MADPET-Malaysians Against Death Penalty & Torture

Do not use ISA pending abolition - not promise to repeal & then use it 2 months later

2011-11-17T22:22:00.000-08:00

September PM says ISA will be repealed - November new arrests under ISA.

They said they are going to repeal the ISA - and pending abolition they should not be using it - but this is Malaysia and we are talking about Barisan Nasional(BN) government and they can say a lot of things ....make promises and then just ignore it. One example is that in September 2009, this government said that the Employment Act will be amended to ensure that all domestic workers will be entitled to one rest day per week - and to date although Bills have been tabled at least 2 times - this promise of rest day for domestic workers is still not there. That is why also I do not believe any of the promises made by the Minister (the BN government) about the proposed amendments - they say they will do this and that ...and at the end of the day will not do..

Now, 13 are being arrested under the ISA - and I am sure that they could have been arrested under the Criminal Procedure Code. Note that in the Penal Code - preparation, incitement, etc to do an offence is also an offence. Thus, so easily can they be arrested, charged and tried. There is no need to use the ISA...

Now, there is another law so very similar to the ISA, i.e. Emergency Public Order and Prevention of Crime Ordinance, a Detention Without Trial law, which they could so easily use - but why use ISA when the PM already said that this ISA will be repealed? Think about it...

Remember under the detention without trial laws, the police and the government can make any kind of allegation - and the detainee has no way of challenging this in court. So vague allegations can so easily be made - what about a 'White Paper' explaining the arrest and detention under the ISA? This was done before for Ops Lallang - so why not for all usage of DWT laws...

"...Malaysia's Prime Minister Najib Razak opened the door to major political changes in this Southeast Asian nation Thursday by saying the government would abolish a decades-old law that allows for detention without trial and pledging not to hold anybody in custody because of their political beliefs...Instead, the country's draconian Internal Security Act will be replaced by new legislation targeted at detaining terrorists. Mr. Najib also said newspapers and broadcasters would be able to operate indefinitely without renewing their license each year, as is the case now, unless those licenses are revoked...." - Wall Street Journal, 16/9/2011, Malaysian Leader Opens Door for Reforms-Najib Vows to End Harsh Security Law, Political Detentions

Police confirm 13 nabbed under 'to be repealed' ISA

5:03PM Nov 17, 2011
Inspector-general of police Ismail Omar today confirmed news reports that fresh arrests were made under the Internal Security Act 1960, which the government said will be repealed soon.

A total of 13 were taken in under the Act and not 10 or 11 as reported in today's mainstream newspapers, Ismail said in a brief statement.

"Our intelligence reports and investigation detected efforts to revive a militant movement in Sabah," he said.

Ismail added that the 13, consisting of seven Malaysians and six foreigners, were nabbed in an operation from Nov 14 to 16.

"The (individuals) were arrested under Section 73 (1) of the Internal Security Act 1960.

"If not curbed, their actions can threaten and undermine national security," he said.
Militant school teachers?
However, Gerakan Anti-ISA (GMI) in a statement earlier today said its sources claimed that up to 14 people could have been detained.

It listed the names of only 11, including two who appeared to be brothers - Muhd Adnan Umar (a tuition teacher at MJU Centre) and Muhd Abduh Umar (a lorry driver).

Among the others are SMK Kinabutan Islamic studies teacher Mohd Nazri Dollah, SMK Umar-umas teacher Bakar Baba, MJU Tuition Centre teacher Darto Bandu and poultry trader Yusof Saripuddin.

Also on GMI's list are newspaper distributors Faizal Hamma and Joni @ Muadz.

The NGO also said that the next-of-kin were informed a day after the arrests was made. - Malaysiakini, 17/11/2011, Police confirm 13 nabbed under 'to be repealed' ISA

Some responses of civil society:-

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
Press Release
17 November 2011

Malaysia: New ISA detentions show U-turn on reform promises

The Malaysian government must halt detentions under the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA), Amnesty International said today, after the authorities said they had used the law to detain 13 people this week.

Police arrested the detainees on 13 and 14 November in Tawau, a town in Sabah in eastern Malaysia. Seven are Malaysian, and the other six are foreign nationals.

The ISA, which allows for indefinite detention without charge or trial, has been used to imprison critics of the government and opposition politicians as well as suspected militants.

The detentions were the first since Prime Minister Najib Razak announced in September that his government would repeal the law and replace it with new security legislation.

“The Malaysian government has made a mockery of its plan to scrap the Internal Security Act by using it to detain people once again,” said Sam Zarifi, Asia Director at Amnesty International.
“Promises to abolish ISA detention are not enough. Prime Minister Najib needs to end it in practice.” 

The inspector-general of police, Ismail Omar, today told state news agency Bernama that all 13 detainees are being held under Section 73(1) of the ISA. This provision allows for police to arrest anyone without warrant whom they believe might “act in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia.” 

The ISA is also contrary to international human rights standards including the right to be free from arbitrary detention and the rights to due process and a fair trial.

“If the Malaysian police have grounds to suspect these 13 detainees of a legitimate crime, they should charge them or else release them. Locking people up without charge or trial shows flagrant disrespect for the rule of law.”

Press Release : Recent ISA Arrest : Flagrant Hypocrisy of Najib’s Announcement on Malaysia Day

On this year’s Malaysia Day, Prime Minister Najib Razak surprised the nation by announcing that the draconian Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA) will be abolished in the hope of building a nation that “practices functional and inclusive democracy where peace and public order are safeguarded in line with the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law and respect for basic human rights”.

The announcement stands in stark contrast to the recent arrest of 11 individuals in Tawau, Sabah who have been accused of terrorism under the ISA despite Prime Minister’s undertaking that the draconian ISA to be abolished.

It is important to be reminded that allegations made against individuals under the ISA remain mere allegations no matter how serious the nature of the said allegations is. These individuals have not been given any opportunity to challenge their detention or the allegations as the ISA allows detention without trial and it denies the basic right of the detainees to be tried in court.

Lawyers For Liberty is appalled to learn the recent arrest under the ISA which clearly manifests flagrant hypocrisy of the announcement made on the historic Malaysia Day by Prime Minister Najib Razak. This recent arrest shows that Najib’s administration continues to commit this legalized injustice despite sitting on the UN Human Rights Council where pledges have been made that Malaysia would uphold the highest standards of human rights before its re-election to the Council in 2010.

The ISA allows detention without trial where the police have the power to arrest a person up to 60 days and the Home Minister may authorize further detention up to 2 years and the period may be further extended indefinitely. This draconian piece of legislation goes against the fundamental principle of the right to trial which has been guaranteed under the Constitution and crystalized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It is to be noted that there has been a trend to progressively reduce preventive detention powers and the ISA-like anti-terrorism laws do not exist in countries like the UK, Canada and Australia post 9/11.

