2 migrants fell sick and died at the KLIA Immigration Depot. Could death have been avoided if the required healthcare was available?

More deaths of migrants in Detention Centres, and this time it is happening at the KLIA Immigration Depot.

Recall, that on 23/5/2009, a joint statement entitled "DEATH OF 2 BURMESE INDICATIVE OF STATE OF DETENTION PLACES IN MALAYSIA DENIAL OF HEALTHCARE IS A VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO LIFE" was issued, which is currently endorsed by 127 groups/organisations. [See:126 groups:- Death of 2 Burmese Indicative of State of Detention Places in Malaysia - Denial of Healthcare Is a Violation of Right to Life ]

In May, two Burmese migrants died in the Malaysia’s Juru Immigration Detention Centre from Leptospirosis, a disease that is usually caused by exposure to water contaminated with the urine of infected animals, such as rodents, cattle, pigs, horses, dogs and wild animals.

What was the cause of death of the 2 at the KLIA Immigration Depot? Leptospirosis? H1N1? Was it a disease whereby death could have been avoided if there had been the required healthcare?

DETAINEE DEATHS: Don’t make it No 3 says NGO

No one should go into a centre healthy and leave sick or worse, dead, says Tenaganita

Darshini Kandasamy

Friday, September 4th, 2009 07:18:00

Non-governmental organisation Tenaganita has called on Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to investigate the health crisis at the KL International Airport Immigration depot in Sepang, where two detainees have died so far.

It was time the government took a stronger stand to ensure detention centres are kept clean and detainees healthy, it said.

Tenaganita coordinator Aegile Fernandez said it was wrong for anyone to die while under government custody. She also felt the country lacked the political will to make changes.

“Once again, we see deaths and illnesses in detention camps. This has been going on for years. Malaysia should follow international standards and keep detention centres- Malay Mail, 4/9/2009,

See also:- SUHAKAM reiterates 1,300 dead in 6 years in detention places - "...medical care overiding reason..."

Penang State Government has GREAT powers and it come to the assistance of the people of Kg Buah Pala

Kg Buah Pala - some say that the fight for justice has come to an end after the courts have heard the dispute and decided against the families of Kg Buah Pala..

Some say why the people are being stubborn and not moving out...

But, the truth of the matter is that the State Government , i.e. that Pakatan Rakyat State Government has got a lot of power and do the needful to ensure that justice be done...

The State Government ... and Lim Guan Eng has the power to do justice to the suffering people of Kg Buah Pala... The State can take back the land and give it to the people..

The State can cancel development permits... impose all kinds of conditions..

Demolitions need State Government and/or Local Council and/or Department of Occupational Safety and Health permits...

Health Ministry... Public Health Department can step in to stop demolition exercises when the people are still living there...

Heritage site .... Maybe even good for State Tourism ...with that cattle and all...

The people are watching - and they want to know whether Pakatan Rakyat is with the 'rakyat' or is it on the side of the Developer?

Is the Pakatan Rakyat on the side of the weak and oppressed...the minority or what...

1Malaysia - The People come first... so is Najib is going to give meaning to that slogan, and put the people of Kg Buah Pala first??

Kg Buah Pala: We are talking about homes and also the 'living environment' - and as such demolishing homes of those who accepted offer not OK (Updated

Some of them may have accepted the Developers' offer, and may have already left their houses in Kg Buah Pala, and these may be the houses that the Developers would want to demolish first...

Our homes are always in an area where there are other homes - and the demolition of even one of the homes in a giving living area is definitely going to impact on the living environment, and that is why there should be no demolition until the matter of Kg Buah Pala has been completely resolved for all who is there.

Demolition of some houses also creates the problem of dust and other risks/hardships for the adjacent homes. Children and people do play and walk in areas around their homes, and would not a rubble increase risk to health .... What about asbestos poisoning - let us not forget about that as many old houses use asbestos ceilings/roofs.

Why do they want to just demolish some of the houses now? Why? Reasonably, it is of no use to the developer for they cannot do anything until they have successfully evicted and demolished all houses there. Well, the reason is really psychological aimed at destroying the will of the people of Kg Buah Pala from further fighting to save their current homes and living space... After all, demolition of a few houses will also destroy the beauty of the area... making it look like a 'war-zone'...

What are your attitude about Kg Buah Pala? It is sad that many are now are against the people of Kg Buah Pala now because their leaders in their political parties have taken that position now... If it was not happening in a Pakatan rakyat ruled State, and if maybe Pakatan Rakyat was not governing any States, things may have been different, and we would have seen better support from leaders of DAP, PKR and PAS... but now things are very different. Changed situation gives rise to different considerations...and different stances taken now on certain issues. How sad..

One Kampung Buah Pala resident's house was demolished this morning after the owner accepted compensation and handed over the keys to the developer.

Under the watchful eye of the police and the residents association committee, a demolition team to moved in to tear down the house.

Last night, Kampung Buah Pala Residents Association chairperson M Sugumaran held state government for the imminent destruction of their village.

He said Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng had in many meetings and media conferences repeatedly stated the state government would not give consent to the developer to demolish the village.

"If the state government had not given the consent to the developer to demolish the village, how can the demolition team now come to tear down our houses?

"Is this just another lie by the state government?" he asked, at a late night press conference at the village yesterday.

The village faces eviction to make way for a lucrative project called the Oasis.

The project developer Nusmetro Venture (P) Sdn Bhd warned that the demolition start any time after Sept 1 to demolish the village, although the federal court order was only for vacant possession.

Sugumaran blasted Lim for 'washing his hands off the issue', slamming the Malacca-born Chief Minister of being responsible for the villagers' predicament.

"If he had not washed our hands, we would not have sought the premier's help to resolve the issue. Even Lim needs to meet the Prime Minister for projects such as the second bridge," he said.

'Lim has let us down'

He said when the villagers met Lim in his Komtar office on March 13 last year, five days after the last general election, Lim welcomed us with open arms.

"He told us that he would not have become the Chief Minister if not for our votes. He promised to protect and safeguard our land provided the land had not been transferred," Sugumaran said.

However, Sugumaran said Lim accepted the balance RM2,247,000 land premium from the buyer - Koperasi Pegawai Pegawai Kanan Kerajaan Pulau Pinang - on March 14, and transferred the land to the cooperative society on March 27.

Sugumaran refuted Lim's claim that the state government had no choice but to approve the land transfer due to past affirmative deals carried out by the previous Barisan Nasional state administration.

Sugumaran said under the National Land Code, an approval to a land alienation lapses automatically within three months if the buyer did not pay up the balance premium.

In the Kampung Buah Pala case, the premium deposit of RM963,000 was paid by the cooperative society on May 22, 2007.

