Monday, August 27, 2018

ANWAR finally speaks out on SOSMA - weakly calling for 'remedial action' not strongly calling for REPEAL?

The 'old' Anwar may be finally back when he spoke up for the SOSMA victims ...but alas, he too seems to be much confused about the difference between SOSMA, and the other draconian Detention without trial laws like POCA and SOSMA....

SOSMA - can only be used for certain 'security' offences which now includes also that list of offences regarding 'actions detrimental to parliamentary democracy.

If SOSMA used, no need to bring person arrested before magistrate within 24 hours - police can hold for up to 28 days..

When a person is charged, the SOSMA is used to deny BAIL - that means these victims 'stay in jail' until their trial and even their appeals are over...(this now could be years)...Are the 'victims of SOSMA' in Sg. Buluh really persons who have been charged, waiting for their trial to be over - and, because SOSMA was used, they were denight the right to BAIL???

Now, if POCA or some other Detention Without Trial laws were lused...then they are detained indefinitely, two years at a time, for an undefined period. The victim also cannot challenge in court the REASON used to detain/restrict him/her under POCA, POTA...
 
Anwar is right ...“I do not condone violence, terrorism or compromise with any criminal act. We should be tough and firm....“But we must respect due process,...'

That is exactly the reason why Najib is still walking around free....Everyone must be presumed innocent until he is proven guilty...in court after a fair trial.

That is why there must be the RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL - It matters not whether the police. the prosecutors or even the Prime Minister is 100% convinced that a person is GUILTY - the person that needs to be convinced is the Judge after a fair trial. Yes, the prosecution must PROVE that the accussed is guilty beyond reasonable doubt...and the accussed has a right to defend himself/herself... If the Judge is convinced, he will CONVICT and then sentence ...If any party feel that there has been a mistake, one can appeal to the higher courts...

SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT BE ALLOWED TO KEEP IN DETENTION PERSONS THEY(the police/government) SUSPECT ARE 'CRIMINALS'....? Rule of Law and Justice DEMANDS that this answer be NO...
 

Hunger Strike 215 SOSMA victims - PH-led Government stop using SOSMA and DWT laws NOW...pending repeal?


 

Reading media reports, listening to Minister's comments, listening to prison department officers, reading media reports  ...one is confused about who exactly are these people who went on 'hunger strike' - SOSMA victims(these would most likely persons who have been charged in court, awaiting their trial, whose BAIL was denied because SOSMA was used...remember SOSMA can only be used for 'security cases' listed in the Act itself... not for 'organised crime')

OR are these people victims of Detention Without Trial laws - POCA, POTA, etc ...and not SOSMA?

FUNNY ...how Pakatan Harapan leaders/MPs not taking RESPONSIBILITY themselves for the continued existence of SOSMA...and possibly still being used in the past 100 days....

FUNNY ...how Pakatan Harapan leaders/MPs not taking RESPONSIBILITY themselves for the continued existence of POCA and other Detention Without Trial laws.....and possibly still being used in the past 100 days....

FUNNY THAT THEY BEHAVE AS THOUGH STILL OPPOSITION MPS - WHEN THEY ARE TODAY IN POWER...AND THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE ...YOU CANNOT BLAME POLICE(WHO COMES UNDER GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY CONTROL...)

FUNNY HOW SOME MPs...even MINISTERS  trying to shift blame to HOME MINISTER (Muhyiddin), etc ...

HAS OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL EVEN PREPARED THE DRAFT BILL FOR THE REPEAL OF THESE LAWS...HAVE HE PROVIDED HIS DETAILED REASONS FOR THE NEED FOR IMMEDIATE REPEAL?

.... 

Anwar urges remedial action for Sosma hunger strikers

Geraldine Tong  |  Published:  |  Modified:



Incoming PKR president Anwar Ibrahim has called for immediate remedial action to be taken over the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma) detainees who went on a hunger strike yesterday.

“I do not condone violence, terrorism or compromise with any criminal act. We should be tough and firm.

“But we must respect due process, and from what I know and observed in Sungai Buloh (prison), the new law Sosma is far worse in terms of treating prisoners than the Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA).

“Those who are protesting, those prisoners under Sosma, must be given adequate safeguards of their rights,” he said in his speech during the launch of a book titled Anwar Returns: The Final Twist at the Hilton Hotel in Kuala Lumpur today.

It was reported yesterday that about 215 Sosma detainees at the Sungai Buloh prison – where Anwar was once detained – were on a hunger strike that began at 8am on Friday.

They said their protest would not cease until the government gives its assurance that it would abolish Sosma, or until they are each granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal.

They were joined yesterday by family members who gathered outside the prison in solidarity with their relatives inside.

Sungai Buloh MP R Sivarasa, who met with the family members during the protest, advised them to produce a written memorandum which he said he would deliver to the home minister and the de facto law minister.

'Not right for a democratic society'

At today's event, Anwar criticised the treatment of detainees under Sosma in prison, saying that they are kept in solitary confinement, given restricted access to their families, lawyers as well as time to exercise.

He said there should be a law to deal with perpetrators of terrorism, but he believed the provisions under Sosma are too “vague.”

Such laws, he added, are not the right legal framework for a democratic society.

“What I’m questioning is the blanket vague range of legal flexibility that may allow the authorities to decide without recourse (for the detainees).

“This, I think, may not be the right legal framework for a free, democratic country,” he said.

Anwar also said he would take up the issue with Home Minister Muhyiddin Yassin.

Attorney-general Tommy Thomas assured yesterday that the abolishment of the contentious security law was "just a matter of time."

The sentiment was shared by de facto Deputy Law Minister Hanipa Maidin, who visited the Sosma detainees at the Sungai Buloh prison today.

After his visit, he said 118 of the detainees had agreed to end their hunger strike. - Malaysiakini, 26/8/2018

Saturday, August 25, 2018

Hunger Strike 215 SOSMA victims - PH-led Government stop using SOSMA and DWT laws NOW...pending repeal?

 Twenty days after his arrest, Shanti's husband passed away in the lockup at the Shah Alam district police headquarters. ..."I waited for my husband to be freed. One day, I was told to call the police and they told me, 'Your husband has passed away, please come collect his body'.....They had come together in solidarity with 215 Sosma detainees being held at the Sungai Buloh prison, who had gone on a hunger strike since 8am yesterday.

