Malaysia now not abolishing death penalty ONLY the MANDATORY Death Penalty - but even that is delayed

* When the new Pakatan Harapan led government came into power after the last General Elections, the Cabinet decided to abolish the death penalty - then, the government back-tracked, and is now saying that they will only abolish the MANDATORY death penalty - but there is still no Bill tabled in Parliament to abolish the mandatory death penalty.

Again, a 'Task Force' is established ...and we are still waiting ...and many victims continue to be sentenced to the mandatory death sentence. The abolition of the mandatory death sentence is simple ...and Bills could have tabled immediately. Other issues like how to deal with those on the death row are issues that could be later dealt with...

Law minister: Judges to have discretion in imposing death penalty

Published 1 week ago on 18 July 2019

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Liew Vui Keong speaks to reporters at the Parliament lobby in Kuala Lumpur July 4, 2019. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa

KUALA LUMPUR, July 18 — Judges will still have the discretion to impose the death penalty under proposed changes in the law to abolish the mandatory death sentence currently in existence for 11 offences, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Liew Vui Keong said today.

He clarified that the proposed changes being sought by the government were meant to give judges wider discretion in deciding whether to impose the death penalty or life imprisonment or imprisonment for a shorter period, depending on the facts of individual cases.

Among the 11 offences currently carrying the mandatory death sentence, nine relate to crimes under the Penal Code, while the remaining two comprise offences under the Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971.

Twenty-two other offences carry the option of a death sentence or life imprisonment with whipping but in these cases, the courts already have the discretion to choose.

In an exclusive interview with Bernama, the minister said the term ‘mandatory’ in reference to the 11 offences meant that “the courts have no choice but to impose the death sentence”, adding that with the proposed changes, the prosecution would still be entitled to appeal if it felt a certain sentence imposed was not commensurate with the gravity of the offence committed. 

The Bill containing the proposed changes will be discussed in the October sitting of the Dewan Rakyat.

The minister clarified that the proposal to abolish the mandatory death sentence was not new nor was it done in haste, adding that efforts began as far back as 2010 during the previous administration and in 2013, a research initiative called ‘The Death Penalty in Malaysia and the Way Forward’ had recommended that the mandatory death sentence be abolished.

In this connection, Liew stressed that there was no need for the issue to be politicised.

He said a task force would be established to study the technical aspects relating to the abolition of the mandatory death sentence, apart from looking at sentences that would serve as alternatives to the maximum penalty, and these would comprise penalties which were in proportion to the crimes committed.

The task force will be composed of representatives of government agencies, academia, civil society and other relevant parties.

“The government is ready to listen to voices from all levels of society, including minority groups, to ensure that the new law is more inclusive, holistic and effective,” Liew said, adding that his team would also provide detailed briefings to the general public. — Bernama - Malay Mail, 18/7/2019

IGP is wrong, Sosma must be repealed(Malaysiakini)

IGP is wrong, Sosma must be repealed

Madpet  |  Published: 22 Jul 2019, 11:37 am

 

   

LETTER | Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet) is appalled by the fact that Inspector-General of Police Abdul Hamid Bador is trying to lobby that the draconian Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012, which Pakatan Harapan in their election manifesto promised will be repealed, should be retained. 

Hamid said, amongst others, that “if Sosma is taken away from us, it means you take away our 'guns' to fight terrorists."

He claimed that "the Counter-Terrorism (E8) Division of the Bukit Aman Special Branch has racked up an impressive number of arrests and stopped planned attacks from happening here."

This claim, however, is not substantiated by the number of convictions after an open trial. 

If Sosma only was used, then there must be a trial. Preparing or planning for a crime is also a crime in Malaysia which will be tried. 

Maybe, the government could give us the statistics of the number of persons who have tried and convicted for terrorist offences, including the offence of preparing to carry out terrorist actions.

Sadly, the IGP also seem to be unhappy with the abolition of the Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA), that draconian detention without trial law, has been abolished by the then BN government, who then simply extended the scope of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959, another detention without trial law, and enacted also enacted a new detention without trial law being Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015. 

Madpet is now concerned about the suitability of Hamid as Malaysia’s IGP, noting that this was a political appointment.

The IGP also recently said that the 2016 arrest and detention of Maria Chin Abdullah, using Sosma, was justified. 

He forgets that the now Petaling Jaya MP Maria had after her release sued the government with regard her arrest and detention, and the government has since agreed to pay her compensation of RM25,000 in damages and RM5,000 in costs.

This is an indication or rather an admission that the government has done wrong in arresting and detaining her using Sosma.

Hence, what the IGP says now seems to be against the current government position, or alternatively an allegation that the government acknowledgement of fault and the payout of compensation was wrong. 