The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in its report dated 8 February 2011 stated that the ISA is no longer necessary to be in force in Malaysia since the Penal Code has been amended to make terrorism a specific offence.

Lawyers For Liberty condemns the continued use of preventive laws such as the ISA under the pretext of combatting terrorism as it is tantamount to a gross violation of human rights. There are sufficient laws in Malaysia to combat terrorism and it is the duty of the police to carry out effective investigation and intelligence work to fight terrorist activities which can be established under the existing laws and proved in court.

Lawyers For Liberty therefore demands the immediate release of all ISA detainees and the immediate abolition of the draconian ISA.

Lawyers For Liberty
17 November 2011

Immediate Media Release: 17 November 2011

Detention under the ISA: The lies and hypocrisy of the Government Exposed!

Abolish ISA Movement (GMI) and Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) condemn the police and the Malaysian government for arresting 11 people from Tawau under the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA). According to our source, the actual number of individuals arrested is most likely 14 persons.

This heinous act is regrettable because it contradicts with the announcement of the Prime Minister of Malaysia on 15 September in respect of the repeal of the ISA. What is the rationale behind the detention? Is the Prime Minister of Malaysia trying to fool the people of Malaysia with his hypocritical attitude? The PM should be ashamed of this arrest!

According to our sources, the allegations against 11 individuals remain unclear and it is believed that they are associated with terrorism. Here are the names of the detained under the ISA on the 14th and 15th day of November 2011 (not official):

No	Name	Occupation
1	Mohd Nazri Bin Dollah	Religious teacher at SMK Kinabutan
2	Yusof Bin Saripuddin	Poultry dealer
3	Muhd Adnan Bin Umar	Teacher at MJU Tuition Centre
4	Muhd Abduh Bin Umar	Lorry driver
5	Adwan	Not Available
6	Faizal Bin Hamma	Newspapers Distributor
7	Joni @ Muadz	Newspapers Distributor
8	Azmi	Not Available
9	Suriadi	Not Available
10	Darto Bin Bandu	Teacher at MJU Tuition Centre
11	Bakar Bin Baba	Teacher at SMK Umas-umas

The arrest was conducted by police officers from the Department of Special Task Force (Operation Counter Terrorism) Bukit Aman headed by DSP Azman bin Omar. Family/next of kin of the individuals arrested were informed a day later that the arrest is under Section 73(1) AKDN 1960 (ISA).[T1]

Arrest without warrant, without notice or informing spouses and children is too tragic. The conduct of the arrest is comparable to a robbery as the police officers were well-armed and seized several laptops and a sum of cash.

BN Cannot Live Without ISA

The new detentions confirm the doubts among Malaysians with regards to this repeal. Now it is proven that the announcement of the repeal is insincere and merely for Najib's political interests. ISA is a cruel act that allows for detention without trial, which contradicts with fundamental human rights principles.

The UMNO/BN government has indicated that it cannot sustain itself without the ISA. The UMNO/BN-led government requires a political tool to stay in power and create fear among Malaysians. The ongoing use of ISA has given a blow to the BN’s credibility for the next election as it still maintains the habit of cheating people by using the ISA on a confidential basis.

Abolish ISA Now!

We would also like to remind the Prime Minister that over the past few decades, thousands of people were detained without trial under the ISA not for what they did or said, but based on anonymous and often false accusations from third parties. People have been locked up for crimes that were not proven in a court of law and thousands were left to anguish in secret detention cells around the country over an indefinite period of time.

As such, SUARAM and GMI call upon the Prime Minister to abolish the Internal Security Act and release all the detainees while the abolition is pending. We also call upon the government to stop legislating laws which allows detention without trial and to deal the terrorism issues with the existing laws.

Released by

Nalini Elumalai

GMI Secretariat/SUARAM

019 3758912

Syed Ibrahim Syed Noh

Chairman GMI

013 3682067

GERAKAN MANSUHKAN ISA (GMI)

SUARA RAKYAT MALAYSIA (SUARAM)

Kenyataan Akhbar: 17 November 2011

Penahanan dibawah ISA: Pembohongan dan Hipokrasi Kerajaan Terbongkar !

Gerakan Mansuhkan ISA (GMI) dan Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) mengutuk tindakan polis dan kerajaan Malaysia kerana menahan 11orang dari Tawau dibawah Akta Keselamatan dalam Negeri (ISA). Angka ini adalah tidak rasmi kerana ada sumber yang mengatakan angkanya kemungkinan 14 orang.

Tindakan terkutuk ini amat dikesali kerana ianya bercanggah dengan pengumuman Perdana Menteri Malaysia pada 15 September berkenaan dengan pemansuhan ISA. Apakah rasional disebalik penahanan? Adakah Perdana Menteri Malaysia cuba memperdayakan rakyat Malaysia dengan sikap hipokrasi beliau ? PM perlu berasa malu atas penangkapan ini!

Menurut sumber kami, setakat ini tuduhan keatas 11 orang ini masih tidak pasti dan dipercayai kemungkinan mereka dikaitkan dengan keganasan.

Berikut adalah nama-nama yang ditahan dibawah ISA pada 14 dan 15 haribulan November 2011 (Bukan rasmi):

Bil	Senarai Nama	Pekerjaan
1	Mohd Nazri Bin Dollah	Guru Agama SMK Kinabutan
2	Yusof Bin Saripuddin	Peniaga Ayam
3	Muhd Adnan Bin Umar	Guru Pusat Tuisyen MJU
4	Muhd Abduh Bin Umar	Pemandu Lori
5	Adwan
6	Faizal Bin Hamma	Pengedar Akhbar Harian
7	Joni @ Muadz	Pengedar Akhbar Harian
8	Azmi
9	Suriadi
10	Darto Bin Bandu	Guru Pusat Tuisyen MJU
11	Bakar Bin Baba	Guru Smk Umas-Umas

Tangkapan tersebut dilakukan oleh pegawai-pegawai polis dari Jabatan Pasukan Petugas Khas (Operasi Counter Terorism) Bukit Aman diketuai oleh DSP Azman bin Omar. Keluarga / Waris orang yang ditangkap dimaklumkan sehari kemudian yang mereka ditangkap di bawah Seksyen 73 (1) AKDN 1960 (ISA).

Penangkapan tanpa waran, tanpa notis atau dimaklumkan dilakukan di hadapan isteri dan anak-anak terlalu tragis. Situasi ini dilakukan oleh pihak polis yang lengkap bersenjata dengan cara yang kasar bagai satu rompakan dan dirampas beberapa komputer riba (laptop) dan sejumlah wang tunai.

