3 children victims of Detention/Restrictions Without Trial and Human Rights Violation. Who will be bothered? PR, BN, MPs, ADUNs, Anwar, Kit Siang, Hadi, Najib....?

3 children from Semenyih, aged between 15 and 17, who are supposed to sit for PMR and SPM examinations later this year were arrested and detained on Dec 21 last year on allegations of being a public nuisance and being in possession of a stolen vehicle.

The trio were held in several police stations for a total of 21 days until their remand period expired.  

On Jan 10, an order under the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 to detain them for 60 days was issued and they were held at the Semenyih police station. The detention order expired on March 9.

Now the government  uses the Restricted Residence Act 1933 on them, and they have all been slapped with a 2 year restricted residence order issued by the Home Minister. One was sent to Kawasan Linggi in Negeri Sembilan, one to Berangan in Seminyih ,and  the third child was sent to Batang Berjuntai in Kuala Selangor. Another 21-year-old, who was detained under the same act yesterday, was sent to Kuala Lipis, Pahang.

What is wrong?

* These 3 children have been denied the right to defend themselves, and the right to a fair and open trial. They should have been properly charged and tried in court. If they are found guilty, then the court would have decided on the sentence - a suitable sentence, which may not even be a prison term.

What else is wrong? Well, I will discuss that in an upcoming post....

**Malaysia has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and this covers the 3 children arrested on 21/12/2009.For the purposes of the Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier. Therefore, Malaysia's treatment of these 3 children is not only a violation of human rights, but also this Convention.

Three teenagers are being detained without trial for 72 days, which includes time spent detained under the Emergency Ordinance 1969, and their family members are crying foul.

Accompanied by representatives of human rights group Suaram, the relatives of the detainees took their case to the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) today, pleading for intervention.

"Please help me to bring back my son. He is a good boy and I want him to be successful in his studies," said M Gowri, 42, who was among the 15 relatives present.

According to Suaram's memorandum to Suhakam, the trio from Semenyih, aged between 15 and 17, are supposed to sit for PMR and SPM examinations later this year.

They were detained on Dec 21 last year on allegations of being a public nuisance and being in possession of a stolen vehicle.

The trio were held in several police stations for a total of 21 days until their remand period expired. 

On Jan 10, an order under the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 to detain them for 60 days was issued and they were held at the Semenyih police station. 

The detention order expires on March 9.

The family is now worried that their children would eventually be transferred to the notorious Simpang Renggam detention centre. 

The two-page memorandum also urged the commission to take immediate action on the matter and appeal to the Home Ministry for their release.

The memorandum was handed to Suhakam commissioner N Siva Subramaniam.

Suhakam to appeal

Suaram director S Arutchelvan said the detentions were violations of Article 16 (1) and (11) of the Federal Constitution, Article 42 of the Child Act 2001 and Article 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

"We would like to urge the government to take immediate action and release the teenagers. They are supposed to be sitting for major examinations this year and the detention would affect their future," said Arutchelvan.

Addressing the family members and Suaram later, Siva Subramaniam hoped that the authorities would not place the teenagers in the Simpang Renggam detention centre, noting that it is a place where many "serious criminals" are being held.

“Placing them in the Henry Gurney school (in Malacca), would be a better option," he added.

The Simpang Renggam detention centre has often been criticised as a 'training school' for criminals because of the high concentration of hardcore criminals held there under the Emergency Ordinance.

The commissioner also promised to immediately submit a written appeal to the Home Affairs Ministry and locate the three detainees' school records.

Siva Subramaniam later turned his attention to discipline problems among youths which he felt had reached alarming proportions. He urged the police and NGOs to work together to combat this issue. - Malaysiakini, 2/3/2010, Three teens held under EO, family cries foul

 

The three minors who were held under the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 on Dec 21 last year, are now placed under yet another suppressive law, the Restricted Residence Act 1933.

The trio from Semenyih, aged between 15 and 17 were detained on Dec 21 last year for being in possession of a stolen vehicle as well as being public nuisances.

They were held in various police stations for 21 days, and then detained in Semenyih police station under the Emergency Ordinance for another 60 days.

The detention order expired on March 9 but the Home Ministry has now slapped the Restricted Residence Act on them which will last for two years.

They have been sent to Kawasan Linggi in Negeri Sembilan, Berangan in Seminyih and Batang Berjuntai in Kuala Selangor respectively.

Another 21-year-old, who was detained under the same act yesterday, was sent to Kuala Lipis, Pahang.

Suaram coordinator E Nalini said they only came to know about this case yesterday.

"We strongly condemn the home minister's order to place these cases under this unlawful act. It is wrong to detain them as it will restrict their movement and right to education," she added.

Nalini (right) also informed Malaysiakini that an appeal letter will be sent to the Home Ministry, requesting the government to grant them a second chance as until now, the charges against the minors have not proven.

She also lamented the minors will be denied rights to an education as two of them will be placed in rural areas. They are aged between 15 and 17, and are supposed to sit for PMR and SPM examinations later this year.

Human Rights lawyer, Charles Hector (left) said: "Placing the three minors under the Restricted Residence Act is not the right option.

"The government is breaching the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) by detaining minors and restricting their movement," he added.

He said there are other options whereas the minors can be released under certain conditions such as mandatory reporting to police station once a week.

"A better option would be to charge them in the court, not to detain them under these acts," he added.

