Rela chief: Give us more power

Andrew Ong May 29, 07 12:16pm

exclusive If he had his way, People’s Volunteer Corps (Rela) director-general Zaidon Asmuni would like to see the body equipped with even wider powers than it now holds. “We want not only the power to check passports and travel documents. If you ask me, we want more than that. We want the power to investigate and prosecute in court,” he said in an interview. “But who am I to ask for this? We just follow decisions made by the top. For now, we will follow whatever is stated in the law.” Zaidon, formerly the Pahang Immigration Department director, believes that Rela is an unique enforcement body because of its sheer numbers. At last count, it had 475,000 members nationwide. “(As an immigration officer) whenever I conducted a raid, the most I could bring along was about 20 officers. For 20 people to cordon off a big kongsi (housing for construction workers) which may contain 100 illegal immigrants, the number of arrests would be low,” he explained. “Rela can call up 300 members. I think not even one (illegal immigrant) can run (away from the raid). The uniqueness of Rela lies in our large numbers.” Zaidon was also asked to respond to questions on the screening of recruits, use of guns and alleged human rights violations, among other issues that have caused controversy. There is growing criticism by human rights groups and the Bar Council that Rela personnel are abusing their powers and are involved in violence. Rela, an agency under the home ministry, was created under the Essential (Ikatan Relawan Rakyat) Regulations 1972 which provide the power of arrest, entry into premises without a permit and to carry firearms. No disciplinary system Following amendments in March 2005, Rela’s “core business” has become nabbing illegal immigrants through raids led by either the district Rela officer or his deputy - who are former members of the armed forces. District Rela officers are given blanket approval to seek out and detain illegal immigrants, with operations often conducted at night both for the element of surprise and because many personnel hold day jobs. “It’s done by calling (up personnel on the phone). We don’t have (to do paperwork) to carry out an operation. We don’t plan (over a) long (period) because we want to keep operations as secretive as possible.” Zaidon also revealed that after every operation, the district Rela officer has to lodge a cover report with the police, regardless of whether or not any arrests were made. Unlike other enforcement bodies, Rela does not subject its personnel to disciplinary action in the event of complaints. Those found to have abused their powers are stripped of membership. “We cannot take (errant) members to court... If the Rela member commits a crime, it is up to the police to investigate under the Penal Code,” Zaidon added.

Malaysiakini: Worker's Death Exposes Slave-Like Conditions

Worker's death exposes slave-like conditions

Anil Netto May 17, 07 1:07pm

The shocking torture and death of an Indian national allegedly at the hands of his employers in Malaysia has highlighted the lack of protection and support networks for migrant workers in this country. The brutalised body of R Ganesh was flown back to Tamil Nadu state in India, one day after Malaysian workers observed Labour Day. Three suspects - sauce factory owner T Rajan, his wife M Ganeswari, and their 20-year-old son Vijaar - have been charged with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The case will be heard in court on June 5. Ganesh was reportedly subjected to daily beatings, deprived of food and sufficient rest, and chained and locked in a dark room. He was eventually dumped in a wooded area, but was found by villagers who sent him to hospital. He succumbed to his injuries on April 27. Pictures of his gaunt face, the horrendous bruises on his back and his protruding rib cage shocked Malaysians. In hospital, he was little more than a bag of blistered skin and bones. Ganesh's may have been an extreme case, but it suggests that a poor regulatory framework and lack of a support network may have contributed to his ordeal and his inability to escape from his dire situation. In most cases, the balance of power in the relationship between employers and migrant workers is extremely lop-sided; most migrant workers are frequently at the mercy of their employers. While many Malaysian employers treat their migrant workers with varying degrees of decency, there are others who are abusive or exploitative towards their workers who often have little recourse to protection. Work permits often specify or bind them to a single employer and their passports are usually held by the employers or agents, further restricting the workers' freedom of movement. Premier assurance There are fears that a proposed Foreign Workers' Bill would restrict foreign workers to their living quarters, although Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has given an assurance that the workers' freedom of movement would not be restricted under the new law. Even if they were able to, most migrant workers are reluctant to return home earlier than scheduled because of the huge loans they have taken to finance their trip to Malaysia in the first place. There are other deterrents. If at all they run away from their employers, without their passports or new work permits they are deemed to be undocumented or "illegal" migrants. They are then the targets of crackdowns by enforcement personnel or the uniformed volunteer vigilante group, Rela, which has often been accused of high-handed methods in rounding up undocumented migrants. Once caught, undocumented workers are usually sent to immigration detention centres where conditions leave much to be desired. Courts at these centres sometimes impose a whipping sentence and those found guilty are eventually deported. All the immigration centres are reportedly overcrowded. A commissioner with the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) told the press that Suhakam's recent visit to the Tanah Merah detention centre on the east coast revealed that over 600 migrant workers were housed in a space meant for 400. One doctor who has treated undocumented migrants from a detention centre says some of them suffer from skin diseases and the effects of a poor diet, while others complain of a lack of sufficient drinking water. This appears to tally with the findings from interviews with deported workers conducted by rights group Tenaganita and civil society groups in the workers' country of origin, according to the Tenaganita programme coordinator Aegile Fernandez. In George Town, Penang, a visibly shaken young Indonesian domestic maid, Yati (not her real name), recently met IPS after running away from her employers the previous night. ''I was knocked on the head for the slightest mistake I made,'' she said, tearfully. ''I just could not take it any more; so, when I had the chance, I ran out of the house without thinking of taking any of my belongings.'' Without any money, her several months' wages still unpaid, no change of clothing, and most crucially, without her passport, which was probably held by her employer or the local recruitment agent, Yati was helpless. Yati eventually found her way to the Indonesian consulate in Penang, where every month some two to three dozen Indonesian maids seek refuge. The maids stay at the hostel there until they reach a negotiated settlement with their employers or are sent home. The numbers seeking refuge are higher in the national capital. Victims of trafficking Fernandez says an average of 150-200 migrant workers, the majority of them maids, seek refuge at the Indonesian embassy there every month. ''We put them under the category of 'bonded labour' and that falls under the category of trafficking,'' she said. That is a view shared by the Geneva-based International Organisation of Migration (IOM), an inter-governmental group promoting humane and orderly migration. Last year, the IOM began to help repatriate dozens of maids who lacked proper travel documents and were sheltering at the Indonesian consulate in Penang, it said in a press briefing note on its website. The IOM considers these women to be victims of trafficking although they had arrived in Malaysia using official international routes. The group noted that trafficking victims are exploited by unscrupulous labour agents and frequently subjected to physical, psychological and sexual abuse by their employers. ''They are particularly vulnerable when they enter countries illegally in search of employment, use forged papers or are forced to handover their legitimate travel documents.'' It is not just domestic maids who are at risk. An increasing trend is for outsourcing companies in Malaysia to hire workers from India and Bangladesh on behalf of 'principal firms', including multinational corporations, based in Malaysia. ''But once they come into the country, in many cases, they are not sent to the principal company and are instead placed in various locations doing temporary work,'' says an activist, who declined to be identified. In one case, he said, the workers had to work a few days in an oil palm plantation, next at a chicken farm, and then at a construction site. ''They were sent all around the country in groups.'' It is a shattering experience for these workers, many of whom had taken loans ranging from RM8,000 to RM13,000(US$2,300-3,800), often selling their homes and land to finance their trip here, he said. For her part, Yati, the runaway maid, is not interested in staying back to claim her unpaid wages. ''I just want to go home to my family'' - even if it means going home empty-handed. - IPS

