Amnesty condemns Putrajaya's trend of deporting human rights activists(Malaysiakini)

Amnesty condemns Putrajaya's trend of deporting human rights activists

20 Jul 2017, 9:17 pm (Updated 20 Jul 2017, 10:22 pm) 

 

Amnesty International has condemned what it described as a growing trend by Putrajaya to deport human rights activists.

This was after Bangladeshi human rights group Odhikar's secretary Adilur Rahman Khan was detained by immigration at Kuala Lumpur International Airport at 4am and is set to be deported.

"Adilur's detention is the latest in a series of cases where peaceful activists have been barred from entering the country, including Hong Kong political activist Joshua Wong, Indonesian human rights defender Mugiyanto Sipin and Singaporean political activist Han Hui Hui," said James Gomez,

Amnesty International’s Director for Southeast Asia and the Pacific.Adilur was to attend the National Conference on Death Penalty tomorrow.

Gomez called for Adilur's immediate release and that he be allowed to remain in Malaysia.

“The Malaysian authorities must immediately and unconditionally release Adilur Rahman Khan and allow him to participate in and speak at the conference.

“There is no justification for detaining him whatsoever. It is an outrage that a human rights activist cannot even travel freely to speak on a key human rights issue," he said.

Meanwhile, Suaram project coordinator Dobby Chew said the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) visited Adilur this evening.

"Suhakam visited Adilur and verifies that he is well and was not mistreated.

"But Adilur is to be deported. The reason for denying entry was not given," he said in a statement.

Chew said Adilur's mobile phone and passport were taken away from him while he was under detention.

"They have been returned and Adilur has been in contact with friends and family," he said. Earlier today, Suaram, accompanied by lawyers, had also gone to KLIA to find out about his detention.

'Granted visa but denied entry'

Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet), which is participating at the National Conference on Death Penalty, said it was appalled by the "unjustified detention".

"Being a Bangladesh citizen, he did not enjoy a visa on arrival when he arrived in Malaysia. 
 

"As such, he needed to apply for a visa from the Malaysian High Commission in Bangladesh, before he could leave Bangladesh and come to Malaysia. Such visas are never simply issued as a right, but only after a thorough vetting of the applicant and his reasons for coming to Malaysia.
As such, the arrest and detention of Adilur Rahman Khan are most unjust and unreasonable. If the Malaysian government did not want Adilur Rahman Khan to enter Malaysia, they should never have issued him the required entry visa in Bangladesh," said Madpet representative Charles Hector.

Hector urged the government to immediately release Adilur and compensate him for the "deprivation" of his rights.

He added if Putrajaya is adamant on deporting him, it should apologise to Adilur for granting him a visa in the first place. - Malaysiakini, 20/7/2017

Malaysian Bar Resolution on on Detention of P Uthayakumar, M Manoharan,...

Malaysian Bar Resolution on on Detention of P Uthayakumar, M Manoharan, R Kengatharan and V Ganabatirau under the ISA , passed on 14th March 2009 at the 63rd Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar held at the Grand Ballroom, Legend Hotel, Kuala Lumpur