"Why did Lim approve the land deal after it had lapsed automatically for eight months . . . that too, the very next day after he promised us not to do so?" asked Sugumaran.

Kampung Buah Pala is commonly known as local Tamil High Chaparral, replicating the popular 1960s western television series, for its large population of cowherds, cattle, goats, live stocks, hilly natural environment and lively Indian features and festivities.

About 24 houseowners in the village have accepted the double-storey offer made by Nusmetro.

Sugumaran said although the house owners have signed the offer letters, 20 were united not to let the village to be demolished without the state government undertaking constructive measures to end their predicament.

He said the villagers who signed up were offered RM8,000 ex-gratia compensation by Deputy Chief Minister 2 P Ramasamy to move out from the village.

'We could end up on the streets'

He said the villagers were told to vacate their houses first and only then the state government would hold negotiations to provide them with alternate houses for free.

"Can we rely on such a deal? We should be offered constructive deals before we can move out from our own land. We have seen so many projects in the past that have ended up abandoned.

"We could end up on the streets with nothing," said Sugumaran, adding the villagers would put up stiff resistance to stop the demolition team.

Nusmetro, accompanied by a large police squad, has twice failed to evict and demolish the houses last month.

Sugumaran said Lim had managed to manipulate the media and turned the public against the villagers by telling a different story to newsmen, especially the Chinese newspapers.

Sugumaran said Lim lied to the Penang people about the offers made to the villagers such as RM500,000 and RM350,000 when no such offers were ever tabled to us.

"We have been asking only for village homes and part of the land from beginning. But Lim is portraying us as greedy people making unreasonable demands.

"This is a blatant lie," said Sugumaran, calling on all 82 Pakatan Rakyat parliamentarians to declare their stand on the crisis.

"Where are the Pakatan MPs, especially Anwar Ibrahim who promised to save this village before the election? Before the election, Pakatan leaders knew where was Kampung Buah Pala.

"But now they don't visit us anymore," said Sugumaran. - Malaysiakini, 3/9/2009, Demolition of Kampung Buah Pala begins

Happy Onam (2nd September 2009 - Day 1)

Happy belated Onam to all Malaysian Malayalees. It is a multi-racial multi-religious celebration of all Malayalees.

People now referred as Malaysian Indians - are actually persons whose forefathers come from India, and they are from different ethnic groups, who also do have different languages with their very own writing and cultures. The biggest group are Tamils, but there are also many Malayalees (from Kerala State generally), Telugus, Goanese, Punjabis, Gujeratis, ...

Onam Festival is celebrated in the beginning of the first month of Malayalam Calendar (Kolla Varsham) called Chingam. This month corresponds to August-September in Gregorian Calendar and Bhadrapada or Bhadon in Indian (Hindu) Calendar.

When is Thiru Onam?
Onam carnival continues for ten days, starting from the day of Atham and culminating on Thiru Onam. Atham and Thiru Onam are the most important days for Onam festivities. The day of Atham is decided by the position of stars. Onam festival commences from lunar asterism (a cluster of stars smaller than a constellation) Atham (Hastha) that appears ten days before asterism Onam or Thiru Onam. Atham is regarded as auspicious and holy day by people of Kerala. Thiru Onam corresponds to the Shravan day in the month of August or September, hence it is also called Sravanotsavam.

At this time sun is in the Zodiac sign of Leo (Simha rasi), which happens to be the sun's house as well.

Significance of Onam Day in Mythology
The dayof Onam is decided in accordance with the legend of King Mahabali in whose honor Onam is celebrated. People believe that it was this particular day in the month of Chingam when Lord Vishnu took his fifth avatar as Vaamana, appeared in the kingdom of King Mahabali and sent him to nether world.

People believe that it is on the last day, Tiruonam that the spirit of King Maveli visits Kerala, hence the day is marked by feast and festivities. Devotees of Maveli celebrate the golden era witnessed in Maveli's reign during Onam. To welcome their revered ruler, people lay flower mats (Pookalam) in the front courtyard, prepare a grand meal (Onasadya), dance, play and make merry. All this is done to impress upon King Mahabali that his people are prosperous and happy.

A Brief History of Onam
It is believed that Onam celebrations started during the Sangam Period. Record of celebrations can be found from the time of Kulasekhara Perumals (800 AD). At that time Onam celebrations continued for a month.

Harvest Time
As it is a harvest season, the beautiful state of Kerala can be seen in its magnificent best. Weather is pleasantly sunny and warm calling for mirth and celebrations. Fields look brilliant as they glow with golden paddy grains. It is also the boom time of fruits and flowers. After the month of deprivation, Karkidakam (last month of Malayalam Calendar), farmers are happy with a bountiful harvest and celebrate the festival to the hilt. - SCFI Onam Festival Website

Protest using a cow's head was very wrong. Remorse and apology is what we need from the protesters...and also the police.

What they did was very wrong...but alas, some are treating that this was a little matter...it is not. What the said group of residents need do is to apologize for their actions that was very disrespectful to Hindus in Malaysia...and others.

Khairy, I must state, got it right when he immediately condemned their actions...

Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin has strongly condemned the protest against the relocation of a Hindu temple where angry residents paraded a severed cow's head this afternoon.

Calling on the protesters to reflect on their action, he asked: "How would you feel if the proposal to build a mosque in a non-Muslim area - which is already happening - leads a group of non-Muslims to burn and stomp on the Quran?"

"Would not the Malays rise with anger? If yes, then parading with a cow's head is just as insulting?" he added....The Umno Youth leader added that he was saddened that the protest was done in the name of Malay non-governmental organisations and after Friday prayers in the month of Ramadhan.

"I believe this is not an action condoned by Islam, a religion which espouses humility and respect for other religions. This act is surely to anger the Hindus," he said.

"Where is the spirit of 1Malaysia, especially among the Malay Muslims who are the majority in this country. I pray that this incident does not lead to anything more serious," he added. - Malaysiakini, 28/8/2009, Khairy: What if they burn the Quran over a mosque?

I believe that all many seek is remorse...an apology and an assurance that such behavior will not be repeated in the future.

And we need this apology both from the protesters...and from the police, who were present and permitted such conduct to continue...

I believe that there is no need for us to charge them in court...we all know it was wrong. We do not need our Attorney General to tell us that it was wrong...

The Government will let the police and the Attorney-General’s Chambers decide whether the group that protested against the construction of a Hindu temple in Shah Alam recently had violated any laws under the Sedition Act.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said the authorities would determine if there were any violations of law when residents of Section 23 Shah Alam staged the protest.

“We will leave it to the police and the A-G to decide on this, but most Malaysians regret the act,” he told reporters here yesterday.