BN Tidak boleh Hidup Tanpa ISA

Penahanan terbaru ini mengesahkan kesangsian yang terdapat di kalangan rakyat Malaysia berkenaan pemansuhan ini. Kini ianya amat pasti bahawa pengumuman itu hanyalah untuk kepentingan politik Najib dan tidak serius dan jujur dalam memansuhkan akta zalim ini. ISA adalah akta yang zalim dan yang membenarkan penahanan tanpa bicara di mana ianya bercanggah dengan hak asasi manusia.

Kerajaan UMNO/BN memang tidak boleh bertahan tanpa ISA. Kerajaan UMNO/BN ini memerlukan alat politik ini terus berkuasa dan mewujudkan ketakutan di kalangan rakyat Malaysia.Tindakan penggunaan ISA sememangya telah memberikan satu tamparan kepada kerajaan BN dalam pilihan raya akana datang kerana masih menipu rakyat dengan masih menggunakan ISA secara rahsia.

Mansuhkan ISA Sekarang

Kami juga ingin mengingatkan Perdana Menteri bahawa sejak beberapa dekad yang lalu, beribu-ribu orang telah ditahan tanpa bicara di bawah ISA bukan untuk apa yang mereka lakukan atau berkata tetapi berdasarkan tuduhan tanpa bukti dan sering palsu daripada pihak ketiga. Orang yang telah ditahan bukan untuk jenayah yang mereka lakukan atau dibuktikan di mana-mana mahkamah dan beribu-ribu dibiarkan merana di dalam sel-sel tahanan rahsia di seluruh negara.

Oleh itu, SUARAM dan GMI menyeru Perdana Menteri untuk mansuhkan ISA dengan segera dan membebaskan semua tahanan. Kami juga menyeru kerajaan untuk menghentikan menggubal undang-undang yang membenarkan penahanan tanpa perbicaraan dan untuk menangani isu-isu keganasan dengan undang-undang yang sedia ada.

Dikeluarkan oleh,

Nalini Elumalai

GMI Secretariat/SUARAM

019 3758912

Syed Ibrahim Syed Noh

Chairman GMI

013 3682067

'People must drive the change in death penalty' (NST)

2011-11-03T13:55:00.000-07:00

before we can make any amendments, there must be a healthy debate about this. — Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz minister in the prime minister’s department

KUALA LUMPUR: Society must push for the abolition of the death penalty, if that is what they want, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz said yesterday.

He said although he was for the abolition, there were few on the ground who agreed with him.

"There must be more efforts to create awareness. Even during parliamentary debates, the issue is barely raised when you compare it with issues like the Internal Security Act or the Emergency Ordinance which the government has decided to abolish. There is no urgency."

He said the government was open to the idea of making changes where the death penalty was concerned, but society must make enough of a stir to warrant it.

"It doesn't have to be like the ISA, where people demonstrated in the streets. There are more civil ways to do it. At the moment, there is no civil movement towards abolishing the death penalty."

Nazri said it would take a long time to change the acceptance of the death penalty.

"It's an emotional topic. You can see it in the way people react when they read about unwanted babies getting killed or of women being raped and murdered.

"People get angry and demand an eye for an eye, what more when you talk about wanting to spare the perpetrators."

He said this was reflected at a recent seminar to promote the abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia.

Instead of supporters coming in droves, the ones who showed up were those who demanded that the death penalty remain, he added.

In Malaysia, where the majority of crimes that warranted the mandatory death sentence revolved around drug trafficking and possession of firearms, Nazri said sentencing the perpetrators to death might not have much impact on society.

"But, it's emotional to the family members when the person sentenced to death had unknowingly become drug mules. There's always the probability that those caught are innocent."

For starters, Nazri said, the judiciary system could look at giving discretionary powers to judges in deciding whether the crime committed warranted a death sentence.

He said the death penalty had not proven much of a deterrence in reducing serious crimes in the country and the next best solution was to commute death to a life sentence in jail.

"But before we can make any amendments, there must be a healthy debate about this."

For example, he said, some people saw the death sentence as something that was prescribed by syariah from an Islamic point of view.

"There is a misconception that syariah is about 'an eye for an eye'. In the context of murder, syariah provides space for the family of the murdered kin to forgive or to ask for payment of blood money (compensation)."

He said the argument was that in Malaysian law, when there was a crime such as murder, the crime committed was not against the family of the murdered kin but against the crown (government).

"So, the choice of whether to spare or condemn the person's life is in the government's hands and no longer the family's.

"The government has a moral standing to forgive those who commit offences and it should be reflected in commuting it to a life sentence."

Nazri said it was important for the public, particularly non-governmental organisations, to call for the abolishment of the death penalty.

Several religious associations say the death penalty should be abolished following a thorough review.

Federation of Taoist Associations Malaysia president Tan Hoe Chieow said in Taoism, it was prohibited to take one's own life, let alone another.

"It is our belief that three feet above one's head, God is watching every action and decision we make in life."

He said Taoists believed in Judgment Day and that punishment or rewards would be meted out accordingly.

But he said the death penalty should be abolished only after reviewing if indeed it did not prove to be a deterrent to serious crimes.

Tan, who is also the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) president, said it was wise to consider the alternative punishments thoroughly before any abolition.

MCCBCHST executive councillor V. Harcharan Singh said most religions advocated compassion and forgiveness.

He said in Sikhism, there was no punishment till death as it was considered cruel to take one's life.

Malaysia Hindu Sangam former president Datuk A. Vythilingam said death sentences were carried out since the existence of ancient Hindu kingdoms.

In modern times, he said, the sentence should be carried out sparingly as it created an emotional uproar in society.

"Human beings naturally want to exact revenge for their hurt, hence they feel strongly about the death penalty.

"But an eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind."

Former Bar Council president Yeo Yang Poh said although there were pockets of people in society who believed that having a death penalty made for an effective deterrent, studies in other parts of the world showed that the crime rate did not drop because of it.

"The argument has been that no matter how good a system is, it will never be error-free.

"If it is found that someone was wrongfully jailed, he can be released. It is reversible. You can't say the same for someone wrongfully executed."

It was reported last year that there were 114 death sentences, with 744 persons on death row and one execution.

Some of the criminal offences that carry the death penalty include Section 121 of the Penal Code for waging war against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Section 364 for kidnapping or abducting in order to murder, Section 396 for gang robbery with murder and Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 for drug trafficking, which comes with a mandatory death sentence.

According to the Global Overview on the Death Penalty for Drug Offences 2010 conducted by International Harm Reduction Association, 32 states provided the death penalty for drug-related offences.

