MADPET is for the Abolition of Death Penalty, an end of torture and abuse of rights by the police, an end to death in custody, an end to police shoot to kill incidents, for greater safeguards to ensure a fair trial, for a right to one phone call and immediate access to a lawyer upon arrest, for the repeal of all laws that allow for detention without trial and an immediate release of all those who are under such draconian laws.
Judges to get discretionary powers over death sentence, says Apandi
Updated one week ago · Published on 31 Oct 2017 8:15PM ·
Attorney-General Mohamed Apandi Ali says the draft
bill to amend the law for mandatory capital punishment is drawn up based
on his experience as a judge. – The Malaysian Insight file pic, October
31, 2017.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers is ready to present to Parliament
the draft bill to amend the Dangerous Drug (Bill) 2017 prescribing
mandatory capital punishment for drug traffickers.
Attorney-General Mohamed Apandi Ali said the amendment would allow
the judges to exercise discretion in meting out the mandatory death
sentence.
He said the proposed amendments were drafted based on his experience as a judge.
"The amendments are from me and are based on my experience as a High Court and Appeals Court judge.
"Many judges find it difficult to pass the death sentence on offenders whom they feel do not deserve the punishment.
"But they have no choice because it is mandatory. Therefore, I
propose that the government be more flexible and do not discriminate
against the offenders, "he told a press conference in Putrajaya today.
Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, Azalina Othman had
revealed during a question-and-answer session in Parliament that the AGC
was in discussions with various government agencies to amend the act
for mandatory capital punishment.
Azalina revealed this when replying to a question from Puchong MP
Gobind Singh Deo, who had wanted to know whether the government was
abolishing the death sentence and would postpone all executions during
the moratorium.
Apandi said the draft amendments also included guidelines for the
judge to identify which offender should or should not be granted the
privilege of the judge’s discretionary powers over the death sentence
"In putting forward the idea (of letting the judge decide), we have
also identified the offenders who deserve the death sentence and those
who do not.
"People reading news reports about drug arrests assume that all who are caught are sentenced to death.
"But it is only those who are distributing and making a profit from drugs who will get the death sentence," he said.
Earlier, Apandi presented a donation of RM34,500 to the families of
23 victims of the Darul Quran Ittifaqiyah fire. – October 22, 2017. - The Malaysian Insight, 31/10/2017
Death penalty reforms must be an opportunity for positive human rights change — Amnesty International Malaysia
Friday November 3, 2017 05:34 PM GMT+8
NOVEMBER 3 — Amnesty International Malaysia welcomes the statement by
the Malaysian government outlining its efforts to amend Section 39B of
the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and to provide courts with the discretion
to spare lives when imposing the death penalty. The organisation
encourages the Government of Malaysia to ensure that the proposed
amendments will fully remove the mandatory death penalty and establish a
moratorium on all executions as first critical steps towards abolition
of the death penalty.
The announcement comes after a parliamentary reply by Law Minister
Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said on 30 October 2017, stating that the
first draft of the amendment has been completed by the Attorney
General’s Chambers and is awaiting the approval of the cabinet.
The organisation also welcomes the support of the Attorney General, Tan
Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali in giving the discretionary power to the
judiciary in drug-related offences in a statement made on 31 October.
While Amnesty International believes that these amendments is a step in
the right direction, the organisation hopes that these amendments will
be implemented in a manner that is effective and far-reaching.
The organisation renews its call on the Malaysian authorities to
abolish the mandatory death penalty for all offences and restrict the
scope of the death penalty to the “most serious crimes”, which do not
include drug-related offences. International law prohibits the use of
the mandatory death penalty and restricts the use of the ultimate
punishment, in countries where it has not yet been abolished, to
intentional killing.
Amnesty International Malaysia is in fact concerned that the statement
of the Attorney General suggested that the death penalty legislative
amendments, as currently drafted, would introduce limited sentencing
discretion only for those found guilty of transporting prohibited
substances. Amnesty International’s analysis of the impact of similar
reforms implemented in Singapore since 2013 indicate that the
introduction of limited sentencing discretion that fell short of fully
abolishing the mandatory death penalty has done little to improve the
protection of human rights.
In its report Cooperate or Die; Singapore’s Flawed Reforms to the
Mandatory Death Penalty, Amnesty International found that the mandatory
death penalty continues to be extensively imposed in Singapore, and
that drug trafficking continues to involve the great majority of the
death sentences imposed in the country. In cases where information is
available, the burden of the death penalty once again appears to fall on
those with less advantaged socioeconomic backgrounds and convicted of
importing relatively small amounts of controlled substances.
