Did Najib act responsibly about MH370? Corrobration? Should he have waited for verification by others?

What happened to MH370 is still really unknown for sure - it would be different if we had found pieces or parts of that airplane, which would corroborate any 'speculation' based on '...type of analysis never before used in an investigation of this sort...'?

The conclusion is by only the 'UK Air Accident investigation branch, or AAIB' - what about the Chinese, the US, the Australian and others - do they concur with the findings of UK's AAIB?

Where is the corroboration? Was it responsible to make 'conclusions'? It would have been better if these 'conclusions' about the fate of MH370 and the people on board was made after there was corroboration. After all, floating objects have been spotted by satellites and airplanes, and would hopefully be fished out of the sea by ships, and we would know whether this was from flight MH370. News report says that some of these would be fished out very soon...

So, why did Najib not wait for these corroboration, which may have been forthcoming in a few hours? 

MAS statement - "...have to assume that MH370 ended in the southern Indian Ocean...". Assume? Not a proven fact?

Najib - "...It is therefore with deep sadness and regret that I must inform you that, according to this new data, Flight MH370 ended in the southern Indian Ocean..." - looks like a conclusion by Najib?

Maybe MAS and Najib never made any final conclusions, but that is how the media is reporting it...

What happened to the passengers? Are there survivors? Really, we still do not know, do we?

As I mentioned earlier, it may have been better to make determination after some corroboration was made. It would have been better to wait until the other parties involved in the investigations did check and verify the conclusions made by UK's AAIB and Inmarsat(a UK Company)? 

Transcript: Malaysian prime minister’s March 24 statement on MH370

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak on Monday said that, according to new data, flight MH370 ended up in the Indian Ocean. Here is a transcript of his full statement.

This evening I was briefed by representatives from the UK Air Accident investigation branch, or AAIB. They inform me that Inmarsat, the UK company that provided the satellite data which indicated northern and southern corridors, has been performing further calculations on the data, using a type of analysis never before used in an investigation of this sort.

They have been able to shed more light on MH370’s flight path. Based on their new analysis. Inmarsat and the AAIB have concluded that MH370 flew along the southern corridor and that its last position was in the middle of the Indian Ocean, west of Perth.

This is a remote location, far from any possible landing sites. It is therefore with deep sadness and regret that I must inform you that, according to this new data, Flight MH370 ended in the southern Indian Ocean.

We will be holding a press conference tomorrow with further details. In the meantime, we wanted to inform you of this newest development at earliest opportunity.

We share this information out of a commitment to openness and respect for the families -- two principles which have guided this investigation.

Malaysia Airlines has already spoken to the family of the passengers and crew to inform them of this development.

For them the past few weeks have been heartbreaking. I know this news must be hard as well.

I urge the media to respect their privacy and allow them the space they need at this very difficult time.”
Source: The Wahington Post,  Transcript: Malaysian prime minister’s March 24 statement on MH370

MAS' statement to victims' families

The following statement was made to family members of those on board MH370 before Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak's announcement that the plane is assumed to be lost in the southern Indian Ocean:

Malaysia Airlines deeply regrets that we have to assume that MH370 ended in the southern Indian Ocean. As you will hear in the next hour from Malaysia’s Prime Minister, new analysis of satellite data suggests the plane went down in the Southern Indian Ocean.

                                                                                                     

On behalf of all of us at Malaysia Airlines and all Malaysians, our prayers go out to all the loved ones of the 226 passengers and of our 13 friends and colleagues at this enormously painful time.

We know there are no words that we or anyone else can say which can ease your pain. We will continue to provide assistance and support to you, as we have done since MH370 first disappeared in the early hours of 8 March, while flying from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.

The ongoing multinational search operation will continue, as we seek answers to the questions which remain. Alongside the search for MH370, there is an intensive investigation, which we hope will also provide answers.

We would like to assure you that Malaysia Airlines will continue to give you our full support throughout the difficult weeks and months ahead.

Once again, we humbly offer our sincere thoughts, prayers and condolences to everyone affected by this tragedy. - Malaysiakini, MAS' statement to victims' families

Kajang - Why? To get rid MB? For some to get Directorship, more money and power?

Congratulations to Pakatan Rakyat over the victory in the Kajang by-elections but questions still remain as to why Lee Chin Cheh(PKR) resigned.

Was it just simply because Anwar Ibrahim wanted to become a State Assemblyperson in Selangor, or was it for some other reason we are not told? Nothing seem to have surfaced that the people of Kajang were unhappy with Lee Chin Cheh to date?

So was the Anwar's declared intention to contest anything to do with his Sodomy appeal at the Court of Appeal?

Some say that the reason was that the Pakatan Rakyat, or was it just some in PKR, were not happy with the Selangor MB, and so they wanted to change the Selangor MB? Well, that would have been simple for after all the Menteri Besar must have the 'confidence of the majority of the State Assemblypersons', so a simple declaration of no more confidence in Khalid would have sufficed - but this never happened, did it? 

So is it just an internal PKR faction fight?

KUALA LUMPUR, March 22 — Some PKR leaders are still pursuing plans to unseat Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim and are confident they will get the support from allies DAP and PAS even with Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim now out of the picture.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, key party officials told The Malay Mail Online that top leaders in the three Pakatan Rakyat (PR) parties are agreeable that Khalid must to step down as chief of the country’s wealthiest state.

They said Khalid’s arch rival, PKR deputy president Azmin Ali, has been touted by party leaders as the replacement, and that the party is now working to convince PAS and DAP to agree to this proposal.

“Azmin is a logical choice since Anwar cannot become Selangor MB, he has the political experience,” a high-ranking PKR leader said, adding that Azmin has the support of senior party members and at grassroots level.