Last Friday, about 50 people gathered at the gates of the Selangor state secretariat building here carrying a cow’s head and warned of further action if a temple was constructed here. - Star, 3/9/2009, Let the A-G and the police decide over protest, says Najib

From this report and others, it is not clear as to whether our Prime Minister Najib is angry about the action of these protesters or not...The same also with Hishamuddin, our Home Minister, But then, in the past, they too have done acts that 'angered' people of other ethnic backgrounds and religions in Malaysia..

Some say that a temple should not be build there because it is a Muslim majority area...What do you mean? Are you saying that temples should only be build in Hindu majority areas? If that is the case, then there will no places of worship build for minorities anywhere...and that is so wrong.

TOLERANCE... that is not the value that should be promoted. What we need in Malaysia is RESPECT..not tolerance.

Labour Party of Malaya - the Socialist Front - the threat removed through ISA and DWT laws, and ...

Independence...Merdeka... is a word that has been given a different meaning in Malaysia.

31-8-1957 - What independence did the people of Malaysia really achieve...save from being directly ruled by colonial Britain...to now being ruled by a coalition of a Malay party (UMNO), a Chinese party(MCA), and an Indian party (MIC). The British chose to whom and when power was going to be handed over, and to whom.

Taking over the baton from the colonialist, this coalition government led by UMNO set out to ensure that it will continue to remain in power...

Opposition movements and political parties that gained ground ...support from the people were quickly 'killed' and suppressed...and literally 'wiped-out' from history and the memory of its people. What happened to those opposition political parties? We have to struggle to find out what really happened... We know that many leaders were arrested and detained under Detention Without Trial Laws like the ISA and the Emergency Ordinance. We know that many Divisions and branches of the Opposition parties were 'shut down' by the government.

Of course, the government also makes it near impossible to set up political parties. It controls publications like newspapers/magazines and also the printers themselves. It is literally difficult to be able to have public rallies. There is almost no access to the media, i.e. the print media, television and radio. Hence, the Opposition parties were cut off from getting opposing/different views to the people...whilst the UMNO-led coalition utilized not only mass media but also education curriculum to paint not only their version of things...but to also black-out certain historical facts.

From Indepndence, even when it comes to seat, one should realize that the UMNO-led-coalition slowly lost the support of the people, and even when their strongest opposition, i.e. the Socialist Front, stayed away from the elections, the UMNO-led Alliance suffered its worse defeat in 1969. One wonders whether it would have been the end of governance of UMNO-led coalitions if the Socialist Front parties contested in 1969.

1955 General Election Alliance won 51 out of 52 seats contested (98%)
1959 General Election Alliance won 74 out of 104 seats contested (71%)
1964 General Election Alliance won 89 out of 104 seats contested (86%)
1969 General Election Alliance won 74 out of 144 seats contested (51%)

'It must be noted that the then popular Labour Party boycotted the 1969 GE. The Labour Party of Malaya (LPM). With Parti Rakyat, the LPM formed a coalition, the Malayan People’s Socialist Front (SF), which was the second legal alliance to transcend communal differences. The SF’s 1959 policy statement, also named as Towards a New Malaya, laid out its position on the national language, art and literature, education, the Orang Asli, Malay reservation land, plantations and mines, fisheries, labour and social welfare, and defence and foreign policy.

In the 1960s, the ISA was widely and indiscriminately used to detain hundreds of LPM and SF leaders and members in Taiping, Batu Gajah and Muar. Repeated repression of this sort undermined the LPM and SF’s organizational effectiveness. The detentions of Ishak bin Hj. Mohammad, Abdul Aziz bin Ishak and Datuk Kampo Radjo on untried charges of setting up a government-in-exile during Konfrontasi with Indonesia were attempts to repress the Malay Left.

In 1965, key SF leaders, such as Chairman Hansul bin Abdul Hadi, Secretary-General Tajuddin Kahar and Assistant Secretary-General Tan Kai Hee were arrested to foil a demonstration called for 13 February, the SF’s Human Rights Day, to commemorate the second anniversary of Ahmad Boestamam’s internment. '-The Labour Party of Malaya, 1952–1972 (ALIRAN)

The Alliance boasted that it could easily win more than two thirds of the 144 seats in the Dewan Rakyat or about two thirds of the 104 Peninsular Malaysia seats, capture Kelantan, and retain control of all the other state legislatures.

But that confidence was shattered in the early hours of May 11, 1969 when the results of the May 10 elections were known.

The Alliance had won only 66 seats, down from the 89 it won in 1964. It also lost Penang, failed to capture Kelantan, and came close to losing Perak, Selangor, Kedah and Terengganu.

The Opposition was surprised, too. The DAP, which reconstituted itself from the People’s Action Party (PAP), won 13 seats when the Singapore-based party had only one in 1964. PAS got 12 seats, an increase of three; PPP won four, an increase of two; while the new party Gerakan won eight.

Even though the Alliance had not lost power – and Sabah and Sarawak had yet to decide – the Malays were alarmed.
They felt that the government they had dominated all this while was going to collapse.

During the Alliance meeting held to assess the results, a number of Malay representatives blamed the losses on the MCA which saw 20 of its 33 candidates defeated. Hurt and weak, the MCA announced on May 13 that it would not participate in the government at federal and state levels. - The Sun, 26/7/2009, The tragedy of May 13, 1969

"Labour Party -formed in 1950's, formed the Malayan Peoples' Socialist Front ( or just Socialist Front) on 26/8/1958 with the Partai Rakyat (later known as the Parti Rakyat Malaysia). The SF further consolidated its gains in municipal elections including the City Council of George town, Penang where it won 14 of the 15 seats in the Council during the 1961 Local Elections..." - Of past elections & 'historical facts' in Malaysia - the 'brain-washing'..

