Making a change (New Straits Times, 29/11/2015)

Making a change 

By SUZANNA PILLAY - 29 November 2015 @ 11:02 AM 

THE abolition of the mandatory death penalty will benefit Malaysia as it is hoped to prompt the first move towards the abolition of the death penalty, according to Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET). 

In Malaysia, the mandatory death penalty is imposed on serious crimes like murder, treason, certain firearm offences and drug- trafficking. 

 Its use in drug-related offences, particularly, has received much censure from human rights groups and lawyers. Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department and de facto Law Minister Nancy Shukri had announced that the government planned to abolish the mandatory death penalty for drug-related offences.

“Malaysia’s image will improve with regard to the European Union, which has abolished the death penalty,” says MADPET coordinator Charles Hector.

 “The convicted person will benefit from this. So, now, when evidence emerges in the future showing that the convict is innocent, he will still be alive.” 

Hector says the only thing that a mandatory sentence does is remove the discretion from the courts when it comes to sentencing. 

 “What is preferable is that Parliament only sets the minimum and maximum sentences, and the judge decides on the appropriate sentence based on the circumstances of the case.” 

 He believes that only the maximum limit should be set by law, with the discretion in sentences to be decided by the courts. “Sentencing guidelines already exist, but should new guidelines be introduced, these should be left to the judiciary — maybe with the involvement possibly of the Malaysian Bar and the public prosecutor.” 

Brickfields Asia College general manager and senior lecturer Daniel Abishegam says the proposed abolition tempers the harshness of the current law and shouldn’t impact the successful prosecution of drug-trafficking offences. 

 “As I understand it, the proposal does not intend to interfere with the evidentiary rules and standard of proof required for a prosecution of a drug- related offence.

 “The proposal only seeks to add an element of mercy in certain situation where the judge sees fit. So, the person will still be convicted of the offence. 

However, if the judge is convinced that the convict was merely a low-level functionary and not a dealer, he may exercise his discretion and sentence him to a jail term.” 

Abishegam says the category of people who will benefit from this would be those convicted under the presumption of trafficking under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, but who were in fact not trafficking. 

“They were merely in possession of drugs beyond the permitted amounts. If a judge is convinced of this based on the evidence presented before the court, the judge would then sentence the person to a long jail-term instead of death.

“The judicial discretion involved will be guided by the statute itself or the body of case law that will develop over the years. 

“If Parliament feels that the judicial discretion is being exercised in a way that is too arbitrary, amendments can be made to the act to reduce discretion.

 “However, it is my opinion that judges will be the best persons to decide based on the evidence presented before them and giving them some leeway to exercise mercy is not a bad thing.” 

Taylor’s Law School associate dean (learning and quality) Lai Mun Onn agrees that the proposed amendment, which will increase judicial discretion in sentencing, is a positive move. 

“Sentencing should be left to the judges. Guidelines can be helpful but, at the end of the day, it must not interfere with the judge’s discretion.

“The sentence should correspond with the offence, that is, minor sentences for minor offences. 

If the offence is ‘minor’, the possible harm that could have resulted should be small. 

“The sentence should, however, be sufficient to deter the individual from committing that offence again, as well as send a clear message out that what was done was wrong in the eyes of the law and should not be tolerated. 

The sentence should also help rehabilitate the offender and give him/her a chance to turn from his/her wrong ways.” 

Malaysian Bar Council president Steven Thiru says the restoring of judicial discretion in drug-related offences that presently carry the mandatory death penalty should not adversely impact the prosecution of these offences. 

“The prosecution will still have the burden of proving the elements of the offence to the requisite standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt).

 “It may well be the case that judges would be more prepared to convict when they have the discretion to impose the appropriate and proportionate punishment for the offence, as opposed to having their hands tied to impose the mandatory death sentence. 

“Increased judicial discretion is a good development and it provides guidelines to help judges with sentencing. 

The establishment of a Sentencing Council to initially study and collate sentences that have been imposed, and then to standardise sentences would help ensure a uniformed, consistent and fair sentencing regime.” - New Straits Times, 29/11/2015

Read More : http://www.nst.com.my/news/2015/11/114419/making-change

Time to send death penalty to the gallows (Malaysiakini)

Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet) is pleased that there is some realisation from the government, in particular the Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister A Kohilan Pillay, about the fact that '…young Malaysian girls, some fresh graduates, were easily conned by men from the syndicates to travel abroad with a package…'

The media report concerned also stated that '…Malaysian lasses are an easy lot to charm. They are easily smitten by sweet words and gifts, making them an easy target for drug-trafficking syndicates looking for mules…'

The report also stated that 'there were currently 1,565 Malaysians jailed abroad and 60% of the cases were drug mules… "Six in China have been sentenced to death. Since 2007, about 30 Malaysians are in death row,"…'

Similarly, in Malaysia too, many on Death Row have been similarly conned into being drug mules, whereby many were not even aware that they were in possession of drugs.

The Malaysian Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, in particular section 39B provides that any person involved in the trafficking of drugs shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and shall be punished on conviction with death. The judges and courts, by reason of the mandatory sentence, are deprived of the option of imposing a lesser sentence, and Madpet believes that this is very wrong.

What makes it worse is that there are presumptions in the Act, amongst others, that one '…shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to be trafficking in the said drug...' if one is found in the possession of certain amounts of certain drugs. The onus of proving one's innocence then shifts to the accused. This is contrary to the normal rule where the onus of proving one guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is with the prosecution.

The reality is that those really involved in the business of trafficking of drugs are seldom caught and prosecuted, and it is usually the mules, who many a time are not even aware that they are transporting or keeping drugs, who end up being arrested, charged, tried, convicted and sentenced to death. This is very wrong and unjust.

The official report to the UN on the death penalty states also states as follows, "…the low rates of effectiveness of law enforcement, the relative immunity from the law of those who profit most from the trade in drugs and the higher risk of violence and death they most probably run from others engaged in the drug racket, all make it seem implausible that the death penalty in itself will have a marginally stronger deterrent effect than long terms of imprisonment..."

The imposition of mandatory sentences also is wrong as by doing so, the legislative branch of government ousts the powers of the judiciary and that is the power of courts and judges to impose fair and just sentences depending on the circumstances and the facts of the case. A person who has been conned into keeping and/or carrying drugs, especially those who are unaware of the fact, should never be sentenced to death. A prison term would suffice.

One of the reasons used often by governments, including the Malaysian government, to justify the mandatory death penalty is that deters serious crimes. This was what M. Kayveas, a deputy minister in the Prime Minister's Department told Parliament once. This is baseless and cannot be justified by any fact or statistical proof.

On the other hand, there have been studies conducted throughout the world over the past seventy years using various different methodological approaches that have failed to find convincing evidence that capital punishment is a more effective deterrent of crime than long-term imprisonment.

Studies conducted in Australia show that abolition of the death penalty had no effect on the homicide rate and in Canada there was, in fact, was a sharp decline in the homicide rate after the abolition.

