Friday, March 23, 2007

Suhakan Bloody Sunday Report Highlights (Malaysiakini)

Suhakam Bloody Sunday report: Highlights
Mar 23, 07 5:19pm


The following are some of the crucial observations and recommendations made in Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) report of the public inquiry on the May 28, 2006 demonstration at KLCC.

Peaceful assemblies important for democracy

Recommendation: “It is timely that the police and the FRU realise and accept that demonstrations and peaceful assemblies are not an annoyance but are a necessary element in a democratic nation. With that realisation in mind, the best possible method to preserve and maintain order is (police) restraint.”

Cops interfered in protesters rights to assembly

The panel concluded that the participants of the demonstration were “entitled to the constitutional right to peaceable assembly, notwithstanding the lack of licence to do so.”

“(We) emphasise that every citizen, including members from the opposition parties, should not be denied this constitutional guarantee”.

“(We) find that the acts of the police in dispersing the assembly... had interfered with the right to the freedom of assembly of the protesters”.

Police used ‘excessive force’

The panel found that the police, in the act of dispersing the protesters, had used ‘excessive force’ on 10 individuals, including one journalist.

Evidence led the panel to positively identify L/Corp Mustika Lambonding to have used ‘excessive force’ on one of the demonstration participants.

Whether the assembly was peaceful

C/Insp Pusparajan and L/Corp Nasaruddin Hashim both from the FRU testified that the assembly, at all times, was orderly and not unruly. This was clearly observed in the video and sound recordings.

“[...] there was no evidence that the crowd became disorderly, unruly or violent at any time at all [...] there was no shred of any evidence that any third party was there to disrupt the assembly”

Arrest unwarranted

While there was no permit issued for the assembly, the panel stressed that the assembly was peaceful and did not warrant any arrest.

It was observed that some arrests were carried about appropriately but were not justified “as these individuals were merely protesting peacefully”.

The acts of the protesters during the incident “cannot be said to have breached the peace or calculated to have breached the peace”.

Licencing requirements to assemble

“Whilst international standards consider the requirement of prior authorisation or notice as being compatible with the right to freedom of assembly, the panel of inquiry finds that the requirement for a licence imposed by Section 27 of the Police Act 1967 and the lack of definition of the phrase, ‘prejudicial to the interest of the security of Malaysia’ effectively negates the right to freedom of assembly enshrined in Article 10 of the Federal Constitution.”

Recommendations: “From the foregoing, it is observed that the laws regulating assemblies are moving towards a cooperative model in several jurisdictions where both parties, the organisers and the police, co-operate in the regulation of an assembly.

Such co-operations has proven to be effective in maintaining peaceful and orderly assemblies.

As such, the panel of inquiry recommends the repeal of subsections (2), (2A) - (2D), (4), (4A), (5), (5A) - (5C), (7) and (8) of Section 27, and also Section 27A of the Police Act 1967, thereby removing the need to apply for any licence to hold a peaceful assembly.”

Protest organisers should notify police

Recommendation: It was recommended that those intending to organise a peaceful assembly should notify in writing to the local police chief the details of the assembly.
“The panel of inquiry also recommends that the requirement of notification be followed by meetings between the organisers of the proposed assembly and relevant police officers so as to confirm the practical arrangements for the assembly or procession.”

“The panel further recommends that any persons whose rights may be affected by the assembly or any arrangement relating to the assembly should be allowed to make an urgent application to the High Court for intervention.”

Warnings of dispersal

The panel found that the police issued four warnings for the crowd to disperse, but “most of those in the crowd could not make out the announcements because the warnings were not effectively conveyed.”

It was found that most members of the crowd had started to disperse when the water cannon was activated but the police “charged after the members of the assembly”.

Recommendations: “Orders to disperse should be clearly audible and given at least three times at ten-minute intervals, with sufficient time given to allow the crowd to disperse.

“Once the crowd disperses, the police should not chase and arrest those moving away or those who have moved away,”

Identification of riot police

The majority of FRU personnel called as witnesses could not identify fellow personnel.

“Firstly, the persons who used violence were in protective body armour and were using helmets and visors which obscured their faces.

“Secondly, they did no wear personal identification (either names or badge numbers).”

Recommendation: “While the panel acknowledges the necessity of the police and FRU personnel to wear helmets and other protective apparel or items, these apparel or items should bear clear identification (of the personnel’s identity).”

Organisers should appoint marshals

Recommendations: Regulations or guidelines pertaining to peaceful assemblies should require assembly organisers to appoint marshals and provide their details to the police.

“The appointment of marshals should be implemented in Malaysia as they provide a focal point for members of an assembly and police for the purpose of consultation and liaison.”

Use of helicopter

The panel concluded that the police helicopter present at the protest had received specific instruction to fly ‘low and hover over the crowd’ for two purposes: To prevent the assembly from hearing the speeches and to disrupt the assembly.

“The panel finds that the instruction given to fly low and to hover over the crowd was rash and was given without consideration to the safety of the people at the place of assembly.

Recommendation: “The panel is of the view that no helicopter should be used to disturb any assembly. The panel is of the opinion that usage of a helicopter during assemblies, if necessary, should be limited for monitoring purposes only”

Suhakam: Cops used ‘excessive force’ (Malaysiakini)







Suhakam: Cops used ‘excessive force’
Andrew Ong
Mar 23, 07 2:36pm



Suhakam’s panel of inquiry into allegations of police violence during an anti-fuel hike demonstration on May 28 last year at KLCC concluded that the police used ‘excessive force’ on 10 individuals in dispersing the crowd.