Global rights watchdog: Disband Rela

Global rights watchdog: Disband Rela

May 9, 07 3:07pm

An international human rights watchdog said the Malaysian government should disband Rela (People's Volunteer Corps) on grounds of repeated complaints of abuse and unlawful behaviour towards migrant workers. Human Rights Watch (HRW) said in a statement today that it has documented many instances of such abuse this year alone including: • (April 5) Volunteers arrested some 20 Burmese refugees and asylum seekers at a market in Kuala Lumpur, of whom at least five had been officially recognised as refugees by the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). • (late March) Eight members of a team removed belongings worth RM1,800 from one dwelling and were detained on robbery charges • (March 8) An officer detained an Indian immigrant with identification certifying his legal status. It took four days for the worker's employer to obtain his release from a detention camp for illegal immigrants. • (March 6 and 7) Volunteers who were to have handed out flyers related to court orders helped a developer evict 50 families and tear down houses in Kampung Berembang. They operated bulldozers and were also alleged to have used excessive force. • (March 2) 10 volunteers raided a factory in Jenjarom, Selangor, injuring two Nepalese workers and detaining eight others. • (January 28) Rela raided in Kampung Sungai Merab, Denkil, resulting in the arbitrary arrest of 14 persons recognised as refugees by UNHCR. “Rela volunteers (who are) fully uniformed, armed and unaccompanied by police or immigration officers, often employ unnecessary force and illegal policing practices,” the HRW statement said. It also listed Rela’s modus operandi in, for example, breaking into migrant lodgings in the middle of the night without warrants and brutalising the occupants and extorting money from them. “(They also) confiscate cell phones, clothing, jewelry, and household goods, before handcuffing migrants and transporting them to detention camps for ‘illegal immigrants’,” it stated. Distinction ignored The organisation said Rela members have failed to distinguish or have deliberately ignored the distinction between undocumented immigrants, and refugees and asylum seekers. “At other times, volunteers have refused to recognise a worker's legitimate immigration status ... volunteers have been known to deliberately destroy identification cards proving a worker's right to be in Malaysia. “Rela's behavior has embarrassed the government into announcing some minor reforms but tinkering with raiding procedures or upgrading training will not get to the fundamental issue, which is that Rela should be disbanded.” Almost half a million volunteers are authorised to help maintain public order, primarily through the arrest of undocumented migrant workers. According to the home ministry, the role of Rela is “to help maintain security in the country and the well being of the people” as the eyes and ears of the government since 1972. However, in 2005, the corps was given more power to stop ‘any person suspected as terrorist, undesirable person, illegal immigrant or an occupier’. “The government has set up what's little more than a vigilante force to target foreigners. Given Rela's repeated abuses, it should be disbanded right away,” HRW added.

Press Release: EMPLOYER HOLDS PASSPORT PUTTING WORKER AT RISK

PRESS RELEASE - 27/4/2007

EMPLOYER HOLDS PASSPORT PUTTING WORKER AT RISK

PROPERLY DOCUMENTED MIGRANT WORKER ARRESTED AND DETAINED FOR MORE THAN 70 DAYS

ARRESTED BECAUSE HE COULD NOT PRODUCE PASSPORT WHICH WAS WITH THE IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT

WHEN ORIGINAL PASSPORT RETURNED BY IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT AND SHOWED TO POLICE, SEMENYIH DETENTION CENTRE, IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE - HE WAS NOT RELEASED UNTIL 13/4/2007

EMPLOYER NOW WRONGFULLY HOLDING PASSPORT - MUHAMMAD ISHFAQ IN DANGER OF GETTING ARRESTED AND DETAINED - HE IS DEPRIVED OF HIS “PERSONAL LIBERTY” - HE IS IN “DETENTION” OF ANOTHER KIND.

MUHAMMAD ISHFAQ (Paspot No: AY 1841031), a Pakistani national, came to Malaysia legally to work. His employer is Indrasit Holdings Sdn Bhd and from the documentation, it is clear that his entry into Malaysia was legal. It was done after the Immigration Department had granted permission vide their letter dated 24/11/2006 addressed to the employer to bring in 32 workers from Pakistan.

The employer, after the arrival of Muhammad Ishfaq in Malaysia, then took his passport and submitted it to the Immigration Department for the required work permit [Pas Lawatan (Kerja Sementara)] to be indorsed,etc.

It was when the said original Passport of Muhammad Ishfaq was with the Immigration Department that Muhammad Ishfaq was arrested by the police on 28/1/2007 maybe for not being able to produce and show his original passport.

