Mkini: Death penalty debate needs to go beyond emotions

Death penalty debate needs to go beyond emotions
Sad Malaysian
Jul 6, 06 4:21pm

I refer to your report It’s the gallows for abolish death penalty call.

The death penalty has always been a controversial subject. There are many arguments used by both the proponents and opponents of the death penalty. The usual arguments that you would receive from the proponents would be is one, the death penalty is a preventive measure and two, our judicial system is well equipped to deal with this issue.

In Malaysia, the death penalty is reserved for what is deemed ‘the most heinous of crimes’ which include murder, treason, trafficking of drugs and being in possession of firearms. And the most famous of all arguments, ‘If someone you loved was brutally raped and murdered, wouldn’t you want the murderer to die?’ Make the victim a child, and you have a winning argument to sway almost anyone into in saying we need the death penalty.

So then, why are there people who keep saying the death penalty is a form of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment? That the death penalty goes against one of the holiest tenets of all religions, which is the sanctity of life? Why do these people persist in saying that there is no concrete evidence to say that the death penalty works as a preventive measure?

Let us take a look at the Malaysian scenario and all the necessary actors in the death penalty drama.

We will start with the police. How many of us are of the firm belief that the Royal Malaysian Police Force is one of the best in the world? Are corruption and abuse of power not rampant within the police force? No, you say, our police are decent and incorruptible. How about the cases where people died in police custody and the reports made about police abuse by countless Malaysians? Hearsay, hearsay!

Now let us look at our judiciary. Have there been any allegations of corruption and judicial misconduct? No, never. Our ‘house of Denmark’ smells of roses! Our judges have always exemplified the highest standards of professionalism, even when they go on holidays with lawyers that they have cases with. All right then, so we have the best judiciary in the world. All appeal cases are heard in record time since there is no backlog in our courts.

Let us not forget, that the poor and marginalised (who seem to constitute a large number of those on death row) always get the best defence lawyers pro-bono. We have a state-run institution that provides for the best lawyers to defend someone’s life right? I am sure we do. Just check with the Legal Aid Centres on the numbers of lawyers lining up to do their part in ensuring everyone gets the best defence possible even if they cannot afford it.

And we have an excellent track record of the Pardons Board, who meets up on a frequent basis to discuss any clemency appeals by those who have exhausted all avenues with the courts. I mean the reports in the papers about them meeting up only in 10-15 years was just a lie, wasn’t it?

Well, since everything is in place that guarantees that only those who are guilty beyond a doubt get the death penalty, I guess the death penalty serves its purpose in getting rid of the scum of society. Therefore, Malaysians have nothing to fear. We live in a perfect society. Only the bad get punished.

But wait a minute... if the death penalty works and we have punished all those people who have committed heinous crimes by taking their lives, why is there an increase in the crime rate? Why are the crimes becoming more heinous by the day? Why isn’t the death penalty preventing all those who continue to commit heinous crimes? Why do people who have been on death row for decades still maintain their innocence, when we know for a fact that our perfect system of justice found them guilty?

In conclusion, the death penalty will always be a contentious issue simply because people delude themselves in thinking that the ‘eye for an eye’ argument make sense and it will provide them with security from the barbarians out there. No amount of data and facts will make them think otherwise.

It is my sincere hope that people educate themselves about the death penalty and evaluate the circumstances in which a person is killed, even if it is state-sanctioned. The death penalty deserves more than just an emotional response to the heinousness of a crime. It needs to go beyond emotions to justify going against the fundamental right of all people – the right to life.

COALITION AGAINST DOG SHOOTING AND OTHER INHUMANE METHODS (CASIM)

MEDIA STATEMENT

COALITION AGAINST DOG SHOOTING AND OTHER INHUMANE METHODS (CASIM)

Endorsed by
SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (SPCA)
MALAYSIAN ASSOCIATION FOR RESPONSIBLE PET OWNERSHIP (MARPO)
BIVAI SPECIAL DOGS
MALAYSIAN ANIMAL-ASSISTED THERAPHY FOR THE DISABLED & ELDERLY ASSOCIATION (PETSPOSITIVE)
MALAYSIANS AGAINST DEATH PENALTY & TORTURE (MADPET)
PAWS

The Coalition believes that compliance with the city council’s by laws is paramount and that neighbours complaints should be taken into consideration. However we deplore the manner in which the operation was conducted . The tragic end to the 13 dogs lives, that were BRUTALLY shot in their homes, have angered many Malaysians and animal carers all over the world.