“The severity of injuries suffered by these [...] persons varied, from five stitches on the head to bruises and abrasions,” said the panel in its report on the public inquiry of the incident.

The month-long public inquiry was held in October last year after receiving complaints from victims and civil society groups on the police conduct, in particular the Federal Reserve Unit (FRU), that day.

Panel members include Zaitoon Othman, Choo Siew Kioh, Dr Michael Yeoh and KC Vohrah who headed the team. The panel released its report on the inquiry this morning at the Human Rights Commission headquarters in Kuala Lumpur.

On May 31 last year, then Inspector General of Police Mohd Bakri Omar denied allegations of police violence and insisted that only ‘minimum force’ was applied on protesters.

Bakri also defended the actions of police personnel at the scene that day.

Positive identification

Based on the video evidence and identification by a police witness, the panel positively identified L/Corp Mustika Lambonding as the police personnel who used excessive force on Lee Huat Seng.

The report said the video had depicted a police officer swinging a baton and hitting Lee.

The panel noted that one victim, Lim Ban Teng, suffered a broken thumb during the melee. The report warned that the person who caused the injury could be charged with the offence of committing grievous hurt under the Penal Code.

The panel was however unable to make a conclusive finding on the personnel responsible for the injuries suffered by Zahir Hassan because the evidence produced were still photographs.

Zahir, an opposition politician, had told malaysiakini earlier that he was repeatedly kicked by several riot police personnel as he was moving away from the area where the demonstration took place (photo).

On other cases of excessive force used by the police, the panel ‘strongly recommends’ that the police conduct internal investigations to ascertain personnel involved with a view of taking disciplinary action against them.

The panel said that if it was deemed necessary, the police should also recommend that the public prosecutor take further action.

Disproportionate to police aims

Quoting a United Nations’ human rights training manual for the police, the report said in instances where the situation necessitates the use of force, the degree of force used must be in direct proportion and only to the extent required for the legitimate ends of law enforcement and maintaining public order.

“The panel [...] finds the interference by the police and the FRU in dispersing the assembly on May 28, 2006 at KLCC and the arrests that were affected were disproportionate to the aims of preventing disorder and protecting the rights of other and are not judicious in a democratic society,” read the report.

The panel also found that the assembly was ‘peaceful’ within the meaning of Article 10 of the Federal Constitution (rights to assembly) and international human rights standards.

“The assembly was peaceful. There was no violence. The actions and speeches (by protest participants) did not provide incitement or cause violence or a breach of the peace,” read the report.

The public inquiry was established to determine whether any human rights violations occurred during the May 28, 2006 demonstration at KLCC and if so:

  • which person or agency was responsible for the violations;

  • how such violations came about;

  • what administrative directives and procedures or arrangements contributed to them; and

  • what measures should be recommended to be taken to ensure that such violence does not recur.

SUHAKAM Public Inquiry Report into 'Bloody Sunday' out (Malaysian Bar Website)


SUHAKAM Public Inquiry Report into 'Bloody Sunday' out


Contributed by Rajen Devaraj (Executive Officer)
Friday, 23 March 2007, 03:51pm

Bloody SundayKUALA LUMPUR, Fri: SUHAKAM today released its Report of the Public Inquiry into the Incident at KLCC on 28 May 2006 making findings that the actions of the police and FRU in dispersing the peaceful assembly on that day were disproportionate and interfered with the rights of the protestors to assemble peacefully.

In a 92-page strong report, SUHAKAM made key recommendations calling for the decriminalising of peaceful assembly without a licence under section 27 of the Police Act, 1967 and the repeal of sections 27(2), (2A) to (2D), (4), (4A), (5), (5A) to (5C), (7), (8) and 27A of the Police Act. It further noted that laws regulating assemblies have moved towards a “co-operative model” in several jurisdictions where parties, the police and the organizers, co-operate in the regulation of an assembly.

Datuk K.C. Vohrah, who chaired the public inquiry, said that the submissions made by the Bar Council and the Bar Council Legal Aid Centre (KL) were useful. (Click here to download Bar Council Report and here for the Bar Council Legal Aid Centre Report.)

The Bar Council and the Bar Council Legal Aid Centre (KL) both made submissions to SUHAKAM giving views on the facts of the case and making recommendations after taking into account laws in different jurisdictions such as America, Hong Kong, Ireland, Australia and United Kingdom.

Bloody SundayMembers of the Bar present at the press conference lauded the SUHAKAM report and thanked the Panel of Inquiry for its good work. The Bar President, Ambiga Sreenevasan expressed gratitude to SUHAKAM for conducting the Inquiry and making the report, which the Bar fully supported.

When contacted, she extended her appreciation to members of the Bar who represented the Bar and the Bar Council Legal Aid Centre (KL) during the Inquiry and helped draft the said reports. Members of the Bar which took an active part in this process include Amer Hamzah, Chen Hong Lynn, Edmund Bon, Edward Saw, Fahri Azzat, Nik Mohamed Ikhwan, Richard Wee, Ramesh Sivakumar, Chan Weng Keng, Sivarasa Rasiah, M. Moganambal, Latheefa Koya and R. Ragunanthanan.