The amendments also introduced a new section in the Singaporean Misuse
of Drugs Act, giving courts discretion to sentence persons to life
imprisonment, if found guilty of drug trafficking or importing
prohibited substances over certain amounts if they can prove their
involvement in the offence was restricted to that of a “courier”; and if
the Public Prosecutor issues a “certificate of substantive assistance”,
confirming that the convicted person has substantively assisted in
disrupting drug trafficking activities.
This not only narrows the court’s discretionary powers considerably, it
violates the right to a fair trial as it places life and death
decisions in the hands of an official who is neither a judge nor a
neutral party in the trial and should not have such powers.
It is our hope that the Malaysian authorities will make the ongoing
legislative reforms on the death penalty a meaningful opportunity to
improve the protection of human rights and adopt a comprehensive
approach on its policies on the death penalty.
Pending abolition of the death penalty, Amnesty International Malaysia
renews our call on the authorities to establish a moratorium on all
executions. The government had stated that as of April 30, 2016, 1,042
people comprising 629 Malaysians and 413 foreign nationals were
sentenced to death due to murder, drug trafficking, firearms trafficking
or kidnapping; Sixteen (16) death row inmates have been executed since
2010 in Malaysia.
Even with plans to amend laws and rulers granting pardon to death row
inmates, Amnesty International Malaysia still calls for the total
abolition of the death penalty as it is proven multiple times not to
have a unique deterrent effect on crimes, and violates the Universal
Declaration of Human rights, including the right to life and the right
to live free from torture.
It is in this context that Amnesty International Malaysia welcomes the
pardon by the Sultan of Perak on November 1 of two prisoners, who have
been imprisoned for more than 16 years. Death row prisoners are usually
kept in solitary confinement once their sentence has been imposed.
In a country where information on the use of the death penalty is not
publicly available, the announcement of the pardon is a positive
development which the organisation hopes it can be replicated to allow
for greater transparency and more commutations of death sentences.
Background
Mandatory death sentences leave courts no option but to condemn drug
offenders and those convicted of murder to the gallows. Drug
trafficking does not meet the threshold of the “most serious crimes” to
which the use of the death penalty must be restricted under
international human rights law.
Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases and under
any circumstances, regardless of the nature of the crime, the
characteristics of the offender, or the method used by the state to
carry out the execution. The organisation considers the death penalty a
violation of the right to life as recognised in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the ultimate cruel, inhuman and
degrading punishment.
Pending full abolition of the death penalty, Amnesty International
calls for the government’s urgent intervention to halt all executions
and to broaden the scope of the proposed reforms to encompass all
capital offences; and to abolish the automatic presumptions of drug
possession and trafficking allowed under Section 37 of the Dangerous
Drugs Act, 1952 as initial steps.
Amnesty International has ranked Malaysia tenth in the use of the death
penalty among 23 countries that carried out capital punishment last
year.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.
Name the 4 Unidentified Individuals in the
Kim Jong Nam Murder Charge to ensure fair trial for Siti Aisyah and Hong Song
Hac
Accused persons have a right to know all
material particulars of the criminal charge
MADPET(Malaysians
Against Death Penalty and Torture) states that since the 4 other suspects in
the murder of Kim Jong Nam have now been revealed in court, the charges against
the 2 women on trial for murder Kim Jong Nam must be amended to include the
names of these alleged co-accused to ensure a fair trial.(BBC News,
6/11/2017). Being
made liable for actions of 4 unknown persons, when names are not known, is
grossly unjust especially in a trial for murder that carries the mandatory
death penalty.
It
was reported that an investigating officer , a prosecution witness, had named Hong
Song Hac, 34(who was known as Mr Chang),
Ri Ji Hyon, 33(who was known as Mr Y),Ri Jae Nam, 57(who was called Hanamori ), and O
Jong Gil (who was known as James) as being the until now.(BBC News, 6/11/2017)
The
2 women on trial, being Indonesian Siti Aisyah and Vietnamese Doan Thi Huong, were
charged in court on 2/10/2017 for the killing Kim Jong Nam on Feb 13 with nerve
agent VX at Kuala Lumpur International Airport.