The Restricted Residence Act 1933 is an archaic law used actively during the Communist Emergency of 1948-1960 to fight terrorism and deal with matters involving national security. - Malaysiakini, 12/3/2010, Minors now placed under restricted residence

Malaysia has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and this covers the 3 children arrested on 21/12/2009.

For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.

Ah Long - Charge him in court, if not proven he is not a 'ah long', and if so, this maybe 'cover up' to protect some people...mmm

Under the Detention Without Trial laws, sometimes they do detain you in detention places like the Kamunting Detention Centre..

Sometimes, they just come out with a restriction order, that imposes upon you conditions and restrictions, and if you break these conditions, you commit an offence and they charge you in court...

Is this acceptable?
No, it is not because it again goes against the principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty..
No, it is not because it denies a person his right to a fair and open trial, the right and the ability to defend himself..

Like Detention Orders under the ISA, these restriction orders also are unchallengeable in court as to reasons the Minister made the order. So, innocent people can simply be denied their full liberty and freedoms at the whims and fancies of the Minister..

4A. Restriction orders.

(1) If the Minister is satisfied that for any of the purposes mentioned in section 4(1) it is necessary that control and supervision should be exercised ove any person or that restrictions and conditions should be imposed upon that person in respect of his activities, freedom of movement or places of residence and employment, but that for those purposes it is unnecessary to detain that person, he may make an order (hereinafter referred to as a 'restriction order') imposing upon that person (hereinafter referred to as a 'restricted person') all or any of the following restrictions and conditions:

(a) that he shall be subject to the supervision of the Police for any period not exceeding two years;

(b) that he shall reside within the limits of any State, district, mukim, town or village specified in the restriction order;

(c) that he shall not transfer his residence to any other State, district, mukim, town or village, as the case may be, without the written authority of the Chief Police Officer of any State concerned;

(d) that except in so far as may be otherwise provided by the restriction order, he shall not leave the State, district, mukim, town or village within which he resides without the written authority of the Chief Police Officer of the State concerned;

(e) that he shall at all times keep the Officer in Charge of the Police District in which he resides notified of the house or place in which he resides;

(f) that he shall be liable, at such time or times as may be specified in the restriction order, to present himself at the nearest police station;

(g) that he shall remain within doors or within such area as may be defined in the restriction order, between such hours as may be specified in the restriction order, unless he obtains special permission to he contrary from the Officer in Charge of the Police District;

(h) that except in so far as may be otherwise provided by the restriction order, he shall not enter any State, district, mukim, town or village specified in the restriction order;

(i) that he shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour;

(j) that he shall enter into a bond with or without sureties as the Minister may direct and in such amount as may be specified in the restriction order, for his due compliance with the restrictions and conditions imposed on him by the restriction order.

(2) The restrictions and conditions imposed on any person under sub-section (1) shall, unless cancelled as hereinafter provided, continue in force for the period specified by the Minister under sub-secton (1)(a).

(3) The Minister may from time to time, by order in writing served on a restricted person, vary, add to or cancel any restrictions or conditions imposed upon him under sub-section (1), and the restrictions or conditions as so varied and any additional restrictions or conditions so imposed shall, unless sooner cancelled, continue in force for the period specified by the Minister under subsection (1)(a).

(4) Any restricted person who contravenes or fails to comply with any restriction or condition expressed in his restriction order shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and not less than two years. - EMERGENCY (PUBLIC ORDER AND PREVENTION OF CRIME) ORDINANCE, 1969

Now, in Johor, the police is going to use in on 'Ah Longs' - i.e. persons they want us to believe are 'ah longs'. Are they really 'ah longs'? I doubt it - because I do not trust our Malaysian police - and further I require that this allegation be proved in court beyond reasonable doubt. After all, if he is, then what is the difficulty of charging him in court. Maybe, because he may reveal how he was 'bribing' some police officer or maybe even some UMNO politician. Iif not, why don't we just charge him in court.

Police are coming down hard on loan sharks in the state and have used preventive laws to deter their activities.

Johor police chief Deputy Comm Datuk Mohd Mokhtar Mohd Shariff said a 28-year-old man was the first to be arrested under the Emergency Ordinance for being involved in such activities.

He said the man, the head of a loan shark syndicate, had been active in Tangkak and Muar, adding that police obtained an order to restrict him in Temelong, Hulu Terengganu, for two years beginning May 26.

“We will come down hard on Ah Longs because they are a nuisance and should not be tolerated,” he said. - Star, 31/5/2009, Johor uses preventive laws to deter loan sharks

Remember that in Malaysia, there are 3 main Detention Without Trial Laws - (a) ISA; (b) Emergency Ordinance [ Emergency (Public Order and Prevention Crime) Ordinance 1969]; and (c) Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 (DD(SPM)A).

See earlier postings:-
Another arrested under Detention Without Trial Laws
PR must release immediately all under ISA and Detention Without Trial Laws...

Thus, we must again reiterate the call for the repeal of all Detention Without Trial Laws.

We call again for the immediate and unconditional release of all currently under Detention Orders, and Restriction Orders.

With the release of HINDRAF 3, we saw the attempt to impose Restriction Orders - it was praiseworthy that Uthayakumar publicly refused to agree to any such conditions.

Civil society and all good persons must also shout out against the injustice now befalling these so-called 'Ah Longs' . They may not be prominent persons - but we must still be there for them, who are also victims of Human Rights..