The PKR MP also said that Azmin is the “right” choice as the Bukit Antarabangsa assemblyman has a good “working relationship” with the Selangor palace. - Malay Mail, 22/3/2014, PKR still pursuing plans to replace MB Khalid, PKR insiders say

But, then there is something that happened in PKNS and there is some investigation going on concerning Azmin, whereby he was removed as Director - what is it? Was there an abuse of power, corruption, 'cronyism,....what? We need transparency about all this, and the people can decide...

Talking about Directorship in State-owned companies, be it owned wholly or in part, what is the criteria for appointing 'politicians' as Directors - should it not be the best state civil servant? And, when these ADUNs/MPs are appointed as Directors, are they also getting 'extra income' in the form of Director's alllowances/salary/etc ... this should never be the case, as they like any other public servant already get paid as ADUN or MP, and they sit as Directors, etc as part of their duties. Any income should be channelled back to the State coffers...back to the people.

If this is not made a policy and practice, then 'cronyism' will rise, and some will be further enriched vide such appointments, and others will be discriminated against by reason of they being more 'independent' and not a just follow person. 

Pakatan Rakyat wins Selangor - does the Pakatan Rakyat have any say on the policy and actions of the State Menteri Besar or the Chief Minister. I say, there must be a Pakatan Rakyat Supreme Council that will need to monitor their States, and they should be comprised of the leaders and 'qualified reps' of Pakatan Rakyat... We saw what happened in Kedah, when one PR MB was doing things, which I believe, was really against general policy of PR - but it went on and later the blame fell on that Kedah MB - when really the blame should be on the PR. 

In fact, PR leaders should maybe not be Prime Ministers or MBs or Chief Ministers - they must choose the best available. The leaders should be the necessary 'check and balance' to ensure that all is done in accordance to PR policy and principle. And if some MB is doing something contrary, it is this leadership that must publicly point out these inconsistencies not as individual party leaders but as PR leaders..So, should Wan Azizah now accept the post of Menteri Besar - I would have to say she should not.

Should Khalid be replaced with Azmin, here again I say that he being the number 2 in PKR should not. Tell us, Azmin, what is Khalid doing wrong? If Khalid has loss the confidence of the ADUNs of Selangor, choose another and let's get another MB.

Kajang wad an embarrassment - (1) We had a healthy ADUN resign for apparently no good reason; (2)   We had this move by the Opposition Leader, and defactor head of PR, later the leader of PR itself running for elections to what....become MB? - Power Crazy? ... well, the people are wondering whether PR is the correct choice to replace the BN - or should we be looking for some other alternatives... 

There are just too many questions still not answered...

Directors of companies should never  be chosen just because you are a politician in a victorious party - this makes no sense and certainly is bad for business...and, if they are getting 'extra income' with such appointments, then again it is wrong....

 

 

Rape is rape - we do not need to know which ethnic group in Malaysia has more victims or perpetrators? PM and Cabinet should avoid 'racist' comments in the spirit of 1Malaysia

He is a Deputy Minister, a member of the Cabinet chosen by Prime Minister Najib, and he has embarrassed all Malaysians. His 'comment' as to why there are so many statutory rape reports amongst Malaysian Malays(1,147), compared to the other ethnic groups to Malaysia [Chinese(62), Indians(32)] was that he '....believes that Malays are "more sensitive" to minors being raped as opposed to non-Malays...'.  Is this a racist statement? 

Maybe, it is not a question of which ethnic group is more sensitive or less sensitive, but it just happens to happen more amongst Malays than other ethnic groups?

Maybe, it may be because there is a loss of confidence in the criminal justice system - hence why make police reports?

Really, Prime Minister Najib must chose better Malaysians as members of his cabinet. If Wan Junaidi does not retract and apologize, then maybe he should be removed from Cabinet? We shall see whether Najib says anything, which I hope he does not, for silence may be presumed to be his consent of the position taken by Wan Junaidi?

In fact, why do you even break up the statistics according to ethnicity - In Malaysia, rightly statistics should be given without breaking down in terms of ethnicity or religion. Are we trying to show that there are more statutory rapist amongst Malays? Rape is rape...crime is crime - there really should not be any correlation based on ethnicity or religion.

  

 

Aliran Statement

Child rape is rape; no ethnic biases, please

Aliran condemns Deputy Home Minister Wan Junaidi Tunku Jaafar’s abhorrent and racist comment that the high incidence of reported child rape among Malays is because the community, compared to the non-Malays, is more sensitive towards such sexual crime. 



If the community is sensitive towards child rape, how does one explain the astronomical rise in child rape? Shouldn’t sensitivity be a deterrent factor in preventing child rape?

In Parliament yesterday, Wan Junaidi revealed that last year, 80 per cent or 1,147 of the 1,424 of statutory rape cases reported involved Malays. 

In a social environment where racism often rears its ugly head, such an insensitive and ridiculous remark, especially coming from a member of the Cabinet, obviously doesn’t enlighten the general public in any way. If anything, it only reinforces the very thing that concerned Malaysians have been attempting to arrest and eventually quash: institutional and personal racism. If we have a cabinet minister who only sees and interprets issues from an ethnic perspective, then there is no hope of getting rid of this revolting practice.

Instead of resorting to such an unintelligent approach to this worrying phenomenon, the government would do Malaysians a great favour by consciously examining the underlying causes of child rape while at the same time instituting short-term measures to combat this social scourge.

For if ordinary Malaysians were to pander to this type of racist thinking, many of them might also be inclined to erroneously believe that it is the DNA of the Malay community that shapes them to be incorrigibly lascivious. 