Ambiga also thanked the secretariat and pupils of the Bar Council Legal Aid Center (KL) who provided invaluable assistance throughout the inquiry and Chang Lih Kang, Gowri Balasubramaniam and Yap Swee Seng of SUARAM who assisted in the preparation of the Bar Council Legal Aid Centre Report.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

SALE OF SNAKES - NGOs lodge report against department (Malay Mail)









SALE OF SNAKES - NGOs lodge report against department

by MUZLIZA MUSTAFA (Thursday, 22/3/2007)
A GROUP of non-governmental organisations lodged a police report against the Penang Wildlife Department for cruelty against animals yesterday.
The report was lodged by lawyer N.Surendran, on behalf of the group, at Brickfields police headquarters at 10.50am.

The group comprises Malaysian Animal Rights and Welfare Society, Selangor Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animal, Malaysians against Death Penalty and Torture, Malaysians Against Animal Assisted Therapy and Malaysian Association for Responsible Pet Ownership.

Surendran said the report was lodged following reports that the department had kept 2,400 ‘banded rat’ snakes, which were seized in an operation on March 6 in Batu Maung complex, for several days before selling them to traders.

He claimed the department had breached the Protection of Wild Life Act 1972 when it sold the snakes.

“We have no idea if the snakes were fed or given water when they were under the department’s care,” said Nagendran.

He said instead of selling the snakes, the department should release them into the wild, either here or in Thailand, where they were smuggled from.

“The department should not make money from the animals,” he said.

Brickfields police acting chief Superintendent Izany A.

Ghani said the report would be referred to Penang police headquarters for action.

Handling Confiscated Wildlife (WWF Malaysia)



Handling Confiscated Wildlife

There has been a lot of talk lately about the fate of confiscated wildlife and what concerned authorities should do to help ensure the long-term safety and well-being of such animals. Recent news on the 2,400 Banded Rat Snakes that were confiscated by the state Wildlife and National Parks Department (PERHILITAN) in the Batu Maung Cargo Complex and sold to licensed snake traders highlights the importance of Malaysia having proper protocols and guidelines in handling such problems.

WWF-Malaysia and TRAFFIC Southeast Asia is of the position that the selling of the said snakes by the state wildlife office to licensed snake traders was not done with the welfare of the animals in mind. The selling to animal traders by the wildlife authorities may be publicly-perceived as an endorsement of illegal animal trapping, smuggling and/or sale, and this is a great concern especially so when it involves partially and/or totally protected species. WWF-Malaysia and TRAFFIC Southeast Asia fear that these 2,400 snakes may now end up being killed for their skins, culinary or medicinal purposes and this would simply be similar to what may have happened to the snakes had they been taken out of the country and not been confiscated.

What could and should have been better was for the Malaysian authorities to send back the snakes to the relevant authorities from where the said snakes originated for possible release back into the environment from which the snakes were originally taken from. That would have been a better solution to the issue, and considering that if Thailand (if that is confirmed scientifically) was where the said snakes came from, it could have most easily been done with minimal cost. There ought to be better procedures in place for our wildlife and customs officials to easily repatriate confiscated animals seized either side of the common border.

Addressing the issue of what to do with confiscated wildlife is not as simple as releasing them back to the wild. There are a whole range of issues that need to be considered prior to any release attempts. If survivals of these animals are the primary concern, then going beyond that simplistic “feel good factor” of having just released back animals to the wild is crucial.

For example, an assessment needs to be made on the short- and long-term impacts of such an action on the ecology of the release area, on humans living in and around such release sites, and on the concerned species themselves. The species’ natural origins, food source, further threats from humans are just some of the many issues that have to be carefully considered when it comes to releasing confiscated wildlife, especially those seized in large numbers.

To use the 2,400 captured Banded Rat Snakes mentioned above as a relevant example, one possible way forward was to have quickly secured the services of a herpetologist, to at least determine, if at all the entire batch was of one species or multiple species, since there are various kinds of rat snakes. The use of molecular technology could have been applied, noting the cost implications, however, to assist in determining the origins of the animals. As there is more than one rat snake species native to Peninsular Malaysia and the region, it would have been reckless to simply release them in territories with populations that are genetically different from their kind. Banded Rat Snakes are a non-poisonous species found in many parts of South and Southeast Asia, and are geographically distributed to as many as 18 countries, including Malaysia. It would have proven useful for concerned authorities to perform a scientific check before making any management decisions on what to do with these animals.

The bigger question to be asked in such circumstances is whether our local authorities do have the necessary resources and human expertise to conduct such intensive assessments and studies.

If concerned authorities were to succumb to popular sentiments and haphazardly release captured animals back to the wild without taking into account the above issues, serious environmental repercussions may arise. The crux of the matter is about ensuring the long-term wellbeing of confiscated wildlife without compromising the viability of other life forms and interrupting the delicate balance of nature.

The sad part is that this problem is not exclusive to snakes but also involves a whole gamut of other wildlife. The above situation only highlights the need for environmental organizations, universities, and scientific institutions and even interested members of the public to work closely with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, through its various agencies, to pool resources and expertise in coming up with workable guidelines in the proper management of confiscated wildlife. We need not start from scratch. There is a body of information that exists on how to manage the release of captive animals and we should be able to follow all the international guidelines and adapt them to our local conditions.