The whole shooting massacre, which looks like a bloody crime scene, is a HORRENDOUS, CRUEL and VIOLENT act and the Seremban Municipal should have never taken this merciless route. What if children, the disabled or the elderly were shot as they stepped in to protect the dogs and their property? Is this the way Malaysia wants to be portrayed? Are there no other more humane and non-violent solutions that the Seremban Municipal could have resorted to?

Kind and caring Malaysians have stepped forward to feed and give temporary shelter to many abandoned/stray dogs and cats in the hope of rehoming them. Cases like Mr Eng’s show that sometimes love can be misplaced and misguided.Most municipals lack the infrastructure and capacity to assist these animal carers and the problem is compounded. Municipalities should engage and assist the animal carers who regularly take these animals off their streets.

It is indeed an irony that this tragedy occurred in the Year of the Dog. We hope they did not die in vain as this sad and unfortunate incident has propelled the plight of the SILENT CRIES THAT GO LITTLE HEARD by the majority of Malaysians. Excess dogs are considered garbage and any way to clear them off the streets by any contractor that vouches to do that is employed usually with a price tag of RM 35-50 per dog head.

This coalition demands an END to this indifference and discrimination against dogs and the suffering the dogs endure and vigorously proposes the following reforms and humane options:-


A) AN IMMEDIATE BAN TO SHOOTING AND OTHER INHUMANE METHODS USED IN DOG-CATCHING

1. Other inhumane methods used are wires - where animals have been severely cut in their necks and bodies, ropes- where the dogs are almost strangled to death.

2. Dog Catchers be trained to use humane methods like nets and tranquilizers.

3. The only acceptable and humane method is lethal injection administered by a veterinarian or an authorized person supervised by him.

4. In times of resistance, a mediator be sought to diffuse the situation in a humane, effective and considerate manner. SPCA can assist in this area.


B) THE MUNICIPALITIES ADOPT A MORE EFFECTIVE AND HUMANE ORIENTED MINDSET AND ATTITUDE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF DOG AND CAT OVERPOPULATION

1. Establish a Humane Shelter and Pound where animals can be kept and rehomed. This gives the residents a chance to bring in strays and abandoned animals instead of taking them into their own homes and thus creating neighbourhood problems. SPCA is able to assist in developing humane procedures and guidelines.

2. Establish a high-volume, low-cost spay neuter clinic like DBKL-SPCA Klinik Kembiri (KK) where dogs and cats are spayed at largely reduced rates of RM90 and RM50 respectively. This has been a huge success as the number of prevented dog and cat births in KL reached an unbelievable 2.7m in the 3 years since KK was established!!! (attached is the statistical evidence).This is the cheapest, smartest and most effective pro-active way to prevent over population of unwanted dogs and cats.

The Coalition is willing to embark on a working committee together with a sizable number of Municipalities to provide a wealth of knowledge, experience and expertise in solving this MAN MADE problem.

The Coalition urges all animal carers to be Responsible Pet Owners and spay and neuter their pets to prevent pet overpopulation and to be considerate neighbours as well.

6 July 2006

MADPET(4/7/2006): MALAYSIA BLINDLY ACCEPTS MYTHS PROPAGATED BY DEATH PENALTY RETENTIONISTS

MEDIA STATEMENT – 4/7/2006

MALAYSIA BLINDLY ACCEPTS MYTHS PROPAGATED BY DEATH PENALTY RETENTIONISTS

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) is disappointed by the unsubstantiated and false statement made by Datuk M. Kayveas, a Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department when he told Parliament that the death penalty deters serious crimes. This statement, as was reported by Bernama on 28/6/2006, is baseless and cannot be justified by any facts or statistical proof.

On the other hand, there are studies conducted throughout the world over the past seventy years using various different methodological approaches 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 in fact was a sharp decline in the homicide rate after abolition;
In the United States 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 Minister also went on to say that there will be no abolition of the death penalty as it “safeguards public interest”. Surely sending someone to death, especially when there is the real possibility that an innocent man can be killed is against the public interest.