 Dr Mahathir and the Pakatan Harapan led government may be doing a good job finding and disclosing misdeeds of past government that has resulted in the loss of much monies, discovery of new 'debts/financial obligations', overpaid 'political appointees', etc....BUT it seems to be failing when it comes to the removal of unjust draconian laws...and liberating immediately the victims...THE LONGER THE DELAY, THE LONGER THE CURRENT VICTIMS SUFFER ...if it was Anwar or some PH leader, they move so fast...but for the rest of us, ...remember there are thousands who continue to suffer everyday in Malaysia today - victims of Detention Without Trial laws and also SOSMA...SET THEM ALL FREE NOW...

Government Of Many Past Victims Of Unjust Laws Must Do The Right Thing
This Pakatan Harapan led government is a government of many  past victims of DWT laws and unjust laws. As such, many Malaysians expected speedy abolition of POCA and Detention Without Trial laws, SOSMA, Sedition Act and other unjust laws, or at the very least a pronouncement that such laws will no longer be used. 
Over 100 days have passed, and we have not yet seen the many hundreds, possibly thousands, of persons currently being detained without trial under the Detention Without Trial laws like Prevention of Crimes Act, Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act being released unconditionally. We have also not seen the possibly thousands currently being under Restriction Orders, being liberated of their restrictions. - MADPET Media Statement  -24/8/2018(still not carried by mainstream or alternative media)(see full statement below...)

SOSMA allows persons arrested as suspects of 'security offences' to not be required to be brought before a Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, and be detained for 28 days...denied bail until trial/appeal over...etc... 

SOSMA  violates Human Rights and even denies a fair trial
SOSMA, which may be the replacement of the Essential (Security cases) Regulations 1975 (ESCAR),  allows the police to override the existing provisions in our Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence Act, that  really are there primarily to ensure justice be done and human rights respected.
Our Malaysian Federal Constitution in Article 5(4), states amongst others, ‘…(4) Where a person is arrested and not released he shall without unreasonable delay, and in any case within twenty-four hours (excluding the time of any necessary journey) be produced before a magistrate and shall not be further detained in custody without the magistrate’s authority…’. 
However, if the police rely on SOSMA, then there is no more the requirement for the police to bring the person arrested before the Magistrate within 24 hours. The police can simply continue to detain the ‘suspect’ for up to 28 days. 
Now, the  Criminal Procedure Code also sets the maximum period of remand for the purpose of investigation is 14 days, but if SOSMA is used, then no need to even bring the suspect before a Magistrate or get remand orders from a Magistrate, and one can simply be detained for up to 28 days.   
The bringing before a magistrate, and the requirement of a remand order by a Magistrate is a necessary ‘check and balance’ to prevent police abuse of their powers including torture. There have been way too many allegations of torture and even deaths in police custody. There were 110 lock up deaths from 2010 until 2016 in Malaysia. In a Bar statement dated 23/4/2018, it was stated that, ‘The Malaysian Bar is appalled that two more men have died while in police custody, within the space of merely a few weeks.’. 
The need to bring before a Magistrate within 24 hours and the need for application to the Magistrate for further remand orders, gives the Magistrate the opportunity to ensure no police wrongdoings, and that these further detentions are really needed for investigation purposes and not for some  other ‘wrong’ or illegal objectives, including maybe the ‘torture’ of suspects. 
If SOSMA is relied on when a person is charged in court, bail will be denied, meaning the accused innocent person will have to stay in prison until his/her trial is over. Even if the court finds him/her not guilty, using SOSMA, the prosecution could still ask that he/she continued to be detained until the subsequent appeals are done and disposed off.
If  SOSMA, is used during trial, normal Evidential and Criminal Procedural requirements can also be ignored. What is not admissible in normal criminal trials could become admissible if SOSMA is used. These evidential and procedural requirements are there to ensure a fair trial, and that justice is done.
SOSMA can only be used for security offences, which now includes that vague newly introduced draconian offences by past regime criminalizing all forms of ‘activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy’(section 124B-J Penal Code) which is also under Chapter VI – Offences Against The State. 
In November 2016, Maria Chin Abdullah(then Bersih 2.0 chairman) herself, was arrested and detained under Section 124C of the Penal Code that prohibits the attempt to commit activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy. SOSMA was used here..(Malay Mail, 20/11/2016) - MADPET Media Statement  -24/8/2018(still not carried by mainstream or alternative media)
FIRST THING PAKATAN HARAPAN SHOULD HAVE DONE ....

- Immediate and unconditional release of ALL persons currently being detained under POCA and all Detenion Without Trial Laws.... [If the police/prosecution believe that these people may have committed some crime, then charge them later in court....It is foolish for some to say 'do not release these criminals' ...well was Syed Husin Ali, Hadi Awang, Anwar Ibrahim,  Lim Kit Siang, Cecilia Ng, and all the victims of detention without trial guilty...??]

- The government should immediately STOP using SOSMA, POCA, ....pending repeal..

FOR SOSMA Victims..

- There really should be no more persons in detention for 28 days after their arrest today (since it has already been more than 100 days since we had a new government)..

- For those, being denied BAIL because of SOSMA, the prosecution(AG Tommy Thomas take note) - immediately bring the matter to court, and withdraw usage of SOSMA - meaning bail application entitlement available to 'accussed' as usual ...and this should be done speedily, in ten(10) days...


 

 

Hundreds of Sosma detainees go on hunger strike

Geraldine Tong  |  Published:  |  Modified:
  •  
  •  
  • After Shanti's husband was detained under Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (Sosma) 2012 back in March, she was told he would be released after the maximum detention period of 28 days.
He was never freed. Twenty days after his arrest, Shanti's husband passed away in the lockup at the Shah Alam district police headquarters.

"I waited for my husband to be freed. One day, I was told to call the police and they told me, 'Your husband has passed away, please come collect his body'.

"The police said he (died because of a) fever he had for four days while in lockup," Shanti recounted to reporters outside the Sungai Buloh prison today.

Four months on, the 38-year-old mother of two claimed she has yet to receive any further explanation or even a postmortem report on her husband's death.