Dr Mustafa K Anuar
Honorary Secretary
Aliran
 

19 March 2014 

Source: Aliran,  Child rape is rape; no ethnic biases, please

4:00PM Mar 18, 2014

'Non-Malays less likely to report statutory rape'

In an explanation that can be described as baffling, Deputy Home Minister Wan Junaidi Wan Jaafar believes that Malays are "more sensitive" to minors being raped as opposed to non-Malays.

According to him, this is the reason why there is a high number of statutory rape cases reported involving Malays.

Speaking in Parliament, the deputy minister suggested that perhaps non-Malays are “more accepting" of statutory rape and thus do not lodge reports.

"They (Muslims) can't accept illegitimate children," Wan Junaidi said during Question Time today, in reply to Mohamad Zulkifly Jusoh (BN-Setiu).

Statistics reveal that Malays make up 80 percent of the total statutory rape cases reported.

"Malays have more reports compared to other races because they are Muslims who can't accept a child out of wedlock, pre-marital sex, and because these acts are wrong by Islamic law (zina)," the former Parliament deputy speaker said.

He said that though the number of reports has reduced, the numbers are still "worrying" since children between 13 to 16 years old make up almost 90 percent of the total reports.

Wan Junaidi said that the family institution is more crucial in overcoming this issue.

"The role of parents is extremely huge in educating their children and monitoring their movement," he said.

Malaysian laws stipulates that sexual intercourse with those aged 15 and below is considered statutory rape. - Malaysiakini, 18/3/2014, 'Non-Malays less likely to report statutory rape'

Absurd to say non-Malays 'less sensitive' to rape

MP SPEAKS Deputy Home Minister Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar statement that non-Malays are less sensitive and “under report” statutory rape cases is totally uncalled for.
In the first place, how would Wan Junaidi be able to ascertain precisely that “non-Malays” are less sensitive or more willing to accept child rape, considering that almost all races and all faiths in the Malaysia puts high emphasis on family and spiritual values?
Rape is a serious crime, no matter what. Rape is rape! Get it, Wan Junaidi?
Secondly, did any Chinese/Indian/Mission primary and/or secondary school record high percentages of students' promiscuity, co-inhabitation with lover(s) or even pregnancies, which are dramatic enough for the deputy home minister to come to such conclusion?
Did Wan Junaidi make any cross-reference with the Education Ministry?
He also seemed to be ‘confused’ with the definition of statutory rape (which is the crime for having sex with a minor, with or without consent) and pre-marital sex when he said, "...this was because the majority of Muslim parents are unable to accept the idea of sex before marriage, compared with non-Malay parents who are presumably less sensitive over the issue".
Finally, Wan Junaidi had essentially given out a very dangerous signal to perverted sexual criminals who would likely now be prying against the hundred thousands of “non-Malay” students through the social media, such as Facebook.
Without any sense of responsibility at all, the deputy home minister implied that “it is not unusual for the parents of these non-Malays” not to be bothered at all with statutory rape or to report such cases.
Surely, this will encourage the perverted sexual criminals to commit sexual violence against any minor, especially non-Malays, since he seemed to have inferred this.
Stupidity beyond comprehension
Truly, this connotes another stupidity beyond comprehension shown by a BN federal cabinet deputy minister and he should be responsible if sexual crimes against the non-Malay minors suddenly go on the rise.  
This is the same deputy home minister from the Sarawak BN who issued warnings not to discuss the 18 and 20 points Malaysia Agreement of 1963 anymore when his own Sarawak Chief Minister Adenan Satem is now unequivocally talking about it and reaffirming that Sarawak is an equal partner in the Federation of Malaysia.
I can only but sadly deduct and opine that from this infamous deputy home minister’s warning on not talking about the Malaysia Agreement (to which we can infer also applies to his own Sarawak chief minister), Wan Junaidi, is only serving his political masters in Umno and not the people at all.
So, likewise, his comments on non-Malays being able to accept child rape or statutory rape is another unacceptable position taken by this ever controversial BN government.

---

DARELL LEIKING is the Member of Parliament for Penampang, Sabah.

Source: Malaysiakini, 20/3/2014,  Absurd to say non-Malays 'less sensitive' to rape

After 16 years in prison, death row since 2004, Malaysian freed - Is this justice?

Too many in Malaysia languish too many years in prisons just because they are denied bail, or just because they do not have the money to raise bail - as a matter of principle, they should be entitled to speedy trials and appeals. The trials of those not out on bail must be prioritized and should really be done in less than six(6) months.

 

Appeals of those sentenced to prison or death, who are not out on bail pending appeals must be expedited - again, it should be completed in three(3) months time.

 

COMPENSATION - A person who languishes in prison and later is set free by court deserves to be compensated for the loss of liberty and freedoms, the loss of livelihood... There must a formula fixing the rate of compensation.

 

 

 

Updated: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 00:57:55 GMT | By The Malaysian Insider : Malaysia

Freed after 16 years, Malaysia’s longest-serving remand prisoner

Johari (not his real name) spent more than 16 years behind bars, both as a remand prisoner and on death row, for alleged drug trafficking in Malaysia. Last Tuesday, he was finally freed by the Court of Appeal after a long and strenuous legal battle for his liberty. His lawyer Karpal Singh said Johari has the dubious distinction of having...

---

Johari (not his real name) spent more than 16 years behind bars, both as a remand prisoner and on death row, for alleged drug trafficking in Malaysia.

 

Last Tuesday, he was finally freed by the Court of Appeal after a long and strenuous legal battle for his liberty.