The Labour Party of Malaya, 1952–1972

Friday, 20 February 2009 19:08

The rise and demise of the Labour Party of Malaya was an important experience of socialist politics in Malaysia. Mistakes were made and many leaders and members paid a heavy price for them. Even so, their courage, commitment and sacrifices before and after independence cannot be denied a proper historical appreciation, observes Tan Kim Hong in tracing a brief history of the party. The Labour Party of Malaya (LPM) was a multi-ethnic socialist party of the 1950s and 1960s. Its political origins lay in the ‘New Trade Unionism’ of the Cold War period. Before Merdeka, the anti-communist International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), with the support of the colonial government, encouraged the formation of a non-militant trade union movement and moderate Labour Parties located in different regions of the country. Yet, the LPM grew into a mass radical political party whose rise and fall were crucially shaped by circumstances often beyond its control. Regional labour parties The first regional Labour Parties shared some characteristics of organisation and ideology. Their leaders were English-educated leaders of the Malayan Trades Union Congress. Their members were largely Indian and Malay members of public service unions. The parties were modelled on the British Labour Party, having democratic socialism and multi-culturalism as guiding principles. However, they were different in policy formulation and execution. The Penang Labour Party spoke earnestly of moulding national consciousness and instituting administrative reforms to help the down-trodden. It paid some attention to the issue of self-government but steered away from the core question of ending colonial rule. On the other hand, the Selangor Labour Party expressly aimed to achieve independence through constitutional means. Its other important objectives were economic egalitarianism, the socialization of the means of production, equitable income and wealth distribution, and political liberalization. The colonial government tacitly supported the involvement of such regional Labour Parties in elections but prohibited them from expanding beyond their geographical boundaries. Thus, the Labour Parties operated in restricted spaces. Their leaders could only conduct limited discourses with their small membership. Besides, it was difficult for them to transcend existing language barriers to disseminate ideas of social justice and political equality to the masses. On 26 June 1952, the Pan-Malaya Labour Party (PMLP) was formed from the amalgamated membership of the Penang, Selangor and Singapore Labour Parties. With Mohammad Sopiee as its National Chairman and Osman Siru as his deputy, the PMLP was more a liaison organization than a structured party. The party did not admit individual members but accepted all democratic labour and socialist organizations as members. Its formation was expedient, to take advantage of early electoral politics; yet, it was a pioneering attempt to galvanize workers’ support in impending municipal elections. The PMLP’s constitution had two main objectives: to co-ordinate labour and socialist organizations to achieve national independence, social justice, and political, social and economic emancipation; and to cooperate with labour, socialist and other organizations in Malaya and elsewhere to promote a higher standard of social and economic life for workers. The PMLP’s first policy statement, Towards a New Malaya, passed in September 1952, laid out much of its programme which included democratic socialism, workers’ participation in industrial policy-making, land for the peasants, and provisions for social welfare, medical and health services, and social security and pension schemes for all. In economic management, the PMLP wanted to check industrial and commercial monopolies, provide agricultural subsidies to farmers, enlarge the acreage of rubber small holdings, manage the rubber industry, reform the salary structure of workers, and revamp the taxation system. In 1953, sixteen intellectuals including D.S. Ramanathan, Tan Phock Kin, N. Patkunam, Lee Kok Liang, C.Y. Choy, Tan Chong Bee and V. Veerapan from the Fabian Society of Penang joined the PMLP. These professionals and teachers, all social democrats, moved to immerse themselves in politics, offering analyses, recommendations, and political participation vastly different from those of the moderate trade unionists favoured by colonial officials. By early 1954, the PMLP had come to resemble the British Labour Party, advocating gradual economic nationalization and a welfare state. Pan-Malaya Labour Party On 5 June 1954, the PMLP took the new name of the Labour Party of Malaya (LPM). With the election of Lee Moke Sang as its Chairman, the LPM proclaimed itself a political organization to unite the workers and peasants of Malaya and struggle for a united, independent and democratic nation. The LPM’s manifesto for the 1955 Federal Election was inclined towards socialist reforms. (See box for details) On the eve of Merdeka, LPM gained from the Chinese school students’ movement and the national workers’ movement; the organizational collaboration between an emerging Socialist Youth League and the Pan-Malaya Union of General Workers; and cooperation with Partai Rakyat (founded in December 1955). These developments brought LPM victory in the George Town Municipal Council election of 1957. The party won five out of the nine contested seats, a result that strengthened the party’s multi-ethnic mass base in Penang, and gave a leading role to the Penang Division in the LPM’s national structure. The Socialist Front Merdeka Day was a turning point in LPM’s history. With Parti Rakyat, the LPM formed a coalition, the Malayan People’s Socialist Front (SF), which was the second legal alliance to transcend communal differences. The SF’s 1959 policy statement, also named as Towards a New Malaya, laid out its position on the national language, art and literature, education, the Orang Asli, Malay reservation land, plantations and mines, fisheries, labour and social welfare, and defence and foreign policy. In subsequent local government elections, the SF won control of the City Council of George Town, and the local councils in Jinjang, Serdang, Tanjung Sepat, Pengkalan Titi and elsewhere. In George Town, the SF fulfilled some of its campaign promises, for example, by implementing low-cost housing projects such as the People’s Court in Cintra Street and the Kampong Selut scheme in Jelutong. In the 1959 General Election, the SF progressed in mixed constituencies in Selangor, Johore and Penang: it gained 34.6 per cent of the popular vote cast in the constituencies it contested. The SF was poised to be a non-communal socialist alternative in Malayan politics during the 1960s. The issue of ‘Malaysia’ The SF confronted a huge political obstacle, however, in the ‘Grand Design’, previously conceived by Britain, and promulgated as ‘Greater Malaysia’ by Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman in May 1961. Following a Five-State Socialist Conference of the proposed Malaysian territories, held in Kuala Lumpur in January 1962, the LPM moved to accept Malaysia in principle at its 9th Annual Conference in August. The LPM’s new Secretary-General, Lim Kean Siew, maintaining that the merger of Singapore with Malaya was inevitable, nonetheless warned that ‘unless our thinking is radically changed and the inconsistencies of the Malaysian concept are removed, ultimate conflict and disintegration is inevitable.’ However, the party rank and file became bitter over the ‘Malaysia issue’ after the detention under the Internal Security Act of Lim Chin Siong and the Barisan Sosialis and SATU leaders in Singapore under Operation Coldstore in February 1962. The use of the ISA there, coupled with the arrest of Parti Rakyat Chairman, Ahmad Boestamam in Malaya, was seen as a move to repress the left in Malaya and Singapore. From then on, the SF’s relationship with the regime badly deteriorated. SF’s decline The SF’s performance in the 1964 General Election was adversely affected by two major factors. First, allegations had been made from June 1963 of malpractices in the City Council of Georgetown and other SF-controlled local councils. Second, the Alliance, the People’s Action Party, and the United Democratic Party – respectively led by the Tunku, Lee Kuan Yew and Dr. Lim Chong Eu – vehemently attacked the SF as the ‘fifth column’ of Indonesia. Despite SF’s repeated acceptance of Malaysia and a 5-Point Plan to secure a truce between Britain and Malaysia, and Indonesia, the SF and LPM fell victim to the psychological manipulation of voter sentiments and suffered their worst defeats, even in their own electoral bastions. It is quite likely that some LPM cadres and functionaries were convinced then to adopt a ‘hard line’ vis-à-vis the regime. Soon they found other reasons to be so. In the 1960s, the ISA was widely and indiscriminately used to detain hundreds of LPM and SF leaders and members in Taiping, Batu Gajah and Muar. Repeated repression of this sort undermined the LPM and SF’s organizational effectiveness. The detentions of Ishak bin Hj. Mohammad, Abdul Aziz bin Ishak and Datuk Kampo Radjo on untried charges of setting up a government-in-exile during Konfrontasi with Indonesia were attempts to repress the Malay Left. In 1965, key SF leaders, such as Chairman Hansul bin Abdul Hadi, Secretary-General Tajuddin Kahar and Assistant Secretary-General Tan Kai Hee were arrested to foil a demonstration called for 13 February, the SF’s Human Rights Day, to commemorate the second anniversary of Ahmad Boestamam’s internment. Radicalisation under repression The pace of radicalisation intensified. The SF’s Perak Division hailed the ‘February 13 Incident’ in Kuala Lumpur as an epochal event in the struggle against neo-colonialism, and an instructive lesson in class struggle. The LPM division in Perak went on to develop a theory of shili douzheng (militant struggle). A different kind of problem developed after Singapore’s separation from Malaysia on 9 August. Within the SF, the LPM and Parti Rakyat diverged, principally over the issue of official language. In December, Parti Rakyat resolved to break away from the SF while Lim Kean Siew announced that the coalition would end on 16 January 1966. At this juncture, internal quarrels terminated the SF’s control of George Town City Council and LPM lost a most important political platform. Between July 1964 and June 1965, LPM Assistant Secretary-General Dr. M K Rajkumar had warned the party of the infiltration of agents provocateur who would create internal confusion and division. The Perak Division’s stance was part of a smear campaign against the ‘rightist’ LPM leaders, five of whom resigned in March 1966. An ad hoc Central Secretariat now led the party towards more strident radicalization in ideology and tactics with worsening repercussions. An Anti-US Imperialism Campaign resulted in the mass arrests of cadres, members and supporters. The LPM Central Secretariat called an Extraordinary National Delegates Conference on 24–25 September 1966 that resolved to expedite ‘anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism, anti-feudalism and anti-Malaysia’ struggles.’ While combining ‘mass struggle’ with ‘constitutional struggle’, the Conference placed the former ahead of the latter as a strategy to wrest political power. The end of the LPM In October 1967, the 13th National Delegates’ Conference in Penang passed ‘ultra leftist’ resolutions on such matters as US imperialism, Soviet revisionism, the Cultural Revolution in China, the Vietnam War, ISA, worker-peasant united front, mass organizations and revolutionary strategies. The LPM now initiated regular street demonstrations all over the country which culminated in the Penang hartal of 24 November 1967 in response to the unpopular devaluation of the Malaysian currency. The regime’s response was more repression with ISA and other measures. The party was crippled when divisions in Penang, Johore and Malacca, and 36 branches in the country were proscribed. The Kedah Division’s call for a boycott of the 1969 General Election was endorsed on 29 September 1968 by an Enlarged Central Committee Meeting comprising three de jure members and several other divisional representatives. By the end of the year, in protest against another wave of arrests on 9 November, LPM councillors at all levels had resigned from their positions. And, after ‘May 13’, 17 other LPM branches were banned and over a hundred members were detained. In September 1969, an accord of understanding was reached between LPM’s Lim Kean Siew and Dr. Rajakumar and Parti Rakyat’s Kassim Ahmad and Syed Husin Ali to hold to ‘scientific socialism’, ‘working class solidarity’ and ‘the unity of the people of all nationalities’ against ‘chauvinism and narrow nationalism’. No steps were taken to work towards such objectives. Three years later, in September 1972, the Registrar of Societies deregistered the LPM on account of its failure to submit annual reports for several years. The rise and demise of LPM is an important experience of socialist politics in Malaysia. Mistakes were made and many leaders and members paid a heavy price for them. Even so, their courage, commitment and sacrifices before and after independence cannot be denied a proper historical appreciation. LPM Manifesto for 1955 Federal Elections To implement planned economy to fulfill needs of the Malayan people. All exploitation of the workers should be stopped and all monopolies and inefficient industries should be nationalized; To amend the Labour Law and the Trade Union Ordinance. All unions to enjoy the full rights of free assemblies and political participation; To provide the poor with legal assistance; To solve problems of unemployment, and to enforce minimum wage and parity for women workers; To resolve issues of land indebtedness and to assist peasants with land, agricultural cooperatives, agricultural banks and collective farms; To promote local industries with tariff protection; To establish a Central Bank to regulate circulation of money and To implement compulsory free primary education, and to develop secondary schools and tertiary education.