As for why he was arrested in the first place, Shanti alleged the police merely told her they have the "power to detain whoever they suspect".

Shanti (photo), who declined to give her full name or her husband's, was one of about 200 family members of Sosma detainees gathered outside the Sungai Buloh prison today to protest the security law.


Detainees on hunger strike

They had come together in solidarity with 215 Sosma detainees being held at the Sungai Buloh prison, who had gone on a hunger strike since 8am yesterday.

The detainees said that the hunger strike will go on until the new Pakatan Harapan government holds true to its promise to abolish the act.

"They will not stop until the government gives its word that Sosma will be abolished or their charges are dropped while the process of abolishing Sosma is ongoing.

"As long as there is no decision from the federal government, they will continue their hunger strike," Mohd Ridzuan Abdullah, the president of NGO Ikhlas, told reporters.

Lawyer Harpal Singh (photo), who is representing at least 19 of the Sosma detainees on the hunger strike, said he has written representation letters to the Attorney-General's Chambers on this matter.



In the letter, he requested the attorney-general to use his discretionary powers to grant a discharge not amounting to an acquittal to these Sosma detainees, as he argued that the new Harapan government had promised in its election manifesto to abolish "oppressive laws" including Sosma.

The August 22 representation letter, and sighted by Malaysiakini, stated: "We believe that there is a strong likelihood that proceedings under Sosma will no longer be applicable.

"Therefore, we humbly plead that our clients should not continue to be wrongfully and maliciously detained under Sosma, taking into account the high certainty and probability that Sosma will be abolished."

Harpal said the discharge would allow the AGC to charge the detainees again at a later date, if necessary, be it under a different act or under Sosma once more if it is not abolished.

'We are humans too'

Gathered outside the Sungai Buloh prison, the family members of the detainees, which includes children, held up banners asking for Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad's help to save their sons, husbands or fathers.

At one point during a photo session for the press, three middle-aged women standing in one corner of the crowd began yelling as emotions ran high.

"Do you think we are dogs? We are not allowed to go to court?" one of the women shouted.

"We are humans too. Prime minister, please help us," she later pleaded, wiping tears from her eyes.



In 2012, then prime minister Najib Abdul Razak had announced the repeal of the controversial Internal Security Act 1960 – which critics called superficial as it was almost immediately replaced by Sosma, which allowed for ISA-like detention without trial.

Under Sosma, an individual can be detained without warrant and is denied bail. The police can also delay family access and legal counsel for up to 48 hours after the arrest.

The act also allows a further maximum detention period of 28 days after the initial 48 hours.

An individual who is arrested under this act must also be kept in detention until all trials and appeals have been resolved.

In its Human Rights Report 2017 published this year, Suhakam reported that of the 280 cases of detention without trial recorded in 2017, 269 involved the use of Sosma.

Although abolishing the act had been once of Harapan's promises prior to the 14th general election, the new government then stated after GE14 that it was reviewing the act.

It was reported that the Home Ministry has set up a special committee, comprising the police, Suhakam and the Bar Council, to review existing security laws which are said to infringe upon human rights.

Besides Sosma, other such laws being reviewed are the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 (Pota) and the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (Poca).

'When to abolish Sosma, not if'

Around 2.30pm, the authorities advised the crowd to disperse, and most of them retreated to food stalls across the road.

However, when Sungai Buloh MP Sivarasa arrived at the prison around 3pm, the crowd surged back to the prison entrance.


The deputy minister spoke to an attentive crowd, who clamoured around him and had to be kept at bay by the police.

“We have no problem (abolishing Sosma) because that is our (Harapan's) promise. The question is when,” he said.

He then told the family members that he has no jurisdiction over the abolition of Sosma, as he is neither the home minister nor the de facto law minister.

“What I can say, I ask representatives from the family to make a written memorandum addressed to the prime minister, the Home Minister Muhyiddin Yassin and the de facto Law Minister Liew Vui Keong.

“When you are done, I can accept the memorandum from you, and ensure the letter is delivered to them,” he said. - Malaysiakini, 25/8/2018