His lawyer Karpal Singh said Johari has the dubious distinction of having spent the longest time in a Malaysian prison before being acquitted.

Police caught Johari and another person with 35kg of ganja in Gelugor, Penang, on January 4, 1998, and he was in remand ever since as the offence is not bailable.

However, the other person caught with him was acquitted of the charge by the High Court in May 2004.

Johari was sentenced to death twice, first in May 2004 and the second time in January 2011 by a High Court in Penang.

Karpal said following Johari’s conviction, he was placed on the death row between 2004 and 2010.

Following his final appeal, the Federal Court in 2010 set aside the conviction and ordered a retrial.

He was again sentenced to death on January 2011 but last week, the Court of Appeal acquitted him on technical grounds.

Karpal said a retrial meant that his client must be charged again in a magistrate's court before the trafficking trial could begin in a High Court.

“In short, they should have repeated all procedures and supplied documents to the defence as if Johari was facing a fresh charge,” he said.

But the prosecution, Karpal said, just started the trial in the High Court without following the proper procedure.

Although he is free now, Johari still has difficulty shaking off his past in the Perlis prison. He has been in there too long.

"Everyone in there is under immense stress because they are on death row. It changes you. It breaks you inside.

"You never come out the same again even after you are acquitted or pardoned. The damage is done. You won't know what it is like unless you have been there," the 41-year-old told The Malaysian Insider in an interview in Penang on Saturday.

Johari said he went through an ordeal unimaginable by others and lost many years of his life locked up in a cell alone in the prison with poor facilities while fighting to escape the mandatory death sentence.

"There was no television set but prisoners occasionally got access to newspapers. My only companion was a walkman my family brought me.

"When my family members came to see me, we had 30 minutes to talk through a screen that prevents all physical contact. That is not even allowed during Hari Raya," he said.

Johari appeared almost in a daze when he spoke of his experience behind bars, as if he is still stunned by all that has happened.

However, he spoke firmly and clearly that he would like to see the death penalty abolished because every human being deserves another chance.

He said he lived in fear while in prison, knowing how some of his fellow inmates were taken away and never brought back, and could only pray.

"The death penalty allows no forgiveness. Don't do that to others. People should not make laws to kill other people," he said, adding that the Pardons Board is slow in giving death row inmates a new lease on life.

Johari's younger brother, who wants to be known as Johan, 39, said their parents took what happened to their eldest son very hard and gave up hope several times over the years.

The family knew little about the law, he said, and could only depend on Karpal and his lawyer son Jagdeep Singh Deo to guide them through it. Jagdeep is now an exco member in the Penang government and no longer in practice.

"We are so happy that Johari is back with us. If all that didn't happen, I think he would be married and has two kids by now.

"Our family stuck together through the hard times. We had to deal with the stigma. People are generally not so forgiving and understanding when they think you have a criminal in your family," Johan said.

On what is next for Johari, Johan said his brother will have to get reacquainted with the world that has changed immensely in the last 16 years.

"I will take it a step at a time. I think maybe I can do some business in the future. With my damaged record and age, I don't think people will want to hire me," Johari said.

Karpal said Johari had likely made Malaysian history as the man who spent the most years behind bars before he got an acquittal.

He said he was also puzzled with how Johari's case went – going through the High Court and then the Federal Court for a retrial only to be sentenced to death by hanging for a second time.

"One trial was bad enough. It puzzled me too," Karpal said, adding that he even wrote to the Attorney General to ask for Johari's charge to be amended to drug possession, which is only punishable by imprisonment, but his request was denied.

Karpal, who has advocated for the abolishment of the death penalty before, said some cases require judges to use their discretion when passing judgment.

"The mandatory death sentence puts pressure on judges too," he said, adding the court must be given the discretion to impose the death penalty or imprisonment based on the facts of the case.; March 3, 2014. - MSN News, 3/3/2014, Freed after 16 years, Malaysia’s longest-serving remand prisoner

Original Source: - Malaysian Insider

Malaysian statistics - population, religion, ethnicity, distribution,...