We say “maybe” as there can still be no certainty as the police report relating to the arrest, despite being requested for by the lawyers, have yet to be provided to the Muhammad Ishfaq’s lawyers.

Muhammad Ishfaq, after his arrest was sent to Depoh Tahanan Pendatang Tanpa Izin Semenyih Selangor where he was detained until finally he was released on 13/4/2007 after this application in court was filed and served.

The application was filed on 2/4/2007 with a Certificate of Urgency and the court could only give 27/4/2007 as the Hearing Date.

After the application was filed, the Peguam Negara’s office ordered his release on or before 5/4/2007 - but Depoh Tahanan Pendatang Tanpa Izin Semenyih Selangor did not want to release him - and ultimately only released him on 13/4/2007.

The Immigration Department took his original passport, and gave it to the employer despite the fact that Muhammad Ishfaq asked that it be given to him.

Muhammad Ishfaq asked his employer for his passport but they refused to give him back his passport - and they also threatened that they are going to cancel Muhammad Ishfaq’s

permit and send him back to Pakistan. Muhammad Ishfaq wants to stay and work in Malaysia - he does not want to go back to Pakistan, and his work permit is valid until January 2008.

Muhammad Ishfaq may be no more in detention in Depoh Tahanan Pendatang Tanpa Izin Semenyih Selangor but still his a person in “detention”, and a person whose “personal liberty” is being deprived BECAUSE his employer has kidnapped his passport and is refusing to return it to him.

Since his release,Muhammad Ishfaq has been on leave taking rest to recover from the trauma of prolonged detention. Muhammad Ishfaq is also getting medical treatment for the skin disease that he got by reason for his detention.

Muhammad Ishfaq comes to court to get his freedom and his personal liberty back - and hopes that the court will also order that his passport be returned to him for him to keep so that he will be safe to move around without worry of being arrested and detained just because he could not produce his original passport.

A brief chronology of what happened to Muhammad Ishfaq is as follows:-

28-1-2007 Muhammad Ishfaq arrested by police

29-1-2007 Employer’s representative goes to the Sunway Police station with all documents to prove that the presence of Muhammad Ishfaq was legal. They asked them to go to the Bandar Puchong police station. The Bandar Puchong Police said that they could not o anything as this was a Bandar Sunway matter.

30-1-2007 The employer’s representative went back to the Bandar Sunway police station - who now told them that they could not do anything until they had sight of the original passport of Muhammad Ishfaq.

9-2-2007 The employer receives back the original passport from the Immigration Department, which clearly has a Pas Lawatan(Kerja Sementara) that expires only on 11/1/2008 - that makes it clear beyond any doubt that Muhammad Ishfaq is and was legally here in Malaysia for work until January 2008. The police then asks the employer’s representative to go to Depoh Tahanan Pendatang Tanpa Izin Semenyih Selangor.

13-2-2007 The employer’s representative goes to the Depoh Tahanan Pendatang Tanpa Izin Semenyih Selangor, and they say they cannot release Muhammad Ishfaq until they receive directions from the police or the Public Prosecutor. The Depoh Tahanan Pendatang Tanpa Izin Semenyih Selangor then takes and holds the original passport of Muhammad Ishfaq.

15-2-2007 The employer’s representative goes back to the Sunway Police Station, and one Sjn. Ariffin says that he needs the original passport.

21-2-2007 The employer’s representative goes back to Depoh Tahanan Pendatang Tanpa Izin Semenyih Selangor and obtains the original passport of Muhammad Ishfaq.

The employer’s representative returns to Sjn Ariffin (Sunway Police Station), and he now says that the Immigration Department does not have any records about Muhammad Ishfaq.

22-2-2007 The employer’s representative goes to the Immigration Department in Pusat Bandar Damansara, Kuala Lumpur and gets even additional documents verifying Muhammad Ishfaq’s existence and valid presence in Malaysia. They also went to the Selangor Immigration Department.

When the employer’s representative returns with all these proof, Sjn Ariffin wrongfully said that he did want to be disturbed about this matter.

When the Public Prosecutor’s office in Selangor is contacted, they say that they have no records of the arrest and detention of Muhammad Ishfaq.

26-2-2007 The employer’s representative then went back to the Immigration Department in Pusat Bandar Damansara, and they also said that they do not have any record of Muhammad Ishfaq’s arrest and detention.

The employer’s representative goes back to the Sunway Police Station,and meet with the Officer in Charge, one C/Insp Supari, who says that he cannot do anything as this case was handled by Sjn Ariffin.

15-3-2007 Muhammad Ishfaq’s friend, one Alam Zeb, sends a letter to the Public Prosecutor’s office in Selangor enclosing a Statutory Declaration that also enclosed copies of all relevant documents appealing for the release of Muhammad Ishfaq.

28-3-2007 Muhammad Ishfaq’s lawyer sends letters to all relevant parties seeking the release of Muhammad Ishfaq, enclosing also relevant documents clearly showing that the arrest and prolonged detention was wrong.

3-4-2007 Public Prosecutor’s office in Selangor sends Alam Zeb a letter stating that his appeal that Muhammad Ishfaq be released have been allowed.

5-4-2007 Peguam Negara Malaysia sends a letter to the Muhammad Ishfaq’s lawyers stating very clearly that they have investigated the matter, and have ordered that Muhammad Ishfaq is to be released from custody. (This letter was also copied to the Public Prosecutor’s office in Selangor)

11-4-2007 After receipt of the letter from Peguam Negara Malaysia on 11/4/2007, Muhammad Ishfaq’s lawyers sent letters to all relevant parties enclosing the Peguam Negara’s letter, asking that Muhammad Ishfaq be immediately released from custody/detention.There was also verbal communication with the relevant parties. Many other letters were sent.

13-4-2007 The Immigration Department in Putrajaya finally contacts the lawyers of the Applicant stating that Muhammad Ishfaq will be released in Putrajaya, and that the lawyers need to be present with the original passport. It was clearly made known that the lawyers were Muhammad Ishfaq’s lawyers - not the lawyers of the employer. It is only after the employer stopped trying to get Muhammad Ishfaq out of detention that Muhammad Ishfaq appointed his own lawyer.