The charge sheet said that four other individuals still at
large are ‘accomplices’ of the said women in the murder of Kim Jong
Nam, but no names
were given.
‘According to the charge sheet, Doan was charged with
killing Kim Jong-nam, the estranged half-brother of North Korean leader Kim
Jong-un, along with Indonesian Siti Aisyah, 25, and four other unidentified
individuals…’(Star,
2/10/2017)
They are being charged with murder (section 302 Penal Code),
which carries the mandatory death penalty. In the said charge, section 34 of
the Penal Code is said to be part of the charge.
Section
34 of the Malaysian Penal Code, states that "When
a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common
intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same
manner as if the act were done by him alone.”
This means, even though Siti Aisyah and/or Doan Thi Huong did
not even know who these 4 unidentified individuals are or what they did, they may
be made liable for the acts and/or wrongdoings of the unidentified 4 as well.
Hence, the not naming of alleged accomplices in the charge
sheet is highly prejudicial to any accused person in any criminal trial, and it
seriously undermines the accused person’s ability to defend oneself and enjoy
the right to a fair trial. On the other hand, it may give an unfair advantage
to the prosecution, who could even change the individuals to improve the chance
of winning given the fact that not naming do not restrict the prosecution’s
case to just persons named in the charge.
If the charge can specifically state the number of other
persons, surely their names would reasonably be known by the prosecution, and
therefore should be in the charge. If actual names are not known, nick names or
other identifying features could alternatively be included.
A criminal charge, as a matter of principle should be clear
and discloses all material particulars to enable the accused to be able to
effectively defend oneself and get a fair trial.
In criminal cases, the prosecution also has the
duty for pre trial disclosure as
this is critical to the defendant's right to a fair trial. To enable the accused to properly prepare a defence he/she
must be made aware of all the evidence against him, including also evidence
favourable to him that may have come forward during investigation. Disclosure
must be before the trial starts to enable the accused and/or his/her lawyer necessary
time to do their own investigation, maybe even interview potential prosecution
witnesses or other witnesses identified during the investigation stage.
Hence, the sudden naming of these 4
suspects by a prosecution witness during trial also prejudices the accused
person/s.
In a criminal trial, it is never to be
competition between the prosecution and the accused, but a quest for truth and justice.
No one wants an innocent person to be convicted and sentenced, even in a high
profile case like this murder of this North Korean.
We recall the execution of Gunasegar Pitchaymuthu(35), Ramesh
Jayakumar(34), and Sasivarnam Jayakumar(37)
in March 2016, and note that this was also another case where they were charged for murder together with ‘one other
still at large’ under section 302 of the Penal Code and read together with
Section 34 of the Penal Code. Before even the ‘one other still at large’ was
arrested and tried, the 3 of them had been executed defying logic for surely
their presence would have been vital when that ‘one other still at large’ was being
tried for the same murder.
The
charging of persons of committing a crime with unidentified persons must stop.
The practice of inserting section 34 of the Penal Code as part of the criminal charge
involving more than 1 person must not become a norm, but should be limited to
only to cases where there is real evidence of common intention.
Therefore, MADPET calls for the
charges against Siti
Aisyah and Doan Thi Huong to be immediately amended to provide names of the ‘four
other unidentified individuals’;
MADPET also calls for a stop of the
practice of charging persons for criminal acts with unnamed and/or unidentified
persons. Charges must contain material particulars including identity of
accomplices to ensure that all accused persons have the right to a fair trial.
Charles Hector
For and on behalf of MADPET
(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)
*
Kim Jong-nam murder: North Korea suspects named in court
6 November 2017
From the section Asia
A senior police
officer has told a trial in Malaysia that four North Korean men were
involved in killing the half-brother of North Korea's leader, Kim
Jong-un.
Two women, from Indonesia and Vietnam, are standing trial for the murder of Kim Jong-nam.
He died in February at Kuala Lumpur airport after highly toxic VX nerve agent was rubbed on his face.
The women have pleaded not guilty and say they were tricked.
They say they thought they were taking part in a TV prank. They face death by hanging if convicted.
An
investigating officer named four North Korean men in court on Monday,
saying they had fled Malaysia after the murder. It is the first time
they have been named in court, although their names had previously been
known in connection with the investigation.They were known to the two women on trial, he said, but only by pseudonyms:
Hong Song Hac, 34, was known as Mr Chang
Ri Ji Hyon, 33, was known as Mr Y
Ri Jae Nam, 57, was called Hanamori
O Jong Gil was known as James
CCTV
footage of the men seen around the airport after the incident on the
day of the murder was shown in court. They were seen changing their
clothes before departing.