Malaysia Demographics Profile 2013

Population	29,628,392 (July 2013 est.)
Age structure	0-14 years: 29.1% (male 4,433,911/female 4,186,635) 15-24 years: 17% (male 2,552,709/female 2,487,366) 25-54 years: 41.3% (male 6,195,754/female 6,027,160) 55-64 years: 7.4% (male 1,112,529/female 1,069,036) 65 years and over: 5.3% (male 739,696/female 823,596) (2013 est.)
Dependency ratios	total dependency ratio: 45.9 % youth dependency ratio: 38.1 % elderly dependency ratio: 7.8 % potential support ratio: 12.8 (2013)
Median age	total: 27.4 years male: 27.2 years female: 27.6 years (2013 est.)
Population growth rate	1.51% (2013 est.)
Birth rate	20.41 births/1,000 population (2013 est.)
Death rate	4.97 deaths/1,000 population (2013 est.)
Net migration rate	-0.35 migrant(s)/1,000 population note: does not reflect net flow of an unknown number of illegal immigrants from other countries in the region (2013 est.)
Urbanization	urban population: 72.8% of total population (2011) rate of urbanization: 2.49% annual rate of change (2010-15 est.)
Major cities - population	KUALA LUMPUR (capital) 1.493 million; Klang 1.071 million; Johor Bahru 958,000 (2009)
Sex ratio	at birth: 1.07 male(s)/female 0-14 years: 1.06 male(s)/female 15-24 years: 1.03 male(s)/female 25-54 years: 1.03 male(s)/female 55-64 years: 1.05 male(s)/female 65 years and over: 0.89 male(s)/female total population: 1.03 male(s)/female (2013 est.)
Infant mortality rate	total: 14.12 deaths/1,000 live births male: 16.32 deaths/1,000 live births female: 11.77 deaths/1,000 live births (2013 est.)
Life expectancy at birth	total population: 74.28 years male: 71.51 years female: 77.24 years (2013 est.)
Total fertility rate	2.61 children born/woman (2013 est.)
Contraceptive prevalence rate	49% (2004)
HIV/AIDS - adult prevalence rate	0.5% (2009 est.)
HIV/AIDS - people living with HIV/AIDS	100,000 (2009 est.)
HIV/AIDS - deaths	5,800 (2009 est.)
Drinking water source	improved: urban: 100% of population rural: 99% of population total: 100% of population unimproved: urban: 0% of population rural: 1% of population total: 0% of population (2010 est.)
Sanitation facility access	improved: urban: 96% of population rural: 95% of population total: 96% of population unimproved: urban: 4% of population rural: 5% of population total: 4% of population (2010 est.)
Major infectious diseases	degree of risk: intermediate food or waterborne diseases: bacterial diarrhea vectorborne diseases: dengue fever water contact disease: leptospirosis note: highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza has been identified in this country; it poses a negligible risk with extremely rare cases possible among US citizens who have close contact with birds (2013)
Nationality	noun: Malaysian(s) adjective: Malaysian
Ethnic groups	Malay 50.4%, Chinese 23.7%, indigenous 11%, Indian 7.1%, others 7.8% (2004 est.)
Religions	Muslim (or Islam - official) 60.4%, Buddhist 19.2%, Christian 9.1%, Hindu 6.3%, Confucianism, Taoism, other traditional Chinese religions 2.6%, other or unknown 1.5%, none 0.8% (2000 census)
Languages	Bahasa Malaysia (official), English, Chinese (Cantonese, Mandarin, Hokkien, Hakka, Hainan, Foochow), Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Panjabi, Thai note: in East Malaysia there are several indigenous languages; most widely spoken are Iban and Kadazan
Literacy	definition: age 15 and over can read and write total population: 93.1% male: 95.4% female: 90.7% (2010 est.)
School life expectancy (primary to tertiary education)	total: 13 years male: 12 years female: 13 years (2005)
Education expenditures	5.1% of GDP (2010)
Maternal mortality rate	29 deaths/100,000 live births (2010)
Children under the age of 5 years underweight	12.9% (2006)
Health expenditures	3.6% of GDP (2011)
Physicians density	1.198 physicians/1,000 population (2010)
Hospital bed density	1.8 beds/1,000 population (2011)
Obesity - adult prevalence rate	14% (2008)

Source:- Index Mundi, Malaysia Demographics Profile 2013





Source: Department of Statistics Malaysia http://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/index.php?option=com_content&id=1215

Malaysia must stop hanging people - 2nd known attempt stopped

Malaysia for many years stopped 'hanging', and it looked that Malaysia was moving towards the abolition of the death penalty. At the very least, we were looking at the abolition of the MANDATORY death penalty in the laws, giving back Judges when it comes to sentencing of certain crimes - i.e. the discretion to sentence to death or to sentence to imprisonment (maybe for life or for natural life). But, in 2014, this is the 2nd case where Malaysia nearly hung someone. See earlier post:- Chandran Paskaran saved at the last minute from being hanged to death

We know of these 2 attempts to hang people in Malaysia - but we do not know whether there were others who have been hanged. Why? There is little or no notification of these attempts to carry out the death penalty. If we know, then we all can also appeal to the King or the relevant Sultans or other authorities to stop the killing, and maybe even commute the sentence to imprisonment. People, even judges, police, prosecutors, lawyers and others, in the criminal justice system are all fallible - they, on behalf of all Malaysians, can make mistakes. So let us abolish the death penalty. It has been proven that death penalty is not to be a deterrent. It has been shown that it is most unjust for drug mules and some others who never really killed anyone to be hanged to death. Many families and friends of victims really want perpetrators of crime punished but not sentenced to death. 

In Malaysia, worse still, there is much concern about the fairness of our judges and courts, or the credibility of our police and prosecutors. Remember the Anwar's 'black eye case' where the police had come out claiming that they did not cause it - later only to be revealed that it the police that did it. And now we have the case of the missing MH370, we have the police saying at first categorically that all who booked on the flight boarded it, later only to be told that this was not exactly true - now it is said 4 who booked never checked in and they were replaced by standby passengers. It is not only the case of Malaysia but also other countries, even the US, where 'mistakes' can be made by courts. 

In Malaysia, in cases that carry the death penalty, at the High Court, there is only one judge that decides on guilt or innocence, is that safe? Maybe, we need to bring back the JURY, when at least there will be more people involved in considering the available evidence, etc and determining the guilt or innocence of persons, and this maybe should be brought back for all criminal cases that carry sentences 10 years imprisonment or more.   

The risk of sending an innocent person to death is, I believe, the strongest reason why we should abolish the death penalty in Malaysia. We know of the Taiwan case, where a man already executed was found later to be innocent. [See  http://madpet06.blogspot.com/2012/11/my-son-executed-then-they-said-they.html]

"My son was killed for a crime he did not commit…. our family has lived in shame and neighbours never spoke to us. Whatever apology or compensation the government promises, it is too late.”- Wang Tsai-lien, mother of Chiang Kuo-ching who was coerced into making a confession and subsequently executed in error in 1997 in Taiwan.

Recently, in March 2014, we have the case of an American on death row, who has now been released after 30 years because he was not guilty...