He is further reported to have said that "There are enough safeguards in the country's judicial system to ensure that death sentences are not meted out easily,"

What safeguards is the Honourable Deputy Minister speaking of? In Malaysia there is no immediate access to a lawyer upon arrest, immediate right to a phone call and no right to full pre-trial disclosure.

Evidence, reports, statements and witnesses obtained during police investigations that may support the accused story or bring to light possible defences to the accused will most likely be suppressed as prosecution officers are only interested in prosecuting. Most jurisdictions in the Commonwealth and elsewhere have made it mandatory for immediate full disclosure to the accused person.

It must be reiterated that even in jurisdictions where all these safeguards exist, the number of persons wrongfully condemned to death have been frighteningly high. Human justice is dangerously fallible, and the only acceptable choice for any civilized nation is to abolish the death penalty.

The fact that a person has the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal and then the Federal Court, and thereafter to the Pardons Board for clemency is grossly insufficient to justify the keeping of the Death Penalty in our law books. It is laughable that the Deputy Minister even suggested, at this day and time in Malaysia, that thorough investigations carried out by an experienced and effective police force is yet another safeguard to prevent miscarriage of justice.

In June 2006 President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo signed a law abolishing the death penalty in the Philippines. The number of countries that have done away with the Death Penalty now stands at 123. The worldwide trend has been towards abolition of the death penalty.

The Malaysian government ought to have conducted a thorough study on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the death penalty as a deterent to serious crime before having a Deputy Minister, who is a lawyer, stand up in Paliament and attempt to turn a myth into an empirical truth.

A recent television poll done by RTM 2 during the Hello on Two programme on 7/5/2006 showed that 64% of Malaysians are for the abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia.

Further, the Malaysian Bar, which comprises about 12,000 lawyers, is also calling for the abolition of the death penalty.

MADPET calls for an immediate moratorium on all executions pending abolition, and the abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia.

N. Surendran
Charles Hector

for Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET)

4th July 2006

KL Bar: Police mock court order

Ng Eng Kiat
Jun 30, 06 6:38pm (Malaysiakini)


The Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee yesterday slammed the police for re-arresting detainees, who were being held without trial, after they were ordered to be released by the court.

The 13 detainees were detained under the Emergency Ordinance and were freed on a writ of habeas corpus by Kuala Lumpur High Court on Wednesday.

In the drama that unfolded at 6pm two days ago at Simpang Renggam, the 13 detainees - who were being transported on a bus from inside the detention centre to be set freed at the main gate - attempted to run away upon noticing that they would be re-arrested.

Five of the 13 got away after a fracas between the police who were waiting outside the centre and family members who tried to aid the detainees to escape.

The plain-cloth police officers, in the course of apprehending the freed detainees, allegedly injured elderly female family members who were there to welcome back their loved ones.
.
The KL Bar Committee, which represents lawyers in the Federal Territory, also ticked off the police for using excessive force against the family members of the detainees.

Malaysiakini has obtained a five-minute video footage of the incident depicting the unfolding drama, taken with a mobile phone.

No real basis for re-arrest

The New Straits Times today reported that Johor police chief Hussin Ismail claimed the police only intended to re-arrest eight of those being released, and that the five who “got away” were not on their list.

Criminal Practice Committee chairperson N Sivananthan, counsel for the detainees, claimed the police’s explanation only served to show there was no real basis for the re-arrest.

“What is really weird here is the police are now taking the stand that they never wanted to arrest the five in the first place. If this is the reason, why were the eight arrested then? What is so special about the (other) five?” he said during a press conference yesterday.

Baljit Singh Sidhu, a lawyer for the detainees, added that one of those who escaped has identical offences with another who was re-arrested.

“They cannot say they intended to release the five and detain the other eight. First of all, there is no reason to detain anyone because there is a valid court order (for their release),” he said.

According to Baljit, all 13 who are held under the Emergency Ordinance (EO) - a law similar to the Internal Security Act - were suspected of committing petty crimes like theft and extortion.

“There is ordinary court process for these crimes, but they are held under the EO because the police lack of evidence to charge them,” he lamented.

Under the EO, detainees can be held without trial for two years and this can be extended indefinitely.

KL Bar Committee chairperson Lim Chee Wee expressed indignation with the incident and questioned the motive of the police in totally disregarding a release order granted by a court of law.

“There was no disclosure of the grounds of re-arrest. The only recourse for these detainees is a writ of habeas corpus, which is a constitutional right, and to repeat arrest renders such relief ineffective,” Lim said.