The original passport of Muhammad Ishfaq was taken from the lawyers of Muhammad Ishfaq, and the Immigration Department said that they had to wait for the employer to come before Muhammad Ishfaq can be released.

When the employer’s representative arrived, the original passport was handed to the employer’s representative by the Immigration Department despite protests from the lawyers of Muhammad Ishfaq and Muhammad Ishfaq himself.

The employer’s representative stated that the employer wanted to cancel the work permit and deport Muhammad Ishfaq back to Pakistan.

Muhammad Ishfaq and his lawyers asked the employer’s representative to return the Applicant’s passport to Muhammad Ishfaq but they refused, and till today is wrongly holding on to Muhammad Ishfaq’s passport, and Muhammad Ishfaq is again at risk and his freedom of movement and “liberty” is denied. He is still in “detention” and/or “custody” of another kind.

Muhammad Ishfaq is on leave at the moment to recover from the trauma of detention and also is seeking medical treatment. The employer has also not paid him his wages since he arrived in Malaysia. Muhammad Ishfaq has filed a complaint with the Labour Department. Muhammad Ishfaq will be going back to work once the employer is able to tell him where he is to work.

Muhammad Ishfaq

(For further information, kindly contact Mr Charles Hector of Messrs Charles Hector, Muhammad Ishfaq’s lawyer [03-79581844, 019-2371100] )

108 police custody deaths in six years (Malaysiakini)

108 police custody deaths in six years

Soon Li Tsin Apr 23, 07 2:48pm

:

Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi today revealed that 108 deaths occurred during police custody between 2000 and 2006.

In a parliamentary written reply to Wong Nai Chee (BN-Kota Melaka), Abdullah, who is also internal security minister, stated that the number of deaths was highest in 2003 with 23 cases.

There was no significance decrease in numbers but a sharp increase was noted in 2000 (seven deaths) to 2001 (16 deaths).

The premier also disclosed the causes of deaths. This include heart attacks, suicide by hanging, fights between detainees, slipping in the lock-up toilet and asthma.

All deaths investigated

However, Wong who asked for the number of inquiries held over deaths in custody did not get a response.

According to the written reply, all deaths in custody are investigated.

"Sudden death reports are opened to facilitate such investigations. Each case will be referred to the hospital for post-mortem to determine the cause of death," Abdullah said.

"After the investigations are concluded, the report will be forwarded to the public prosecutor or his deputy to decide whether there was any criminal element involved," it read.

He added that investigation reports will then be sent to the magistrates for an inquest to find out the cause of death

BOOKS: Mahathir vs. Abdullah

Mahathir vs. Abdullah RM26.00

Author: various Publisher: Kinibooks Year: 2007 Number of page: 212 Delivery: 1 day The book is a compilation of articles that try to cut through the sandiwara (playacting) of the vicious war of words, and see what really drove TDM to launch such a merciless attack on his handpicked successor, as well as analyze the factors influencing each turn this scandal-ridden battle took. It also includes letters from Malaysiakini readers - representing a truly wide spectrum of opinion, critical thought, and passionate support for both parties. The book features a number of high-profile contributors, including Anwar Ibrahim, Lim Guan Eng, P. Gunasegaram, Tian Chua, Collin Abraham, M Bakri Musa, Steven Gan, P Ramasamy, James Wong, Kim Quek, Charles Hector, Khoo Kay Peng, and many more.

About the world's biggest court complex and The Judiciary under Ahmad Fairuz

About the world's biggest court complex and

The Judiciary under Ahmad Fairuz

Malaysia under the premiership of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is, unfortunately, still pre-occupied with having the tallest and biggest structures and buildings in the world in Malaysia. Soon, we will have what is proclaimed to be the biggest court complex in the world.

This world's biggest court complex in Jalan Duta, Kuala Lumpur, will house 30 High Courts, 21 Sessions Courts and 26 Magistrate's Courts and will be operational in May 2007.

Amusingly, the 77-court complex will only have 500 parking bays for the public and lawyers. It is situated in a place not accessible by Light Rail Transport (LRT) or good public transport facilities. It is a catastrophe waiting to happen.

A parking nightmare – 6.5 parking bays per court

If one were to drop in today at any of the High Courts or Sessions Courts or Magistrate Courts and look at the number of cases listed for the day, one will be able to see that the 6.5 parking bays per court for lawyers and the public in the new "world largest" court complex is absurd.

On April 2, in just two of the Appellate and Special Powers High Courts in Kuala Lumpur, where both judges were on leave and had no matters listed before them for the day, there were still 36 matters fixed before the Senior Assistant Registrars and the Deputy Registrars. Conservatively, taking two lawyers per matter listed (which is not realistic for more often than not it is more than two lawyers that turn up in court), this means 72 lawyers, and if they all drove cars, the 13 parking bays allocated for two courts in new court complex will surely not be sufficient.

Taking another example, in the High Court (Commercial 1), there were 18 matters listed for the same day, and again that makes it about 36 lawyers. The numbers are even higher in the Sessions Courts and the Magistrate's Courts where even the list of fresh summons cases could be about 30 to 50 and this is when the lay defendants must be present to prevent judgment in default recorded against them.

There are insufficient parking bays, and with no LRT system in Jalan Duta, there will be utter chaos. Where will lawyers and the public park their vehicles?

Now, the courts in Kuala Lumpur are currently situated in Wisma Denmark and opposite Dataran Merdeka, Nearby, and there are LRT stations and many buses and taxis available. With the move to Jalan Duta, lawyers, their clients and the public will be in a situation akin to a hell on earth. Cases may be struck off and judgement entered while desperate lawyers and the public struggle to get their cars parked just to get to court in time.

Even court staff, who now use affordable public transport like the LRT and buses to get to the courts, will face higher cost of travel while their wages or allowances remain the same.

No real reason to move

With regard to the High Courts situated now in Wisma Denmark, where the government has to pay rental to the private owners of the building, a move to “our own” building would be a good idea – but for the courts being housed in the Federal Court Building, the JKR Building, the Jalan Raja government-owned buildings and the rather new Sessions and Criminal High

Court building, there really is no necessity for any move to ONE big court complex in Jalan Duta.