Glenn Ford has been freed from the notorious Angola prison in Louisiana having lived under the shadow of the death sentence for 30 years. He becomes one of the longest-serving death row inmates in US history to be exonerated.

Ford was released on the order of a judge in Shreveport after Louisiana state prosecutors indicated they could no longer stand by his conviction. In late 2013 the state notified Ford’s lawyers that a confidential informant had come forward with new information implicating another man who had been among four co-defendants originally charged in the case. - Guardian, 12/3/2014,Death row inmate Glenn Ford released 30 years after wrongful conviction

 

Press Release   

 

The Malaysian Bar Commends Swift Action by the Government in Stay of Execution of Death Sentence on Osariakhi Ernest Obayangbon

The Malaysian Bar is heartened by, and welcomes, the stay of execution of the death penalty on Osariakhi Ernest Obayangbon (aka Philip Michael), originally scheduled for 6:00 am today.  

The Malaysian Bar commends the swift action of the Government, and in particular the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, YB Puan Hajah Nancy Shukri, and the Honourable Attorney General, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, in obtaining a stay of the execution.  

The execution of a criminal, albeit for a heinous crime, is not so much about his crime, but is about, and reflective of, our own humanity.

Osariakhi Ernest Obayangbon is reported to have been convicted on a charge of murder, and has been on death row for 18 years.  He is said to be suffering from mental illness, namely schizophrenia.  He apparently did not apply for clemency, possibly because he was unable to make proper decisions as a result of his mental illness.  

Although it is reported that his mental illness developed after the commission of the crime, it is nevertheless unnecessary and unmerciful to kill a mentally ill person who has already been in jail for 18 years.  We ask that his death sentence be commuted to one of life imprisonment.

The Malaysian Bar advocates the abolition of the death penalty, in the belief that every individual has an inherent right to life.  This right is absolute, universal and inalienable, irrespective of any crimes that may have been committed.  The death penalty has no place in a society that values human life, justice and mercy.  

We understand that the Government is currently looking into law reforms in respect of the mandatory death penalty, with a view to its possible abolition or the reintroduction of a discretionary death penalty.  In light of such review, the Government should, in the interest of justice, implement and announce an immediate official moratorium on any and all executions of the death sentence.

The Malaysian Bar reiterates its call on the Malaysian Government to abolish the death penalty without delay.  Those who have been sentenced with the death penalty should all be resentenced.  

 

Christopher Leong

President

Malaysian Bar

14 March 2014

 

Source: Malaysian Bar Website

Malaysian Bar adopts Resolution on Worker Rights at AGM on 15/3/2014

At the 68th Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar held at Renaissance Kuala Lumpur Hotel (Saturday, 15 Mar 2014), which was attended by 1,219 members, 4 Resolution were adopted. One of this was the resolution on worker and trade union rights, whereby the said Resolution as adopted is as follows:-

 

Resolution on Domestic Inquiry, Misconduct, and Respect of worker and trade union rights in Malaysia

Whereas:

(1) It is disturbing how many worker and trade union rights are not protected by law in Malaysia, and the recent embarrassing failures of government linked companies (GLCs) to be the best example in the protecting and respecting worker and trade union rights.

(2) In May 2013,18 workers from 2 DRB HICOM, a government linked company, were terminated by reason arising from the fact that they handed over a Malaysian Trade Union Congress (MTUC) memorandum demanding commitment to worker and trade union rights during last General Elections. The workers exercised their rights as citizens when they handed this MTUC memorandum not during working hours. Amongst the terminated were union leaders, where one of them was also MTUC Pahang President. 

(3) The misconduct leveled against these workers are (1) undermining the image or good name of the company orally, in writing or by action, and (2) bringing about or trying to bring about any form of influence or outside pressure to submit or support any external claim that is related to service be it an individual claim or claims of other employees.

(4) The second misconduct, in particular, is absurd for rightly in the fighting against injustice, workers and their unions would certainly try to lobby and get support from fellow workers, members of the public and others in an effort to end injustice or rights violations. 

(5) There was a Domestic Inquiry in the case of the 18 workers, but they were denied the right to be represented by their National Union – they were only allowed the right to be represented by a fellow worker from their workplace. The Collective Bargaining Agreement was between the National Union and the said DRB HICOM companies.

(6) On 29/11/2013, the President of the National Union of Flight Attendants Malaysia (NUFAM) was terminated. He had issued a statement to the media in his capacity as president of the Union, and Malaysian Airlines(MAS), a government linked company, alleged that Ismail Nasaruddin, the Union President,  had acted in contradiction with his duties as a chief steward of the airline by issuing the statement. (Malaysiakini, 14/11/2011, MAS suspends chief steward for criticising CEO). He was terminated without even a Domestic Inquiry.

(7) In February 2014, MAS issued show cause letters to about 30 employees by recent of  their alleged participation in an ‘illegal gathering’ at the Human Resource Ministry. This is absurd given the reason that it a fundamental right for workers and/or their unions to file complaints and make representation to the government, including the Human Resource Minister.

(8) Disiplinary actions have also been commenced against workers for comments made in closed Facebook pages of their unions. 

(9) The trend seems to be to try to control workers even during their free time, their ability to highlight rights violations and injustice, their freedom of expression, opinion and peaceful assembly.

(10) Companies and businesses should never terminate a worker for reasons other than matters that relate to work performance and/or their conduct as a worker save in very exceptional cases, for eg, like when a worker is convicted of a criminal offence. The Industrial Relations Act 1967 also prohibits employers from discriminating against, threatening or terminating workers by reasons of involvement in trade unions.