Who fought for the independence of Malaya...and who worked with the colonial powers preserving their powers until 1957? Who were the heroes? traitors?

Who fought for independence of Malaya from the British Colonialist?

Who fought for independence from the Japanese Occupiers?

Who fought for independence from the British Colonialist?

It is important to realize that when Malaysia was ruled by foreign powers - British, Japanese and then British again, there were those who collaborated with these foreign powers - and worked with them and for them. There were also those that would never work for the colonial masters or occupying forces.

There were those who chose the path of negotiations...and diplomacy in their quest for independence.

There were those who chose armed struggle as a means towards achieving independence...

Different means ....same objective...and all should be acknowledged as people who struggled for the independence of this nation...Malaya...Malaysia

There were those who just 'sucked-up' to whoever rules the day...allowing themselves to be bred to take over the reins of power one day (of course with the guarantee that British influence and benefits will always be protected ...)

Let us look back at history...and see who were those who did always fight the colonial masters to achieve independence...

And who worked for and with the colonial masters....

The time has come for us to look critically at the history of Malaysia...

Time to declare commitment to end torture in Malaysia -Ratify Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

It is time that Malaysia say no to all forms of torture - and a strong position that it will act against all those that do torture people.

This would a clear declaration of the government that will no longer tolerate torture perpetrated by the police, MACC officers, RELA,...

Malaysia's Human Rights Commission have been asking the Malaysian government to ratify the Convention Against Torture, as a first step of it taking a public stance that it will no longer tolerate torture in Malaysia...

And, whipping is certainly a cruel, inhumane and degrading form of punishment that must be abolished...

The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) has urged the Government and the relevant authorities to review the convention against torture and other cruel or degrading treatment of people.

It viewed whipping as cruel, inhumane, degrading and contrary to the human rights principle.

“It is unfortunate that the Government has not ratified the convention even though Suhakam had repeatedly urged it to do so,” it said in a statement yesterday. - Star, 30/8/2009, Do away with degrading punishment, says Suhakam

Islamic Declaration of Human Rights also have a provision with regard to torture...