These buildings in front of the Dataran Merdeka have housed courts for almost 100 years, and there is no necessity to move them out to some new court complex unless the motive is just to get into the Guinness Book of Records.

The Shah Alam Court complex should have served as a very valuable lesson to our government, for here everyday lawyers and the public have to break the law and park their cars beside the road and walk sometimes about half a kilometer lugging their big bags of documents along the road and up the steep stairs just to get to court. When it rains, it is worse.

Our government did not learn from past mistakes and continues making the same mistakes over and over again causing greater loss of public funds and increased suffering for the masses.

Some serious studies of the number of people that come to court - and their mode of transport - would have not led the government into making this bad move of building a huge court complex with 77 courts at a place where there is clearly insufficient parking bays and definitely inadequate affordable public transport.

If anyone should have protested this “world's largest” court complex, it should have been our Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim but he stayed silent and continued to point fingers of blame at the wrong targets for the failings of the Malaysian courts, especially on the issue of backlogs and delays.

He really should have set up a team to analyse matters thoroughly before he comes out and speaks to the press. He must not forget that he is the current face of the Malaysian judiciary and as such, he should protect and enhance the good name and reputation of the Malaysian judiciary and not do the opposite.

Too few judges and courts – 2.4 judges to a million people

Then, there is also the issue of a lack of judges and courts in the country. Federal Court chief registrar Datuk Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat (as reported in New Straits Times, 20/9/2006), disclosed that the number of judges in the country was low compared with other Commonwealth nations. He was quoted as saying that the Malaysian ratio is "2.4 judges to a million people - a far cry from the ratio in India (10.5), Australia (57.1), Britain (50.1) and Canada (75)."

This really is the problem for the backlog and the delays in our courts, and the only solution is to increase the number of judges and courts in the country. Our population has increased, and grown in consciousness about legal rights and human rights. The number of lawyers has also increased to more than 12,000 in Peninsular Malaysia, and so too has the number of new law graduates coming out every year. Alas, the number of courts and judges have not increased at the same rate, and that is where the real problem lies.

What we need is to have more courts and more judges. Maybe we should only move the courts from Wisma Denmark to the new court complex, as we appoint new judges and court staff for the remaining court rooms so that our ratio at least hits 10 judges to a million.

Pressure on judges to clear backlogs likely to cause undesirable results

The pressure exerted by the Chief Justice on judges and magistrates to clear the backlog of cases is certainly also not the solution and may lead to great injustices.

When the heads of the judiciary are only concerned with statistics, some judges pressured will just start disposing cases summarily and with haste just to meet the quotas, the right to a fair and proper hearing and trials will suffer and more dissatisfied litigants and users of the justice system would just end up appealing to higher courts if they can afford it. Or they will just walk away disgusted with the courts and judges and the feeling that they have been deprived of the right to a fair trial.

The Chief Justice recently placed the blame on lawyers who had “up to three cases a day” who could not turn up for their cases. But it is a fact that the problem lies with the court, not lawyers, as it is the court that usually fixes hearings without first obtaining the free dates of the lawyers involved.

Case Management Sessions for Trials Years away is Impractical

Several years ago, a “case management” system was introduced by the courts, and it is absurd to see today lawyers wasting so much time attending these case management sessions before a judge.

This system is not workable if the judges are doing case management for cases which, based on the judges diary, can only be fixed for trials several years down the road. If you are doing case managements for cases where trial will begin in 2 to 3 months, then it may be acceptable

By the time the trial date comes, the judge in that court that did the “case managements” may be no more there, and the new judge would have his own style and may require things done very differently before a trial starts.

In a few months or a year, a judge may have been transferred or elevated, and another judge comes in with a different style and a whole set of different directions for case management, and the whole time consuming case management process begins all over again.

This case management system must be abolished as it not only wastes a lot of time and resources, but has been shown to be rather inefficient. If there were not so many case management matters, maybe our judges could be spending their precious time hearing substantial applications or even conducting full trials.

Now, it seems that whole mornings get wasted by the numerous “case management” sessions that result in judges only being able to proceed with their trials in the afternoon.

Declining standards of judges and judicial officers

The other impediment is the declining standards in judges, session court judges, magistrates and registrars, and the right and pleasure of having had a good hearing is slowly fading away in the Malaysian courts.

For even a minor application, decisions are not handed down on the same day of the hearing but are adjourned to some later date. What is disturbing sometimes for lawyers is the fact that many a judge or registrar do not really take down full notes when submissions are made by lawyers, and as such when it comes to giving a decision several weeks down the road, one wonders what he looked at when he made that decision.

When asked for reasons for a decision, one registrar was even quick to say that she does not have to give reasons, and that she had discussed the matter with her judge. Not giving reasons is not right but discussing with the judge is a bigger wrong as the right of appeal from a registrar’s decision is before the judge, who hears the application afresh and should never had been involved in any discussions with the registrar before a decision is made.

If registrars have to discuss with their judges before handing down a decision, then maybe that appeal to the judge should just be removed. Not giving reasons for a decision also makes one wonder whether the deliverer of the order really knows why she allowed an application or dismissed it.

Inexperienced and rather “young” registrars

Talking about senior assistant registrars and deputy registrars of the High Court hearing applications in million-dollar suits and making an order that the suit be dismissed or that judgment be given makes a mockery of the financial jurisdiction of the courts.

Now if the amount of dispute or value of the subject matter does not exceed RM25,000, our law says that the magistrate’s court has jurisdiction, and if it exceeds RM25,000 and is less than RM250,000, then it a matter for the sessions judge. If it exceeds RM250,000 then it is matter for the High Court judge.

Fresh law graduates and those with less than even 2 years in the Judicial and Legal Services are sitting as senior assistant registrars and deputy registrars and making judgments or dismissing suits in the High Court, and this is just not right for, I believe, that they must, at the very least, have five years experience in the Judicial and Legal Services before they are appointed as senior assistant registrars and at least seven years before they become deputy registrars.