Was Maria then accorded ‘special treatment’ because she, who was then the Chairperson of Bersih, had since been elected as a Harapan MP?

Soma has, amongst others, three main draconian elements being:

• Removes the requirement of bringing before a magistrate within 24 hours, hence ousting the judicial authority of magistrates to consider whether to allow further remand. An arrested suspect needs to be brought before a magistrate 24 hours after arrest. During remand applications by the police to enable a suspect to be kept in detention for the purpose of investigation, the magistrates decides after hearing the police, the suspect(or his/her lawyer) and then makes the appropriate just order – no further remand or remand for how many days. In the case of Sosma ‘security’ offences, there is no need to bring before a magistrate, and all that is required is ‘a police officer of or above the rank of superintendent may extend the period of detention for a period of not more than 28 days, for the purpose of investigation.’ (Section 4(5))
• Denial of bail for persons charged in court – In ordinary criminal cases, the accused is generally entitled to bail, but no bail, if one is charged with any one of over 70-100 ‘security’ offences listed in Sosma. Section 13(1) states ‘(1) Bail shall not be granted to a person who has been charged with a security offence.’
• Allows the use of evidence that is not allowed by our Evidence Act 1950 in criminal trials, and also allows for ‘special procedures’ during trial including the ability for ‘court shall hold an inquiry in camera by questioning the witness concerned or any other witness in the absence of the accused and his counsel’. That means the lawyer and the accused cannot even cross-examine or challenge the evidence. It will not be a fair trial.

The need for the police to bring the arrested before a magistrate within 24 hours is a right provided for in the Federal Constitution, and our Criminal Procedure Code. 

To just trust the police will exercise their power rightly is not something that any reasonable person can accept, and that is why the right to be brought before a magistrate within 24 hours exist – and why the magistrate is empowered to evaluate the complete facts to determine whether further remand is allowed or not, and for how long.

The legal principle that one is presumed innocent until found guilty by a court – not the police or the government. This principle must always be respected.

The BN government also introduced a new kind of offence, being "activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy," which is just too vague and is open to abuse. This must certainly be repealed. 

There, small offences like receipt of publication detrimental to parliamentary democracy is also a Sosma-listed ‘security’ offence. 

Mdapet calls for the repeal of Section 124B to 124J of the Penal Code, all the offences concerning "activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy."

In Malaysia, there is still no criminal compensation scheme that will compensate persons who have been detained wrongfully by the police or in prison. 

After 28 days in detention by police, one is not charged but released, and this suggests that the detention was wrong. After languishing in prison because Sosma denies bail, and the court finds you not guilty. It is unjust that an innocent person is not compensated for his or her loss of liberty.

Remember that these suspects or those that languish in prisons because bail is denied are fathers, mothers, spouses and siblings, who do have a responsibility to families and dependents. Prolonged detention can result in loss of employment, income and also business.

Whilst acknowledging the right of the IGP has the right to his personal opinion, the government should not falter in doing justice by the abolition of Sosma and all detention without trial laws.

Therefore, Madpet: 

• Reiterates the call for the immediate repeal of Sosma;
• Calls for the repeal of Section 124B to 124J of the Penal Code, all the offences concerning "activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy";
• Reiterates the call for the repeal of all detention without trial laws like Poca, Pota and the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985, which also denies the right for the victim to file for judicial review against the reasons used for his/her detention/restrictions.
• Calls on the government to ensure justice is done and ensure that everyone is accorded the right to a fair trial - Malaysiakini, 22/7/2019   
• 
  
• 
  
• See full statement at
  

  MADPET says IGP is Wrong, SOSMA must be Repealed

MADPET says IGP is Wrong, SOSMA must be Repealed

Media Statement – 22/7/2019

IGP is Wrong, SOSMA must be Repealed

MADPET is appalled by the fact that Inspector General of Police Datuk Seri Abdul Hamid Bador is trying to lobby that the draconian Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (SOSMA) 2012, which the Pakatan Harapan in their Election Manifesto promised will be repealed, should be retained. He said, amongst others, that “... if Sosma is taken away from us, it means you take away our 'guns' to fight terrorists...’.

He claimed that ‘…The Counter Terrorism (E8) Division of the Bukit Aman Special Branch department has racked up an impressive number of arrests and stopped planned attacks from happening here…’(Malay Mail, 21/7/2019).

This claim, however, is not substantiated by the number of convictions after an open trial. If SOSMA only was used, then there must be a trial. Preparing or planning for a crime is also a crime in Malaysia which will be tried. Maybe, the government could give us the statistics of the number of persons who have tried and convicted for terrorist offences, including the offence of preparing to carry out terrorist actions.