VII Right to Protection Against Torture

No person shall be subjected to torture in mind or body, or degraded, or threatened with injury either to himself or to anyone related to or held dear by him, or forcibly made to confess to the commission of a crime, or forced to consent to an act which is injurious to his interests.

Malaysia has yet to ratify the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 39/46
of 10 December 1984

entry into force 26 June 1987, in accordance with article 27 (1)

The States Parties to this Convention,

Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,

Considering the obligation of States under the Charter, in particular Article 55, to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,

Having regard also to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1975,

Desiring to make more effective the struggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the world,

Have agreed as follows:

PART I

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 3

1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

Article 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture. 2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

Article 5

1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:

(a) When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;

(b) When the alleged offender is a national of that State;

(c) When the victim is a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.

2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in paragraph I of this article.

3. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.

Article 6

1. Upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available to it, that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is present shall take him into custody or take other legal measures to ensure his presence. The custody and other legal measures shall be as provided in the law of that State but may be continued only for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted.

2. Such State shall immediately make a preliminary inquiry into the facts.

3. Any person in custody pursuant to paragraph I of this article shall be assisted in communicating immediately with the nearest appropriate representative of the State of which he is a national, or, if he is a stateless person, with the representative of the State where he usually resides.

4. When a State, pursuant to this article, has taken a person into custody, it shall immediately notify the States referred to in article 5, paragraph 1, of the fact that such person is in custody and of the circumstances which warrant his detention. The State which makes the preliminary inquiry contemplated in paragraph 2 of this article shall promptly report its findings to the said States and shall indicate whether it intends to exercise jurisdiction.

Article 7

1. The State Party in the territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.

2. These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 1.

3. Any person regarding whom proceedings are brought in connection with any of the offences referred to in article 4 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings.

Article 8

1. The offences referred to in article 4 shall be deemed to be included as extraditable offences in any extradition treaty existing between States Parties. States Parties undertake to include such offences as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them.

2. If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of such offences. Extradition shall be subject to the other conditions provided by the law of the requested State.

3. States Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize such offences as extraditable offences between themselves subject to the conditions provided by the law of the requested State.

4. Such offences shall be treated, for the purpose of extradition between States Parties, as if they had been committed not only in the place in which they occurred but also in the territories of the States required to establish their jurisdiction in accordance with article 5, paragraph 1.

Article 9

1. States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal proceedings brought in respect of any of the offences referred to in article 4, including the supply of all evidence at their disposal necessary for the proceedings.

2. States Parties shall carry out their obligations under paragraph I of this article in conformity with any treaties on mutual judicial assistance that may exist between them.

Article 10

1. Each State Party shall ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment.

2. Each State Party shall include this prohibition in the rules or instructions issued in regard to the duties and functions of any such person.

Article 11

Each State Party shall keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of torture.

Article 12

Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Article 13

Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to, and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by, its competent authorities. Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given.

Article 14

1. Each State Party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his dependants shall be entitled to compensation.

2. Nothing in this article shall affect any right of the victim or other persons to compensation which may exist under national law.

Article 15

Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.

Article 16

1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

2. The provisions of this Convention are without prejudice to the provisions of any other international instrument or national law which prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or which relates to extradition or expulsion.

PART II

Article 17

1. There shall be established a Committee against Torture (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) which shall carry out the functions hereinafter provided. The Committee shall consist of ten experts of high moral standing and recognized competence in the field of human rights, who shall serve in their personal capacity. The experts shall be elected by the States Parties, consideration being given to equitable geographical distribution and to the usefulness of the participation of some persons having legal experience.

2. The members of the Committee shall be elected by secret ballot from a list of persons nominated by States Parties. Each State Party may nominate one person from among its own nationals. States Parties shall bear in mind the usefulness of nominating persons who are also members of the Human Rights Committee established under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and who are willing to serve on the Committee against Torture.

3. Elections of the members of the Committee shall be held at biennial meetings of States Parties convened by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. At those meetings, for which two thirds of the States Parties shall constitute a quorum, the persons elected to the Committee shall be those who obtain the largest number of votes and an absolute majority of the votes of the representatives of States Parties present and voting.

4. The initial election shall be held no later than six months after the date of the entry into force of this Convention. At. Ieast four months before the date of each election, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall address a letter to the States Parties inviting them to submit their nominations within three months. The Secretary-General shall prepare a list in alphabetical order of all persons thus nominated, indicating the States Parties which have nominated them, and shall submit it to the States Parties.

5. The members of the Committee shall be elected for a term of four years. They shall be eligible for re-election if renominated. However, the term of five of the members elected at the first election shall expire at the end of two years; immediately after the first election the names of these five members shall be chosen by lot by the chairman of the meeting referred to in paragraph 3 of this article.

6. If a member of the Committee dies or resigns or for any other cause can no longer perform his Committee duties, the State Party which nominated him shall appoint another expert from among its nationals to serve for the remainder of his term, subject to the approval of the majority of the States Parties. The approval shall be considered given unless half or more of the States Parties respond negatively within six weeks after having been informed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the proposed appointment.

7. States Parties shall be responsible for the expenses of the members of the Committee while they are in performance of Committee duties.

Article 18

1. The Committee shall elect its officers for a term of two years. They may be re-elected.

2. The Committee shall establish its own rules of procedure, but these rules shall provide, inter alia, that:

(a) Six members shall constitute a quorum;

(b) Decisions of the Committee shall be made by a majority vote of the members present.

3. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall provide the necessary staff and facilities for the effective performance of the functions of the Committee under this Convention.

4. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall convene the initial meeting of the Committee. After its initial meeting, the Committee shall meet at such times as shall be provided in its rules of procedure.

5. The States Parties shall be responsible for expenses incurred in connection with the holding of meetings of the States Parties and of the Committee, including reimbursement to the United Nations for any expenses, such as the cost of staff and facilities, incurred by the United Nations pursuant to paragraph 3 of this article.

Article 19

1. The States Parties shall submit to the Committee, through the Secretary-General of the United Nations, reports on the measures they have taken to give effect to their undertakings under this Convention, within one year after the entry into force of the Convention for the State Party concerned. Thereafter the States Parties shall submit supplementary reports every four years on any new measures taken and such other reports as the Committee may request.

2. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall transmit the reports to all States Parties.

3. Each report shall be considered by the Committee which may make such general comments on the report as it may consider appropriate and shall forward these to the State Party concerned. That State Party may respond with any observations it chooses to the Committee.

4. The Committee may, at its discretion, decide to include any comments made by it in accordance with paragraph 3 of this article, together with the observations thereon received from the State Party concerned, in its annual report made in accordance with article 24. If so requested by the State Party concerned, the Committee may also include a copy of the report submitted under paragraph I of this article.