Even then, these registrars should not be hearing applications in the High Court that may end in judgment for one party or a dismissal of the suit.

If registrars spend more time assisting their judges in preparing briefs and doing research, maybe High Court judges could hear more matters and dispose cases more efficiently and justly.

The “probation judge” system

During the reign of Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the “probation” judge system was introduced, whereby a person was first appointed as a judicial commissioner and only after about two years he/she may be elevated to a judge.

This is a mockery that forgets that security of tenure is one of the elements required to ensure independence of a judge. It is wrong for persons to be even be appointed as judicial commissioners – they should just be made judges of the High Court.

Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has been premier for some years now, and he should be removing those things his predecessors introduced to limit the power of the judiciary and to “control” judges – but alas he has not done so.

It is not right for one to be today a magistrate, then a federal counsel or deputy public procedure and then a sessions court judge, as it does not portray a picture of an independent magistrate or a sessions court judge especially if the dispute involves a party and some body/person linked or associated with the government or the state.

In the criminal justice system, will a magistrate be able to be independent when the deputy public prosecutor, a senior to a magistrate in the Judicial and Legal Services, appears for the prosecution? I think not.

The call for the separation of the judicial services from the legal services was made by the Malaysian Bar vide a resolution passed in 2000, has still not been acted upon by the government or the judiciary.

Post-retirement conduct of judges

In 2003, Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin, the former Chief Justice, being the head of the Malaysian Judiciary, retired from office, and soon after joined a law firm as a consultant.

Bar Council then said that “...when a judge retires and soon after joins a law firm, an area of serious concern that immediately presents itself is the perception that an offer to do so might have been made to the judge before his retirement, and discussions or negotiations on the same might have started or taken place while the judge was still serving on the bench; particularly if there is a short time lapse between the judge’s retirement and his joining the firm."

“This in turn gives rise to the question whether the independence of the judge could have in any way been influenced or compromised by the making of such an offer or the holding of such a discussion...”

In the said statement, the Bar Council went on to state that “in protection of that principle [Independence of the Judiciary], and after examining the experience of other jurisdictions, the Bar Council is of the view that there ought to be a lapse of a suitable period of time (which is often called a “cooling off” period) after a judge’s retirement before he may be permitted to practise law at the Bar..”.

The then Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Dr Rais Yatim (the de facto law minister) said that the government would be including post retirement conduct into the Code of Conduct of Judges.

In January 2005, the government change their mind and said that they would not do so.

Maybe not a Code of Conduct but Guidelines set by the Judiciary

Maybe the present Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim can come up with some guidelines about this matter, something that would state clearly that a retiring judge should not join a law firm or a private company as a director/consultant/chairman (more so if the said judge presided in a matter involving the said company or related companies whilst he was on the bench).

The judiciary, on its own, can set up standards and guidelines for judges, and maybe our current CJ can do something about this. After all, he is concerned about judicial corruption.

Will Ahmad Fairuz deliver?

The same question was asked of previous CJs, and now we all have to wait and see whether our present Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz can bring back the Malaysian judiciary to the stature we had during the pre-1988 period.

The elevation of High Court judges to the Court of Appeal, leaving many High Courts with no judges for some time was a sad display of our current CJ’s efficiency.

He should have made sure that new judges of the High Court was appointed at the same time, and this delay in the appointment of judges surely also contributed to the backlog and delays in court.

The sudden transferring of the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder trial from Justice KN Segara to Judicial Commissioner Mohd Zaki Md Yassin also raised some concerns.

Was the creation of new courts in Shah Alam resulting in the two Shah Alam sessions courts to be relocated outside the state of Selangor to Wisma Denmark in Kuala Lumpur linked in any way to that Altantuya Shaariibuu murder trial?

If there was going to be a lack of space in the Shah Alam court complex, should not some building in Shah Alam have been rented and renovated for the two sessions court? Was it poor planning or was it too rushed a decision to increase the number of criminal High Courts in Shah Alam?

Can judges or judicial commissioners be appointed without consulting Chief Judge of the High Court of Malaya?

The slowness in the appointment of the new Chief Judge of the High Court of Malaya is also making people wonder about the reasons for this delay.

It was after the former Chief Judge of the High Court of Malaya, Siti Norma Yaakob, had retired on Jan 5 this year that there was a sudden appointment of new judicial commissioners, when for an appointment of a judge or a judicial commissioner, the Prime Minister before advising the King should consult with the Chief Judge of the High Court of Malaya. This is what our Federal Constitution says.

One wonders whether this consultation took place with Siti Norma before she retired.

There is still time for us to keep an eye on the actions and omissions of Ahmad Fairuz before we have to make any conclusions.

To date, he has been found wanting in many aspects. And if the fears concerning the “world’s largest” court complex turns out to be true, it will not reflect well on this head of the Malaysian judiciary.

Will the Chief Justice deliver? (Pt II)

Will the Chief Justice deliver? (Pt II)