They had entered Malaysia between late
January and early February and three of the men left Kuala Lumpur for
Jakarta, according to the main investigating officer, Wan Azirul Nizam
Che Wan Aziz, but he added he could not recall the destination of the
fourth.
More CCTV footage showed some of the North Korean suspects
meeting a North Korean embassy official and an official from the
national airline Air Koryo at the airport's main terminal shortly after
the attack. - BBC, 6/11/2017
Jong-nam murder trial: Identities of four other accused not disclosed
Naran
Singh (right) and Hisyam Teh Poh Teik (left) lawyers for Vietnam Doan
Thi Huong speak to journalists on the first day trial.
SHAH
ALAM: The defence team of Doan Thi Huong, the Vietnamese woman accused
of killing Kim Jong-nam, says that they were kept in the dark over the
identities of four other individuals accused of the same crime.
One of the lawyers for Doan Thi Huong, 29, said it was unfair for the
prosecution not to disclose their details as this would create a
disadvantage for the defence.
"Even before this, we requested for their particulars on more than
one occasion, but they refused to disclose it. We do not understand
why," said lawyer Hisyam Teh Poh Teik at Shah Alam High Court compound
when the court was adjourned for recess on Monday.
According to the charge sheet, Doan was charged with killing Kim
Jong-nam, the estranged half-brother of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un,
along with Indonesian Siti Aisyah, 25, and four other unidentified
individuals.
Both women were charged separately under Section 302 of the Penal
Code, which carries the mandatory death sentence upon conviction.
Asked if High Court judge Justice Azmi Ariffin deemed the names "irrelevant", defence counsel Salim Bashir said no.
"He only said that the non-disclosure of the four individuals does not prejudice the defence case," he said.
Another lawyer, Datuk Naran Singh, said that was raised during their argument in court Monday morning.
"Our client was charged with four others – sharing common intention to cause the death of the deceased.
"We are entitled to know their identities, the law says so. But the judge was not persuaded by that," he said.
Meanwhile, Siti Aisyah's lawyer Gooi Soon Seng said their defence team shared the same concerns.
"We object to the charges on the grounds of common intention," he said.
Both Doan and Siti Aisyah were charged with with murdering Jong-nam
at KLIA2 on Feb 13 by smearing his face with VX, a chemical the United
States describes as a weapon of mass destruction.
On March 16, the then Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu
Bakar said the police had obtained an Interpol red notice for the arrest
of four North Koreans believed to be involved in the killing.
The four North Koreans sought were Rhi Ji-hyon, 33; Hong Song-hac, 34; O Jong-gil, 55, and Ri Jae-nam, 57.
They entered the country separately days before the incident and
left for Jakarta from KLIA2 just after Jong-nam's assassination. - Star, 2/10/2017
UMNO-BN government has been delaying the abolition of the death penalty, and even the Mandatory Death Penalty.
Persons on death row, waiting to be hanged to death, can however be saved - their sentences commuted to maybe imprisonment, life or otherwise by Pardon Boards chaired by the Rulers..
Under
Article 42 of the Federal Constitution, Yang di-Pertuan Agong (the
King) has the power to grant pardons to convicts, irrespective of the
offences committed in the Federal Territories. For
offenders in other states, the state Ruler or Sultan has absolute discretion and power to grant
pardon.
YES - the different State rulers have the power to pardon - even commute death sentences to imprisonment. But alas, the King and the other state rulers have not been doing that and saving lives...
It was revealed that these Pardon Boards are now not even meeting regularly ...and this is doing great injustice as Malaysia continues to hang people...
M Ramachelvam said that at present, each board’s
activities were opaque and one did not hear of anything much happening
at these meetings.
He also said neither the frequency nor the results of the meetings
were made known to others, with the exception of the Johor Pardons Board
where there were some commutations of sentences in conjunction with the
Sultan of Johor’s coronation.
“We do not know about their meetings. So our recommendation is that they should hold periodic meetings,” he said.
“They can do so quarterly or have half-yearly meetings to look at
cases which have come to the pardons boards in the various states,” he
said when met on the sidelines of the two-day conference and training
workshop titled “Abolition of the Death Penalty in Malaysia and Asia
Pacific” today.