Article 20

1. If the Committee receives reliable information which appears to it to contain well-founded indications that torture is being systematically practised in the territory of a State Party, the Committee shall invite that State Party to co-operate in the examination of the information and to this end to submit observations with regard to the information concerned.

2. Taking into account any observations which may have been submitted by the State Party concerned, as well as any other relevant information available to it, the Committee may, if it decides that this is warranted, designate one or more of its members to make a confidential inquiry and to report to the Committee urgently.

3. If an inquiry is made in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article, the Committee shall seek the co-operation of the State Party concerned. In agreement with that State Party, such an inquiry may include a visit to its territory.

4. After examining the findings of its member or members submitted in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article, the Commission shall transmit these findings to the State Party concerned together with any comments or suggestions which seem appropriate in view of the situation.

5. All the proceedings of the Committee referred to in paragraphs I to 4 of th is article s hall be con fidential , and at all stages of the proceedings the co-operation of the State Party shall be sought. After such proceedings have been completed with regard to an inquiry made in accordance with paragraph 2, the Committee may, after consultations with the State Party concerned, decide to include a summary account of the results of the proceedings in its annual report made in accordance with article 24.

Article 21

1. A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare under this article that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. Such communications may be received and considered according to the procedures laid down in this article only if submitted by a State Party which has made a declaration recognizing in regard to itself the competence of the Committee. No communication shall be dealt with by the Committee under this article if it concerns a State Party which has not made such a declaration. Communications received under this article shall be dealt with in accordance with the following procedure;

(a) If a State Party considers that another State Party is not giving effect to the provisions ofthis Convention, it may, by written communication, bring the matter to the attention of that State Party. Within three months afler the receipt of the communication the receiving State shall afford the State which sent the communication an explanation or any other statement in writing clarifying the matter, which should include, to the extent possible and pertinent, reference to domestic procedures and remedies taken, pending or available in the matter;

(b) If the matter is not adjusted to the satisfaction of both States Parties concerned within six months after the receipt by the receiving State of the initial communication, either State shall have the right to refer the matter to the Committee, by notice given to the Committee and to the other State;

(c) The Committee shall deal with a matter referred to it under this article only after it has ascertained that all domestic remedies have been invoked and exhausted in the matter, in conformity with the generally recognized principles of international law. This shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to bring effective relief to the person who is the victim of the violation of this Convention;

(d) The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications under this article; (e) Subject to the provisions of subparagraph

(c), the Committee shall make available its good offices to the States Parties concerned with a view to a friendly solution of the matter on the basis of respect for the obligations provided for in this Convention. For this purpose, the Committee may, when appropriate, set up an ad hoc conciliation commission;

(f) In any matter referred to it under this article, the Committee may call upon the States Parties concerned, referred to in subparagraph (b), to supply any relevant information;

(g) The States Parties concerned, referred to in subparagraph (b), shall have the right to be represented when the matter is being considered by the Committee and to make submissions orally and/or in writing;

(h) The Committee shall, within twelve months after the date of receipt of notice under subparagraph (b), submit a report:

(i) If a solution within the terms of subparagraph (e) is reached, the Committee shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached;

(ii) If a solution within the terms of subparagraph (e) is not reached, the Committee shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts; the written submissions and record of the oral submissions made by the States Parties concerned shall be attached to the report.

In every matter, the report shall be communicated to the States Parties concerned.

2. The provisions of this article shall come into force when five States Parties to this Convention have made declarations under paragraph 1 of this article. Such declarations shall be deposited by the States Parties with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the other States Parties. A declaration may be withdrawn at any time by notification to the Secretary-General. Such a withdrawal shall not prejudice the consideration of any matter which is the subject of a communication already transmitted under this article; no further communication by any State Party shall be received under this article after the notification of withdrawal of the declaration has been received by the Secretary-General, unless the State Party concerned has made a new declaration.

Article 22

1. A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare under this article that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention. No communication shall be received by the Committee if it concerns a State Party which has not made such a declaration.

2. The Committee shall consider inadmissible any communication under this article which is anonymous or which it considers to be an abuse of the right of submission of such communications or to be incompatible with the provisions of this Convention.

3. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2, the Committee shall bring any communications submitted to it under this article to the attention of the State Party to this Convention which has made a declaration under paragraph I and is alleged to be violating any provisions of the Convention. Within six months, the receiving State shall submit to the Committee written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by that State.

4. The Committee shall consider communications received under this article in the light of all information made available to it by or on behalf of the individual and by the State Party concerned. 5. The Committee shall not consider any communications from an individual under this article unless it has ascertained that:

(a) The same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement;

(b) The individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies; this shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to bring effective reliefto the person who is the victim of the violation of this Convention.

6. The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications under this article.

7. The Committee shall forward its views to the State Party concerned and to the individual.

8. The provisions of this article shall come into force when five States Parties to this Convention have made declarations under paragraph 1 of this article. Such declarations shall be deposited by the States Parties with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the other States Parties. A declaration may be withdrawn at any time by notification to the Secretary-General. Such a withdrawal shall not prejudice the consideration of any matter which is the subject of a communication already transmitted under this article; no further communication by or on behalf of an individual shall be received under this article after the notification of withdrawal of the declaration has been received by the SecretaryGeneral, unless the State Party has made a new declaration.

Article 23

The members of the Committee and of the ad hoc conciliation commissions which may be appointed under article 21, paragraph I (e), shall be entitled to the facilities, privileges and immunities of experts on mission for the United Nations as laid down in the relevant sections of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.

Article 24

The Committee shall submit an annual report on its activities under this Convention to the States Parties and to the General Assembly of the United Nations.

PART III

Article 25

1. This Convention is open for signature by all States. 2. This Convention is subject to ratification. Instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 26

This Convention is open to accession by all States. Accession shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument of accession with the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations.

Article 27

1. This Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date of the deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession.

2. For each State ratifying this Convention or acceding to it after the deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession, the Convention shall enter into force onthe thirtieth day after the date of the deposit of its own instrument of ratification or accession.

Article 28

1. Each State may, at the time of signature or ratification of this Convention or accession thereto, declare that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in article 20.

2. Any State Party having made a reservation in accordance with paragraph I of this article may, at any time, withdraw this reservation by notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 29

1 . Any State Party to this Convention may propose an amendment and file it with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The SecretaryGeneral shall thereupon communicate the proposed amendment to the States Parties with a request that they notify him whether they favour a conference of States Parties for the purpose of considering an d voting upon the proposal. In the event that within four months from the date of such communication at least one third of the States Parties favours such a conference, the SecretaryGeneral shall convene the conference under the auspices of the United Nations. Any amendment adopted by a majority of the States Parties present and voting at the conference shall be submitted by the Secretary-General to all the States Parties for acceptance.