Charles Hector Apr 6, 07 1:08pm

(Yesterday: Now, it seems that the whole mornings are wasted by the numerous “case management” sessions whereby judges can only proceed with their trials in the afternoon.) The other impediment is the declining standards in judges, session court judges, magistrates and registrars, and the right and pleasure of having had a good hearing is slowly fading away in the Malaysian courts. For even a minor application, decisions are not handed down on the same day of the hearing but are adjourned to some later date. What is disturbing sometimes for lawyers is the fact that many a judge or registrar do not really take down full notes when submissions are made by lawyers, and as such when it comes to giving a decision several weeks down the road, one wonders what he looked at when he made that decision. When asked for reasons for a decision, one registrar was even quick to say that she does not have to give reasons, and that she had discussed the matter with her judge. Not giving reasons is not right but discussing with the judge is a bigger wrong as the right of appeal from a registrar’s decision is before the judge, who hears the application afresh and should never had been involved in any discussions with the registrar before a decision is made. If registrars have to discuss with their judges before handing down a decision, then maybe that appeal to the judge should just be removed. Not giving reasons for a decision also makes one wonder whether the deliverer of the order really knows why she allowed an application or dismissed it. Inexperienced registrars Talking about senior assistant registrars and deputy registrars of the High Court hearing applications in million-dollar suits and making an order that the suit be dismissed or that judgment be given makes a mockery of the financial jurisdiction of the courts. Now if the amount of dispute or value of the subject matter does not exceed RM25,000, our law says that the magistrate’s court has jurisdiction, and if it exceeds RM25,000 and is less than RM250,000, then it a matter for the sessions judge. If it exceeds RM250,000 then it is matter for the High Court judge. Fresh law graduates and those with less than even 2 years in the Judicial and Legal Services are sitting as senior assistant registrars and deputy registrars and making judgments or dismissing suits in the High Court, and this is just not right for, I believe, that they must, at the very least, have five years experience in the Judicial and Legal Services before they are appointed as senior assistant registrars and at least seven years before they become deputy registrars. Even then, these registrars should not be hearing applications in the High Court that may end in judgment for one party or a dismissal of the suit. If registrars spend more time assisting their judges in preparing briefs and doing research, maybe High Court judges could hear more matters and dispose cases more efficiently and justly. The probation system During the reign of Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the “probation” judge system was introduced, whereby a person was first appointed as a judicial commissioner and only after about two years he/she may be elevated to a judge. This is a mockery that forgets that security of tenure is one of the elements required to ensure independence of a judge. It is wrong for persons to be even be appointed as judicial commissioners – they should just be made judges of the High Court. Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has been premier for some years now, and he should be removing those things his predecessors introduced to limit the power of the judiciary and to “control” judges – but alas he has not done so. It is not right for one to be today a magistrate, then a federal counsel or deputy public procedure and then a sessions court judge, as it does not portray a picture of an independent magistrate or a sessions court judge especially if the dispute involves a party and some body/person linked or associated with the government or the state. In the criminal justice system, will a magistrate be able to be independent when the deputy public prosecutor, a senior to a magistrate in the Judicial and Legal Services, appears for the prosecution? I think not. The call for the separation of the judicial services from the legal services was made by the Malaysian Bar vide a resolution passed in 2000, has still not been acted upon by the government or the judiciary. Post-retirement conduct of judges In 2003, Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin, the former Chief Justice, being the head of the Malaysian Judiciary, retired from office, and soon after joined a law firm as a consultant. Bar Council then said that “...when a judge retires and soon after joins a law firm, an area of serious concern that immediately presents itself is the perception that an offer to do so might have been made to the judge before his retirement, and discussions or negotiations on the same might have started or taken place while the judge was still serving on the bench; particularly if there is a short time lapse between the judge’s retirement and his joining the firm." “This in turn gives rise to the question whether the independence of the judge could have in any way been influenced or compromised by the making of such an offer or the holding of such a discussion...” In the said statement, the Bar Council went on to state that “in protection of that principle [Independence of the Judiciary], and after examining the experience of other jurisdictions, the Bar Council is of the view that there ought to be a lapse of a suitable period of time (which is often called a “cooling off” period) after a judge’s retirement before he may be permitted to practise law at the Bar..”. The then Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Dr Rais Yatim (the de facto law minister) said that the government would be including post retirement conduct into the Code of Conduct of Judges. In January 2005, the government change their mind and said that they would not do so. Maybe the present Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim can come up with some guidelines about this matter, something that would state clearly that a retiring judge should not join a law firm or a private company as a director/consultant/chairman (more so if the said judge presided in a matter involving the said company or related companies whilst he was on the bench). The judiciary, on its own, can set up standards and guidelines for judges, and maybe our current CJ can do something about this. After all, he is concerned about judicial corruption. Will Ahmad Fairuz deliver? The same question was asked of previous CJs, and now we all have to wait and see whether our present Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz can bring back the Malaysian judiciary to the stature we had during the pre-1988 period. The elevation of High Court judges to the Court of Appeal, leaving many High Courts with no judges for some time was a sad display of our current CJ’s efficiency. He should have made sure that new judges of the High Court was appointed at the same time, and this delay in the appointment of judges surely also contributed to the backlog and delays in court. The sudden transferring of the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder trial from Justice KN Segara to Judicial Commissioner Mohd Zaki Md Yassin also raised some concerns. Was the creation of new courts in Shah Alam resulting in the two Shah Alam sessions courts to be relocated outside the state of Selangor to Wisma Denmark in Kuala Lumpur linked in any way to that Altantuya Shaariibuu murder trial? If there was going to be a lack of space in the Shah Alam court complex, should not some building in Shah Alam have been rented and renovated for the two sessions court? Was it poor planning or was it too rushed a decision to increase the number of criminal High Courts in Shah Alam? The slowness in the appointment of the new Chief Judge of the High Court of Malaya is also making people wonder about the reasons for this delay. It was after the former Chief Judge of the High Court of Malaya, Siti Norma Yaakob, had retired on Jan 5 this year that there was a sudden appointment of new judicial commissioners, when for an appointment of a judge or a judicial commissioner, the Prime Minister before advising the King should consult with the Chief Judge of the High Court of Malaya. One wonders whether this consultation took place with Siti Norma before she retired. There is still time for us to keep an eye on the actions and omissions of Ahmad Fairuz before we have to make any conclusions. To date, he has been found wanting in many aspects. And if the fears concerning the “world’s largest” court complex turns out to be true, it will not reflect well on this head of the Malaysian judiciary. Yesterday: About the world's biggest court complex (Pt 1) (s0me minor editing was done to the Malaysiakini published version)

About the world's biggest court complex (Pt 1)

About the world's biggest court complex (Pt 1)