Information of Pardon Board hearings and outcomes must be made public. The people should have the right to submit their pleas for consideration and action by the King and State Rulers. Persons on death row, waiting the day they be hanged to death, should have their sentences committed to imprisonment. Now, when it comes to foreigners, diplomatic pressure plays a role in successful commutation of death sentences - A similar policy must apply to Malaysians on death row, especially those who are not guilty of personally depriving the life of any victim...The risk of miscarriage of justice and the possibility of hanging an innocent person is very real...
The Johor Sultan, and the Perak Sultan have been reported as having commuted the death sentence - sadly similar just actions to save lives have not been heard of in the Opposition governed States of Selangor, Penang and/or Kelantan. DAP and many Opposition MPs have taken a stand for the abolition of the death penalty - but words alone without action is of little value..
Perak’s Sultan Nazrin commutes death sentences for two
Updated one day ago · Published on 1 Nov 2017 12:07PM
Sultan Nazrin Shah speaking at a book launch in Kuala
Lumpur on April 12. The Perak ruler has commuted the death sentences for
two prisoners who are in jail for drug offences. – The Malaysian
Insight file pic, November 1, 2017.
PERAK’S Sultan Nazrin Shah has commuted the death sentences on
two prisoners to life imprisonment in conjunction with his birthday
anniversary on Friday.
Perak Darul Ridzuan State Pardons Board secretary Abdul Puhat Mat
Nayan said the decision was made at the meeting of the board chaired by
Sultan Nazrin on October 12.
Puhat said both prisoners were sentenced to death by hanging under
Section 39(B)(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 by the Taiping High
Court on March 19, 2009 and June 15, 2009 respectively.
"Their appeals have been rejected by the Court of Appeal and the
Federal Court and they have been in jail for more than 16 years
beginning on the date of their remand in 2001.
"With the pardon, both convicts are now serving life imprisonment
effective from the date of the meeting (of the Pardons Board on Oct
12),” he said in a statement today.
Puhat added that Sultan Nazrin had said that any punishment meted was
to give a lesson to society so that the law would be respected.
"The ruler also said that the pardon or reduced punishment that had
been decided by the court would only be considered when the convicts
concerned had demonstrated remorse.
"...realised and regretted the offence committed and apologised and
behaved well while under detention and demonstrated the determination to
begin a new life,” he said. – Bernama, November 1, 2017.- Malaysian Insight, 1/11/2017
State pardons boards should meet periodically, says lawyer
Bar Council's M Ramachelvam says meetings should be
held regularly to pore over death penalty cases as well as those seeking
pardons or commutations of sentences.
KUALA LUMPUR: The pardons board of every state should hold meetings
periodically to pore over cases under their respective jurisdictions,
the Malaysian Bar’s migrants, refugees and immigration affairs committee
said today.
Its chairman M Ramachelvam said that at present, each board’s
activities were opaque and one did not hear of anything much happening
at these meetings.
He also said neither the frequency nor the results of the meetings
were made known to others, with the exception of the Johor Pardons Board
where there were some commutations of sentences in conjunction with the
Sultan of Johor’s coronation.
“We do not know about their meetings. So our recommendation is that they should hold periodic meetings,” he said.
“They can do so quarterly or have half-yearly meetings to look at
cases which have come to the pardons boards in the various states,” he
said when met on the sidelines of the two-day conference and training
workshop titled “Abolition of the Death Penalty in Malaysia and Asia
Pacific” today.
Ramachelvam said the board should not only look at death penalty cases as there were other cases too worthy of attention.
“Of course all death penalty cases have to be considered by the
board. But there are a whole host of other cases, such as prisoners
facing life in prison and people who have got grounds to seek pardons or
commutations (of sentences),” he said.
“If there is no hearing of the state pardons boards, how can they
consider all those applications for commutation of sentences?” he added.
Earlier in his presentation titled “Death Penalty – Migrants and
Foreign Nationals”, Ramachelvam said some state boards did not hold
meetings for long periods.
The Federal Constitution provides for a Pardons Board, presided over
by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, for each state, as well as one for all the
Federal Territories (FT) in the country.
It comprises the attorney-general, or his representative, the FT minister and three other members to be appointed by the King.