In the US over the past twenty years, states with the death penalty in general have had a higher homicide rate than states without the death penalty.

The UN itself noted in 1988, 1996, and 2002, that '...research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. Such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a whole gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis'.

Noting also that on Dec 18, 2007, the UN General Assembly endorsed a resolution calling for a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty by an overwhelming majority (Resolution 62/149), and on Dec 18, 2008, the UN General Assembly adopted with a bigger majority a second similar resolution calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty.

Madpet calls for the repeal of all provisions in law that provide for the mandatory death penalty.

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

The writer represents Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet). - Malaysiakini, 6/11/2009, Time to send death penalty to the gallows

Getting Away with Murder in Malaysia (Asia Sentinel) - Honesty and efficient investigation needed to find the truth and justice

Deaths in Custody - After years of fighting, we manage to at least get the government to take a stance that there will be inquests for deaths in police custody. Now, after the death of Teoh Beng Hock, this 'policy' need to be extended to deaths in custody of the MACC and other branches of government.

There have been several deaths also in Immigration Detention Centres, and there must also be inquests to investigate into these deaths..

Inquests or Inquiry into deaths must of course be truthful. But alas, it has been shown that many will lie or 'adjust' their investigation results so that government, police and public servants end up being blameless. Evidence also may have been hidden. Investigations not thorough, etc. All these make a mockery of inquests and inquiries into deaths in custody.

Just be honest - and be diligent in finding out the truth. Do not subvert justice.

It's best to be connected to the ruling national coalition

On July 16, according to the testimony of a Thai pathologist, Teoh Beng Hock, a 29-year-old aide to an opposition politician, was probably beaten during a marathon questioning session, sodomized, strangled unconscious, dragged to a window of the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission in Kuala Lumpur and thrown to his death.

The country's law enforcement establishment maintains that Teoh committed suicide by leaping from the MACC building after the inquiry was concluded into irregularities in his boss's accounts. But it is far from the first "suicide" in custody and what happened to Teoh happens all too frequently when the luckless collide with the powerful in Malaysia. His real killers are unlikely ever to be identified. As many as 350 people have died in custody since 1990. The privileged are rarely brought to trial.

The most infamous recent case before Teoh's is that of Altantuya Shaariibuu, a 28 year-old Mongolian translator who was murdered in 2006 by two bodyguards of then-Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak. Altantuya had been jilted by Najib's best friend, Abdul Razak Baginda, and was demanding money from him.

Although numerous witnesses and evidence connected Najib to the affair, he was never questioned or put on the witness stand, nor was his chief of staff, Musa Safri, who Baginda said in a cautioned statement he approached about getting Altantuya from ceasing her harrassment. His two bodyguards were convicted of the murder although one, in his confession, said the two men were to be paid RM100,000 to kill her. The court never asked who would pay the money. The confession wasn't allowed in court. Baginda was acquitted without having to put on a defense and promptly left the country and Najib was eventually named Prime Minister.

Such questionable cases go back to at least the early 1980s when Sultan Mahmud Iskandar of Johor was dubbed the "killer king" by the British tabloids after he shot a trespasser to death on his property. He also reportedly assaulted and killed a golf caddy who was said to have laughed when the sultan missed a golf stroke and he maimed the caddy's brother. He later was alleged to have assaulted and injured a hockey coach, kicking off a constitutional crisis that led to former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's removal of legal immunity from prosecution for all of Malaysia's nine sultans, although Iskandar was never either arrested or jailed.

There are plenty more. In 1988 an attractive young woman named Mustakizah Jaafar, who owned a video rental business in Malacca, was found hacked to death by unknown assailants. Mustakizah reportedly was pregnant at the time of her death. She was believed to be having an affair with Megat Junid Megat Ayob, the onetime UMNO deputy home affairs minister, who died in January 2008 of cancer.

No one was ever charged with Mutakizah's murder. The widespread gossip about Megat Junid's connection with Mustakizah didn't do his political career any harm. He was ultimately named Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Minister in 1997 although he lost his parliamentary seat two years later and retired from politics.

In 2002 the decomposed body of Haslezah Ishak, the attractive young second wife of Raja Jaafar Raja Muda Musa, second in line to the throne of Perak, whom he had met in a karaoke lounge, was found under a bridge, clad in a bra and jeans. Four men, including a palace aide, a bomoh or witch doctor, a fisherman and a carpenter were arrested and jailed for the murder. No one was ever arrested or questioned for hiring them to kill her although suspicion fell on the prince's wife, Rajah Mahani, who had been publicly consulting witch doctors over her suspicion that Haslezah had put a spell on her husband.

In 2003, another attractive young woman, Norita Shamsudin, was found murdered in an apartment in a Kuala Lumpur suburb. A night club guest relations officer, Norita had been rumored to be having an affair with Shahidan Kassim, then chief minister of the state of Perlis. Although another individual was arrested and charged with the murder, he was later declared not guilty and no one else was ever charged. According to local news reports, the inspector general of police, Mohd Bakri Omar, classified the case under Malaysia's Official Secrets Act and no details were ever released.

Earlier this year, authorities finally completed an inquest into the 2007 death of beautiful ethnic Indian actress Sujatha Krishnan, who also worked part-time as a secretary to S.Vell Paari, chief executive officer of Maika Holdings and the son of S. Samy Vellu, the head of the Malaysian Indian Congress, a component of the ruling national coalition. Sujatha died in a hospital in a Kuala Lumpur suburb of Klang three days after she had been rushed in for treatment. Her body was cremated almost immediately after her death. The coroner ruled she had died after poisoning herself by drinking poison. The family vainly requested an investigation into her death.

For those at the bottom end of Malaysia's power spectrum, life can be considerably tougher if suspicion falls on them. According to the reform organization Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET), a distressing number of suspects have died in custody. "Relying merely on data provided by the government, it has been disclosed that there have been 150 deaths from 1990 until 2004 (10.7 per year), 108 deaths between 2000 and 2006 (18 per year), and, 85 deaths between 2003 and 2007 (21.25 per year)," the organization said.

According to a 2003 report by the Asian Human Rights Commission – the same year Norita was killed ‑ statistics released in Malaysia's parliament in October of that year by the Home Ministry, showed 23 people died in police custody between 2002 and July 2003. Of those, 16 died in 2002 although according to the report, other figures indicated that 18 had died in custody in the first nine months of 2002 alone. Parliament was told in October 2002 that a total of 34 persons had died in police custody since 2000 ‑ six in 2000, 10 in 2001 and 18 from January to September 2002.

According to the report, then-Deputy Home Minister Chor Chee Heung denied that methods of torture used to obtain information from suspects led to their deaths. He claimed that the majority of deaths were the result of attempts to escape from police custody. Typical seemed to be the case of Hasrizal Hamzah, who had been detained on suspicion of murder in October of 2003. According to a senior assistant police commissioner, Harizal confessed to the murder and then, as he was being moved to a new location, supposedly shoved the accompanying policeman aside despite being handcuffed, and leapt over a balcony to his death.