Media Statement  - 24/8/2018
MALAYSIA MUST REAFFIRM COMMITMENT TO ABOLISH ANTI-HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS INCLUDING DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL LAWS AND SOSMA
Home Minister’s 15/8/2018 Reply that Government will continue to use SOSMA and POCA preserve national security most disturbing
MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) is most concerned when Malaysia’s new government, vide the Home Affairs Minister, in his Reply to a Parliamentary question dated 15/8/2018, tells us that this government plans to continue to use draconian laws like SOSMA [Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012] and POCA [Prevention of Crime Act 1959].
 ‘'...Kerajaan akan terus menguatkuasakan undang-undang untuk memelihara keselamatan negara....(Goverment will continue to enforce laws to preserve national security...), was the words used in the response contained in the reply by the Menteri Dalam Negeri to a Parliamentary Question by Member of Parliament Maria Chin bin Abdullah dated 15/8/2018 who asked about POCA and SOSMA. 
The government reply also did state that a review was being done to see if the usage of such laws are in compliance (or consistent) with human rights norms. [‘…untuk melihat sama ada pengunaan akta-akta  ini selari dengan norma-norma hak asasi manusia…’]
It is most disappointing when the Malaysian government takes such a stance, and really, there is no justification to procrastinate or delay the repealing of these and other anti-human rights laws. 
The correct position is to now impose an immediate moratorium pending repeal of all such laws – no one else in Malaysia should be made victims of SOSMA, POCA and other Detention Without Trial laws, Sedition Act and such bad laws.
Is the usage of these laws in line with human rights norm? 
It is a ‘bad’ joke or a foolish proposition for this NEW government to even suggest a review to find out whether POCA and such Detention without Trial laws are consistent with human rights norms. It has been the stance taken by the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM), Malaysian Bar, Civil Society and Human Rights Groups, and even the then Opposition Parties and their leaders for many years. 
POCA and Detention without Trial (DWT) Laws violates Human Rights
Detention without Trial (DWT) laws clearly violates Human Rights. 
Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) clearly states that, ‘Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.’ DWT laws deny the right to a fair trial, and allow the government to detain and/or restrict persons indefinitely without trial. 
Article 11(1) states, ‘(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.’ Article 9 states, ‘No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.’
POCA and such DWT laws enable the police (or the government of the day) to subject persons to ‘…arbitrary arrest, detention or exile’. There is no need for any trial, or even any court order. Worse still, is that DWT laws can be used against a person for any alleged reason, which may also be ‘fake’ or false, and the victim cannot even challenge the said alleged reasons used to justify the arrest, detention and/or restrictions by way of judicial review. The judiciary’s power to ensure that there is no wrongdoing on the part of the Executive is curtailed – the courts cannot make sure whether an innocent person has been wrongly detained and/or restricted for a wrong or false reason.
POCA, was amended, amongst others in 2014, and now it is so wide that it can be used against almost anyone, which really may not matter because the law itself prevents a challenge of the very reason for which it was used. 
Today, after these amendments, even former Prime Minister Najib could be arrested and detained under POCA, which now can also be used even in cases where allegedly ‘…two or more persons who associate for purposes which include the commission of offences under the Penal Code..’ – it now covers all offences under the Penal Code – no anymore just crimes "involving violence or extortion".
SOSMA  violates Human Rights and even denies a fair trial
SOSMA, which may be the replacement of the Essential (Security cases) Regulations 1975 (ESCAR),  allows the police to override the existing provisions in our Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence Act, that  really are there primarily to ensure justice be done and human rights respected.
Our Malaysian Federal Constitution in Article 5(4), states amongst others, ‘…(4) Where a person is arrested and not released he shall without unreasonable delay, and in any case within twenty-four hours (excluding the time of any necessary journey) be produced before a magistrate and shall not be further detained in custody without the magistrate’s authority…’. 
However, if the police rely on SOSMA, then there is no more the requirement for the police to bring the person arrested before the Magistrate within 24 hours. The police can simply continue to detain the ‘suspect’ for up to 28 days. 
Now, the  Criminal Procedure Code also sets the maximum period of remand for the purpose of investigation is 14 days, but if SOSMA is used, then no need to even bring the suspect before a Magistrate or get remand orders from a Magistrate, and one can simply be detained for up to 28 days.   
The bringing before a magistrate, and the requirement of a remand order by a Magistrate is a necessary ‘check and balance’ to prevent police abuse of their powers including torture. There have been way too many allegations of torture and even deaths in police custody. There were 110 lock up deaths from 2010 until 2016 in Malaysia. In a Bar statement dated 23/4/2018, it was stated that, ‘The Malaysian Bar is appalled that two more men have died while in police custody, within the space of merely a few weeks.’. 
The need to bring before a Magistrate within 24 hours and the need for application to the Magistrate for further remand orders, gives the Magistrate the opportunity to ensure no police wrongdoings, and that these further detentions are really needed for investigation purposes and not for some  other ‘wrong’ or illegal objectives, including maybe the ‘torture’ of suspects. 
If SOSMA is relied on when a person is charged in court, bail will be denied, meaning the accused innocent person will have to stay in prison until his/her trial is over. Even if the court finds him/her not guilty, using SOSMA, the prosecution could still ask that he/she continued to be detained until the subsequent appeals are done and disposed off.
If  SOSMA, is used during trial, normal Evidential and Criminal Procedural requirements can also be ignored. What is not admissible in normal criminal trials could become admissible if SOSMA is used. These evidential and procedural requirements are there to ensure a fair trial, and that justice is done.
SOSMA can only be used for security offences, which now includes that vague newly introduced draconian offences by past regime criminalizing all forms of ‘activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy’(section 124B-J Penal Code) which is also under Chapter VI – Offences Against The State. 
In November 2016, Maria Chin Abdullah(then Bersih 2.0 chairman) herself, was arrested and detained under Section 124C of the Penal Code that prohibits the attempt to commit activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy. SOSMA was used here..(Malay Mail, 20/11/2016)
Failure To Answer The  Question – Disclose All Answers On Parliamentary Website
In this Parliamentary Reply, the government also did reveal that until July 2018, 592 persons were detained under SOSMA (510 Malaysians 10 foreigners), of which 102 Malaysian and 58 foreigners have been convicted, and 408 Malaysians and 22 foreigners are remand detainees (tahanan reman). 
Is Maria Chin one of these ‘remand detainees’? By convicted, one assumes that they have been tried in court  and convicted. Does ‘remand detainees’ mean that they, like Maria Chin, were released and never charged, or does it also include those who have been charged in court and denied bail? The government really ought to provide clearer answers.
MP Maria Chin’s question about the age breakdown of the victims of SOSMA and POCA were never even answered. 
With regards to POCA, the answer was that until July 2018, there are 535 being detained under POCA - 448 Malaysians 87 foreigners. Again, there was no age breakdown, and no indication of the number of adults and the number of juveniles, which was also asked by Maria Chin.
Malaysians were lucky that MP Maria Chin shared the question and answer she received, but sadly we will never know the questions and government answers from so many of our other MPs/Senators.
 The Hansard is a verbatim record of what happens in the Dewan Rakyat, but as there is no time to answer all the listed oral questions, many answers are provided later in written form. There are also the questions of MPs at every parliamentary session seeking written responses. 
Transparency really demands that all these questions and government’s answers now are available at the Parliamentary website, which can be accessed by everyone.  
Confusion about commitment to repeal SOSMA, POCA and Bad Laws
Several days ago, it was also reported in the media that Datuk Mohd Azis Jamman, the still Deputy Home Minister, who said ‘"…In my opinion, the law is good…’. He was referring to the SOSMA, POCA and POTA, which he said "However, the law has been abused in the past for political reasons, thus the ministry has set up a special committee to review it along with other laws, such as Prevention of Terrorism Act (Pota) and Prevention of Crime Act (Poca)…’(Star, 7/8/2018)
Taken together, what was stated by the Deputy Home Minister and the Home Minister’s Reply to Maria Chin, Malaysians may really have something to worry about – Will this new government simply keep and continue to use these draconian laws like SOSMA, POCA and other Detention without Trial Laws just like the past UMNO-BN government?
Government Of Many Past Victims Of Unjust Laws Must Do The Right Thing
This Pakatan Harapan led government is a government of many  past victims of DWT laws and unjust laws. As such, many Malaysians expected speedy abolition of POCA and Detention Without Trial laws, SOSMA, Sedition Act and other unjust laws, or at the very least a pronouncement that such laws will no longer be used. 
Over 100 days have passed, and we have not yet seen the many hundreds, possibly thousands, of persons currently being detained without trial under the Detention Without Trial laws like Prevention of Crimes Act, Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act being released unconditionally. We have also not seen the possibly thousands currently being under Restriction Orders, being liberated of their restrictions.
MADPET calls on the Malaysian government to immediate clarify and reaffirm their commitment to speedily repeal POCA and all Detention Without Trial laws, and SOSMA.
MADPET also calls on the government to immediately stop the usage of these and other draconian laws pending its repeal.
MADPET also calls on the Malaysian government to immediately release all those currently being detained and/or restricted under Detention Without Trial Laws, and also SOSMA.
 