Charles Hector Apr 5, 07 1:31pm

Malaysia under the premiership of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is, unfortunately, still pre-occupied with having the tallest and biggest structures and buildings in the world in Malaysia. Soon, we will have what is proclaimed to be the biggest court complex in the world. This world's biggest court complex in Jalan Duta, Kuala Lumpur, will house 30 High Courts, 21 Sessions Courts and 26 Magistrate's Courts and will be operational in May 2007. Amusingly, the 77-court complex will only have 500 parking bays for the public and lawyers. It is situated in a place not accessible by Light Rail Transport (LRT) or good public transport facilities. It is a catastrophe waiting to happen. A parking nightmare If one were to drop in today at any of the High Courts or Sessions Courts or Magistrate Courts and look at the number of cases listed for the day, one will be able to see that the 6.5 parking bays per court for lawyers and the public in the new "world largest" court complex is absurd. On April 2, in just two of the Appelate and Special Powers High Courts in Kuala Lumpur, where both judges were on leave and had no matters listed before them for the day, there were still 36 matters fixed before the Senior Assistant Registrars and the Deputy Registrars. Conservatively, taking two lawyers per matter listed (which is not realistic for more often than not it is more than two lawyers that turn up in court), this means 72 lawyers, and if they all drove cars, the 13 parking bays allocated for two courts in new court complex will surely not be sufficient. Taking another example, in the High Court (Commercial 1), there were 18 matters listed for the same day, and again that makes it about 36 lawyers. The numbers are even higher in the Sessions Courts and the Magistrate's Courts where even the list of fresh summons cases could be about 30 to 50 and this is when the lay defendants must be present to prevent judgment in default recorded against them. There are insuffcient parking bays, and with no LRT system in Jalan Duta, there will be utter chaos. Where will lawyers and the public park their vehicles? Now, the courts in Kuala Lumpur are currently situated in Wisma Denmark and opposite Dataran Merdeka, Nearby, and there are LRT stations and many buses and taxis available. With the move to Jalan Duta, lawyers, their clients and the public will be in a situation akin to a hell on earth. Cases may be struck off and judgement entered while desperate lawyers and the public struggle to get their cars parked just to get to court in time. Even court staff, who now use affordable public transport like the LRT and buses to get to the courts, will face higher cost of travel while their wages or allowances remain the same. No reason to move With regard to the High Courts situated now in Wisma Denmark, where the government has to pay rental to the private owners of the building, a move to “our own” building would be a good idea – but for the courts being housed in the Federal Court Building, the JKR Building, the Jalan Raja government-owned buildings and the rather new Sessions and Criminal High Court building, there really is no necessity for any move to ONE big court complex in Jalan Duta. These buildings in front of the Dataran Merdeka have housed courts for almost 100 years, and there is no necessity to move them out to some new court complex unless the motive is just to get into the Guinness Book of Records. The Shah Alam Court complex should have served as a very valuable lesson to our government, for here everyday lawyers and the public have to break the law and park their cars beside the road and walk sometimes about half a kilometer lugging their big bags of documents along the road and up the steep stairs just to get to court. When it rains, it is worse. Our government did not learn from past mistakes and continues making the same mistakes over and over again causing greater loss of public funds and increased suffering for the masses. Some serious studies of the number of people that come to court - and their mode of transport - would have not led the government into making this bad move of building a huge court complex with 77 courts at a place where there is clearly insufficient parking bays and definitely inadequate affordable public transport. If anyone should have protested this “world's largest” court complex, it should have been our Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim but he stayed silent and continued to point fingers of blame at the wrong targets for the failings of the Malaysian courts, especially on the issue of backlogs and delays. He really should have set up a team to analyse matters thoroughly before he comes out and speaks to the press. He must not forget that he is the current face of the Malaysian judiciary and as such, he should protect and enhance the good name and reputation of the Malaysian judiciary and not do the opposite. Too few judges and courts Then, there is also the issue of a lack of judges and courts in the country. Federal Court chief registrar Datuk Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat (as reported in New Straits Times, 20/9/2006), disclosed that the number of judges in the country was low compared with other Commonwealth nations. He was quoted as saying that the Malaysian ratio is "2.4 judges to a million people - a far cry from the ratio in India (10.5), Australia (57.1), Britain (50.1) and Canada (75)." This really is the problem for the backlog and the delays in our courts, and the only solution is to increase the number of judges and courts in the country. Our population has increased, and grown in consciousness about legal rights and human rights. The number of lawyers has also increased to more than 12,000 in Peninsular Malaysia, and so too has the number of new law graduates coming out every year. Alas, the number of courts and judges have not increased at the same rate, and that is where the real problem lies. What we need is to have more courts and more judges. Maybe we should only move the courts from Wisma Denmark to the new court complex, as we appoint new judges and court staff for the remaining court rooms so that our ratio at least hits 10 judges to a million. The pressure exerted by the Chief Justice on judges and magistrates to clear the backlog of cases is certainly also not the solution and may lead to great injustices. When the heads of the judiciary are only concerned with statistics, some judges pressured will just start disposing cases summarily and with haste just to meet the quotas, the right to a fair and proper hearing and trials will suffer and more dissatisfied litigants and users of the justice system would just end up appealing to higher courts if they can afford it. Or they will just walk away disgusted with the courts and judges and the feeling that they have been deprived of the right to a fair trial. The Chief Justice recently placed the blame on lawyers who had “up to three cases a day” who could not turn up for their cases. But it is a fact that the problem lies with the court, not lawyers, as it is the court that usually fixes hearings without first obtaining the free dates of the lawyers involved. Several years ago, a “case management” system was introduced by the courts, and it is absurd to see today lawyers wasting so much time attending these case management sessions before a judge. This system is not workable if the judges are doing case management for cases which, based on the judges diary, can only be fixed for trials several years down the road. By the time the trial date comes, the judge in that court may have changed, and a new judge would have his own style and may require things done very differently before a trial starts. In a few months or a year, a judge may be transferred or elevated, and another judge comes in with a set of different direction for case management, and the whole time consuming case management process begins all over again. This case management system must be abolished as it not only wastes a lot of time and resources, but has been shown to be rather inefficient. If there were not so many case management matters, maybe our judges could be spending their precious time hearing substantial applications or even hearing full trials. Now, it seems that whole mornings get wasted by the numerous “case management” sessions that result in judges only being able to proceed with trials in the afternoon. Part 2 tomorrow CHARLES HECTOR is a human rights activist and a lawyer. (As there were quite a bit of gramatical errors in the Malaysiakini printed version, I did a bit of additional editing)