Earlier this year, the Indian community was enraged by the death of a 22-year-old named Kugan Ananthan who was detained on Jan. 15 on suspicion of stealing luxury cars. He reportedly collapsed during questioning and died on Jan. 20 from "acute pulmonary edema," or fluid in the lungs. However, after his body was released to his family, an autopsy found that he had suffered from internal bleeding in his heart, left lung, spleen, kidneys and scalp area. The soles of his feet had been beaten and the back of his neck and spine area were bleeding. His back was covered with contusions, beating marks and bruises. He had sustained more than 10 serious burn marks, probably as the result of being burned by a heated v-shaped iron bar. He had also been starved during the entire time he was being tortured, allegedly by as many as seven police officers, his family charged.

"There is a clear lack of supervision, medical care and concern for the general well-being and rights of suspects while under police remand," the Human Rights Commission said in its 2003 report. It does not appear that anything has changed. The odds are that the cases involving both Kugan and Teoh will end up the same way scores of others have. - Asia Sentinel, 26/10/2009, Getting Away with Murder in Malaysia

Uthaya: Suhakam's conduct deplorable - MADPET (Malaysiakini)

Uthaya: Suhakam's conduct deplorable

Charles Hector | Apr 25, 08 3:48pm

I refer to the Malaysiakini report Suhakam: Uthaya wasn't denied treatment. Madpet (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) is disappointed by the fact that the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) made and pronounced conclusions about complaints about detention conditions and health care of an Internal Security Act (ISA) detainee in Kamunting Detention Centre without even meeting with the said P Uthayakumar. The Malaysian Human Rights Commission should never come to any conclusion or finding without at least meeting and talking to both sides. In this case, it was reported that the Suhakam team, led by Human Rights Commissioner Siva Subramaniam, had meetings with ‘…senior officials, the doctor and police personnel at the camp, as well as medical personnel in Taiping hospital’. It was also reported that ‘Uthayakumar was neither present during the four-hour probe, nor interviewed by the team’. When Siva Subramaniam was asked why Uthayakumar’s side of the story was not heard it was reported, ‘He pointed out that media reports were also sufficient to highlight Uthayakumar’s plight’. The manner in which this ‘inquiry’ was done and the conclusions reached are very wrong, and is a deprivation of Uthayakumar and his family’s fundamental right to be heard and participate in any inquiry and/or investigation. Uthayakumar is already a victim of a draconian law that allows for detention without trial - where there is no right to defend oneself; no right to a fair and open trial and no right to even go for judicial review of the alleged reasons for detaining him. As such, the manner in which Suhakam conducted themselves in this case makes it even more deplorable and is certainly unacceptable behaviour for a national human rights commission. Madpet seriously hopes that the making of such speedy ‘conclusions - in this case by Commissioner Siva Subramanian - was not affected by the fact that his current term expires in July 2008, and a belief that a ‘pro-government’ positioning now may assist chances of a re-appointment for another two-year term. Human rights commissioners and Suhakam must at all times be independent and be seen to be independent and fearless and should only be driven by human rights and justice considerations. If a human rights commissioner cannot do this by reason of fear or some other reason, then the proper and ethical thing to do is to resign. Madpet urges Suhakam to immediately retract its conclusions about the complaints by Uthayakumar, his family and/or his friends as reported in the media, and conduct a proper inquiry into these complaints in the proper manner – which would necessarily include that the fundamental rights to be heard and to participate be accorded to the alleged victim and the complainants. Madpet also calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Uthayakumar and all those currently detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) and other laws that allow for detention without trial and that all laws that allow for detention without trial be repealed. The writer represents Madpet.

URGENT APPEAL: Death penalty of three Malaysians in Singapore

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION – URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Forwarded Urgent Appeal: AHRC-FUA-003-2008

29 February 2008
------------------------------------------------------
SINGAPORE/MALAYSIA: Death penalty of three Malaysians in Singapore

ISSUES: Death Penalty
------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) wishes to forward an appeal received from Amnesty International regarding the death penalty of three Malaysians in Singapore. Please intervene in this case in order to save their lives and urge the relevant authorities in Singapore to join the international community for the moratorium on executions.

If you have further queries, please contact the Regional Campaign Assistants given below.

Urgent Appeals Desk
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

For queries, Lea Biason (Lea.Biason@amnesty.org) and Charlotte Chompff (Charlotte.Chompff@amnesty.org).

SINGAPORE

Hamir Hasim (m) aged 23, Malaysian national
Kamal Kupli (m) aged 24, Malaysian national
Abdul Malik Usman (m) aged 28, Malaysian national

Hamir Hasim, Kamal Kupli and Abdul Malik are at risk of imminent execution in Singapore. On 18 February their final appeal was rejected by the Court of Appeals. Amnesty International is calling for their death sentence to be commuted by the President.

On 1 March, 2007 all 3 men had been convicted of murder, which carries a mandatory death sentence in Singapore. Hamir Hasim, a gardener, and Kamal Kupli and Abdul Malik Usman, both cleaners, were found guilty of attacking and killing a man that they robbed in December 2005.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Singapore has one of the highest execution rates per capita in the world. There has been very little public debate about the death penalty in Singapore, partly as a result of tight government controls on the media. The UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions noted in a 2005 report that legal safeguards in Singapore do not meet international human rights standards. Echoing the concerns of many lawyers and activists, he argued that the mandatory penalty denies the judiciary the necessary discretion to sentence people fairly and appropriately.

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases, and supports the global trend away from the use of the death penalty, powerfully expressed in the UN General Assembly’s resolution calling for a worldwide moratorium on executions on 18 December 2007.

Amnesty International recognizes the need of governments to address serious crime, including murder, but notes that there is no clear evidence that the death penalty deters crime any more effectively than other forms of punishment. Today 135 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please rush personally-worded appeals

- urging the President to commute the death sentences of Hamir Hasim, Kamal Kupli and Abdul Malik Usman immediately;

- expressing concern that the death penalty is mandatory for murder in Singapore, and calling on the authorities to take steps to adopt a moratorium on executions, with a view to restricting the scope of the death penalty and ultimately abolishing the death penalty, as called for in the resolution passed by the United Nations General Assembly in December 2007.

APPEALS TO:

President Sellapan Rama Nathan
Office of the President of the Republic of Singapore
Orchard Road
Singapore 238823
Fax: 011 65 6737 5522
Email: s_r_nathan@istana.gov.sg
Salutation: Dear President Nathan

COPIES TO:

His Excellency Mr Vanu Gopala MENON
High Commissioner for Singapore
c/o Permanent Mission to the U.N.
231 East 51st Street
New York, NY 10022, USA
Fax: (212) 826-2964

Lee Hsien Loong
Office of the Prime Minister
Istana Annexe, Orchard Road
Singapore 0923
Fax: 011 65 6835 6621
Email: lee_hsien_loong@pmo.gov.sg
Salutation: Dear Prime Minister

Professor S. Jayakumar
Ministry of Law
100 High Street
The Treasury 08-02
Singapore 179434
Fax: 011 65 6332 8842
Salutation: Dear Minister

Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrchk.org)

...the disabled are still fighting social prejudice in order to live independently

Saturday April 5, 2008

Treated lightly

By SHOBA MANO

Fifty years into Merdeka, and the disabled are still fighting social prejudice in order to live independently.