Of these, Malaysia is one of 13 that have the mandatory death sentence. - New Straits Times, 1/11/2011, 'People must drive the change in death penalty'

Abolition of death penalty in Malaysia? (Borneo Post, 30/10/2011)

2011-10-31T06:58:00.000-07:00

Abolition of death penalty in Malaysia?

by Churchill Edward. Posted on October 30, 2011, Sunday

ABOLITION of the death penalty will not come so soon in conservative Malaysia despite efforts by a few to change the mindset of the public at large.

Public opinion suggests that support for the mandatory death penalty as punishment for murder is still strong despite arguments by abolitionists that the death penalty brutalises society.

NO TO DEATH PENALTY: Thiru (right) listening to queries from members of the media. Also seen are (seated from left) Khaw, Lord Dubs, Charles and Tuijn.

According to the Global Overview on the Death Penalty for Drug Offences 2010, conducted by International Harm Reduction Association, there remains 32 states which provide for the death penalty for drug-related offences. Of these 32, 13 have the mandatory death penalty. Malaysia is one of them.

Abolitionists around the world have been quoting the late Gandhi that ‘An eye for an eye will make the whole world go blind’ effectively in some countries but not so in Malaysia.

The abolitionists argue that the death penalty is never a superior deterrent because murder and drug trafficking happen from time to time.

The worst case scenario is that an innocent man may be executed and when that happens, the sentence is irreversible, they point out.

The very few conservative countries are adamant about keeping the death penalty, especially as punishment for murder, drug trafficking and illegal possession of firearms.

Discretionary approach

Malaysians who support the abolitionists around the globe have suggested the country can go slow in changing the mindset of the people and/or public opinion by first urging the authorities to start making the death penalty discretionary for judges presiding over drug trafficking cases.

Later, the judges may proceed to invoke their discretionary powers in murder cases.

Discretion, the abolitionists suggest, may call forth some kind of compassion.

However most Malaysians note that compassion can also come in the form of a pardon by the King.

Public views must be taken into account on the proposal to abolish the death penalty in the country, said Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz.

“Like the Internal Security Act (ISA) — when a lot of the public wanting to abolish this law, we follow the majority. Public opinion is very important to us. At the moment you cannot really see whether or not the people are in favour of abolishing the death penalty,” he told reporters after a public seminar to promote the abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia in Kuala Lumpur.

Nazri said although there was now no discussion on the immediate abolishment of the death penalty in Malaysia despite calls from some quarters, the government was committed to re-evaluate, re-think and review the capital punishment.

114 death sentences

Malaysia still practises the death penalty and as of last year, there were 114 death sentences with another 744 persons on death row while one execution was reported.

Nazri, who is sometimes called the Law Minister, opined that the death penalty review was timely and in line with ongoing government efforts to review outdated laws and several emergency ordinances and introduce new laws, complied with the principles of human rights.

He said the government’s task was, therefore, to find the most humane mechanism to uphold justice for the people.

The seminar to promote the abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia was jointly organised by the European Union, the Bar Council Malaysia and the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia in conjunction with the International Day against the Death Penalty which is held every October 10.

Apart from Nazri, those present were ambassador Vincent Piket, head of the European Union (EU) delegation to Malaysia; moderator Prof Datuk Dr Khaw Lake Tee, who is vice chairman of Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) and Steven Thiru, Malaysian Bar Council treasurer as well as four panelists — Lord Alf Dubs of the All Party Parliamentary Group on the Abolition of the Death Penalty House of Lords UK; NicoTuijn, vice president of Court of Appeal, Hertogenbosch in Netherlands; Charles Hector, lawyer and coordinator of the Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet) and Yohendra Nadarajan, Amnesty International board member and Amnesty International Human Rights education coordinator.

Malaysian Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee was also present.

Piket, in his welcoming remarks, said the abolition of the death penalty worldwide was one of the main objectives of the EU’s human rights policy.

The Malaysian Bar also reiterated its call on the Malaysian government to immediately abolish the death penalty, and for an immediate moratorium on its use pending its abolition.

The Oct 13 seminar is the first in a long-term campaign to bring about the eventual abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia.

Life is sacred

In his closing remarks, Thiru said only God Almighty has the right to take away the life of a human being.

“We hold to the belief that life is sacred and every individual has an inherent right to life which is enshrined in Article 5 (1) of our Federal Constitution. We take the view that the right to life is a fundamental right which must be absolute, inalienable and universal, irrespective of the crime committed by the accused person,” he added.

“There is no empirical proof or data that irrefutably establishes that having the death penalty is effective (as compared to other forms of punishment) in deterring heinous and serious crimes.

“The retentionists’ credo that the death penalty deters crime is unsupported by compelling research. The retentionists, nevertheless, continue to call for the imposition of the death penalty, especially in relation to murder, rape and incest.

“However, the reality is that the death penalty would have dire repercussions on the efforts to prosecute and prevent the incidence of these crimes and the protection of rape survivors, and also the reduction of victimisation of the survivors under the legal process.

“For example, as the prosecution of rapists depends on the existence of a complaint by a rape survivor, the death penalty may discourage rape survivors from reporting the matter, especially if the perpetrator is a family member.”

Moreover, Thiru stressed, drug-related offences and addiction had been on the rise in Malaysia since the 1983 amendment to the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 which imposed the mandatory death penalty.

“This weakens the case for the death penalty because more than half of the known outstanding death sentences are for drug offences (479 out of the 696 inmates on death row as of Feb 22 this year), followed by murder (204) and illegal possession of firearms (13).

The mandatory death penalty has obviously not had the desired effect intended by parliament.”

The little fish

The vast majority of arrests for drug trafficking are those of non-violent and low-ranking “little fish” in the drug market. The most recent report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy observes that these “little fish” are most visible and easy to catch, and do not have the means to pay their way out of trouble because they cannot afford bribes or bail, for example.

“The (end) result is that governments are filling prisons with minor offenders and with no impact on the scale or profitability of the market,” Thiru added.

“These minor offenders are usually poor, young, desperate and/or very impressionable. This is well illustrated by the much-publicised case of Yong Vui Kong who is on death row in Singapore after being arrested and convicted for being in possession of 47.26 grammes of diamorphine when he was just 18.

“He (Yong) represents one of the many thousands of small fish (in an elaborate international or domestic web) that are caught by governments every year and a victim of the growing drug mule recruitment drive in Southeast Asia and East Asia,” Thiru pointed out.

Furthermore, both in Singapore and Malaysia, there is a legal presumption that the accused who is in possession of drugs in excess of the proscribed weight limit is guilty of trafficking, and that the accused is deemed to know what he or she carries.

The burden is, therefore, on the accused to prove his or her innocence.

This is the reversal of the universal legal standard of the prosecution bearing the burden, which is described in the famous case of Woolmington vs DPP as the golden thread in all criminal cases. Thus, it follows that once a person is convicted for possession, the judge is compelled to hand down the death sentence.