More often than not, large quantities of confiscated wildlife result from heavy demand for exotic meat and animal parts. Thus, the public also has a crucial role to play in putting a stop to such illegal trade by simply boycotting products (including food items and medicinal products) made of endangered animal parts. Members of the public need also be educated and imbued with the necessary commitment to combat illegal wildlife trade by reporting immediately to the relevant authorities if and when they learn of any illegal wildlife trade going on. More stringent laws also need to be put in place. This is some of the things that we need to help lessen the occurrence of confiscated wildlife and ultimately, the many other problems that come along with it.

WWF-Malaysia and TRAFFIC Southeast Asia are willing to assist and help in the developing of proper protocols and guidelines in handling confiscated wildlife in Malaysia, and is always ready to facilitate the getting and/or provide the required resources and skills needed to ensure the proper handling of confiscated wildlife.

Dr Dionysius S.K. Sharma

Executive Director/CEO WWF-Malaysia

&

Dr Mark Auliya

TRAFFIC Southeast Asia

21st March 2007

MALAYSIA: Illegal Migrant Workers May Escape the Cane

MALAYSIA: Illegal Migrant Workers May Escape the Cane
By Anil Netto

PENANG, Mar 20 (IPS) - With the Malaysian Bar calling for the abolition of corporal punishment ‘illegal' migrant workers, who are currently being rounded up in a nationwide sweep, may become the first beneficiaries of any change in policy.

At the weekend annual general meeting of the Bar, which comprises 12,000 lawyers in the country, a motion calling for the declaration of whipping as cruel, inhumane and degrading was unanimously adopted. The bar pushed for the abolition of the whipping sentence in various laws, including the Immigration Act.

The two lawyers, Latheefa Koya and Renuka T. Balasubramaniam, who moved the motion asked the Bar to lead public opinion in ‘‘rejecting and denouncing the sentence of whipping as it is anachronistic and inconsistent with a compassionate society in a developed nation''.

They also pointed out that whipping had failed as a deterrent and asserted that it is time for Malaysia to subscribe to Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that no one should be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

‘‘We are putting forward this motion now because of the increasing numbers of arrests and (cases of) whipping going on now,'' Latheefa Koya told IPS, pointing to the mass raids currently going on to pick up ‘illegal' migrants. ‘‘This motion is a step forward in getting rid of corporal punishment altogether.''

Corporal punishment -- whipping with a thick rattan cane -- is usually administered as a supplementary penalty for a range of crimes including armed robbery and drug trafficking. But in recent times, it has also been used on migrants deemed to be illegal under the Immigration Act. Those in breach of the Act face fines, jail terms and whipping.

In practice, migrants, including refugees, picked up during raids are either brought to court -- within two weeks -- or sent straight to immigration detention centres for eventual deportation.

Of those brought to court, those with valid documents but who have overstayed face prison terms and deportation. A caning sentence, usually two to three strokes, in addition to a stint in prison, is meted out to those without any documents, according to Latheefa, who works in Legal Aid. Women are not whipped.

Upon being brought to court, migrants often do not know what charges are brought against them, the two lawyers claim. ‘‘They are not informed of their right to legal representation, and in any event, are not provided with a reasonable opportunity to seek help. The lack of interpretation in appropriate languages renders the whole legal process a complete travesty of justice and human rights.''

Faced with indefinite detention, many of them turn in guilty pleas without realising the full implications.

In the past, rights groups have spoken out against whipping, which leaves large red welts and permanent scars on the buttocks. Rather than having any Islamic connotations, judicial corporal punishment here was first introduced in the late 19th century by British colonial administrators as an outgrowth of British judicial custom and practice at the time.

In their motion, Latheefa and Renuka pointed out that ‘‘whipping is clearly intended to be a humiliating experience.'' They cited New Zealander Aaron Cohen's description of the six strokes he received in 1982 for drug-trafficking:

‘‘It's just incredible pain. More like a burning - like someone sticking an iron on your bum. That's the sort of feeling. Pain - just ultimate pain,'' he said. ‘‘The strokes come at a rate of one a minute - but it seemed like a lifetime to me. I waited and waited for the first one and as soon as I let my breath out - ‘baam'. Afterwards my bum looked like a side of beef.''

Upon serving their sentences, "illegal'' migrants are sent to immigration holding centres for deportation.

In the past, Amnesty International has expressed grave concern over conditions for undocumented migrants held in immigration detention centres, ‘‘especially when mass arrests and deportations lead to severe overcrowding. Conditions in some immigration detention centres may be at times so poor as to amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment''.

The two lawyers' motion could face some resistance from other lawyers and ordinary Malaysians as migrant workers have often received negative coverage in the media. Many Malaysians are worried about the incidence of serious crime. Others link the rising crime rate with the high number of migrants, estimated to number close to 10 per cent of the population, even though statistics reveal that they are not more prone to crime.

The country's top police officer was reported as saying last month that only 2 per cent of crimes in the country were committed by foreigners. However, he proposed that all foreign workers be confined to their quarters and have their movements monitored by management to prevent them from committing crimes.

Despite the inuman conditions, Malaysia's relative prosperity has continued to attract thousands of illegal or undocumented workers from such neighbouring countries as Indonesia, Burma, India, the Philippines and Bangladesh where job opportunities are scarce.

For Irene Fernandez, director of the leading migrant rights groups Tenaganita, the lawyers' motion calling for an end to whipping is extremely important. ‘‘For us, it is like a tool for torture. It is a very inhuman thing to do,'' she told IPS.