A disabled person is usually confined to the home or cared for by family members. Some are sent to live in institutions or private nursing homes.

With these limited options, the disabled can hardly lead a fulfilling life, and do all the things that the able-bodied take for granted.

Hence, to improve their quality of life, the Independent Living Movement began in the US, starting with the Center for Independent Living in Berkley, California in the late 1960s.

The amended Street Drainage and Building Act specifies the gradient of ramps, but this one is just too steep. — SHOBA MANO

From there, the movement spread to Asia and flourished in Japan, where a government agency called the Japan International Cooperation Agency (Jica) began helping other Asian countries to implement Independent Living (IL) for the disabled.

Between 2005 and 2007, Jica worked with the Social Welfare Department in Malaysia to organise IL workshops and seminars in Kuala Lumpur. They trained at least 60 peer counsellors to provide emotional, relational, information and job-related support to other disabled.

However, most of these peer counsellors are unable to provide their services on a fulltime basis due to the lack of funding.

Peter Tan, 42, is one such peer counsellor. But thanks to a grant from Toyota Foundation of Japan, he operates the Independent Living Centre (ILC) in Kuala Lumpur on an ad hoc basis.

This ILC is one of two in Malaysia. The other is in Petaling Jaya. Unlike in Japan, the Malaysian government does not provide them with an annual grant, and hence, these peer counsellors only provide their services when they are free to do so.

“By comparison, Japan currently has 60 ILCs under the auspices of the National Council on Independent Living (NCIL) and Japan Council of Independent Living Centres (JCIL),” said Tan.

These organisations receive annual grants from the Japanese Government, so that the ILCs can employ full-time personal assistants to help the disabled with daily activities.

Personal assistants in Japan earn salaries equal to those of fresh university graduates. They are also selected from a pool, so even if one or more of them go on leave, there will still be others to care for the disabled.

The Japanese ILCs also provide job opportunities by hiring the disabled as clerical and administrative staff.

Tan said the biggest problem faced by the disabled regarding independent living was not their physical limitations.

“Our biggest problem is social prejudice. When society treats us as if we don’t exist, and don’t consider our disabilities when designing access to public transport, buildings and offices, then we are forced into isolation.

“This is when the futility of life sets in, and we become depressed,” he said.

Tan said under the standard set by Jica, IL was defined as having equal opportunities and access to education, jobs, mobility and all other basic rights enjoyed by the able-bodied.

The Uniform Building (Amendment) Bylaws 1991 of the Street Drainage and Building Act 1974 provides clear guidelines for the disabled to have access to public buildings and even specifies the gradient for ramps.

“But even modern buildings do not adhere to the law. So whatever ramp they have is useless to the disabled as the gradient is too steep and can cause a wheelchair to tip backwards.”

For public transport, only the Putra LRT is accessible, while the STAR and Monorail services are still inaccessible to the disabled,” said Tan.

“Even feeder buses do not have disabled-friendly facilities, although some of them do have ramps. The problem is that when they are let down, these ramps do not align correctly to the curb and can cause a disabled person to fall off his wheelchair.”

N. Surendran, the legal advisor to Malaysians against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet), an organisation dedicated to fighting for the rights of the disabled and animals, among others, said social prejudice had much broader implications in Malaysia.

“Social prejudice is not just confined to the disabled, but extends to animals too and that is why very few among the disabled community have pets.

“The blind and those in wheelchairs, for instance, can be far more independent if they were encouraged to have trained guide dogs to take them around. With guide dogs and service dogs that are trained for other disabilities, even the reliance on personal assistants will be reduced.

“But these dogs are not allowed in public places in Malaysia, unlike overseas where the disabled can take them everywhere they go,” he said

Surendran urged the government to provide funding for ILCs and support the medical and food bills of dogs and other pets, due to the therapeutic effect they have on humans.

He said with government funding, Madpet can even help to train dogs for the disabled.

“This will result in more dogs, cats and other animals being adopted from shelters as well, so it’s a win-win situation for humans and animals,” he said.

Surendran also complained that the proposed Persons with Disability Act, which was drafted in 2002, has yet to be tabled in Parliament.

“I’m also unable to obtain a copy of the Bill to check for any omissions. NGOs and others with experience in helping the disabled ought to have been consulted before the Bill was drafted, but this did not happen either,” he said.

JAPAN:bill proposing a four-year moratorium on the death penalty

Japan MPs moot halt to executions

By Andre Vornic BBC East Asia reporter

Justice minister Kunio Hatoyama supports the death penalty

A cross-party group of Japanese legislators has said it has drafted a .

The bill, a step towards abolition, will shortly be submitted to parliament and introduces life imprisonment without parole as a substitute.

Japan and the United States are the only industrial democracies to maintain capital punishment.

But the initiative is likely to meet stiff opposition.

Secret executions

Critics have long described Japan's use of the death penalty as unworthy of a liberal democracy.

Cult leader Shoko Asahara is on death row

As much as the principle of it, the way the death penalty is administered has been condemned both domestically and abroad: death row inmates are executed at short notice, to deter appeals.

They are put to death by hanging, generally on a Friday and during parliamentary recess to avoid media exposure or public opposition.

At the trial stage, defendants may not have easy access to a lawyer, and the prosecutorial system tends to value confessions above evidence.

Abolitionist parliamentarians appear to think the time is right for reform.

But the current Justice Minister, Kunio Hatoyama, is a vocal supporter of capital punishment. He has signed off six executions since taking office last September.

And surveys suggest a majority of Japanese want to retain the death penalty for particularly heinous crimes.

The country's violent crime rate remains low by global standards, but has risen considerably since the mid-1990s.

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION – URGENT APPEALS: MALAYSIA: Five activists are detained for 2 years without trial under the Internal Security Act

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION – URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Forwarded Urgent Appeal: AHRC-FUA-001-2008

30 January 2008
------------------------------------------------------
MALAYSIA: Five activists are detained for 2 years without trial under the Internal Security Act

ISSUES: Internal security act; fair trial; freedom of expression & assembly
------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) wishes to forward an appeal received from MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) regarding a case of five human rights activists who were arrested under the Internal Security Act (ISA) in Malaysia on 12 December 2007. The ISA allows detention without trial. All are now being detained by virtue of a 2-year detention order made by I Datuk Seri Abdulah Ahmad Badawi, Prime Minister and Internal Security Minister of Malaysia.

If you have any further inquiry about the case, please feel free to contact Mr. Charles Hector whose contact details are provided below.

Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Desk
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Hector
for and on behalf of MADPET
E-mail: chef@tm.net.my

URGENT APPEAL

MALAYSIA: 5 Human Rights Activists detained under the Internal Security Act, which is a Detention Without Trial law
------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) writes to inform you that 5 human rights defenders and activist were arrested by the police on 13 December 2007 under the Internal Security Act (ISA), which allows detention without trial. Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan said the arrests, under Section 8(1) of the ISA, were made against the five for carrying out activities that threatened national security.

Those arrested are M Manoharan, Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) legal advisers P Uthayakumar, R Kenghadharan and V Ganabatirau and T Vasantha Kumar.

The first 4 are lawyers, who have also been actively involved in human rights issues. It is learnt they were detained under Section 8 (1) of the ISA after Internal Security Minister Datuk Seri Abdulah Ahmad Badawi signed their detention order. The five were sent straight to the Kamunting detention centre in Taiping, Perak, to be detained for two years, without undergoing the usual 60-day investigation period.

This is most unusual because usually persons will be arrested and detained by the police, who can detain persons for not more than 60 days. Only after that if the Minister is "satisfied that the detention of any person is necessary" will the 2-year detention order be signed.

BACKGROUND: (Based on Malaysiakini and other media reports)

Nov 10 BERSIH ASSEMBLY & PROTEST
About 40,000 protesters took part in BERSIH's assembly, whose intention was to hand over a memorandum to the King. BERSIH is calling for electoral reform including a review of the electoral roll, curbs on postal voting, which they say is being abused, and equal access to state media for all competing parties. Police fired tear gas and used water cannons on the protesters. (BERSIH, a coalition of 70 political parties and NGOs). This was the Malaysia's biggest street protest in nearly a decade.

Nov 25, 07 - HINDRAF ASSEMBLY & PROTEST
About 20,000 protesters demonstrated under the shadows of Kuala Lumpur's iconic Twin Towers after their efforts to petition the British High Commission was thwarted by the police with tear gas and chemical-laced water cannon. About 400 persons were arrested that day.

The protest is to support a US$14-trillion lawsuit by the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) against Malaysia's former colonial power for bringing Indians to Malaysia as indentured labourers and exploiting them for 150 years. The assembly today was for the purpose of submitting a memorandum was to petition Queen Elizabeth II to appoint a Queen's counsel to argue the case on their behalf.

A series of arrests and charges began on 6 December, when 31 Hindraf supporters were charged with attempted murder, after a policeman suffered injuries, and have been refused bail. In addition, three leaders of Hindraf, P. Uthayakumar, P. Waya Moorthy, and Ganapathy Rao, have been charged under the Sedition Act for remarks made during a speech on 16 November, and with a letter posted on their website.

Dec 9 LAWYERS HUMAN RIGHTS DAY MARCH
After the Bar Council succumbed to pressures and fears and called of its annual Human Rights Day walk, several lawyers in defiance call for concerned lawyers and members of the public to join them in their march from SOGO to the Central Market, and about 200 persons did join them for that 7.30 am march. The police stopped the march and arrested 8 persons (of which 5 were lawyers). Later that afternoon, the local authority tried removing banners placed around and in the Bar Council Building, to which the lawyers protested. The Human Rights Committee chairman was arrested for obstructions. All 9 were unreasonably detained overnight and brought to court to charge. The Attorney General personally came and asked that bail be denied. They now face charges of illegal assembly and disobeying police orders to disperse.

Dec 11 BERSIH'S HANDING OVER MEMO IN PARLIAMENT.
17 members of BERSIH who attempted to deliver a memorandum to Parliament were arrested.

What has been happening prior to the arrest and detention under the ISA?

The police have been targeting HINDRAF lawyers over the past few weeks. The crackdown started with the arrest of chairperson P Waythamoorthy, Uthayakumar and Ganabatirau on Nov 23. They were then charged with sedition in Klang.

On Tuesday (11 December 2007), Uthayakumar was again arrested and charged on another count of sedition in Kuala Lumpur. He was arrested once more on the same day and kept overnight in remand before being released yesterday without being charged.

Both Waythamoorthy and Ganabatirau were also re-arrested over the past week and released after being held for some hours.

Waythamoorthy, who is Uthayakumar's younger brother and also a lawyer, is currently in London on a mission to lobby for support from international groups.

Hindraf has come under the police radar after organising nationwide talks in which they are alleged to have made seditious speeches in relation to the marginalisation of the Indian Malaysian community.

Hindraf's rally in Kuala Lumpur attracted some 30,000 people. The police used water cannon and tear gas to disperse the crowd. Thirty-one of the protesters have been charged with attempted murder and causing mischief with some facing a third charge of illegal assembly.

The government has been threatening to use the ISA against Hindraf leaders for some weeks now.

Last week, the Inspector General of Police claimed that Hindraf was linked to terrorist groups and was active in fanning racial sentiments among the Indian community by stirring up their anger and arousing hatred against the government.

He added that the police had been monitoring the group - helmed by six prime movers comprising five lawyers and a senior executive of a private company - since July 28.

Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has for several weeks been threatening to invoke the draconian legislation against Hindraf, which authorities have accused of having links with Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers. The group denies the charges.

Earlier this week the premier alluded to the use of the ISA by saying that he considered public safety to be more important than public freedom.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please call upon the Prime Minister for the immediate release of P Uthayakumar, M Manoharan, R Kenghadharan and V Ganabatirau, T Vasantha Kumar and all persons being detained under the Internal Security Act and other laws that allow for detention without trial.

Sample letter:

Dear Dato' Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi,

We call for the immediate and unconditional release of M Manoharan, Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) legal advisers P Uthayakumar, R Kenghadharan and V Ganabatirau, T Vasantha Kumar and all others that are currently being detained under the Internal Security Act and/or other laws that allow detention without trial.

We believe that it is unjust to deprive a person of his right to a fair trial, and call for the repeal of the Internal Security Act and all other laws that allow detention without trial.

Yours sincerely,

------------------------------------
PLEASE SEND LETTERS TO:

Dato' Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
Prime Minister and Minister of Internal Security,
Prime Minister's Office Malaysia,
Perdana Putra Building,
Federal Government Administrative Centre,
62502 Putrajaya,
MALAYSIA
Tel: +603 8888 6000
Fax: +603 8888 3444
E-mail: ppm@pmo.gov.my

Please support the online petition for a UN monitoring mission in Sri Lanka. Help us to get 5000 signatures until the end of the month. Sign here
---------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list visit
To update your preferences visit
---------------------------------------------------


Asian Human Rights Commission
19/F, Go-Up Commercial Building,
998 Canton Road, Kowloon, Hongkong S.A.R.
Tel: +(852) - 2698-6339 Fax: +(852) - 2698-6367

NEED TO LOBBY TO ENSURE global moratorium on executions is adopted by the UN General Assembly..

The UN General Assembly would be voting on the RESOLUTION calling for a global moratorium on executions some time in mid-December (possibly on 10 or 11th December)

On 15/11/2007, a call for a global moratorium on executions by the UN General Assembly's Third Committee was an "historic resolution and major step towards the abolition of the death penalty worldwide" - but the real vote will be made at General Assembly - and we all need to lobby our countries to vote in favour of this resolution.