Sadly, the IGP also seem to be unhappy with the abolition of the Internal Security Act (ISA), that draconian detention without trial(DWT) have been abolished by the then Barisan Nasional government, who then simply extended the scope of POCA, another DWT law, and enacted also enacted a new DWT law being POTA. MADPET is now concerned about the suitability Abdul Hamid Bador as Malaysia’s Inspector General of Police, noting that this was a political appointment.

The IGP also recently said that the arrest and detention of Maria Chin Abdullah, using SOSMA, was justified. He forgets that the now Member of Parliament Maria had after her release sued the government with regard her arrest and detention, and the government has since agreed to pay her compensation of ‘…RM25,000 in damages and RM5,000 in costs to Petaling Jaya MP Maria Chin Abdullah over her detention in 2016 under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012…’ (Sosma)(Malay Mail, 18/2/2019). This is an indication or rather an admission that the government has done wrong in arresting and detaining her using SOSMA.

Hence, what the IGP says now seems to be against the current government position OR alternatively an allegation that the government acknowledgement of fault and the payout of compensation was wrong. Was Maria then accorded ‘special treatment’ because she, who was then the Chairperson of BERSIH, had since been elected as a Pakatan Harapan Member of Parliament.

SOSMA has, amongst others, 3 main draconian elements being:-

1-      Removes the requirement of bringing before a Magistrate within 24 hours, hence ousting the judicial authority of Magistrates to consider whether to allow further remand. Arrested suspect needs to be brought before a Magistrate 24 hours after arrest. During remand applications by the police to enable a suspect to be kept in detention for the purpose of investigation, the Magistrates decides after hearing the police, the suspect(or his/her lawyer) and then makes the appropriate just order – no further remand or remand for how many days. In the case of SOSMA list of ‘security’ offences, there is  no need to bring before a Magistrate, and all that is required is ‘a police officer of or above the rank of Superintendent of Police may extend the period of detention for a period of not more than twenty-eight days, for the purpose of investigation.’[Section 4(5)]

2-      Denial of Bail for persons charged in court – In ordinary criminal cases, the accused is generally entitled to bail, but no bail, if one is charged with any one of over 70-100  ‘security’ offences listed in SOSMA. Section 13(1) states ‘(1) Bail shall not be granted to a person who has been charged with a security offence.’  

3-      Allows the use of Evidence that is not allowed by our Evidence Act in criminal trials, and also allows for ‘special procedures’ during trial including the ability for ‘court shall hold an inquiry in camera by questioning the witness concerned or any other witness in the absence of the accused and his counsel’. That means the lawyer and the accused cannot even cross-examine or challenge the evidence. It will not be a fair trial.

The need for the police to bring the arrested before a Magistrate within 24 hours is a right provided for in the Federal Constitution, and our Criminal Procedure Code. To just trust the police will exercise their power rightly is not something that any reasonable person can accept, and that is why the right to be brought before a Magistrate within 24 hours exist – and why the Magistrate is empowered to evaluate the complete facts to determine whether further remand is allowed or not, and for how long.

The legal principle that one is presumed innocent until found guilty by a court – not the police or the government. This principle must always be respected.

The Barisan Nasional government also introduced a new kind of offence, being ‘activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy’, which is just too vague and is open to abuse. This must certainly be repealed. There, small offences like receipt of publication detrimental to parliamentary democracy is also a SOSMA listed ‘security’ offence. MADPET calls for the repeal of Section 124B to 124J of the Penal Code, all the offences concerning ‘activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy’.

In Malaysia, there is still no criminal compensation scheme that will compensate persons who have been detained wrongfully by the police or in prison. After 28 days in detention by police, one is not charged but released, and this suggest that the detention was wrong. After languishing is prison because SOSMA denies bail, and the court finds you not guilty. It is unjust that an innocent man is not compensated for his loss of liberty.

Remember that these suspects or those that languish in prisons because bail is denied are fathers, mothers, spouses and siblings, who do have responsibility to families and dependents. Prolonged detention can result in loss of employment, income and also business.

Whilst acknowledging the right of the Inspector General of Police has the right to his personal opinion, the government should not falter in doing justice by the abolition of SOSMA and all Detention Without Trial Laws

Therefore, MADPET

- Reiterates the call for the immediate repeal of Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (SOSMA) 2012;

- Call for the repeal of Section 124B to 124J of the Penal Code, all the offences concerning ‘activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy’;

- Reiterates the call for the repeal of all Detention Without Trial laws like the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (POCA), Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015(POTA) and the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985, which also denies the right for the victim to file for judicial review against the reasons used for his/her detention/restrictions.

- Calls on the government to ensure justice is done and ensure that everyone is accorded the right to a fair trial.