(11) Natural justice demands that no worker should also be terminated without a Domestic Inquiry, without being accorded, amongst others, the right to be heard, and the right to be defended by a lawyer, a Union representative or a fellow worker of their choice.The Employment Act 1955 only provides for ‘due inquiry’ but alas it is insufficient to ensure that this right is accorded to all workers. It fails to set out clearly that this means Domestic Inquiry and how it is to be conducted, including the rights to be represented by a lawyer or Union. The failure of the employer to have a ‘due inquiry’ or Domestic Inquiry is not at all considered by the Industrial Court in wrongful dismissal cases. 

(12) Misconduct is also not clearly defined, or set out in law, and this is urgent need given the trend that some employers have just been extending the number of misconducts – some even extending beyond the workplace infringing into personal liberties and rights. 

(13) Wrongful dismissal cases, which affect the worker and their families, takes too long to be resolved, sometimes even 10 years, and at the end of the day, the Courts are not ordering reinstatement. This emboldens employers to wrongly terminate workers, especially union or worker leaders, and those that claim rights knowing that they have effectively gotten rid of these workers. 

(14) Malaysia, being a member of the international community, must also act in accordance with International Standards including Ruggie’s Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework , whereby in cases of government-linked companies like MAS and DRB HICOM, the obligation is even greater. The Guiding Principles states that “States should take additional steps to protect against human rights abuses by business enterprises that are owned or controlled by the State, or that receive substantial support and services from State...”. 

(15) No worker, group of workers or unions should be barred from making public statements to the media or otherwise in the struggle for worker rights and human rights. This right is clearly acknowledged in the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, commonly known today as the UN Human Rights Defender Declaration.

 

We hereby resolve:

(1) That Malaysian government ensures that all employers, especially Government-Linked Companies (GLC) respect worker and trade union rights; 

(2) That Malaysian government take additional steps to protect against human rights abuses by business enterprises that are owned or controlled by the State, or that receive substantial support and services from State...”; and

(3) That Malaysia immediately ratifies ILO Convention No 87 (Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948) and other important labour conventions.

 Source: Malaysian Bar Website http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/malaysian_bar_s_resolutions/resolutions_adopted_at_the_68th_annual_general_meeting_of_the_malaysian_bar_held_at_renaissance_kuala_lumpur_hotel_saturday_15_mar_2014.html

Have Malaysians lost their right of objections to Development projects?

In the past, whenever, there is a development project like the construction of housing estates, apartments & condominiums, commercial buildings, etc - there always was a Notice Board at the project site inviting comments and objections from members of the public before the project is approved. The Notice Board will contain a brief description of the proposed project, together with relevant contact details (address, phone, email) as to where the said comments/objections should be addressed to. A deadline is also given. Then the people who objected will also be called for a public hearing where they have a chance to raise their concerns. After taking all considerations, then the project will be denied or approved, and if approved there will be conditions.

Nowadays, we do not see these Notice Boards anymore - it seems the right of objections has been withdrawn. Is it also the same in the Pakatan Rakyat governed states or are they still providing the right to be heard to the people - the rakyat.

Then, there was the letter that was sent to owners of property adjacent to these proposed Development Projects, but today many adjacent owners are also not receiving these Notices - hence again the denial of the right to be heard with regard to development in their area, near their homes, farms, kampungs,...

We know of these projects only when the excavators come and clear the land - and when we ask the people doing this work, they do not know - they were just contracted to clear the trees and flatten the land. Then, the construction starts, and people can only guess what will eventually emerge.

In my kampung here in Temerloh,Kampung Lubuk Layang, in which our road, which on both sides were trees and greenery with a lot of wildlife suddenly was cleared. Even the area which is 'road reserve' was cleared, Even the other side of the road was cleared. And in this hot season, it has become even hotter in this kampung and the people have lost the cooling trees. Here we had before two species of hornbill couples, the rare giant squirrel, wild boar, monkeys, squirrels, etc ...and all these natural wildlife has been lost...

Since the excavators have cleared both sides of the tarred kampung road, one worries what happens when the rains start - will the road be totally damaged by the actions of this developer...for without trees (or proper drainage) surely the wet season would lead to the road being destroyed. 

Some say that the ordinary rakyat is not being consulted because those 'government appinted JKKK' are being consulted - but alas they do not represent the people. They were never chosen or elected by the people. Many do not even know who their JKKK rep is, and there really is no effort to even have meetings or consultations with the people....so, if true, I would really object if it is the JKKK that is approving development projects on behalf of you and I without we knowing about it.

I DEMAND THE RIGHT TO BE CONSULTED...THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD WHEN IT COMES TO ANY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN MY TOWN AND COMMUNITY 

RETURN THE NOTICE BOARDS AT PROPOSED PROJECT SITES...

 

 

Bar Press Release | Conviction and Sentence of Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim for Sodomy II: Justice is Not Only a Fact to be Established; It Must Also be Seen to be So Established

So, the Malaysian Bar has come out with concerns not so much of the court's decisions, but of the unfairness in the changing and expediting the date of the Appeal, and other matters....

It wonders why the hearing dates were brought forward? Normally, after conviction and before sentencing, courts will adjourn cases for about a week to allow for lawyers to prepare for Mitigation, i.e. reasons that should be considered by court before sentencing - here 1 hour was given. Read the statement of the Malaysian Bar below...

Also relevant is an earlier post:- 'BOYCOTT' Parliament is silly - Why?Because Opposition leader got convicted by court?

 


Press Release | Conviction and Sentence of Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim for Sodomy II: Justice is Not Only a Fact to be Established; It Must Also be Seen to be So Established

This item has been updated since initial publication.