In Malaysia, the Malaysian Bar in 2006 passed a Resolution calling for the abolition of the death penalty. There has been much debate - but the Malaysian government has not yet taken any moves towards abolition. On 15/11/2007, Malaysia was one of those that voted against on 15/11/2007 for the resolution that was adopted by 99 countries in favour, 52 against and 33 abstentions.

Before the vote on the 15th, Malaysia had this to say:-
Making the first explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of Malaysia said the viewpoints of other countries had to be fully respected. The language in the draft resolution contained biased assumptions and erroneous facts. It was unfortunate the issue had come up during the current session and the Committee was divided. Malaysia would vote against the draft; whatever the outcome of the vote, it could not be seen as a victory for any side, as divisions caused by a draft represented a defeat for all. In any State, change had to be undertaken at a pace that the people of that country were comfortable with, free of outside pressure or interference. Conciliation was needed; that would not happen if the issue returned at future sessions. More reasonable heads had to prevail.

Thus, there is a need for Malaysians (in fact all ASEANs and others around the world) to do some serious lobbying to ensure that the UN Resolution for a global moratorium on executions is passed in December 2007.

Votes from Asian countries:
In favour: Australia, Cambodia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nepal, New Zealand, Philippines, Samoa, Sri Lanka, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

Against: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, Thailand, Tonga.

Abstain: Bhutan, Fiji, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Nauru, Palau, Republic of Korea, Solomon Islands, Viet Nam.


The arguments that were used by the opponents were mainly focusing on:
-the principle of non-intervention (article 2.7 of the UN Charter) of the UN in domestic matters, and the States' will to maintain national sovereignty and territorial integrity
-the perceived imposition of Western values --Singapore in particular was claiming that the resolution was an attempt by the EU to impose its values on the rest of the world
-the fact that the death penalty is a matter of national criminal justice systems and should not be considered under international human rights law
-the need to consider the right to life comprehensively, including abortion
-the fact that the death penalty is not illegal under International Law and there is no international consensus on it anyway.

We are reporting some of the statements made by representatives from Asian countries. We hope you find this information useful for any future lobbying against the death penalty. For full details please see:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/gashc3905.doc.htm
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/gashc3906.doc.htm

Please keep up the lobbing - the vote is expected around 10/11 December. The vote in the UN General Assembly plenary will be an endorsement of the resolution adopted in the Third Committee on 15 November. It is possible for governments to change their votes and it is also possible for governments to oppose the resolution by making further amendments which we hope will not be the case!


Wednesday 14 November 2007
Introduction of the draft resolution and amendmends

The representative of the Philippines then made a statement in connection with action on the draft resolution entitled Moratorium on the use of the death penalty. She said the text was the result of a comprehensive effort by the main sponsors, who had worked in a transparent and cooperative manner. In a sincere effort, the main sponsors had made several modifications to the text, which had led to a rise in the number of co-sponsors. Beginning with the title, as well as the preambular and operative paragraphs, the focus of the draft was on a moratorium. Abolition would be the result of a step-by-step process. The text began with a reference to the Charter of the United Nations, and that document should be read and understood in its entirety; selective quotation would undermine the text. As the main sponsors had taken those changes to the text on board, the co-sponsors reiterated that such changes did not aim to challenge national sovereignty and were rather aimed at reinforcing the phasing out of the death penalty. Making a correction, she said she thought she had mentioned Rev.1, but there was no such document, and the Committee was still working on document A/C.3/62/L.29.

The representative of Pakistan, on behalf of member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that States belonging to the Conference strongly believed that every human being had a right to life. It was the duty of States to respect the right to life, in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and relevant instruments. A number of States had exercised their sovereign right to impose a moratorium or to abolish the death penalty. For a majority of member States of the Organization, the issue was one related to their criminal justice systems, with an obligation on them to carry out the death penalty subject to competent courts and after exhausting all legal remedies. The OIC recognized that the issue of establishing a moratorium lacked international consensus, especially in view of existing international human rights instruments.

The representative of China said her delegation regretted the fact that the death penalty was again being discussed in the Third Committee, as there was no international consensus on its abolition. She said in 1994 and 1999, the General Assembly had discussed that issue without results. The death penalty was not prohibited by international law. According to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the death penalty might be imposed only because of the most serious of crimes. Deciding on the most appropriate penalty was a question of sovereignty and therefore a matter for the State. The Assembly was not the proper forum to address the death penalty question. To discuss the issue in such a political forum would only further politicize it. It was inappropriate to submit a draft resolution to the General Assembly which asked for a moratorium on the death penalty. She called upon all delegations to support the amendments proposed.

The representative of Singapore said that a divisive, unpleasant and unnecessary fight was about to begin. A group of countries led by the European Union had decided to table a resolution knowing fully well that it would not only not enjoy consensus, but that it would polarize the Committee. They had done so because they wanted to impose their values on others; apparently, anyone who had a different view had to be forced to change. The tabled amendments were a defence against the European Union’s aggressiveness. The ultimate objective of the main draft was not a moratorium, but the abolition of the death penalty. For many countries, such a penalty was a criminal justice matter, not a human rights issue, and despite what many co-sponsors claimed, that penalty could not be a violation of human rights, as it was not forbidden under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Now that all States in the European Union had abolished the death penalty, it expected all others to follow, he said. The Union wanted everyone to think as they did; “when their values ‘shift,’ our values should also ‘shift’.” If anyone had the audacity to be different, then the European Union thought it was open season to badger them. That trait had been seen before. Singapore supported the amendment introduced by Egypt; it was nonsense to argue that it was a selective quotation from the Charter of the United Nations. The Committee had before it a blatant attempt to impose the values of one set of countries upon everyone else.

The representative of Gabon, given the floor on a point of order, asked to correct what his counterpart from Singapore had said. The draft resolution on a moratorium was an interregional initiative, not an initiative of the European Union.

The Chairman said that the representative of Gabon was not making a point of order, but rather an explanation that could be delivered after a vote.

The representative of Gabon responded that it was necessary for delegations to be well-informed and to avoid confusion. Gabon was not in the European Union, but it was an African country that was supporting the initiative; others were from Asia and South America.

The representative of Timor-Leste said her country was one of the main sponsors of the cross-regional initiative and her delegation wished to state the following before the vote: the main sponsors had provided plenty of opportunity to put forward amendments. The amendment in question sought to undermine the spirit of the resolution. The purpose of the draft was not to intervene, but to reinforce a growing trend towards phasing out the death penalty, which was a legitimate concern of the international community. Timor-Leste would vote against it and urged others to do the same.