The impact of whipping, she added, was tremendous and left migrant workers scarred for life. ‘‘Whipping should become history. As a nation now celebrating its 50th year of independence, whipping should be out, and not condoned anymore.'' (END/2007)

Uproar over sale of protected snakes (Malaysiakini)





Uproar over sale of protected snakes

Fauwaz Abdul Aziz
Mar 21, 07 3:56pm



Animal rights activists are up in arms over the reported sale of some 2,400 protected snakes to licensed traders by - of all agencies - a state wildlife department.

The banded rat snakes, prized for their meat and skin and worth an estimated RM240,000, were seized at the Batu Maung air cargo complex on March 6 by the Penang Wildlife and National Parks Department.

The reptiles - which are partially protected under the Protection of Wildlife Act 1972 as well as the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Cites) - are believed to have been smuggled in from Thailand en route to Hong Kong.

(Partial protection allows for trade of the animals concerned, but under strictly controlled provisions.)

While having headed off the illicit trade, however, the department may have breached its own regulations when it auctioned the snakes two days later to traders, said the groups.

“They are not allowed to sell off protected species as if they are mere merchandise,” lawyer N Surendran citing the Wildlife Act.

“Nowhere does the Act authorise the department to sell off wildlife.”

He was speaking to reporters this morning after filing a police report at the Brickfields station in Kuala Lumpur on behalf of the organisations.

Surendran said the groups believe the snakes have since been sold to local and foreign restaurants.

Echoing his statement, treasurer of the pro-tem Malaysian Animal Rights and Welfare Society Abdul Karim Stuart Russell said the department has in effect encouraged trade in the protected species.

“It should not have happened, really. After the snakes were caught, they should have been dealt with in a more professional way,” he said.

This would include either letting them go in the appropriate manner and location in the wild, or returning them to Thailand for disposal by the relevant authorities, he said.

Surendran further said it was ironic that the state wildlife department - tasked with protecting wildlife - may have abetted in committing cruelty to the snakes in view of the known methods by which snakes are gutted alive in restaurants that buy them.

He also cited Section 92 of the Wildlife Act, which renders illegal ‘any act of cruelty to wildlife’.

Recounting the ‘efficient’ manner in which the snakes were auctioned two days after being seized, Surendran said the groups want the police to thoroughly investigate the circumstances of the decision to sell the snakes as well as the sale itself.

Selangor chapter chairperson Christine Chin of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals urged the police to be impartial in their investigations.

‘Sale allowed’

When contacted, Penang Wildlife Department director Hasnan Yusop denied any breach of regulations, saying the auctioning of partially protected wildlife is provided for under Schedule II of the Wildlife Act as well as Cites’ Appendix II.

“Perhaps the groups are just not fully informed of the provisions, as everything was done according to procedure,” said Hasnan.

He also the authorities ensure that wildlife species auctioned off to licensed traders do not undergo cruel treatment in the process of preparation in restaurants. This batch of snakes was sold only for the meat, not the skins.

“Nowadays, the slaughter of snakes in restaurants occurs (just like) the slaughter of chickens. There’s no difference,” said Hasnan.

He explained that the snakes could not be returned to Thailand as it was only suspected that the snakes originated from there.

The department, meanwhile, had to dispose of the snakes as soon as possible to prevent them from dying in the containers in which they were kept, especially since “several had died already”.

“Releasing them into the wild in Malaysia would not have been the right step because the habitat is not suitable. Even in places where they are found, such as in northern region of Malaysia, their numbers are very small,” he added.

“If they died in our possession, then the groups would be blaming for being cruel.”

Monday, March 19, 2007

MADPET: REMOVE DEATH PENALTY FROM ALL MALAYSIAN LAWS

MEDIA STATEMENT –20/3/2007

REMOVE DEATH PENALTY FROM ALL MALAYSIAN LAWS

Death Penalty for “Terrorist” and “Terrorist

Financiers” Unsafe and Unacceptable


MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) is shocked and disappointed that Malaysia has created new offence carrying the death penalty. This is in direct contrast to the worldwide trend towards abolition and the limiting of the death penalty.

It was reported recently that those convicted of terror acts that cause death will now face the mandatory death penalty. (Star 18/3/2007: Terrorists who cause death to hang). The new law, which comes under the amended Penal Code, came into effect on March 6. Under the amendment, those convicted of giving financial aid to such terrorists will also meet the same fate – death. If no death is caused, the convicted persons would be liable to a jail sentence of seven to 30 years and a fine.

It came into effect a day after Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz signed the gazette notice on March 5. Ironically, this was the same Minister who was reported in 2006 saying “For me, a life is a life. No one has the right to take someone else's life, even if that person has taken another life,.."

It is not possible in any system of human justice to prevent the horrifying possibility of the execution of innocent persons; and the infliction of the death penalty makes wrongful convictions irreversible. In an age, when it is possible to isolate persons guilty of the most heinous of crimes from society by the imposition of life imprisonment, there can be no more justification for the usage of the death penalty.

The Malaysian Bar, a body representing over 12,000 Malaysian lawyers, at its 60th Annual General Meeting held on 18/3/2006 passed a Resolution calling for the abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia, an immediate moratorium on all executions pending abolition and the commutation of the sentences of all persons currently on death row.

It must also be pointed out that a television poll done by RTM 2 during the Hello on Two programme on 7/5/2006 showed that 64% of Malaysians are for the abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia. This program has an estimated audience of 80,000. It is thus important that members of Parliament, the representatives of the people respond to the aspirations of Malaysians and remove the death penalty from the laws of Malaysia.

