proposed Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission bill drafted by the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysia Police two years ago. In its report, the Royal Police Commission recommended the formation of an independent agency to oversee public complaints against the police, arguably the most powerful watchdog ever proposed in Malaysia. Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang will be calling for a parliamentary roundtable tomorrow to discuss how to salvage the original proposal made by the Royal Police Commission. The roundtable, which was originally scheduled for today, will be attended by a number of human rights organsations and some of the royal commission members. But what exactly are the differences between the SCC and IPCMC? Malaysiakini compares the key features of the two bodies. Members The SCC chairperson and three other commissioners are appointed by the prime minister and may be revoked at any time without explanation. Commissioners will hold office for two years, not more than two consecutive terms. The inspector-general of police, director-general of Public Complaints Bureau and director-general of the Anti-Corruption Agency will automatically be members of the SCC. Whereas IPCMC commissioners are appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. The king is to choose no more than seven commissioners, including a chairperson and two deputies who will hold full time posts. The chairperson and deputies are required to have at least 10 years legal experience. Parliamentarians, state legislators, former or current members of the police force are not eligible as commissioners. Commissioners may hold office for a period not exceeding two consecutive three-year terms. Powers The IPCMC has the power to launch its own investigations whereas the SCC would channel it to a special task force. The SCC task force is to be headed by a chief executive officer and the commission is to engage task force officers from the public services, police force, legal officers or its own commissioners. On the other hand, the IPCMC has the freedom to establish a task force or joint task forces or cooperate with other such groups. It may also engage consultants or officers to perform services for it and these may include retired or former police officers. The commission will work with relevant bodies in its investigation including the Anti-Corruption Agency, the auditor-general, the Securities Commission, Bank Negara and overseas police forces. Functions The IPCMC's main function is to receive and inquire into complaints, particularly "to detect, investigate and prevent police corruption and other serious misconduct." On the other hand, the SCC merely receives complaints related to an enforcement officer's misconduct and will direct its task force to investigate. The investigation will then be forwarded to the appropriate disciplinary authorities or public prosecutor if legal action is required. In contrast, the IPCMC has the power to discipline and can, via its chief legal counsel, initiate legal action against police officers found guilty of misconduct. It is interesting to note that the SCC bill has dropped corruption from its functions and focus. The IPCMC has a broader scope of function that goes beyond investigating complaints. It is tasked to develop and implement mechanisms to detect, investigate and prevent misconduct. It may also examine and verify any procedural infringement, corruption and misconduct. Further, the IPCMC will make provisions to audit and monitor particular aspects of the police force's procedure and operations. It may also play a role in promoting awareness of police ethics and integrity or recommending appropriate methods to the government for that purpose. The IPCMC also has the right to visit police stations and other places of detention. Investigative powers The SCC may conduct preliminary investigations "to determine the merit of a complaint" after which it will refer its early findings to relevant bodies for further investigation or action. On the other hand, the IPCMC may investigate on its own initiative any reports received, referred to it or complaints it has become aware of. The IPCMC also has the power to direct the IGP to investigate or stop the investigation of any complaints. It may also take over investigation from the IGP without being required to disclose anything to the IGP. Who can it investigate? The SCC can investigate all enforcement officers at the federal level while the IPCMC can only probe police personnel. The IPCMC will investigate any misconduct "by way of action or inaction or alleged" that includes corruption or any corrupt conduct as specified by the Anti-Corruption Act, the commissioning of criminal offences, failure to follow laws or the IGP's rules and any matters which a complaint can be made under the Police Act. The IPCMC cannot investigate a case involving the employee of a public body or statutory authority if the complaint does not also involve a police officer. However, it may investigate others cases involving police officers, regardless of whether a police officer was on duty or not, regardless of whether the alleged misconduct occurred within or outside Malaysia and if the misconduct occurred prior to the existence of this Act. The IPCMC may even investigate cases where no police misconduct is suspected or cases where no particular police officer or other person is implicated. The SCC will not examine any complaints that are deliberated by other disciplinary authorities, courts and enforcement agencies. Neither will it consider cases that have already been determined by those authorities. Disciplinary powers The SCC can only refer investigation papers and documents to the disciplinary authorities if the established misconduct is disciplinary or the public prosecutor if the misconduct is criminal. The IPCMC may refer a matter to relevant authorities for investigation or action but it can also act on its own prerogative. The IPCMC can caution and discharge, remove badges and allowances, stop salary increments or impose a fine upon establishing guilt and considering the severity of an officer's misconduct. It also has the power to demote, transfer duties or dismiss the officer concerned. These disciplinary powers are final and cannot be "challenged, appealed or overturned in any court." While the IPCMC can initiate its own legal action via its chief legal counsel, it may also refer to the public prosecutor matters involving money laundering, confiscation or recovery of crime proceeds. The IPCMC may enter into arrangements with the public prosecutor and may recommend that legal immunity be granted to certain persons. If a corporation is found guilty by the IPCMC, the maximum penalty is double of the monetary penalty stipulated for that offence. Further action If the IPCMC is unsatisfied with the disciplinary action taken by the appropriate authorities or public prosecutor, it may submit a report and recommendations to the prime minister after giving the relevant bodies a chance to comment. If it is still unsatisfied, the IPCMC may also submit a report to parliament. There is no such provisions in the SCC bill. Power to amend Act Under the Special Complaints Commissions Act, the prime minister has the power to amend any provisions of the act to "remove difficulties and prevent anomalies" within two years of its enactment. The IPCMC bill has no provisions for amendments. Secrecy laws The SCC's investigations are curtailed by the Official Secret Act 1972 [Act88] or any laws regarding confidentiality of documents or information while these do not apply to the IPCMC. The IPCMC can intercept any method or form of communications for its investigations. Commission reports The IPCMC reports directly to parliament on any investigations or public hearings it has conducted. It may also recommend that a report be made public, irrespective of whether it has been laid before parliament or not. The IPCMC may submit special reports to parliament at any time on matters of administration and general policies that relate to its function. It may also submit reports to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong at any time, with a copy made available to the prime minister. The SCC submits its annual report to parliament while the IPCMC annual reports must be submitted to the prime minister and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who will then make it available in parliament. Arrest and search warrants The IPCMC has the power to issue arrest warrants for persons who have failed to appear at its hearings while the SCC can apply to a magistrate for a summons to secure a person's attendance. IPCMC commissioners or any officer authorised in writing may enter premises, inspect documents at the premise and take copies. The IPCMC is also empowered to issue a search warrant if necessary and if there are reasonable grounds to do so. IN BRIEF: SCC vs IPCMC Appointments SCC - Prime minister to appoint commissioners IPCMC - Agong to appoint commissioners Members SCC - Inspector-general of police, Public Complaints Bureau director-general and Anti-Corruption Agency director-general are automatic members. IPCMC - Unlike SCC, parliamentarians, state legislators, former or current police officers not eligible as commissioners. Investigative powers SCC- Task force to investigate complaints. IPCMC - Power to initiate own investigation and to direct IGP on investigations. Secrecy laws SCC - Bound by Official Secrets Act and secrecy laws. IPCMC - Not subjected to secrecy laws and can intercept any form of communication. Investigative powers SCC - Power to probe all enforcement officers at the federal level. IPCMC - Can only investigate current and former police officers whether alleged misconduct was committed on or off duty. Disciplinary powers SCC - Refer investigation to disciplinary authorities or public prosecutor for legal action. IPCMC - Has disciplinary powers and can initiate legal action via its chief legal counsel. Amendments SCC - PM empowered to amend the Act in the first two years. IPCMC - No provisions for amendments. Annual reports SCC - Annual reports submitted to parliament. IPCMC - Annual reports submitted to parliament through PM and Agong. Case and special reports can be made direct to parliament.