No legal system in the world is fail-proof or error-free, Thiru added.

Despite the best efforts of all those involved in the judicial and legal system, errors still abound due to human frailty. Groups such as the Innocence Project in the US work to bring about post-conviction DNA exonerations and to date, 273 people in the US have been exonerated by DNA testing, including 16 who served time on death row.

Karthigesu case

In Malaysia, some may recall the famous 1970’s case of Karthigesu, who was wrongly convicted for murder and later acquitted.

“Needless to say, the opportunity to right a wrong will not be available if the death sentence had been meted out. Then, we, as a society, are collectively responsible for having sent an innocent man or woman to their death.

“It will be cold comfort to the deceased persons’ loved ones for us to hold that the system is not free from error and that every now and then, there are those who fall in between the stools! The burden of imposing a sentence of death is, therefore, great and leaves no margin for natural human error,” he said.

The execution of human beings by the state is seen as an “example of barbarity” and legitimises the taking of human life.

In the course of the on-going Save Yong Vui Kong campaign, Nazri had been quoted as saying that now was time for Malaysia to abolish the death penalty.

At the same time, he did add that Malaysia lacked the political will to change things.

As such, the Malaysian Bar Council believes it is time to generate that political will and fibre among our politicians.

In this regard, the Malaysian Bar Council said it lauded the creation of a cross-party caucus in parliament that seeks to promote support for the abolition of the death penalty, and its decision on June 27, 2011, to move a resolution in parliament to end the mandatory death penalty for drug-related offences.

A few years back, there was a tale about former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad ticking off a foreign journalist whose fellow countryman was on death row in Malaysia for drug trafficking.

The foreign journalist asked Dr Mahathir: “Sir, don’t you think that your law is barbaric?”

In response, Dr Mahathir was quoted as saying: “Don’t you tell that to me. Tell that to the drug traffickers.”

This seems to be the attitude of most Malaysians at present. Apparently, the abolitionists have to work harder to change public mind set. - Borneo Post Online, 30/10/2011, Abolition of death penalty in Malaysia?

Minister's Nazri Aziz speech at the abolition of death penalty event - 13/10/2011, KL

2011-10-21T05:07:00.000-07:00

Speech by Dato' Seri Nazri Tan Sri Aziz, Minister in Prime Minister's Department, at the Public Seminar on the Abolition of Death Penalty on 13th October 2011 in Kuala Lumpur

Salutations and greetings

Moving ahead for a more humane world

1. First of all, I would like to thank the European Union Delegation to Malaysia and Ambassador His Excellency Mr. Vincent Piket for organising this very important public seminar on the abolition of death penalty in Malaysia.

2. I would also like to acknowledge the presence of the Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Ghani Patail and members of his Chamber. Let me also take this opportunity to thank my parliamentary colleagues and members of the civil society whose presence today gives this cause a semblance of bipartisan and society-wide support.

3. His Excellency Mr. Piket called on me in June 2011 in Parliament House to request for my support for this occasion, to which I immediately and gladly consented, fully aware of the contentions surrounding the death penalty in Malaysia and internationally.

4. I would like you to forgive me for being upfront and candid that I am NOT giving blanket support for the immediate abolition of death penalty in Malaysia. I am supporting this seminar because of the worthiness of the subject which requires rational consultation with the widest possible audience. It is also time for Malaysia to move ahead and not to take a backseat in the international discourse on human rights.

Moving ahead

5. Rethinking about the death penalty is part of the Government's effort to move ahead with the times for a more humane world. Prime Minister Dato' Seri Najib Tun Razak has spoken about Malaysia as a model of moderation on the world stage at the United Nations last year, and the Government is embarking on reviewing outdated laws, such as the Internal Security Act and the various Emergency declarations, and to adopt new laws that comply with human rights principles. Reviewing the death penalty is in line with that direction.

6. The forum today is held in conjunction with the World Day Against the Death Penalty on 10^th October. The theme for this year's World Day focuses on “The Inhumanity of the Death Penalty”, highlighting the inhumane nature of death penalty from the potential flaws in sentencing to the physical and mental sufferings of inmates awaiting execution on death row.

7. Therefore, the discussion on the abolition of death penalty is a noble cause and a very timely effort.

Noble cause

8. It is noble because, as men and women holding worldly power, our role is not to play god but to ensure that justice prevails in our societies. Our task in government is to find the most humane yet effective ways to uphold justice for our citizens and humankind in general. Taking away the lives of convicted criminals should be the last resort in the rarest instances and not a norm.

9. Reviewing the death penalty is a timely effort. More than two thirds of the world's countries have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice.

· 97 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes;

· 8 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes except

extraordinary crimes such as those committed in times of war;

· 34 countries are de facto abolitionists: the death penalty is still provided for in legislation but no executions have been carried out for at least ten years;

· Hence, effectively, 139 countries have abolished the death penalty de jure or de facto. However, 58 countries and territories still uphold the death penalty but only 23 countries carried out executions in 2010.

10. Noting also that the last few decades of "Tough on Crime" thinking, especially in the United States but not exclusively, has not been effective in reducing crime. The failure of the "Tough on Crime" movement taught us that it is necessary to take a more holistic view about crime and address the root causes of crime and not to just focus on punishment. Further, it is better to err on the caution then to execute an innocent person.

11. Towards this end, the Home Ministry has embarked on parole, social service and other alternative punishments. The next logical step is for us to examine the effectiveness of death penalty in curbing crime and ensuring justice for all, including victims of crime and the accused.

Our agenda

12. As I said earlier, I am not here to give blanket support for the abolition of the death penalty. The Government is committed to reevaluating, rethinking and reviewing the death penalty.

13. In June 2011, the Malaysian Parliament held a roundtable on the death penalty attended by elected representatives, legal luminaries and members of the civil society. It is part of our modest attempt to begin the consultation process.

14. In the roundtable, the Attorney-General's Chamber made public for the first time its policy decision not to enact new law that carries the death penalty. The Chamber is also considering whether the death penalty should be abolished entirely or partially. There are also discussions about a middle path approach to remove the mandatory death sentence and return discretion to the judges.

15. The participants of the roundtable passed a resolution calling on the Government to impose moratorium on death penalty while a thorough review is being conducted. The Government is considering all views being presented in the said roundtable as well as today's public seminar.

16. In conclusion, I commend the European Union Delegation to Malaysia for its effort in organising this landmark seminar and reiterate the Malaysian Government's commitment to move ahead with time to bring forward a more humane world.

The End

Note:- In his speech, there were additions and elaborations, but the above is essentially the main points that were made. Speech was delivered at Abolition of Death Penalty Event - 13/10/2011, 2pm, KL Convention Centre

The Attorney General unfortunately did not attend.