Before giving its decision, the board must consider the written opinion of the attorney-general. - FMT News, 21/7/2017
End of mandatory death penalty - and the return of judicial discretion to judges? Well, this had been a long drawn out issue - and, finally the AG's chambers are ready to submit the Draft Bill ending the mandatory death penalty - and hopefully, it will extinguish all MANDATORY death penalty, and not just those with regard to drug offences.
Attorney-General Mohamed Apandi Ali said the amendment would allow
the judges to exercise discretion in meting out the mandatory death
sentence...."Many judges find it difficult to pass the death sentence on offenders whom they feel do not deserve the punishment...."But they have no choice because it is mandatory. Therefore, I
propose that the government be more flexible and do not discriminate
against the offenders, "he[Attorney-General Mohamed Apandi Ali] told a press conference in Putrajaya today.
We hope that this Bill is tabled and passed in the current Parliamentary session - and not delayed again...
Judges to get discretionary powers over death sentence, says Apandi
Published on 31 Oct 2017 8:15PM
Attorney-General Mohamed Apandi Ali says the draft
bill to amend the law for mandatory capital punishment is drawn up based
on his experience as a judge. – The Malaysian Insight file pic, October
31, 2017.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers is ready to present to Parliament
the draft bill to amend the Dangerous Drug (Bill) 2017 prescribing
mandatory capital punishment for drug traffickers.
Attorney-General Mohamed Apandi Ali said the amendment would allow
the judges to exercise discretion in meting out the mandatory death
sentence.
He said the proposed amendments were drafted based on his experience as a judge.
"The amendments are from me and are based on my experience as a High Court and Appeals Court judge.
"Many judges find it difficult to pass the death sentence on offenders whom they feel do not deserve the punishment.
"But they have no choice because it is mandatory. Therefore, I
propose that the government be more flexible and do not discriminate
against the offenders, "he told a press conference in Putrajaya today.
Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, Azalina Othman had
revealed during a question-and-answer session in Parliament that the AGC
was in discussions with various government agencies to amend the act
for mandatory capital punishment.
Azalina revealed this when replying to a question from Puchong MP
Gobind Singh Deo, who had wanted to know whether the government was
abolishing the death sentence and would postpone all executions during
the moratorium.
Apandi said the draft amendments also included guidelines for the
judge to identify which offender should or should not be granted the
privilege of the judge’s discretionary powers over the death sentence
"In putting forward the idea (of letting the judge decide), we have
also identified the offenders who deserve the death sentence and those
who do not.
"People reading news reports about drug arrests assume that all who are caught are sentenced to death.
"But it is only those who are distributing and making a profit from drugs who will get the death sentence," he said.
Earlier, Apandi presented a donation of RM34,500 to the families of
23 victims of the Darul Quran Ittifaqiyah fire. – Malaysian Insight, October 22, 2017.
The draconian laws that provided for Detention Without Trial, namely the Internal Security Act(ISA) and Emergency Public Order and Prevention of Crime Ordinance 1969 (EO) may be no more, but in its place new laws have been put in place place that allow detention without trial mainly the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 (POTA). The old Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (POCA) was amended enabling it to be used for a wide variety of alleged crimes. We use the word 'alleged' because there is no way for the victims to challenge any of the alleged reasons used to detain and/or restrict them. That means a person under any of these Detention Without Trial laws, can wrongly be detained for 'ALLEGED' reasons with no way of challenging the reasons used.
Dangerous Drugs(Special Preventive Measures) Act, the 3rd of the infamous Detention Without Trial Laws continues still to exist..
Media
statement by DAP Member of Parliament for Batu Kawan and Publicity Secretary
for Wanita DAP Kasthuri Patto in remembrance of 30 years of Operasi Lalang on
Friday 27th October 2017 in Parliament Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.
30 years after Operasi Lalang, and 5 years after the demise of
the draconian Internal Security Act, Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s track record
after 8 years as Prime Minister shows he is determined to revive the ghost of
political persecutions through laws that threaten fundamental liberties as a
means to stay in power.
This October 27th
will mark the 30th anniversary of the Operasi Lalang dragnet where
the Barisan Nasional government victimised more than 106 men and women from all
walks of life, accusing them to be enemies of the state and a threat to
national security. Some were detained for a few days, some weeks, some a few
months and some for the full 2 years. None had the opportunity to be brought to
a court of law to be heard by a judge. All detainees under Operasi Lalang were
denied justice which is a fundamental right in this country.
The ISA was “an act
provides 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”.