The representative of New Zealand, speaking as a co-author of the main draft “L.29”, said the amendment was a selective and partial quotation from the Covenant that was misleading and imbalanced. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights pointed to the abolition of capital punishment. The co-sponsors had been open to feedback, and the feedback had been that there was no wish for selective quotations from international instruments on which the main draft was founded. New Zealand would oppose the amendment.
In an explanation of position before the vote, the representative of New Zealand agreed with her counterpart from Uruguay that the amendment was unnecessary and, though it may be factual, that did not justify its inclusion. She said 130 countries –- or more than two thirds of the United Nations membership -- had abolished the death penalty, in law or in practice, for all crimes. The representative of Botswana had referred earlier in the day to inflated statistics. The number of Member States that still had the death penalty had sharply declined, a clear trend that had been mentioned in the main draft. The amendment was contrary to the spirit and intention of the main draft, and New Zealand would vote against it.


Thursday 15 November 2007
Statements before the vote on the draft resolution

Making the first explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of Malaysia said the viewpoints of other countries had to be fully respected. The language in the draft resolution contained biased assumptions and erroneous facts. It was unfortunate the issue had come up during the current session and the Committee was divided. Malaysia would vote against the draft; whatever the outcome of the vote, it could not be seen as a victory for any side, as divisions caused by a draft represented a defeat for all. In any State, change had to be undertaken at a pace that the people of that country were comfortable with, free of outside pressure or interference. Conciliation was needed; that would not happen if the issue returned at future sessions. More reasonable heads had to prevail.

The representative of Singapore said the events of the past two days proved that the issue of a moratorium on capital punishment was a divisive one. There had never been a genuine desire on the part of the co-sponsors to seek consensus; the main sponsors had gone so far as to suspend freedom of expression. The Committee had become a forum for recrimination and self-righteous morality that brooked no dissent. Those behind the draft had acted in a sanctimonious, hypocritical and intolerant way, but that was not a surprise. The draft did not reflect the range of opinions that existed in the United Nations on the issue. The co-sponsors had contradicted the spirit of cooperation and consensus building that was supposed to be the foundation of the Committee’s work. Every State had a sovereign right to choose its own systems. Singapore would vote against the draft; to vote for it would be to encourage countries which sought to impose their views.

The representative of Nepal, speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, said there was no law in his country that provided for capital punishment. It was not Nepal’s intention, however, to impose values on others. It was possible, though, for humanity to abolish the death penalty, and his delegation thought the resolution would only encourage States to put moratoriums on the death penalty. Nepal would vote in favour of the resolution.

The representative of Thailand said the United Nations Charter could not interfere in matters pertaining to domestic affairs. As a State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Thailand was committed to upholding its commitments vis-à-vis that instrument, and the Convention did not prohibit the use of the death penalty. Thai law only permitted the death penalty for the most serious of crimes and violations, and no execution had been carried out for some time. Thailand would therefore vote against “L.29”.

Statements after the vote on the resolution

Speaking first after the vote, the representative of India said there had to be recognition that it was the sovereign right of States to determine their own legal systems, and added that there was no consensus on capital punishment. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights spoke only of the desirability of abolition of the death penalty. In India, the death penalty was an exception to be exercised in the rarest of rare occasions. His country had seen a single use of it since 1995, and there were many legal safeguards present. Indian law also had provisions for suspension of the death penalty for pregnant women, he said, adding that juveniles could never be sentenced to death in India. His delegation had not been in a position to support the draft resolution, as it went against his country’s statutory law.

The representative of Japan said he had voted against “L.29”. In his view, the question of abolishing the death penalty should be decided only after every country had considered the matter in light of its own criminal issues. Most of the public believed that the most vicious criminals should receive the death penalty. There was no international consensus on the abolition of the death penalty, and it was regrettable that the resolution had been tabled without sufficient discussion. Many countries had voiced strong opposition to the proposal in informal meetings, but the sponsors had pursued the resolution’s passage despite that.

The representative of Viet Nam said he had abstained in the vote on the resolution because the death penalty was “indispensable” in Viet Nam at present, in order to ensure a peaceful life for the whole of the community. That penalty was applicable only to the most violent criminals, and not to children or pregnant women, among other groups. Viet Nam respected the decision by countries that had abolished the death penalty, given the concrete national situations. He stressed the importance of dialogue on human rights issues on the basis of common respect.

The representative of China said the fact that 50 countries had voted against the draft proved there was no consensus and there were therefore doubts about the effects of such a resolution. All countries had the right to choose their own judicial systems. The death penalty was an issue of criminal justice and was part of a country’s internal affairs. China regretted that two days had been spent on the resolution, which had increased tension and led to a major confrontation, and deplored also the request to vote on a separate paragraph. China could not accept that co-sponsors had applied pressure on other countries and did not wish to see a repeat of the process.

The representative of Bhutan said his country had abolished the death penalty, and would like to see that done worldwide. Nevertheless, he respected the right of each country to make its own laws, in accordance with the United Nations Charter. He had voted in accordance with that view.

The representative of Bangladesh said his country’s criminal justice system had provisions for the death penalty, but only in the case of the most heinous crimes. That sentence involved an exhaustive and transparent legal process, with opportunities for redress. The resolution just adopted was an example of the growing trend against the death penalty, but the time had not come yet for such a ban. He had been constrained to vote against the resolution.

The representative of Singapore congratulated the co-sponsors on their “pyrrhic victory”. The vote had proved that there was no international consensus on the resolution, as almost half of the delegations had not voted in its favour. That should be an indication that many delegations were uncomfortable with the resolution. Co-sponsors had brought the resolution fully aware of how acrimonious and divisive the issue was. He suspected that different countries, with their domestic considerations, would not impose a moratorium because of passage of the resolution. Domestic issues were clearly “irrelevant” to the co-sponsors, and the resolution had made a mockery of the Committee.

The representative of Myanmar said the country had not carried out capital punishment since 1988. Myanmar was not happy with how the resolution had been approved. Every Member State had the right to choose without interference, and the resolution as it had been drafted was, in Myanmar’s view, an attempt to impose a choice on countries. Thus, Myanmar had voted against “L.29”.

Working to protect human rights worldwide

EING SENTENCED TO DEATH AND DEPRIVED OF RIGHT TO A SPEEDY APPEAL IS VERY CRUEL & UNACCEPTABLE

BEING SENTENCED TO DEATH AND DEPRIVED OF RIGHT TO A SPEEDY APPEAL IS VERY CRUEL & UNACCEPTABLE

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) is disappointed and shocked by the revelation that two men are languishing on Death Row because the judge who convicted them at the Seremban High Court five years ago has not provided the grounds of judgment. (New Straits Times 17/8/2007, “Two languish on Death Row as judge fails to do his job”).

If languishing on death row waiting to be deprived of one’s life is already recognized as being “a cruel and unusual punishment”, how much more worse is it for a person who spend the last five years without even having the opportunity to appeal against his death sentence just because some judge was too lazy to write out his grounds of judgment. The torture that this victim, his family and friends have had to undergo for the last five years would have been intolerable and would never be justified.

Let us not forget that it is very possible that this judge who sentenced them to death may have erred in law and in fact, and the Court of Appeal may have put things right by acquitting him, maybe 5 years ago.