EU for the abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia

2011-10-21T04:54:00.000-07:00

Public event to Promote the abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia
Kuala Lumpur, 13 October 2011, 3pm-6pm
Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre

Welcoming remarks by H.E. Vincent Piket
Ambassador and Head of Delegation of the EU to Malaysia

Yang Berhormat Dato' Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department
Yang Berhormat Senator Tan Sri Abu Zahar Ujang, President of the Senate

Yang Amat Arif Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Raus Sharif, President of the Court of Appeal
Honourable Dato’ Hashim Yusof, Judge in the Federal Court
Datuk Liew Vui Keong, Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department
Lord Alf Dubs of the UK House of Lords and Member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Abolition of the Death Penalty
Honorable Justice Nico Tuijn, Vice-President of the Court of Appeals of Den Bosch, the Netherlands
Professor Datuk Dr Khaw Lake Tee, Vice President of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia
Mr. Tony Woon, Secretary-General of the Malaysian Bar
Excellencies, representatives of the Malaysian government
Excellencies, Ambassadors, High Commissioners and representatives of the diplomatic corps
Distinguished guests from Academia, the law profession, civil society organizations and the general public
Members of the Media

I am pleased to welcome you at this "Public event to promote the abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia". With today's seminar the Delegation of the European Union, the Bar Council and the National Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM) are marking the International Day against the Death Penalty.

We see this seminar not as an isolated event, but as the start of a campaign. In it we hope to engage with the Malaysian Government, with both houses of Parliament, with the law enforcement bodies and the judiciary, with civil society and with the general public. I am grateful to the Honourable Minister Dato' Seri Nazri Aziz for his support to participate in this debate. I am also grateful for the engagement shown by many members of both sides of parliament, including members of the Malaysia-EU Inter-Parliamentary Caucus.

The European Union holds a strong and principled position against the death penalty. The ban on capital punishment is enshrined in the EU’s founding treaty. Today, none of the 27 EU Member State practises the death penalty. Its abolition is a pre-condition for new Member States to join the European Union.

The abolition of the death penalty worldwide is one of the main objectives of the EU’s human rights policy. Where the death penalty still exists, the EU calls for its use to be progressively restricted and we insist on it being carried out according to minimum standards. The EU uses all its available tools of diplomacy and cooperation to work towards the abolition of the death sentence. In 2011 we have granted EUR 8 million (RM 34 million) to civil society organisations around the world working to that end.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The number of countries that are abolitionist in law or in practice has gone up over the past decade, rising from 108 in 2001 to 139 now. These countries are located on all continents of the world: Europe, Asia-Pacific, the Americas, and Africa. They include developed countries as well as developing countries. And they include countries with differing majority religions – Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Christianity. From that, I conclude that the abolition of the death penalty is a value that transcends borders: geographic, economic, and spiritual.

At the same time, 58 countries worldwide still have the death penalty. In 2010 23 countries are known to have carried out executions. And, the Asia-Pacific region accounts for the highest number of executions in the world.

However, there are also positive developments in Asia. Cambodia, Hong Kong, Nepal, Philippines and Timor Leste have abolished the death penalty. Mongolia announced a moratorium. Brunei has not carried out an execution since 1957; South Korea since 1997. No execution has ever taken place in Lao PDR. For the second consecutive year, no executions were recorded in Indonesia in 2010. And no executions happened in Thailand in 2010.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Malaysia still has the death penalty. In 2010, there were 114 death sentences. There was one execution reported. And there are 744 persons on death row.

Today I venture the opinion that, while Malaysia is a retentionist country, and while reportedly public opinion favours capital punishment, there is a change of mood and atmosphere. A simple indicator is that the number of death sentences far exceeds the number of executions. In 2010 a large number of death sentences were pardoned or commuted. Influential and high-level personalities have spoken out against the death penalty. The Honourable Minister is among them and I salute him for his courage doing so.

Last June, Parliament set up an informal, bipartisan group to promote abolition. At its inaugural meeting, the bi-partisan group called for a moratorium on the death penalty. Such a move would create some important opportunities. It would make it possible to disprove the thesis that, if you abolish the death penalty, your crime rate goes up. It would give an opening to a review of the penal code, for examining if the crimes now punishable with death are really so serious that they warrant death. It would create space for awareness raising among the public, to show that nonlife penalties that have an equally deterrent and retributive force as does life.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Each year on 10 October, the world marks the Day against the Death Penalty. Let us stop and think for a minute about the death penalty concretely.

Somewhere in a prison in Malaysia a woman in her early twenties is awaiting trial. This woman, a single mother with a three-year-old child, was naive, irresponsible and plain stupid when agreeing to carry into Malaysia a bag that her new-found boyfriend had given her. The bag turned out to contain an amount of hard drugs.

If found guilty, the young woman deserves to be punished, there is no doubt. But, I am asking those in favour of the death penalty, does the young woman deserve to be executed, as is the mandatory penalty for drug trafficking? Does her child deserve a life burdened with the memory of her dead mother hanging from the gallows? Would those is favour of the death penalty as an abstract notion still be in favour if the young woman was their mother, their child, their sister, their friend? Would they be willing to carry out the execution? And what if, in whatever way, there had been a miscarriage of justice and the young woman was executed innocent?

“Death has no appeal.” Under that motto the three co-organisers of today’s seminar hope to contribute to a public debate involving the government, parliament, law enforcement and the judiciary, academics and civil society and the general public. The abolition of the death penalty will be a challenging, but rewarding process, and it may involve several intermediate steps. It is a sovereign process for Malaysia to pursue, but in this process the EU countries hope to be your partner.

Thank you for your attention.

* This welcoming address was copied from PDF format, and I thank H.E. Vincent Piket for making available a copy of his speech, which is published here as part of our struggle for the abolition of the death penalty here in Malaysia and elsewhere.

Why we should put an end to the death penalty (TheSunDaily, 18/10/2011)

2011-10-19T13:57:00.000-07:00

Why we should put an end to the death penalty

18 October 2011 - 05:08am

Kua Kia Soong

IT IS truly admirable that Malaysians oppose the inoperable hudud law for its dehumanising forms of punishment, but I am surprised that these same people do not likewise vehemently oppose the death penalty that has existed in our system for so long.

On July 20, 1986, I presented a paper entitled “The Quality and Equality of Mercy” at a Bar Council seminar (subsequently published in Insaf) soon after the hangings of Sim Kie Chon, Barlow and Chambers.

The government’s response to foreign criticism was to point to their double standards and Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s characteristic response was: “I don’t accept all this accusation of being barbaric ... We learnt all this from them (Westerners).”