Charles Hector

For and on behalf of MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

Prosecute MACC and enforcement officers that broke any law in the case of Teoh Beng Hock, Syed Mohd Azlan and other Deaths in Custody Case

Media Statement – 20/7/2019

Prosecute MACC and enforcement officers that broke any law in the case of Teoh Beng Hock, Syed Mohd Azlan and other Deaths in Custody Case

Charge in court rather than internal ‘secret’ disciplinary actions

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) is concerned that Attorney General found that there is insufficient evidence ‘…to warrant a culpable homicide investigation into Teoh Beng Hock's death…’(Star, 17/7/2019). What needs to be done is to continue investigations. 

The Teoh Beng Hock case also raises many other possible offences that could be prosecuted including the giving false statements, possibly also suppression or doctoring of evidence, and other breaches of law. Any enforcement officer who breaks the law should be investigated and prosecuted in open court. 

On July 16, 2009, Teoh was found dead on the fifth floor of Plaza Masalam, Shah Alam, after going to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) office on the 14th floor of the same building where he was interrogated. Teoh was brought into MACC Selangor’s office for questioning at 6pm on July 15, 2009, where he remained for 19 hours until his body was found at 1.30pm the next day.

Thai forensic pathologist Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand testified that she was 80 percent sure Teoh had been strangled before falling off the building. This was based on bruises on his neck.

The Royal Commission of Inquiry also concluded that five MACC officers had given false testimonies about their actions before Teoh was found dead. They were then-MACC Selangor deputy director Hishamuddin Hashim and officers Mohd Ashraf Mohd Yunus, Bulkini Paharuddin, Anuar and Raymond. 

Both the RCI report and Court of Appeal judgments clearly stated that MACC officers had committed wrongdoings when questioning Teoh, yet none has faced prosecution.(Malaysiakini, 16/7/2019)

There is also many other death in custody cases like the case of Syed Mohd Azlan Syed Mohamed Nur where it was found that police officers or enforcement officers had broken the law. 

In the Syed Mohd Azlan’s case, the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) was reported saying, “There was an element of crime in the attacks involving common intent or abetment by PDRM officers, including the arresting team, to intentionally use physical violence on the deceased to cause death or injury,”  It said that the action was a criminal offence, specifically under Section 302 and 325 of the Penal Code read with Section 34 of the same Act.( Malay Mail, 30/10/2015) EAIC’s investigations also found attempts to obscure evidence by police officers.

Sadly, we have not heard that all these officers were charged and tried in court. 

Now, we have a new government and a new Attorney General, and MADPET prays that all these officers who committed crimes, including ‘doctoring’, fabricating and hiding evidence should be investigated and prosecuted. Those who make false statements should also be prosecuted.

The perception of the administration of justice in Malaysia suffers, when police, MACC or other enforcement officers seem to be able to escape prosecution and trial. Internal disciplinary measures, including termination, alone is totally inadequate.

Public Officers with the responsibility of enforcing the law must never break the law, and if they do, they must be immediately prosecuted and tried in court, and if found guilty, their sentence best be a deterrent sentence.

Such open trials may result in ensuring that other enforcement officers will in the future obey the law for fear of being prosecuted if the break it in any way, be it corruption, torture or any other crimes.

Therefore, MADPET

Calls on the Attorney General to immediately investigate, charge and try in open court all enforcement officers that have broken any law whatsoever, not just those that caused the death of Teoh Beng Hock, Syed Mohd Azlan and others who have died in custody and other victims;

Calls on the Attorney General to look at all SUHAKAM(National Human Rights Commission), the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) and other Commission’s reports, and immediately take action against the police, MACC or other enforcement officers that have been found to have committed  crimes;

Call on the Malaysian government to adopt a strict policy of prosecuting any breach of law committed by public servants, and not simply resort to internal disciplinary measures including termination;

Call on the media to actively report and highlight all cases involving wrongdoings of public servants, especially enforcement officers, as this will help reduce corruption and criminal activities in the police, MACC, Immigration Department and the civil service generally;

Call on the Malaysian government to enact laws that makes it a crime for public servants who know of criminal wrongdoings of their fellow public servants who fail to come forward, or cover-up evidence of these wrongdoings; and

Call on the Malaysian government to restore public confidence in the police, MACC, enforcement officers, civil servants especially the administration of justice in Malaysia.

Charles Hector

For and on behalf of MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

See related posts:- 

Teoh Beng Hock - Has there been any prosecution of anyone relating to this case? AG need to ACT

Police officers that tortured and killed detainee - what will the AG and the Malaysian government do?

EAIC’S INVESTIGATION FINDINGS ON THE DEATH OF N. DHARMENDRAN IN POLICE CUSTODY

Police officers that tortured and killed detainee - what will the AG and the Malaysian government do?

EAIC - Polis bunuh Syed Mohd Azlan dalam tahanan, lupuskan keterangan,...??-