Charles Hector
For and on behalf of MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

Better if a confirmed Judge allowed the application to sell Equanimity? Judge and JC same powers but...?

'...Judicial Commissioner Kadijah Idris allowed the application to sell the ship[Equanimity super­yatch) by 1MDB, its subsidiaries 1MDB Energy Holdings Ltd and 1MDB Global Investment Ltd, and the government...'




It would have been so much better if it was a 'JUDGE' and not a 'Judicial Commissioner', who really is just a 'judge on probation' who does not even have 'security of tenure' until retirement age...JC Khadijah Idris may have made the correct judgment but one could wonder whether concern of whether she will be made a Judge in the future had any part to play...? Probably not

Malaysian Judiciary need to be reformed - Necessary safeguards like 'SECURITY OF TENURE'(the assurance given to judges that they cannot be 'dismissed' or removed until they reach their retirement age of 66, even if they make judgments not favourable to the government of the day ....is an important safeguard to protect judicial independence...

'Judicial Commissioners' did not exist before 1994 (it was created after the Judicial Crisis of 1988). Why? Was it for the government to MAKE SURE they got judges that 'listened to them'..or ' decided in line with government's positions' ...so, that demeaning 'probation' for judges...??? 

Judges in Malaysia must be directly appointed as Judges...and no more embarassingly placed on 'probation' of sorts..

REFORM needs the removal of the powers/influence of the Prime Minister and the government in the appointment, transfers and even elevation of judges...

Will Judicial Commissioner Kadijah Idris later be appointed a Judge...or will she not be just like the '…At least five Judicial Commissioners (JCs) were not elevated to High Court Judges over the last five years because they failed to meet the criteria...'

WHAT DO YOU THINK? SHOULD WE GET RID OF 'JUDICIAL COMMISSIONERS' - AND JUST UNDO THAT 1994 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS ...AND JUST HAVE JUDGES DIRECTLY APPOINTED...

Some would argue that this 'probation' is a good thing ...so we can make sure that they really can perform the job they were appointed to do. Well, probation maybe OK for ordinary workers...but certainly NOT for Judges...




JUDICIAL COMMISSIONERS
34. Article 122AB (1) states, ‘For the despatch of business of the High Court in Malaya and the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, after consulting the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, may by order appoint to be judicial commissioner for such period or such purpose as may be specified in the order any person qualified for appointment as a judge of a High Court; and the person so appointed shall have power to perform such functions of a judge of the High Court as appear to him to require to be performed; and anything done by him when acting in accordance with his appointment shall have the same validity and effect as if done by a judge of that Court, and in respect thereof he shall have the same powers and enjoy the same immunities as if he had been a judge of that Court.’
35. This 1994 Constitutional amendment, coming after the Judicial crisis of 1988, created these new ‘Judicial Commissioners’. Since then, it seems that all Judges of the High Court, had been first Judicial Commissioners.
36. Judicial commissioners exercise the same powers as High Court judges, but they unlike Judges, do not enjoy all the safeguards to protect their independence, especially security of tenure. Judicial Commissioners could be seen as ‘probation’ judges, and that is unacceptable but also disrespectful. Will only judicial commissioners who make judgments, etc in accordance with what the Prime Minister (or Government) be later appointed as High Court judges?
37. Raja Aziz Addruse, in his article Judicial Appointments : Who has the Last Say, said  ‘…Given that he is a judge ‘on trial’ during his ‘probation’ period, and without any security of tenure, the ability of a judicial commissioner to be independent and not to be influenced by personal consideration in making judicial decisions, is questionable…’ ‘.
38. It must be pointed out also that “…At least five Judicial Commissioners (JCs) were not elevated to High Court Judges over the last five years because they failed to meet the criteria of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC).Chief Justice Arifin Zakaria, who is also JAC chairman, declined to offer more specific reasons why the judges on probation failed to make High Court judge….Arifin said the JAC met once a month to evaluate the JCs who were on probation for two years.’ (FMT News, 27/3/2017).
39. Judges should be appointed directly, without having to go through any ‘probation’ or ‘on trial’, and on appointment, they must immediately enjoy security of tenure, where the end date must be their fixed retirement age.
40. As such, Judicial Commissioners should be abolished, and qualified persons should be directly appointed as judges, without the embarrassment of being put on ‘probation’ or ‘on trial’.
41. It may be best that all current sitting Judicial Commissioners be forthwith appointed as Judges.
42. The perception that the Malaysian judiciary is truly independent is most important.

Court grants application to sell ‘Equanimity’ 

KUALA LUMPUR: The Admiralty Court here has granted an application by the 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) Group and the government to sell the Equanimity super­yacht, which is allegedly linked to businessman Low Taek Jho.

Judicial Commissioner Kadijah Idris allowed the application to sell the ship by 1MDB, its subsidiaries 1MDB Energy Holdings Ltd and 1MDB Global Investment Ltd, and the government pursuant to Order 29 Rule 4 of Rules of Court 2012.

The four plaintiffs filed the application to enable them to evaluate the asset and sell the vessel.
Senior Federal Counsel Alice Loke acted for the government.

1MDB Group’s counsel Ong Chee Kwan told this to reporters after the proceedings in chambers yesterday.

“The court granted us an order to sell the vessel pending the determination of the action (litigation). Our next step is to get the vessel sold as it is a diminishing asset and its cost of maintenance is very high.

“We need to sell it as soon as possible because the longer you keep it, (the more) the value of the vessel will diminish at the end of the day,” he said.