The deputy home minister at the time was quoted in Time magazine on Aug 5, 1985 as saying: “The problem with the hanging process is that we’ve got to go through the ritual of appeal. That can take two years. I wish the Pardons Board would make faster decisions so that we can start hanging them … We plan to hang a person every week.” The Attorney-General’s Chambers even urged the mass media to “play up executions” as a deterrent. (Malay Mail, Aug 18, 1983).

Every feudal and pre-feudal social system – Chinese, Malay, Indian, Arab or European – has had penal systems involving the grossest cruelty imaginable.

Punishment is an ancient response to wrongdoing. Throughout history, both the forms of punishment and the rationale for using them have changed markedly. Sociological studies have shown that penal systems everywhere are largely based on tradition, untested assumptions and inferences based on inadequate data.

The English penal system is usually cited for obvious reasons. During 18th century England, death was decreed for several hundred specific offences, particularly those against property, including shooting a rabbit, stealing a handkerchief and damaging a public building. From the outset, therefore, the law incorporated class and political considerations.

Comparative studies have shown that historically, the penalty as a judicial punishment has been seen to bear unequally and unjustly on the poor, minorities and oppressed groups in society.

Progressively, the impetus for change was provided by the humanitarian and working class movements. Eighteen century Enlightenment thinkers like Montesquieu and Voltaire provided the philosophical basis for reforms. There soon developed a more humanitarian outlook on crime and punishment and the emergence of humanist values.

A more humanitarian approach led to a concern for rehabilitation of “deviants” based on the personal worth of each human being. Thus, in the modern state and under international human rights standards, the judicial system is intended to protect the individual against the state. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights prohibits all forms of “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.

Consequently in 1908, hanging of children less than 16 years of age was abolished in Britain. Today, most countries forbid its use on offenders under 18. Capital punishment for murder offences has been abolished in Britain since 1965. Although the issue has been brought up periodically in the House of Commons, it has always been defeated. Today, most of Europe has abolished the death penalty.

In the US, the death penalty was stopped by the Supreme Court in 1972 but was reintroduced in 1977. By the 1970s, capital punishment had been abolished as a statutory punishment in about one quarter of the world’s nations.

The judicial taking of life has been described as “the most pre-meditated and most diabolical of murders”. It is basically a relic of the primitive drive for revenge and merely passes the responsibility to the judge or jury who are supposed to be acting on our behalf.

Executions dehumanise society and undermine the common values upon which the full and free development of human society is based in all cultures. The value of human life is lessened once a state, in avowing the defence of its citizens, resorts to inhuman and degrading forms of punishment.

Perhaps the most popular misconception is that capital punishment acts as a deterrent to crime for there is little evidence to show this. According to a British Home Office Research Unit study undertaken in the 80s, over the previous decade, the increase in murders in various categories had been insignificant. This was despite the fact there was a war in Northern Ireland.

Another strong argument against capital punishment is that it entails irrevocable miscarriages of justice. In Britain, if the law on hanging had not changed in 1964, at least six men would have been hanged for offences they did not commit. Astro watchers would have seen the film Hurricane about the former US boxer who spent more than 20 years in jail for a murder he did not commit. If he had been hanged soon after his conviction, his death would have been on the nation’s conscience forever.

No legal system is infallible, and miscarriages of justice usually take time to surface.

The vulnerability of all criminal justice systems to discrimination must be taken into account. There are also human factors involved, particularly political expediency, discretion and public opinion especially in the granting of clemency. The decision to disallow the former Communist Party of Malaysia leader Chin Peng from visiting his ancestors’ graves is a clear example of these factors in play.

Worldwide comparative studies undertaken by Amnesty International have further shown that the wealthy, politically well-connected and members of dominant racial and religious groups are far less likely to be sentenced to death than the poor, supporters of the Opposition and members of minority groups.

The Pardons Board is meant to be the last resort for the condemned when the judiciary has decided their fate. Under Article 42 (5) of the Federal Constitution, it comprises the AG, the prime minister or chief minister, and three others appointed by the Ruler or the Yang di-Pertua Negri. The board tenders advice to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who acts on it to commute or not to commute the death sentence.

Thus, the board is supposed to be capable of showing that human capacity for mercy or clemency. Former culture minister Mokhtar Hashim was pardoned after he had been convicted of murder. In the case of Sim, Barlows and Chambers, the board exercised its prerogative to refuse clemency on the ground that it was “not justiciable”. The undue haste to execute the three was absolutely unnecessary especially when there were complaints that all legal avenues to save their lives had not been fully exhausted.

The incongruity of the fate of Mokhtar and Sim led to public demands for a review of the criteria by which the A-G recommends commutation of the death sentence. The desirability of the A-G’s presence on the Pardons Board was also questioned as it is the A-G who institutes a prosecution and seeks the death sentence.

It would be fairer for the board to be made up of members seen to be independent and impartial, made up of the widest possible cross-section of society and representative of all classes and ethnic communities. A sizeable majority should be needed if the death sentence is to be upheld.

The case against the death penalty was best summed up by Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, a British High Court judge in the sixties: “Can we be sure that the utter and irrevocable finality of the death sentence can always be matched by positive certainty of guilt? In no country, with the fairest system of law, with the most humane and conscientious judiciary do I feel that we can be satisfied of that.”

Dr Kua Kia Soong is a director of human rights organisation Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram). - The Sun Daily, 18/10/2011,

SUHAKAM - Death Penalty is a Grave Violation of Human Rights

2011-10-14T06:55:00.000-07:00

PRESS STATEMENT

DEATH PENALTY IS A GRAVE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) views with great concern the continued presence of the death penalty as a form of punishment in our statute books. The Commission maintains that the death penalty, although regulated and carried out only after compliance with the legal process, and the exhaustion of all the rights to appeal and the right to pardon, is a grave violation of human rights, in particular, the right of a person to life and the right not to be subject to torture, or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that are emphasised under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

The Commission welcomes the Honourable Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Abdul Razak’s recognition and respect of basic human rights and individual rights and the balance between these rights and the rules of law within the nation’s Parliamentary democratic system. Whilst the Commission welcomes the Government’s commitment made through the Universal Periodic Review report on Malaysia to abolish the death penalty in relation to children, it also wishes to call upon the Government to review the relevance and effectiveness of the capital punishment and to join the other 140 UN member states to completely abolish death penalty. In the interim, it urges the Government to consider a moratorium on the death sentence or to commute the sentences to life imprisonment especially for those who have been on death row for more than five years. In addition, the Commission also calls upon the Government to consider adopting the International Standard Minimum Rules for treatment of Prisoners, to ensure the well being of the prisoners on death row as well as all the other prisoners.