It is also a concern whether a judge, now writing his ‘grounds of judgment’ after the matter has been raised in the media is able to do so without being affected by irrelevant external factors. One also wonders whether he can even remember why he convicted those persons more than 5 years ago and sentenced them to death.

In criminal cases, especially those when the accused person is found guilty and sentenced to incarceration and/or death, the grounds of judgment must be immediately prepared and made available to the convicted person no later that three days. This will allow for immediate access to the right to a speedy appeal – more important when there was a miscarriage of justice at the court of first instance.

According to the New Straits Times report, this judge now sits in the Federal Court, and this is just another reason why there must be a new process put in place in deciding who is to be appointed judges and elevated to the Higher Courts. Lets us expose this judge and demand his immediate resignation – or at least a public apology for the great injustice that he has caused to these 2 persons.

Malaysia must also consider putting in place a compensation scheme to compensate victims of the criminal justice system who have had to unnecessarily languish in remand prisons and prisons only to be acquitted or discharged some time later. Time spend must be factor in the computation of the sum for compensation. The fact that one was sitting with a death penalty hanging over one’s head must surely mean a higher sum.

This compensation scheme is important now looking at the current state of police investigation, prosecution and even judges, which interestingly have received a lot of media attention over the past couple of months. Too many persons have ended up spending time incarcerated waiting for their trial only to be released later without being convicted. It is for this loss of liberty and movement that persons must be compensated.

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

Charles Hector

N. Surendran

for Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET)

17^th August 2007

(For further information, contact N. Surendran (012-3207066) or Charles Hector (019-2371100)

Probe May 13 riots, police told (Malaysiakini)

Probe May 13 riots, police told

Wednesday, 20 June 2007

Joyce Tagal and Su Hui Hsing (Malaysiakini) A lawyer has filed a police report calling for an investigation into the May 13, 1969 riots which left more than 100 dead and scores others injured. N Surendran (photo:right) lodged the report with the Brickfields police headquarters in Kuala Lumpur this morning. The report is based on the revelation of new information pertaining to the riots in a book titled May 13: Declassified Documents on the Malaysian Riots of 1969 published last month. Penned by academic Dr Kua Kia Soong, the book, which is based on recently declassified documents from London, claimed that Umno played a major role in the riots. It also stated that the military and police had practiced racial favouritism during their peacekeeping efforts. In his report, Surendran urged the police to look into these alleged criminal actions by the police, military and the government, including the late former premier Tun Abdul Razak. "The parties must be implicated, brought to court and charged, no matter how old they are," he told reporters later. He said if the police failed to act, he would raised the matter with the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) or even obtain a court order. 'We want justice' Accompanying him was PKR supreme council member S Manikavasagam. "Since the book is not banned, the contents must be true," said the opposition politician, who also called for a police investigation. Meanwhile, Surendran said the new information in the book was the reason behind his decision to file the police report. "For the first time, Malaysians are looking at these documents. Now it is time for the truth to come out,” he said, referring to declassified documents from the London Public Service Records office. Surendran also urged the government not to be frightened by the documents and to uphold transparency since it is a matter that affects all Malaysian citizens. "People have been speaking in whispers since 1969. This is important for nation-building. We cannot be an united nation until things like this are brought to light. “All Malaysians will be happy if they see justice done and the victims of the riots compensated, he continued. What we want is justice, justice for Malaysians,” he said.

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

SALE OF SNAKES - NGOs lodge report against department
by MUZLIZA MUSTAFA (Thursday, 22/3/2007)

A GROUP of non-governmental organisations lodged a police report against the Penang Wildlife Department for cruelty against animals yesterday.

The report was lodged by lawyer N.Surendran, on behalf of the group, at Brickfields police headquarters at 10.50am.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brickfields police acting chief Superintendent Izany A.

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

Uproar over sale of protected snakes (Malaysiakini)

Uproar over sale of protected snakes

Fauwaz Abdul Aziz Mar 21, 07 3:56pm

Animal rights activists are up in arms over the reported sale of some 2,400 protected snakes to licensed traders by - of all agencies - a state wildlife department. The banded rat snakes, prized for their meat and skin and worth an estimated RM240,000, were seized at the Batu Maung air cargo complex on March 6 by the Penang Wildlife and National Parks Department. The reptiles - which are partially protected under the Protection of Wildlife Act 1972 as well as the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Cites) - are believed to have been smuggled in from Thailand en route to Hong Kong. (Partial protection allows for trade of the animals concerned, but under strictly controlled provisions.) While having headed off the illicit trade, however, the department may have breached its own regulations when it auctioned the snakes two days later to traders, said the groups. “They are not allowed to sell off protected species as if they are mere merchandise,” lawyer N Surendran citing the Wildlife Act. “Nowhere does the Act authorise the department to sell off wildlife.” He was speaking to reporters this morning after filing a police report at the Brickfields station in Kuala Lumpur on behalf of the organisations. Surendran said the groups believe the snakes have since been sold to local and foreign restaurants. Echoing his statement, treasurer of the pro-tem Malaysian Animal Rights and Welfare Society Abdul Karim Stuart Russell said the department has in effect encouraged trade in the protected species. “It should not have happened, really. After the snakes were caught, they should have been dealt with in a more professional way,” he said. This would include either letting them go in the appropriate manner and location in the wild, or returning them to Thailand for disposal by the relevant authorities, he said. Surendran further said it was ironic that the state wildlife department - tasked with protecting wildlife - may have abetted in committing cruelty to the snakes in view of the known methods by which snakes are gutted alive in restaurants that buy them. He also cited Section 92 of the Wildlife Act, which renders illegal ‘any act of cruelty to wildlife’. Recounting the ‘efficient’ manner in which the snakes were auctioned two days after being seized, Surendran said the groups want the police to thoroughly investigate the circumstances of the decision to sell the snakes as well as the sale itself. Selangor chapter chairperson Christine Chin of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals urged the police to be impartial in their investigations. ‘Sale allowed’ When contacted, Penang Wildlife Department director Hasnan Yusop denied any breach of regulations, saying the auctioning of partially protected wildlife is provided for under Schedule II of the Wildlife Act as well as Cites’ Appendix II. “Perhaps the groups are just not fully informed of the provisions, as everything was done according to procedure,” said Hasnan. He also the authorities ensure that wildlife species auctioned off to licensed traders do not undergo cruel treatment in the process of preparation in restaurants. This batch of snakes was sold only for the meat, not the skins. “Nowadays, the slaughter of snakes in restaurants occurs (just like) the slaughter of chickens. There’s no difference,” said Hasnan. He explained that the snakes could not be returned to Thailand as it was only suspected that the snakes originated from there. The department, meanwhile, had to dispose of the snakes as soon as possible to prevent them from dying in the containers in which they were kept, especially since “several had died already”. “Releasing them into the wild in Malaysia would not have been the right step because the habitat is not suitable. Even in places where they are found, such as in northern region of Malaysia, their numbers are very small,” he added. “If they died in our possession, then the groups would be blaming for being cruel.”