It is ironic that at a time when the nations of the world are rapidly moving towards abolition of the death penalty, Malaysia is once again unnecessarily and imprudently extending the range of capital offences. Today, 128 countries have abolished capital punishment in law or practice as opposed to 69 countries which retain the death penalty. Philippines and Albania are the most recent addition to the list of death penalty abolitionist nations.

MADPET reiterates its call for an immediate moratorium on all executions pending abolition, and the abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia.

N. Surendran

Charles Hector

for Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET)

20th March 2007

RESOLUTION FOR THE END OF THE STATE OF EMERGENCY AND AN END TO LAW ENFORCEMENT” BY THE UNTRAINED AND ARMED PEOPLE'S VOLUNTEER CORPS ( RELA)

MALAYSIAN BAR RESOLUTION FOR THE END OF THE STATE OF EMERGENCY AND AN END TO LAW ENFORCEMENT” BY THE UNTRAINED AND ARMED PEOPLE'S VOLUNTEER CORPS ( RELA)

(passed unanimously at the 61st Malaysian Bar AGM held on 17/3/2007)

Whereas:-

1. On 31st August 2007, it will be 50 years since Malaysia achieved its independence and has been for over 30 years been a peaceful democratic nation.

2. It is sad that Malaysia is still in a state of Emergency as there exist today 4 Proclamation of Emergencies issued by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong that is yet to be revoked.

3. Since independence, five states of emergency have been declared under Article 150 of the Federal Constitution. The first was the only one to have been revoked. The remaining four are still in operation. The second state of emergency was proclaimed in September 1964 when the country was faced with a campaign of violence from Indonesia. Although the threat ceased within less than two years, the state of emergency was never revoked.

4. The next state of emergency was declared on 14 September 1966 following the dismissal of the Chief Minister of the state of Sarawak. No violence - or threat of violence - resulted from the crisis. The government nevertheless proclaimed an emergency, confined to Sarawak. And although the crisis was soon resolved, the state of emergency has not been revoked.

5. The fourth proclamation came on 15 May 1969 following large-scale rioting and racial violence in the capital, Kuala Lumpur, during a general election. The violence led to several hundred casualties. As a result, further elections were postponed and parts of the Constitution suspended. Normalcy was restored soon - the legislature was reconvened and normal constitutional government restored in February 1971. However, the state of emergency has yet to be revoked.

6. On 8 November 1977, the fifth Emergency, limited to the state of Kelantan, was declared following a political crisis.

7. By reason of the proclamation of emergency, numerous legislations were enacted and are still in force, including also :-

a) Emergency (Essential Powers) Act, 1964 (30/64), today known as the Emergency (Essential Powers) Act 1979;

b) Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969;

c) Essential (Security Cases) Regulations 1975

8. For example, Section 6 of the Emergency (Essential Powers) Act 1979, states that “"For so long as the Proclamation of Emergency referred to in the preamble to this Act remains in force, the regulations made under the Emergency (Essential Powers) Act, 1964 (30/64) (except those regulations which the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may by notification in the Gazette declare not to be in force) shall be in force and shall have effect as if they have been made under this Act; and the regulations may be amended, modified or repealed as if they have been made under this Act.". [The proclamation of emergency referred to in this Act was the proclamation issued on 15 May 1969.]

9. The Ikatan Relawan Rakyat or better known as RELA (a People's Volunteer Corps) came into being by virtue of Essential (Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat) Regulations 1966 [P.U. 33/1966], under Emergency (Essential Powers) Act, 1964 (30/64), and continue to be in force by virtue of Section 6 of the Emergency (Essential Powers) Act 1979.

10. By virtue of the Essential (Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat) (Amendment) Regulations 2005, which came into operation on 1 February 2005, the powers of the Rela, have been dangerously over-extended giving RELA personnel the right to bear and use firearms, stop, search and demand documents, arrest without a warrant, and enter premises without a warrant. and all these powers can be exercised the RELA personnel has reasonable belief that any person is a terrorist, undesirable person, illegal immigrant or an occupier. Illegal immigrant and occupier (which would be Malaysians usually) was added on by this 2005 amendment.

11. These not-professionally trained volunteers has also now been accorded protection by the new amendments whereby it is stated that "…The Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 shall apply to any action, suit, prosecution or proceedings against the Ketua Pengarah Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat, Timbalan Ketua Pengarah Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat or any member of the Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat in respect of any act, neglect or default done or committed by him in good faith or any omission omitted by him in good faith, in such capacity."

12. Noting also that there has been numerous complaints that have surfaced in the media about the RELA not just from migrants but also Malaysians ranging from torture, gangster-like behavior, damage to property, wrongful arrest and detention and even the causing of deaths.

13. Its was reported that RELA arrested a total of 17,700 people believed
to be illegal immigrants and screened 94,010 people up to September
2006, and that means 94,010 people (or 76,310) with proper documentations were subjected to unnecessary harassment and their right to a remedy in law is difficult. Of the people arrested, recent reports in the media indicate that many may even not be
“illegal” or “undocumented” migrants at all.

* “…six foreign workers, all with legal travel and work documents, were whisked out of their quarters in a resort in Cherating in the wee hours of the morning on Dec 28 last year when RELA members "literally broke into their chalet and ordered them out." (The Star, January 12, 2007).”