- END -

“HUMAN RIGHTS FOR ALL”

PROFESSOR DATUK DR KHAW LAKE TEE
Vice Chairman
The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)

13 October 2011

SUHAKAM:-Hukuman Mati Adalah Pencabulan Hak Asasi Manusia Yang Serius

2011-10-14T06:54:00.000-07:00

Public Opinion Will Be Taken Into Account Before Abolishing Death Penalty - Nazri (Bernama)

2011-10-14T02:57:00.000-07:00

October 13, 2011 22:37 PM

Public Opinion Will Be Taken Into Account Before Abolishing Death Penalty - Nazri

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 13 (Bernama) -- Public views and opinions must be taken into account concerning the proposal to abolish the death penalty in this country, said Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz.

He said any move in this direction has to come from the public as was the case when the Internal Security Act (ISA) was urged to be abolished.

"Like the ISA, when we have a lot of members of the public wanting to abolish the act, then we follow the majority.

"Public opinion is very important to us, at the moment you cannot really see whether the people are in favor of abolishing the death penalty," he told reporters after delivering the keynote address at a public event to promote the abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia, here, Thursday.

Nazri said although currently there was no discussion on the immediate abolishment of the death penalty in Malaysia despite calls from some quarters, the government was commited to re-evaluate, re-think and review the capital punishment.

Malaysia currently still practices the death penalty and as of last year, there were 114 death sentences and another 744 person on death row, while one execution was reported.

Earlier in his speech, Nazri said in his opinion the death penalty review was a timely effort, and was in line with ongoing efforts by the government to review outdated laws and several emergency ordinances to introduce new laws which complied with the principles of human rights.

"Our task in the government is to find the most humane and effective ways to uphold justice for our citizens and humankind in general," he said.

The public event to promote the abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia was jointly organised by a delegation of the European Union, the Bar Council Malaysia and the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia in conjunction with the International Day against the Death Penalty, which is held the 10th of October each year.

Ambassador and Head of Delegation of the EU to Malaysia, Vincent Piket in his welcoming remarks said, the abolition of the death penalty worldwide was one of the main objectives of the EU's human rights policy.

-- BERNAMA, 13/10/2011, Public Opinion Will Be Taken Into Account Before Abolishing Death Penalty - Nazri

Abolition of Death Penalty Event - 13/10/2011, 2pm, KL Convention Centre

2011-10-11T05:20:00.001-07:00

Abolition of Death Penalty Event - 13/10/2011, 2pm, KL Convention Centre

Dear Friends,

Please come and inform all friends to come to this event on the abolition of the death penalty. Since the Minister and the AG, a huge turn out of Malaysian in support of abolition would be very good. Inform all

In solidarity,
Charles Hector

UNGA 2007 Resolution for “a moratorium on the death penalty”

2011-10-10T21:57:00.000-07:00

18 December 2007

	General Assembly GA/10678

Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

Sixty-second General Assembly

Plenary

76^th & 77^th Meetings (AM & PM)

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS LANDMARK TEXT CALLING FOR MORATORIUM ON DEATH PENALTY

Adopts 54 Resolutions, 12 Decisions Recommended by Third Committee

The General Assembly today adopted 54 resolutions and 12 decisions recommended by its Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural), including a landmark text calling for a moratorium on executions to be established in all States that still maintain the death penalty, as well as a resolution strongly condemning rape against women and girls in all its forms, including in conflict situations.

The resolution calling for “a moratorium on the death penalty”, was passed by a vote of 104 in favour to 54 against, with 29 abstentions. (See annex VI.) It called on all States that still allowed capital punishment to “progressively restrict the use of the death penalty and reduce the number of offences for which it may be imposed”. Those countries were also called on to provide the Secretary-General with information on their use of capital punishment and to respect international standards that safeguard the rights of condemned inmates.

Echoes of the intense two-day debate that preceded approval in the Committee of the resolution on a moratorium on executions reverberated in the Assembly hall, with a number of delegations arguing that the death penalty was not illegal under international human rights legislation and that it was the sovereign right of each and every State to determine its own judicial system. Two similar proposals had reached the Assembly in 1994 and 1999; in the first case, it was defeated by eight votes, while in the second, it was withdrawn at the last minute.

Among those delegations opposing the resolution, the representative of Barbados said the European Union and other main sponsors were trying to impose their will on other countries. “Capital punishment remains legal under international law and Barbados wishes to exercise its sovereign right to use it as deterrent to the most serious crimes,” he said just ahead of the vote.

Singapore’s representative said it was unfortunate that the resolution’s co-sponsors had handled the issue not as a debate, but as a lecture. There had never been any attempt to reach consensus. They had ignored the diversity of States and their judicial systems. In addition, they had resorted to pressure tactics and demarches. While the co-sponsors would celebrate their victory, it had come at the expense of acrimony in the Third Committee. Each State had a sovereign right to choose its own political, criminal and judicial systems, he said, stressing that Singapore would continue to follow its own course in the matter....

ANNEX VI

Vote on a Moratorium on the Use of the Death Penalty

The draft resolution on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty (document A/62/439/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 104 in favour to 54 against, with 29 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela.

Against: Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Chad, China, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Egypt, Ethiopia, Grenada, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Thailand, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United States, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Abstain: Belarus, Bhutan, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Morocco, Niger, Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Togo, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Zambia.

Absent: Guinea-Bissau, Peru, Senegal, Seychelles, Tunisia.

Source: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/ga10678.doc.htm

MADPET-Malaysians Against Death Penalty & Torture

Do not use ISA pending abolition - not promise to repeal & then use it 2 months later

September PM says ISA will be repealed - November new arrests under ISA.

'People must drive the change in death penalty' (NST)

before we can make any amendments, there must be a healthy debate about this. — Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz minister in the prime minister’s department

Abolition of death penalty in Malaysia? (Borneo Post, 30/10/2011)

Minister's Nazri Aziz speech at the abolition of death penalty event - 13/10/2011, KL

Moving ahead for a more humane world

EU for the abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia

Why we should put an end to the death penalty (TheSunDaily, 18/10/2011)

Why we should put an end to the death penalty

SUHAKAM - Death Penalty is a Grave Violation of Human Rights

SUHAKAM:-Hukuman Mati Adalah Pencabulan Hak Asasi Manusia Yang Serius

Public Opinion Will Be Taken Into Account Before Abolishing Death Penalty - Nazri (Bernama)

Abolition of Death Penalty Event - 13/10/2011, 2pm, KL Convention Centre

Abolition of Death Penalty Event - 13/10/2011, 2pm, KL Convention Centre

UNGA 2007 Resolution for “a moratorium on the death penalty”

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS LANDMARK TEXT CALLING FOR MORATORIUM ON DEATH PENALTY