Section 8(B)(1) of the
Internal Security Act on the judicial review of act or decision of Yang
di-Pertuan Agong and Minister states “There shall be no judicial review in
any court of, and no court shall have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect
of, any act done or decision made by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Minister
in the exercise of their discretionary power in accordance with this Act..”
The glaring words here are
“no judicial review” which is a denial of a right to a fair and free trial in a
court of law in Malaysia.
Let us not forget the gallant
speech made by Prime Minister Najib Razak on 15th September 2011, in
celebrating Malaysia Day, to abolish the Internal Security Act, which was subsequently
repealed in 2012. The nation rejoiced – in just 3 years of being Prime
Minister, Najib had abolished an Act of 42 years, which was used as a weapon to
silence voices of dissent, critiquing the establishment of abuses of power,
corruption and potent race based and religious based politics. Politicians and
civil society alike welcomed the move, seen as progressive and democratic by
the Najib leadership to repeal this archaic act, albeit a great suspicion that
a precious jewel like the ISA cannot be simply snuffed out.
The suspicion did not last
long as the Peaceful Assembly Act which was forced through Parliament on 29th
November 2011 and came into force in 2012, with great opposition from civil
society, the Malaysian Bar and parliamentarians alike, being undemocratic and
giving absolute powers to the police and the Home Minister. From here began an onslaught
of an avalanche of repressive acts. The Security Offences (Special Measures)
Act or SOSMA which was debated and passed into the wee hours of the morning in
2012 and further amended in 2017, amendments to the Prevention of Crime Act in
2015, the introduction of the Prevention of Terrorism Act in 2015, and finally
the National Security Council Act debated, resisted and passed belligerently in
the Dewan Rakyat in 2016. Not forgetting Section 124B of the Penal Code which
explicitly yet vaguely criminalises “activity detrimental to
parliamentary democracy”, Section 124C which is “attempt to commit activity
detrimental to parliamentary democracy”, and even Section 124D which states
“printing, sale, etc., of documents and publication detrimental to
parliamentary democracy”, including Section 124E which states “possession
of documents and publication detrimental to parliamentary democracy”. POCA
and SOSMA will be used for short term detention without trial, Section 124B of
the Penal Code warrants for 20 years in prison for activities detrimental to
parliamentary democracy, and the National Security Council Act which gives
authoritarian, executive, emergency powers to the Prime Minister paving way for
a sure abuse.
Under Najib’s administration,
in such a short period of time, many laws had been amended including the
introduction of new laws that continue to curb, restrict and restraint freedom
to assemble, to speak and to publish as enshrined in the Federal Constitution.
Despite having numerous laws
passed and amended that is a threat to the Federal Constitution, parliamentary
democracy and freedom under his own leadership since he took office in 2009,
The Prime Minister's comments in Washington in September this year at theBanyan
Tree Leadership forum by the US Center for Strategic and International Studies
and Malaysia's Institute of Strategic and International Studies, is nothing but
a farce and a joke when he said democracy is thriving where free speech is
propagated. He couldn’t be further from the truth. He unashamedly also pointed
out that some elements creating false impressions that Malaysia was in danger
of sliding into a dictatorship.
The Prime Minister lacks
enlightenment as legislations that are dictatorial in nature is a reflection of
adictatorial government led by
dictatorial leadership. Nothing more and nothing less.
Laws that threaten freedom of
speech, religious freedom, fundamental liberties, democracy and justice, in its
own right are detrimental to parliamentary democracy!
Regressive laws exist to keep
governments in power as we have seen where many offences in the mentioned Acts,
are not spelt out clearly giving an upper hand to the Government to detain
anyone who intimidates them, even for life.
What is apparent in all these
dictatorial oppressive acts is the denial of the right to be tried before a
court of law, the right to be heard and the fundamental right of natural
justice that has been extinguished all in the name of national security.
Instead of projecting to the
world that the Barisan Nasional government is committed to burying the Operasi
Lalang of 1987 by making progressive, democratic changes to the law, the Government has shown
their lack of political will and insistence to uphold the spirit of the Federal
Constitution which defends freedom, democracy, equality and justice for all.
30 years after Operasi Lalang
and 8 years into the Najib administration, Malaysians are threatened with
archaic, discriminatory, unjust laws that threaten democracy, freedom and
equality exhuming the corpse of Operasi Lalang and the spirit of Internal
Security Act is kept alive as a desperate means to cling on to power.