* “…a team of 30 to 40 RELA members (half not in uniforms) turned up to look for foreign workers, assaulted some and allegedly stole cash and valuables during the raid. The companies, who lodged police reports, said that all the workers had legal work permits…..”(The Star, December 4, 2006) ·

* “22 workers of an IT company were beaten and made to do a 50m "duck-walk" at Section 30 in Shah Alam…” (The Star, February 16, 2006)

* Residents of about 10 households in Taman Anggerik, Cheras, Kuala Lumpur, complained that RELA personnel crashed into their homes after breaking door locks and smashing gates, and told them that they [RELA] were looking for illegal workers. The residents said the RELA personnel acted like gangsters and showed them no respect. When they asked the RELA personnel to explain why they crashed into their homes, they were told "we are the law." Cash totaling RM3,756 in a drawer was subsequently found missing. (The Star, October 17, 2006)

14. There have also been report of beatings and even deaths caused by RELA volunteers. As an example, in early 2006 it was reported that Ahmad Apik, 35, and Edy Sathurrohman, 26, both Indonesians, lost their lives, and they each left behind a wife and 2 young children. (Star, January 23, 2006).

15. The policy and practice of paying members of the People's Volunteer Corps (RELA) RM80-00 for each undocumented migrant must be stopped (The Star, January 23, 2006). Even MCA Public Services and Complaints Department head Datuk Michael Chong claimed that the reward offered had made RELA volunteers desperate to nab as many illegals as possible. (The Star January 23, 2006)

15. Malaysia is a developed country and professionally trained enforcement personnel should be used for law enforcement, and the use of volunteers like the RELA must end.

16. Some migrants may be undocumented, but they are still human beings and deserved to be treated humanely and should be accorded equal protection under the law.

17. Malaysia, a party to the April 1999 BANGKOK DECLARATION ON IRREGULAR MIGRATION, which clearly states “Irregular [undocumented] migrants should be granted humanitarian treatment, including appropriate health and other services, while the cases of irregular migration are being handled, according to law. Any unfair treatment toward them should be avoided” must adhere to its commitments.

18. New laws can always be enacted by a parliament in times of peace if needed.

IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED:-

a) That we, the Malaysian Bar, call upon the Yang Di-Pertuan Agung to revoke all existing Proclamations of Emergency in Malaysia;

b) That we, the Malaysian Bar call for the repeal all legislations and Acts that were enacted and continue to be in force by reason of the now existing unrevoked Proclamations of Emergency;

c) That we, the Malaysian Bar reiterate our call for the repeal of Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 and the Essential (Security Cases) Regulations 1975;

d) That we, the Malaysian Bar specifically call for the repeal of the Emergency (Essential Powers) Act 1979 and all Regulations and Rules made thereunder, in particular Essential (Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat) Regulations 1966 [P.U. 33/1966], as amended by the Essential (Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat) (Amendment) Regulations 2005;

e) That we, the Malaysian Bar call for the employment and usage of only properly trained professional law enforcement personnel in Malaysia;

f) That we, the Malaysian Bar urge that inquests be conducted for Ahmad Apik, Edy Sathurrohman and for the other persons who have died as result of alleged RELA actions;

g) That we, the Malaysian Bar urge that all persons including undocumented migrants and/or refugees be treated humanely and accorded equal protection of the law;

h) That we, the Malaysian Bar call on the Malaysian government to immediately ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families;

i) That we, the Malaysian Bar call on the Malaysian government to immediately ratify the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Proposers:

Charles Hector

Francis Pereira

18th February 2007

Malaysia law stipulates death for terrorists causing death




World News

Malaysia law stipulates death for terrorists causing death

Kuala Lumpur, Mar 18: Malaysia has introduced a new law under which those convicted of terrorist acts that cause death and their financiers will face mandatory capital punishment, a media report said here today.

The law, which comes under the amended Penal Code, came into effect on March 6, the Sunday Star newspaper reported.

Under the amendment, those convicted of terror acts that cause death will now face the mandatory death penalty, it said adding, those found guilty of giving financial aid to such terrorists will also meet the same fate.

If no death is caused, the convicted persons would be liable to a jail sentence of seven to 30 years and a fine.

These provisions are provided for in a new chapter in the Code dealing with offences against terrorism.

The new chapter, among others, stipulates terrorist acts as providing devices, training, facilities, property and other services to terrorists as well as harbouring terrorists and intentionally not giving information on terrorists and their property.

These offences mainly carry the new maximum life imprisonment term of 30 years and a fine.

--- PTI

Article Title: Malaysia law stipulates death for terrorists causing death

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Gov't introduces mandatory death for terror (Malaysiakini)







Gov't introduces mandatory death for terror
Mar 18, 07 3:19pm


Malaysia has introduced a new tough anti-terror law under which convicted terrorists and those who fund them face the mandatory death penalty.

The Sunday Star newspaper said the new law, which comes under the amended Penal Code, came into effect on March 6. A minister declined to comment on the report.

Under the law, those convicted of acts of terrorism that cause death and those convicted of giving financial aid to such terrorists would meet the same fate, it said. The death sentence in Malaysia is carried out by hanging.

If there is no death, the convicted persons would be liable to a jail sentence of between seven and 30 years.

The new law defines terrorist acts as providing devices, training facilities as well as harbouring terrorists and intentionally not giving information about the terrorists.

Malaysia already has a controversial draconian security law, the Internal Security Act (ISA), which allows for indefinite detention without trial.