(1)	Whereas Article 5 of the Federal Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.
(2)	And whereas Article 8 of the Federal Constitution guarantees that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
(3)	And whereas Article 8(2) of the Federal Constitution guarantees that except as expressly authorized by this Constitution there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race or descent or place of birth
(4)	And whereas Article 10 of the Federal Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, assembly and association.
(5)	And whereas Article 11 of the Federal Constitution guarantees freedom of religion.
(6)	And whereas Article 12 of the Federal Constitution provides that there shall be no discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of religion, race, descent or place of birth:-
	(a)	in the administration of any educational institution, maintained by a public authority and in particular the admission of pupils or students or the payment of fees or; and
	(b)	in providing out of the funds of a public authority financial aid for the maintenance or education of pupils or students in any educational, institution (whether or not maintained by a public authority and whether within or outside the Federation)
(7)	And whereas Article 153(1) of the Federal Constitution provides that it shall be the responsibility of the Yang Di Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the states of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interest of the other communities in accordance with the provision of this Article.
(8)	And whereas Article 153(2) provides that the Yang Di Pertuan Agong is to ensure the reservation for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of such proportion as he may deem reasonable of positions in the public service and of scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities given or accorded by the Federal Government and when any permit or license for the operation of any trade or business is required by Federal law
(9)	And whereas Section 42 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 empowers Advocates and Solicitor to represent their client’s interest without fear or favour.
(10)	And whereas Article 1 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights stipulates that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the most widely subscribed body of principles that establishes Universal Human Rights norms and standards.
(11)	And whereas the Declaration on the right and responsibility of individuals, groups and organs of society to promote and protect Universally Recognised Human Rights and fundamental freedoms, adopted by consensus by the United Nations General Assembly on the 9th of December 1998 recognises the legitimacy of the activities of human rights defenders their rights to freedom of association and to carry out their activities without fear of reprisals.
(12)	In the Harare Commonwealth Declaration 1991, the Heads of Government of the countries of the Commonwealth had reaffirmed the pledge that were set out in a Declaration of Commonwealth Principles agreed to by their predecessors at their meeting in Singapore in 1971 among them being that, they believe in the liberty of the individual under the law in equal rights for all citizens regardless of gender, race, colour, creed or political belief and in the individual’s inalienable right to participate by means of free and democratic political processes in framing the society in which he or she lives. They recognize racial prejudice and intolerance as a dangerous sickness and a threat to health development and racial discrimination as an unmitigated evil. They oppose all forms of racial oppression and they are committed to the principles of human dignity and equality.
(13)	And whereas the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states in it’s preamble that it developed out of recognition of the fact that “in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the ideals of free human beings enjoying freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone especially the minority may enjoy his economic, social and cultural rights as well as his civil and political rights”.
(14)	And whereas Articles 3, 10 and 11(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 provides for no detention without trial, right to personal liberty and a fair trial and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
(15)	And whereas the United Nations Convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, the term racial discrimination shall mean any on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise on an equal footing of human rights and fundamental and any other field or public life.
(16)	At the world conference on human rights held in Vienna, Austria in June 1993, Malaysia along with 170 other countries reiterated the universality, indivisibility and interdependence of human rights and commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
(17)	And whereas the preamble to the Internal Security Act 1960 starts of by stating “An act to provide for the Internal Security of Malaysia preventive detention, the prevention of subversion, the suppression of organized violence against persons and property in specified areas of Malaysia, and for matters incidental thereto. “Whereas action has been taken and further action is threatened by a substantial body of persons both inside and outside Malaysia:-
	(a)	To cause and to cause a substantial number of citizens to fear organized violence against persons and properly; and
	(b)	To procure the alteration otherwise than by lawful means the lawful Government of Malaysia by law established.
(18)	And whereas even the drafter of the ISA, the late Professor R.H. Hickling had said that the Internal Security Act (ISA) was only intended against communist insurgents and those bent on armed struggle. In an interview with the New Straits Times (on the 30th day of July 2006) Hickling said the ISA was being used against people for whom it was not intended “it was designed to be more limited in its scope than it is at the moment”. Organised violence is the key to this preamble but a lot of people who had nothing to do with organized violence at all were arrested (and detained under the ISA). “I would want Judicial review at all times”.
(19)	And whereas Advocates and Solicitors P. Uthayakumar, M. Manoharan, R.Kengatharan and V.Ganabatirau had at all material times been discharging their duties pursuant to Section 42 of the Legal Profession Act and further to the aforesaid Malaysian Constitution, Laws of Malaysia Commonwealth, United Nations and International laws and obligations in particular in championing the minority, human rights and dignity of the Malaysian Indian community who are suffering from about the worst forms of violations of minority and human rights.
(20)	And whereas when P.Uthayakumar had filed a RM100 Million Civil Suit against the aforesaid parties, they had speedily and without even filing their statement of defence filed an application to strike out the Writ of Summons and Statement of claim now denying that they were referring the said terrorist link to P.Uthayakumar. They had further stated that they were merely referring to Hindraf leaders knowing fully well that P.Uthayakumar was the main Hindraf leader.
(21)	And whereas these Advocates and Solicitors are still languishing in Malaysia’s very own “Guantanamo Bay” the Kemta Prison without trial and against the rules of natural justice and the rule of law for about one year and three months as at the date hereof despite having pursued their struggle only through legal and peaceful means.
(22)	And it is now hereby resolved by the Malaysian Bar that :-
	(a)	Advocates and Solicitors and activists P. Uthayakumar, M. Manoharan, R.Kengatharan and V.Ganabatirau were at all material times acting without fear or favour through peaceful legal and legitimate means further to the Federal Constitution, Laws of Malaysia, the Commonwealth, United Nations and the International laws, conventions and obligations as aforesaid.
	(b)	The arrest and detention of Advocates and Socilitors P.Uthayakumar,M.Manoharan, R.Kengatharan and V.Ganabatirau is against the letter and spirit of Article 5 of the Federal Constitution the Internal Security Act 1960, Laws of Malaysia, the Commonwealth, United Nations the International Laws, Conventious and Obligations, rules of natural justice and the rule of law.
	(c)	Justice has not been done for Advocates and Solicitors P.Uthayakumar, M.Manoharan, R.Kengatharan and V.Ganabatirau who have now been detained and imprisoned without trial for one year and three months now since the 13th day of December 2007 and for an indefinite period of time thereafter.
	(d)	The Malaysian Bar hereby calls upon the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Home Minister and the Government of Malaysia to forthwith set free and release from ISA detention the aforesaid P. Uthayakumar, M. Manoharan, R.Kengatharan and V.Ganabatirau.
	(e)	That all the remaining 43 detainees currently detained under the Internal Security Act 1960 also be forthwith released.
	(f)	The Malaysian Bar calls for the abolishment of the Internal Security Act 1960 which provides for detention without trial and all other such laws providing for detention without trial with immediate effect.
The amended motion was unanimously carried.