2. An amendment adopted in accordance with paragraph I of this article shall enter into force when two thirds of the States Parties to this Convention have notified the Secretary-General of the United Nations that they have accepted it in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

3. When amendments enter into force, they shall be binding on those States Parties which have accepted them, other States Parties still being bound by the provisions of this Convention and any earlier amendments which they have accepted.

Article 30

1. Any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which cannot be settled through negotiation shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration. If within six months from thc date of the request for arbitration the Parties are unable to agree on the organization of the arbitration, any one of those Parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice by request in conformity with the Statute of the Court.

2. Each State may, at the time of signature or ratification of this Con vention or accession thereto, declare that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph I of this article. The other States Parties shall not be bound by paragraph I of this article with respect to any State Party having made such a reservation.

3. Any State Party having made a reservation in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article may at any time withdraw this reservation by notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 31

1. A State Party may denounce this Convention by written notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Denunciation becomes effective one year after the date of receipt of- the notification by the Secretary-General .

2. Such a denunciation shall not have the effect of releasing the State Party from its obligations under this Convention in regard to any act or omission which occurs prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective, nor shall denunciation prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which is already under consideration by the Committee prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective.

3. Following the date at which the denunciation of a State Party becomes effective, the Committee shall not commence consideration of any new matter regarding that State.

Article 32

The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all States Members of the United Nations and all States which have signed this Convention or acceded to it of the following:

(a) Signatures, ratifications and accessions under articles 25 and 26;

(b) The date of entry into force of this Convention under article 27 and the date of the entry into force of any amendments under article 29;

(c) Denunciations under article 31.

Article 33

1. This Convention, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

2. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall transmit certified copies of this Convention to all States.

Solicitor-client privilege should be safeguarded in the interest of justice - Leonard Teoh case. Court of Appeal is wrong

It is very sad and distressing that the Court of Appeal has upheld the arrest and detention of lawyer Leonard Teoh who refused to breach solicitor-client privilege...

Solicitor-client privilege or legal professional privilege protects all communications between a professional legal adviser, i.e. a lawyer, and his or her clients from being disclosed without the permission of the client. The privilege is that of the client and not that of the lawyer.

The purpose behind this legal principle is to protect an individual's ability to access the justice system by encouraging complete disclosure to legal advisers without the fear that any disclosure of those communications may prejudice the client in the future.

A client can bravely tell his lawyer that he killed someone, and by reason of this Solicitor-client privilege or legal professional privilege, the lawyer cannot disclose this fact to anyone. A client should and does have the ability to tell his lawyer everything without fear that the lawyer will rat on him/her. Hence, when the police approached Leonard Teoh to tell them where his client was, he did not...in fact, he could not, for that would have been a breach of the solicitor client privilege.

"The foundation of this rule is not difficult to discover. It is not (as has sometimes been said) on account of any particular importance which the law attributes to the business of legal professors, or any particular disposition to afford them protection ... But it is out of regard to the interests of justice, which cannot be upholden, and to the administration of justice, which cannot go on without the aid of men skilled in jurisprudence, in the practice of the courts, and in those matters affecting rights and obligations which form the subject of all judicial proceedings. If the privilege did not exist at all, every one would be thrown upon his own legal resources, deprived of professional assistance, a man would not venture to consult any skilful person, or would only dare tell his counsellor half his case". - Greenough v. Gaskell [1833], 1 M & K 98

"In order to promote freedom of consultation of legal advisers by clients, the apprehension of compelled disclosure by the legal advisers must be removed; hence the law must prohibit such disclosure except on the client's consent." - Berd v. Lovelace, Cary 88, 21 Eng. Rep. 33 (Ch. 1577)

A lawyer not disclosing what a client has told the lawyer should certainly not lead to a situation whereby the lawyer is arrested and detained by the police for days...

The Court of Appeal has upheld the detention of a lawyer by police 11 years ago to obtain information on the whereabouts of his client.

Judge Datuk Md Raus Sharif, in dismissing the appeal by Leonard Teoh Hooi Leong, said the magistrate who issued the remand order was correct in law.

"The High Court judge was also right in the exercise of his revisionary powers," Raus said in the unanimous ruling. Sitting with him were Datuk Sulong Matjeraie and Datuk Ahmad Maarop.

In an immediate reaction, Bar Council chairman Ragunath Kesavan said the decision was a serious dilution of the client-solicitor privilege and raised the question whether lawyers could mount a valid defence in a criminal case.

"It is implicit that lawyers can be arrested by police to obtain information," he said, adding that the ruling was regressive in the criminal justice system.

Lawyer G. Ragumaren held a watching brief for the council as the legal fraternity had awaited this decision following the High Court decision 11 years ago.

Teoh, in an affidavit, said he acted as lawyer for former Citibank executive Nor Aishah Bokhari who converted to Christianity in November 1997.

He was arrested on Jan 13, 1998, when he refused to reveal the whereabouts of Nor Aishah who went missing from her parents' home in Pontian, Johor, on Dec 30, 1997.

The police had told Teoh that he was arrested for aiding and abetting the kidnapping of Nor Aishah.

The Pontian magistrate's court, on Jan 14, 1998, ordered Teoh to be remanded for seven days following an application by the police. The remand was later extended another three days.

Teoh then applied to the Johor Baru High Court to revise the decision of the magistrate but it was dismissed on Jan 19, 1998.

At the Court of Appeal yesterday, Teoh's counsel Karpal Singh submitted that the information was a client-solicitor communication and the withholding of such information was not contrary to the Evidence Act.

"How could any information between a client and solicitor be in furtherance of a crime in which the client (Nor Aishah) was the victim," he asked.

Karpal said Teoh was only a witness but was made to look like a suspect although he had nothing to do with the kidnapping.

He said Teoh was held for 10 days under police custody and as a professional, his client wanted to clear his name as the matter was reported in law journals.

Deputy public prosecutor Ahmad Bache said the appeal should be dismissed as the subject matter was a remand order.

"It is academic because he had been released," he said.

Raus then asked Ahmad what remedy Teoh could resort to for unlawful detention.

Ahmad replied that Teoh could resort to civil action and this was not a forum to vindicate himself.

"The Court of Appeal will open the floodgates if the appeal is allowed. It will also amount to an abuse of court process," he said.

Ahmad said the magistrate had acted judiciously in issuing the remand order after having heard the investigating officer who had also produced his investigation diary. - NST, 27/8/2009, Court upholds detention of missing client's lawyer