Malaysia is currently holding over 100 people in detention under the act, more than 80 of whom are described as suspected Islamic militants.

- AFP

Terrorists who cause death to hang (Star)




Terrorists who cause death to hang

PUTRAJAYA: Those convicted of terror acts that cause death will now face the mandatory death penalty.

The new law, which comes under the amended Penal Code, came into effect on March 6. Under the amendment, those convicted of giving financial aid to such terrorists will also meet the same fate.

If no death is caused, the convicted persons would be liable to a jail sentence of seven to 30 years and a fine.

These provisions are provided for in a new chapter in the Code dealing with offences against terrorism.

It came into effect a day after Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz signed the gazette notice on March 5.

The new chapter, among others, stipulates terrorist acts as providing devices, training, facilities, property and other services to terrorists as well as harbouring terrorists and intentionally not giving information on terrorists and their property.

These offences mainly carry the new maximum life imprisonment term of 30 years and a fine.

Offences such as intentional omission in giving information related to terrorist acts, providing or collecting property for terrorist acts carry a minimum seven years' jail with a maximum of 30 years' imprisonment as well as a fine.

All these offences allow the police to arrest suspects without a warrant and are not bailable in court.

LAWYERS UNANIMOUS IN CALL FOR THE DEMISE OF RELA ...

LAWYERS UNANIMOUS IN CALL FOR THE DEMISE OF RELA AND THE USAGE OF ONLY PROFESSIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONELL IN MALAYSIA

The Malaysian Bar at its 17th March 2007 Annual General Meetings unanimously called for the end of RELA, the Volunteer Peoples’ Corp, which have attracted much public outcry in the way that they have been going after both Malaysians and migrants. There have been allegations of torture and even the causing of death by volunteer RELA personnel, who also received payment of RM80-00 for each undocumented migrant they managed to catch.

The Bar’s Resolution called for the repeal of the Emergency (Essential Powers) Act 1979 and all Regulations and Rules made there under, in particular Essential (Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat) Regulations 1966 [P.U. 33/1966], as amended by the Essential (Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat) (Amendment) Regulations 2005, also for the employment and usage of only properly trained professional law enforcement personnel in Malaysia as opposed to the RELA volunteers.

The Resolution also called for inquests be conducted for Ahmad Apik, Edy Sathurrohman and for the other persons who have died as result of alleged RELA actions.

By virtue of the Essential (Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat) (Amendment) Regulations 2005, which came into operation on 1 February 2005, the powers of the Rela, have been dangerously over-extended giving RELA personnel the right to bear and use firearms, stop, search and demand documents, arrest without a warrant, and enter premises without a warrant. and all these powers can be exercised the RELA personnel has reasonable belief that any person is a terrorist, undesirable person, illegal immigrant or an occupier. Illegal immigrant and occupier (which would be Malaysians usually) was added on by this 2005 amendment.

These not-professionally trained volunteers has also now been accorded protection by the new amendments whereby it is stated that "…The Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 shall apply to any action, suit, prosecution or proceedings against the Ketua Pengarah Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat, Timbalan Ketua Pengarah Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat or any member of the Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat in respect of any act, neglect or default done or committed by him in good faith or any omission omitted by him in good faith, in such capacity."

Revoke All 4 Existing Proclamations Of Emergency

Lawyers in Malaysia were also unanimous in their call upon the Yang Di Pertuan Agong to revoke all 4 existing Proclamations of Emergency in Malaysia, for the repeal all legislations and Acts that were enacted and continue to be in force by reason of the now existing unrevoked Proclamations of Emergency including the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 and the Essential (Security Cases) Regulations 1975.

Since independence, five states of emergency have been declared under Article 150 of the Federal Constitution. The first was the only one to have been revoked. The remaining four are still in operation. The second state of emergency was proclaimed in September 1964 when the country was faced with a campaign of violence from Indonesia. Although the threat ceased within less than two years, the state of emergency was never revoked.

The next state of emergency was declared on 14 September 1966 following the dismissal of the Chief Minister of the state of Sarawak. No violence - or threat of violence - resulted from the crisis. The government nevertheless proclaimed an emergency, confined to Sarawak. And although the crisis was soon resolved, the state of emergency has not been revoked.

The fourth proclamation came on 15 May 1969 following large-scale rioting and racial violence in the capital, Kuala Lumpur, during a general election. The violence led to several hundred casualties. As a result, further elections were postponed and parts of the Constitution suspended. Normalcy was restored soon - the legislature was reconvened and normal constitutional government restored in February 1971. However, the state of emergency has yet to be revoked.

On 8 November 1977, the fifth Emergency, limited to the state of Kelantan, was declared following a political crisis.

Humane Treatment for ALL

The Malaysian Bar asked that all persons including undocumented migrants and/or refugees be treated humanely and accorded equal protection of the law.

Malaysia, who is a party to the April 1999 BANGKOK DECLARATION ON IRREGULAR MIGRATION, which clearly states “Irregular [undocumented] migrants should be granted humanitarian treatment, including appropriate health and other services, while the cases of irregular migration are being handled, according to law. Any unfair treatment toward them should be avoided” must adhere to its commitments.

It was also stressed in the Resolution, that all persons, be they citizens or otherwise, are guaranteed by our own Malaysian Federal Constitution to equal protection of the law.

Ratification of International Conventions

The Malaysian Bar also called on the Malaysian government to immediately ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families and also the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Charles Hector

Petaling Jaya

18th March 2007