When asked by reporters whether there was any response from the vessel’s owner, he said: “We served the application to the vessel (to the defendant) on Wednesday and if they are interested to defend the matter, they should enter appearance and come before this court.

“But we have not received any appearance as of today,” Ong said, adding that the next step was to get application on judgment in default.

“We hope to complete the sale of the ship as soon as possible and before the end of the year. It will be sold under public tender,” he said.

Another counsel, Jeremy M. Joseph, said those interested in the proceed of sale could come to court.

In explaining further on the ownership issue, he said whoever was declared as the owner of the vessel would be able to claim the money in court.

“Once we get the judgment in default, we are entitled to claim the proceeds. We know what is required to get the judgment in default.

“At the moment, our main focus is to ensure the vessel is sold,” he said.

He also said they had yet to identify the buyer of the vessel as their next step was to get the vessel appraised and valued, and there could be a condition survey on the vessel. 

They would then speak to specialists to ensure the sale of the vessel at the best possible price.

The 1MDB Group and the government have named the owner of the ship as Equanimity of Cayman Islands, the sole defendant in the suit filed via the law firm of Jeremy Joseph and Partners on Thursday.

On Aug 6, a writ of summons was issued to the owner of the vessel and to Wilson Yacht Management Ltd, the company that operates Equanimity.

The superyacht arrived in Malay­sia on Aug 7 after being handed over by the Indonesian authorities.

Equanimity was seized off the coast of Bali by Indonesia in Feb­ruary at the request of US authorities as part of a multi-billion-dollar corruption probe launched by the US Department of Justice over 1MDB.

In the notice of application, the four plaintiffs are asking for the sale of the vessel, bunkers, fuel, lubricants and other consumables on board to be conducted through an open tender or a private treaty by the sheriff of the Admiralty Court Kuala Lumpur.

The plaintiffs want the sheriff to receive bids or offers for the vessel and the bunkers, and for the purchase price to be paid to the sheriff in US dollar, euros or ringgit. - Star, 25/8/2018

Friday, August 24, 2018

Government still will use SOSMA and POCA for national security - not sure whether laws are against Human Rights?

And the Minister does not answer completely the question about SOSMA and POCA 

MP Maria Chin asked about the current number of persons under SOSMA and POCA without any trial - she requested an age breakdown of such victims...and she also asked the question of whether the Government will still rely on these laws to enforce the law...

'...Kerajaan akan terus menguatkuasakan undang-undang untuk memelihara keselamatan negara....(Goverment will continue to enforce laws to preserve national security...)

And, the new Pakatan Harapan led government's answer is YES - will still continue to use SOSMA, POCA ...  and that Home Ministry is also reviewing such laws to determine whether the usage of such laws are consistent with the norms of human rights...

THIS IS MOST DISAPPOINTING - THE MALAYSIAN GOVERNMENT MUST REALLY STOP USING SOSMA AND POCA (AND SUCH LAWS) FOR NOW ...PENDING ITS REVIEW AND REPEAL...Anyone can tell the government that such laws are inconsistent with human rights...

The answers, briefly in English,

SOSMA - 'until July 2018' 592 persons were detained under SOSMA(510 Malaysians 10 foreigners)
* the language used suggest that this may also be the total number of victims of SOSMA since it came into being...until July 2018...[Or was it just for 2018 ...until 2018...]?

Of the 582[believe that this is a mistake, and it should be 510] Malaysians, it says that 102 have been convicted of an offence, whilst 408 are  remand prisoners..  
- by 'remand prisoners', i would believe that this includes those that are languishing in prison without bail until their trial is over...But, the answer is 'vague' - was this simply people against whom SOSMA was used during the remand ...and they were then released without even being charged in court...How many really have been denied BAIL when SOSMA was used and are languishing in detention until their trial is over..

SOSMA - is a law that allows the police/prosecution to evade normal criminal procedure...and also evidential/procedural requirements if SOSMA is used during a trial..a person can be denied bail as well. Under normal procedure, after arrest within 24 hours, police has to bring the arrested before a Magistrate to get a further remand order to keep him/her detained... If SOSMA is used, no need for remand order of Magistrate - a person can be detained for 28 days. (Maximum remand generally under normal criminal procedure code is 14 days).

For the 102 convicted - was SOSMA used during the trial...was there a trial...or did they just simply plead guilty...were they 'tortured' 28 days ...and was that the reason for some pleading guilty...In short, the answers given are just TOO VAGUE..

WELL, MP Maria was 'disrespected' when her question about the 'age breakdown' of these victims was not answered...

POCA - Well, the answers given in brief as follows..
Until July 2018, there are 535 being detained under POCA - 448 Malaysians 87 foreigners
- the answer uses the word 'detain' - as such, we still do not have the information about how many are currently still under some RESTRICTION order..

Smartly, the MInister avoids the 'reasons' for their detention - how many really for 'triad' activities, how many for human trafficking, how many for drug trafficking,...how many for terrorist related crimes..how many really for stealing a cow with some others????


POCA’s usage which was originally limited for triads or crime gangs have been significantly extended vide Prevention of Crime (Amendment of First and Second Schedule) Order 2014 [PU(A) 122/2014], which came into force in 2 May 2014.  Whilst previously limited for those persons who belong to any group, body, gang or association of 5 more persons who associate for purposes which include the commission of offences “involving violence or extortion” — it was extended to all offences under the Penal Code, and persons who also consort with these groups of two or more persons.  As such, now any person who allegedly commits any Penal Code offence with two or more persons can now be subjected to POCA, irrespective of whether it involved violence or not....also be used against persons allegedly involved in the trafficking in dangerous drugs, in trafficking of persons and smuggling of migrant... engage in the commission or support of terrorist acts against “. . . . all persons who, being not less than twenty-one years of age, have since attaining the age of seventeen been convicted on at least three occasions of offences involving dishonesty or violence”.- Bar Resolution for the Repeal of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 and All Detention Without Trial Laws, and Provision for Compensation for Deprivation of Liberty of the Innocent 

Well Najib was not a fool - they repealed the ISA and the Emergency Ordinance ..., and then in 2014 simply expanded the scope of usage of POCA - now it is not even restricted to national security, public order., etc ...it is so wide ...any Penal Code offense will do..