The Malaysian Bar is deeply troubled by the conviction and sentence to five years’ imprisonment of Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim by the Court of Appeal, for what was essentially consensual sex between two adults.

Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim was convicted and sentenced under section 377B, read with section 377A, of the Penal Code.

Section 377A of the Penal Code criminalises sodomy and oral sex (fellatio).  Section 377B provides that whosoever voluntarily commits the acts described in section 377A shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to whipping.  These provisions make no distinction between heterosexual and homosexual consensual sexual acts, and are thus applicable to both.

A law is only good and just if it is consistently and equally applied and enforced.  It is extraordinary that Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim has been prosecuted and convicted twice, in a country that has rarely seen a prosecution and/or conviction for an offence of consensual sexual acts between adults under section 377A, read with section 377B, of the Penal Code.

This glaring anomaly and inconsistency brings the administration of justice into disrepute.  It also fuels a perception that Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim is being persecuted, and not prosecuted.

The charge against Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim is based on an archaic provision of the Penal Code, and should never have been brought.  The case has unnecessarily taken up judicial time and public funds, and has muddied the waters of our justice system. 

The Malaysian Bar also has grave misgivings with respect to the manner and timing in which the appeal was handled.  In particular, we are shocked by the manner in which mitigation and sentencing proceeded.

The Malaysian Bar makes no comment at present as to the grounds for the reversal by the Court of Appeal of the acquittal by the High Court in January 2012 of Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim (“Respondent/Defendant”), and his present conviction and sentence by the Court of Appeal, as no written substantive grounds have been proffered as yet, save to say that there appears to be doubt and reservations as to the integrity of the DNA evidence in the case.

However, there are several aspects of this case that raise questions or concerns:

(1) The haste with which the appeal proceeded in the Court of Appeal.  No doubt the appeal had been pending since about July last year, but time had been taken with intervening applications on several issues and appeals arising therefrom.  It appears that the Respondent/Defendant had been notified on 27 February 2014 that the substantive appeal was to be heard on 6 and 7 March, thus providing his legal counsel with only seven days’ notice to prepare for a criminal appeal arising from a lengthy trial that had taken many weeks and involved about 32 witnesses, including expert evidence;

(2) This was despite counsel for the Respondent/Defendant having informed the court that he was not available on those dates, as he was scheduled for other cases in court;

(3) It appears that about two weeks before the appeal was heard a registrar from the registry of the Court of Appeal had informed the office of Karpal Singh, the Respondent/Defendant’s counsel, to reserve 7 to 10 April 2014 as the proposed hearing dates for the appeal.  The Respondent/Defendant’s counsel apparently agreed to these dates;

(4) It appears that these proposed dates when the Respondent/Defendant’s counsel was available were subsequently abandoned and replaced with much earlier dates;

(5) If this is true, then questions arise in the mind of the public as to why the Court of Appeal brought forward the appeal to be heard, when the originally contemplated dates in early April had already been agreed to by the Respondent/Defendant, and would have provided the Respondent/Defendant, facing a possible sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment, more time to prepare for the appeal;

(6) The appeal was heard on 6 and 7 March 2014.  It is reported that each day’s proceedings carried into the early hours of the evening, ie between 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm.  Although this is not unheard of, it is nevertheless rare;

(7) It is not uncommon for an appellate court to reserve judgment for a few days or months before handing down a decision, particularly where the proceedings in the trial court have been lengthy, the evidence substantial and the issues weighty;

(8) In this instance, the Court of Appeal had, at the conclusion of submissions by the parties on 7 March 2014, taken approximately 90 minutes to consider the matter, and then rendered a unanimous decision in reversing the acquittal by the High Court and finding the Respondent/Defendant guilty, at approximately 5:00 pm the same day;

(9) 5:00 pm is when the court usually adjourns for the day.  On this occasion, the Court of Appeal and the prosecution insisted on proceeding with hearing mitigation and sentencing;

(10) The Respondent/Defendant’s counsel requested an adjournment until the following week, beginning 10 March 2014, to address the court on mitigation and sentencing, and to obtain a medical report concerning the Respondent/Defendant’s medical condition, which would be relevant in considering the sentence to be imposed.  The Court of Appeal refused this request, and instead gave counsel one hour to prepare for mitigation and sentencing;

(11) Upon reconvening after about one hour’s recess, the Court of Appeal and the prosecution accepted counsel’s contention that the Respondent/Defendant suffers from medical conditions such as back pains, high blood pressure, and a heart ailment.  They accepted that these were relevant to sentencing, but refused to allow time for a medical report to be prepared and provided to the court.

(12) The Court of Appeal had thus denied itself relevant medical information pertaining to the particulars or peculiarities (if any), and extent of, the Respondent/Defendant’s medical condition before considering the appropriate sentence to be imposed; and

(13) The Court of Appeal pronounced a sentence of five years’ imprisonment, and the proceedings concluded at approximately 7:00 pm.

These matters raise many questions, cause much speculation, and lend to the perception that justice may have been hijacked.  

The questions to be answered, in the mind of the public, are thus, “Was the cause of justice best served by the manner and timing in which this appeal was handled?” and, “Was the administration of justice compromised or interfered with?”

The sanctity of the administration of justice and the independence of the Judiciary are intertwined, and essential for upholding the rule of law and instilling public confidence.  Justice and independence are not only facts to be established; it is imperative that they are seen to be so established.

It is heart-rending, for those who sacrifice and work hard in good faith to protect and defend the administration of justice, and to maintain and promote the independence of the Judiciary, when public confidence in these two precepts may be shaken or in jeopardy.

Christopher Leong

President

Malaysian Bar

9 March 2014

Source: Malaysian Bar Website