SINGAPORE: Leading Rights Lawyer Faces Jail Term (IPS)

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 25 (IPS) - Singapore's embattled human rights lawyer and leading anti-death penalty campaigner, Ravi Madasamy, intends to defend his reputation ”all the way” to the highest courts after being released on bail for allegedly causing a disturbance at a mosque.


On Aug 11, a Singapore judge ordered Ravi to be examined by the Institute of Mental Health after police arrested him on charges of harassment and causing a public disturbance during a prayer session.

Ravi, 40, who was discharged from the hospital earlier this month, remains on bail facing a possible three-year prison sentence, if found guilty.

Ravi has strenuously denied the charges and dismissed prosecution suggestions about his mental health. He represented himself in court as no lawyer in Singapore was prepared to take up his case.

Only a small group of committed local rights activists have rallied to his defence. The country's Law Society, which took him to court for allegedly disrespecting a judge, leading to a one-year practicing suspension in 2007, has distanced itself from the case.

”I am saddened but I will continue my mission,” Ravi told IPS. ”The environment is increasingly tough and dangerous.”

Charles Hector, a prominent Malaysian human rights lawyer, described Ravi as ”a victim of state repression”.

”The Malaysian Bar is closely monitoring his plight,” Hector told IPS. ”He is a defender of human rights and we are very concerned. We are taking up his victimisation internationally.

”The Singapore authorities should immediately end the persecution and respect Ravi's right to free expression and advocacy to end mandatory death penalty.”

Ravi has led a virtually one-man international campaign to save death row prisoners facing execution by hanging, mostly for drug trafficking in Singapore.

He has also fought, in the courts and outside, to defend dissidents, persecuted opposition politicians, lawmakers and human rights activists.

As a result he has been vilified and severely criticised by Singapore's government-controlled mainstream media and often accused of being a publicity seeker.

”I face numerous other problems arising out of my activism,” Ravi told IPS.

”With all the happenings I came under tremendous pressure.

”Because of the mounting problems my pace has slackened but my resolve is the same. I will press on to enlighten Singaporeans on the horrors of the death penalty.

”People should know that mandatory death penalty [impelling judges to sentence people to death in capital convictions] is a step backwards into a barbaric era. We must campaign and people should want to end it.”

Ravi, who is also an author and manager of the anti-death penalty website http://hungatdawn.blogspot.com/ first gained prominence in mid-2005 for trying to save death row inmate Shanmugam Murugesu, who was sentenced to death for possession of 1 kg of marijuana.

Murugesu, 38, a former military veteran and Singaporean civil servant, was arrested in August 2003 for carrying six packets of marijuana in his bags when returning home from Malaysia.

Under Singapore law, the death penalty is mandatory for possession of 500 gm of marijuana and 2 gm of heroin.

Before Murugesu's execution on May 13, Ravi and a few supporters organised a three-hour vigil at a hall in the Furama Hotel.

”It was the first time citizens had organised to speak against the arbitrary, biased and discriminatory death penalty law,” Ravi said. ”It was an eye opener for us all.”

In 2004, Singapore, with a population of 4.3 million, had the highest per capita rate of state executions in the world, according to Amnesty International.

From then on, Ravi represented other death row inmates in court. He also travelled the world speaking out against state repression and the mandatory death penalty in Singapore.

A colleague, requesting strict confidentiality, said police placed Ravi under strict surveillance.

”They followed him, took photographs and filed reports,” he told IPS. ”The relentless scrutiny caused Ravi tremendous personal and professional stress.”

Although on bail, Ravi has resumed practicing law until his trial date is set.

Last year, Singapore carried out two executions and sentenced two people to death, according to Amnesty.