 








































...

Now 45 Groups call on Malaysia to abolish POCA and Detention Without Trial Laws

Bar Resolution for the Repeal of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 and All Detention Without Trial Laws, and Provision for Compensation for Deprivation of Liberty of the Innocent 

Send Urgent Appeal: Dr Kumar Devaraj & 5 Ors under Detention Without Trial Laws

Denied the right to protest by peaceful assembly before Parliament(Dewan Rakyat) passed the law allowing Detention Without Trial

Siti Noor Aishah - POCA,POTA..dimansuhkan - Resolusi Badan Peguam

SUHAKAM:- Prevention of Crime Act (POCA) [Media Statement - 28/7/2016]

Detention Without Trial in Malaysia - How many now? REPEAL DWT LAWS ...

KLSCAH CRC makes it 37 groups calling for the release of Siti Noor Aishah Atam and all victims of Detention Without Trial laws?

Wednesday, August 22, 2018

Malaysia, one of 3 countries with Mandatory DP that execute people ?

Unjust and Unwanted: Malaysia's Mandatory Death Penalty

Go watch the video at : - https://www.deathpenaltyproject.org/knowledge/unjust-and-unwanted-the-mandatory-death-penalty-in-malaysia/

Malaysia is one of only a handful of countries around the world that continues to retain a mandatory death penalty – where death sentences are imposed automatically with no chance for the courts to consider the individual circumstances of the case.

The newly elected Malaysian government has promised to abolish mandatory death sentences and other “oppressive laws”.

This short animation sheds light on what the mandatory death penalty is, what the Malaysian public think about it and why it is time to consign this abhorrent punishment to history.

The video presents some findings from a public opinion survey published by The Death Penalty Project in 2013. Read the full report here.

Related:-

Malaysia’s new government should no longer delay abolition of death penalty — MADPET(Malay Mail 5/8/2018)


Tuesday, August 21, 2018

Rakyat Penang undi anak Kit Siang jadi Senator? pilihan DUN - lantikan politik aje bukan wakil rakyat pilihan rakyat secara demokratik?

Adakah rakyat Pulau Pinang mahu anak Kit Siang dan peguam Yusmadi sebagai Senator mereka dari Pulau Pinang? Adakah mereka ditanya pun sebelum kedua-dua mereka dilantik sebagai Senator...Rakyat tak penting...tak perlu ditanya...hanya ada hak tiap-tiap 5 tahun undi di PRU....adakah kamu setuju?

Adakah rakyat Pulau Pinang mahu memilih sendiri siapa yang akan menjadi Senator mewakili Negeri Pulau Pinang? [Perlembagaan Persekutuan jelas menyatakan bahawa Senator boleh di undi oleh rakyat Pulau Pinang - apa yang diperlukan hanya satu 'undang-undang' baru ...dan selepas itu semua Senator(sama saperti MP dan ADUN) akan terus diundi dan dipilih oleh rakyat - PRU Senator tidak akan sama masa tetapi menurut keadaan bila tempuh 3 tahun seorang Senator itu akhir...

Adakah kerajaan PH akan memberikan rakyat hak memilih sendiri... atau adakah kerajaan PH akan terus ikut saja cara UMNO-BN dan gunakan sistem 'lantikan politik' untuk Senator, kerajaan tempatan, ketua kampung orang asli, kampung Melayu, kampung baru, penghulu...??)

Article 45 (4) Parliament may by law -
(a) increase to three the number of members to be elected for each State;
(b) provide that the members to be elected for each State shall be so elected by the direct vote of the electors of that State;
(c) decrease the number of appointed members or abolish appointed members.
Kini, Senator dipilih dan/atau dilantik oleh Dewan Undangan Negeri, justeru bila BN mempunyai majoriti...nyata yang dilantik oleh BN kebanyakkan orang sendiri... Dan, di Pulau Pinang, sebelum ini Pakatan Rakyat yang memilih...dan kini kerajaan Pakatan Harapan yang pilih...dan RAKYAT SENDIRI DIKETEPIKAN DARI PROSES PEMILIHAN INI...

REFERENDUM - ini adalah cara yang boleh digunakan oleh kerajaan Pulau Pinang untuk mengenal pasti siapakah yang mempunyai sokongan majoriti rakyat untuk dipilih sebagai SENATOR dari Pulau Pinang...selepas itu, nama tersebut boleh dibawa ke DUN untuk dilantik sebagai SENATOR Pulau Pinang...

Tapi, kini Pakatan Harapan sudah menang - ia boleh mengemukakan undang-undang baru di Parlimen untuk memastikan selepas ini semua SENATOR dipilih terus oleh Rakyat Negeri Berkenaan...

Dalam kes anak Kit Siang dan Yusmadi, adakah rakyat Pulau Pinang diberikan peluang untuk komen, nyatakan sokongan, nyatakan bantahan,...sebelum mereka berdua ini dipilih dan dijadikan SENATOR...

Jika DUN memilih SENATOR - pasti mereka yang menguasai kerajaan akan selalu memilih 'KRONI' atau kawan mereka...adakah Senator yang dipilih sedemikian sanggup bertindak bercanggah dengan kehendak parti politik/pemimpin politik yang memastikan lantikan mereka?

Di Peringkat Persekutuan, jika kerajaan semasa yang menentukan siapa jadi SENATOR ...

Senat akhirnya dipenuhi SENATOR 'political appointee' kerajaan memerintah persekutuan dan negeri...ADAKAH SENAT SAPERTI INI BERGUNA DIKEKALKAN? Adakah Senat sebegini akan menjadi 'Check and Balance"...Bolehkah ia bertindak secara 'BERKECUALI"...Kini pun, bila undang-undang sudah diluluskan di Dewan Rakyat, semua anggap Senat akan juga luluskan gitu saja ...dan ia telah berlaku semasa pentadbiran kerajaan UMNO-BN dahulu... Senator 'political appointee' tak berani bantah kata 'bos'....

Jika Senator dilantik secara demokratik, mereka akan lebih dihormati dan akan lebih berani buat sesuatu termasuk bantah kepada Akta yang mengikut pendirian mereka adalah tidak bagus untuk rakyat atau Malaysia...