Suhakam Tigers Face Extinction

Suhakam tigers face extinction
Charles Hector
Apr 7, 06 4:45pm (Malaysiakini)

Suhakam is not a toothless tiger as long as we still have few human rights commissioners like Prof Mohd Hamdan Adnan there. When Suhakam first came into being, there were more commissioners with teeth like Mehrun Siraj and Musa Hitam. As time went on, more and more of the independent and brave commissioners were just not re-appointed. The term of this present batch comes to end this month, and maybe Prof Mohd Hamdan Adnan and some of the other stronger and more vocal commissioners will not be reappointed, and then Suhakam will become a true toothless tiger.

Who is the chairman of Suhakam? Why did he not come out and make a response to Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nazri Abdul Aziz’s recent statements on the non-powers of Suhakam? Come to think of it, we have not heard much from that former attorney-general who is the current chairman of Suhakam. It is time for Suhakam to have a new chairman, someone who does not have a government servant mentality. Suhakam, as creature of an Act of Parliament, must be independent and that includes being independent of the government of the day. A commissioner must be fearless, a person who works and does things for the promotion of human rights and to ensure that all parties (including) the government of the day respects human rights.

In other countries, appointment as a human rights commissioner is for a term of at least six years, not two years as is in Malaysia. This short two-year term may be what is keeping the other commissioners quiet and docile in that they will stand a better chance of re-appointment if they are not troublemakers. We do not need people with this kind of attitude appointed as commissioners. We need fearless persons willing to risk all for the cause of human rights. In Malaysia, it may be a bit difficult to find such persons but it is not impossible if we really want Suhakam to be effective and not just a window-dressing .

It is also important that Suhakam commissioners are full-time and not just part-timers who spend most of their time with their other work and other businesses. It may be very difficult to find persons who are willing to give up their present jobs and businesses to just serve a two-year term but then if it was for a six-year term, you will have more who would be willing to serve as full-time commissioners.

In another 20 days or so, we will know whether Suhakam will finally become a toothless tiger, or whether the tiger will get more teeth. Who will be re-appointed? Who will be asked to leave? By the end of the month, we will find out what kind of people our present prime minister wants in the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia.

**Hamdan is among two others, Ramon V Navaratnam and Sharifah Hapsah Syed Hassan Shahabudin, whose contracts were not renewed - Malaysiakini 3/5/2006