APAKAH YANG RAKYAT MAHU...Ini soalan yang perlu setiap orang menjawab ...dan jangan hanya ikut jawapan yang di beri Mahathir atau Anwar atau Kit Siang...

Adakah rakyat mahu keadaan saperti dibawah kerajaan UMNO-BN berterusan....
- Rakyat hanya mahu peluang mengundi semasa PRU untuk memilih Ahli Parlimen dan ADUN(Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri)..? YA atau TIDAK
- Rakyat tidak mahu hak untuk mengundi dan memilih kerajaan tempatan(local government) dikembalikan - biar kerajaan Negeri dan kerajaan Persekutuan terus letakkan 'political appointee(lantikan politik)' sebagai ketua dan ahli majlis perbandaran, dll..? Ya atau TIDAK
-  Rakyat tidak mahu hak mengundi dan memilih sendiri Senator? Biar kerajaan pusat terus lantik..dan kerajaan negeri terus lantik ikut suka mereka - YA atau TIDAK
-  Rakyat tidak mahu hak untuk melantik secara demokrtaik ketua kampung/ketua kampung orang asli/ketua kampung baru/ketua taman/ ketua kawasan...Biar sahaja kerajaan negeri(atau kerajaan Persekutuan) terus lantik 'political appointee'(lantikan politik masing-masing)...sebagai ketua rakyat kampung,dll... 

SUDAH TERLALU LAMA KERAJAAN UMNO-BN TELAH MENAFIKAN HAK RAKYAT DALAM PROSES PEMILIHAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN, SENATOR, KETUA KAMPUNG/KOMUNITI KECIL - Adakah rakyat mahu mengambilkan hak ini kembali? ATAU hanya mahu kerajaan PH baru kita ini ikut saja cara UMNO-BN yang dulu...

Kalau rakyat tak minta kembali HAK ini...yang juga bererti bahawa rakyat perlu lebih terlibat dalam proses pembangunan dan pentadbiran juga ...TAK ADA SIAPA YANG AKAN KEMBALIKAN HAK INI KEPADA RAKYAT...Dulu PKR dan DAP dan PAS berjanji akan mengembalikan hak rakyat mengundi/memilih local government(Local Council)...tapi kini sudah senyap pula bila kini sudah ada kuasa pinda Akta peringkat persekutuan yang dikatakan menjadi penghalang membuat 'Local Council Elections"...PH sudah menang ...majoriti di Parlimen ...apa yang mereka akan buat?

JIKA MAJORITI RAKYAT MAHU 'SAMA-SAMA MACAM BILA DITADBIR UMNO-BN' - itu kata rakyat, dan kerajaan boleh ikut sahaja kehendak rakyat...

Macam mana kerajaan mahu mengetahui hasrat rakyat ....dengar saja apa MP atau ADUN kata ....itu tak cukup...tambahan kerana kini mereka dalam kerajaan...JUSTERU, rakyat kena ditanya terus ...satu cara adalah dengan mengadakan REFERENDUM ...

Bila mahu buat? Mesti sekarang...dalam masa 100-200 hari tetapi sebelum akhir tahun ini. INI REFORMASI BARU...mengubah keadaan rakyat berada sejak MERDEKA...dibawah kerajaan UMNO-BN yang telah banyak menafikan hak rakyat.... 

SYOK KINI UNTUK MELIHAT APA YANG AKAN BERLAKU DI SENAT SEKARANG - Jangan lupa tempuh perkhidmatan Senator adalah 3 tahun...justeru sampai tamat tempuh 3 tahun, Senator tak boleh dibuang kerja...ini bermakna bahawa kemungkinan kebanyakkan Senator dalam Dewan Senat kini adalah 'political appointee'(atau 'lantikan politik" daripada kerajaan negeri terdahulu yang UMNO-BN, dan kerajaan persekutuan terdahulu yang UMNO-BN...Adakah Senator ini akan ikut kehendak UMNO-BN, dan TENTANG semua yang dikemukakan oleh kerajaan pimpinan Pakatan Harapan?




Senate - Problems with a majority UMNO-BN appointed Senators, and the REFORMS needed?

DAP Liew Chin Tong appointed Senator so can join Cabinet? NO - 'political appointee' Senators - better abolish Senate? Save money...

 

Which Senator had to resign so new people could be made SENATORS to be in new Cabinet?








 

Kit Siang's daughter Hui Ying, Yusmadi appointed as senators

Susan Loone  |  Published:  |  Modified:
   
DUN Penang | Penang DAP secretary Lim Hui Ying and former PKR Balik Pulau MP (2008-2013) Yusmadi Yusoff have been appointed senators for the Dewan Negara.

They replace Siti Aishah Shaik Ismail (PKR) and Ariffin SM Omar (DAP) whose appointments ended on June 1.

Hui Yin, 55, holds a bachelors degree in economics from Universiti Malaya. She joined DAP in 1999.

She has held various state DAP posts such as vice-chairperson, assistant secretary, among others.

"Due to the trust placed in her by the party, she was appointed the 2013 and 2018 general election campaign manager for the DAP, and led the party to win all the seats it contested (19 out of 40) in Penang in both polls," Penang Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow said.

Hui Ying is the daughter of DAP senior leader Lim Kit Siang and sister to Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng.

Yusmadi, a seasoned lawyer, was born in Balik Pulau and now resides in Kuala Lumpur.

He currently serves as PKR president Anwar Ibrahim’s political aide.

Yusmadi studied Islamic and Common Law in the International Islamic University of Malaysia and later furthered his studies in human rights law in Washington College of Law in the United States.

Yusmadi, 42, was called to the Bar in 1999 and has fought for high-profile cases and served at the International Legal Foundation.

He also chairs the Rights Foundation, a welfare and human rights organisation, and has attended many international forums including Doha Forum (Qatar), World Forum for Democracy (Strasbourg), Forum 2000 (Prague) and Tamil Eelam Human Rights Protection Conference (Chennai).

"I believe the two candidates can bring the voices of Penangites to a higher level," said Chow.

The motion to appoint the senators, which was passed at the Penang legislative assembly, was tabled by Chow while Dr Afif Bahardin (PKR-Seberang Jaya) moved to support it. Malaysiakini, 10/8/2018