A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to the authorities ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether the person is imprisoned lawfully and whether he should be released from custody.

Re-arrests increasingly a trend

Sivananthan expressed fear that if this practice of re-arresting ‘habeas corpus’ detainees becomes a trend, it would allow the police to abuse their powers.

“It is an easy way out - if I am a police officer, why bother? Put them under the EO, write down the charges and put them there as long as I like. When a lawyer comes along and the court grants a release order, I will re-arrest them,” he said.
Baljit was furious with the police of not informing the detainees’ families about the reasons of the re-arrest, and said the police had obviously taken the law into their own hands.

“The police were there (Simpang Renggam) since 3pm, and they waited for three hours before the detainees came out. Why didn’t they tell the family members ... about the need for re-arrest?” he said.

Baljit also claimed that the police have treated the court with contempt.

Lim concluded that this incident bolsters the Bar Council’s support for the setting up of the controversial Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission.

“We are asking from the authorities details of all the detainees, the reasons why they are there (under EO), and historical records of how many of these detainees are on a second or third re-arrest,” he said.

“The police must be transparent about it and come out with proper guidelines as to the use of such draconian powers that bypass the ordinary court process.”

BERNAMA: No plan to abolish death penalty

Wednesday, 28 June 2006, 20:50

KUALA LUMPUR, June 28 (Bernama) -- The government will not abolish the death penalty for it deters serious crimes and safeguards public interest, Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk M. Kayveas said Wednesday.

He said the penalty also reflected the government's seriousness in dealing with heinous crimes.

"There are enough safeguards in the country's judicial system to ensure that death sentences are not meted out easily," he said in a written reply in the Dewan Rakyat.

Kayveas was replying to a question from Karpal Singh (DAP-Bukit Gelugor) who had wanted to know whether the government planned to abolish the death sentence.

The death penalty is provided for serious crimes such as murder and drug trafficking.

Kayveas cited thorough investigations carried out by an experienced and effective police force on crimes that carry the death penalty as a safeguard against wrongful detention and trial.

He said the criminal justice system in the country was also matured, independent and fair in its proceedings.

"Criminal cases which carry the death sentence are tried in the higher courts by learned judges.

"A convicted person can file two appeals, that is to the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court," he said.

Failing that, he said, the convicted person can apply to the Pardons Board for clemency.

The Dewan Rakyat sits again Thursday.

Bar Council Press Release: Inmates on death row

Friday, 30 June 2006, 04:16
Reference is made to the report in the New Straits Times today (28/6/06) that several persons on death row have been awaiting execution for many years, in some cases for more than a decade, or even two.

The Bar Council’s position is that capital punishment should be abolished.

No legal system in the world is foolproof or error-free. No matter how procedurally fair the system is, how stringent the rules of evidence may be, how much reliance is placed on advanced and scientific investigation methods, or how many opportunities of appeal are afforded; one cannot rule out the possibility of error. Experience all over the world shows that this possibility is a real and not a theoretical one. Perfection and absolute correctness are neither expected of, nor attainable by, any legal system.

Experience further shows that from time to time the errors made, when subsequently discovered, are promptly remedied. For example, it is reported that in the last 33 years, 125 prisoners who were convicted and sentenced to death in the USA have been subsequently released after evidence had emerged (thankfully before their executions) that they did not commit the crimes. This opportunity to right a wrong will, however, not be available if the death sentence on the person has been carried out; in which event we as a society are collectively responsible for having sent an innocent man or woman to the gallows.

This is one of the reasons why capital punishment is unacceptable, especially in our justice system that has as one of its pillars the belief that it is better for 9 guilty men to walk free than for 1 innocent man to be wrongly convicted; what more if that innocent man is to be put to death.

It is also a myth, unsupported by empirical evidence, that capital punishment operates as a more effective deterrent on crime than, say, life imprisonment.

Death penalty is a cruel and extreme form of punishment. Keeping a person on death row waiting indefinitely or for a long period of time adds to its cruelty. The uncertain and indefinite waiting and fearing for the final moment constitutes inhumane psychological torture, the nature of which those who have not suffered the experience will not even begin to comprehend. It is made worse by the fact that they are kept in solitary confinement most of the time; which means that they have to face the suffering all alone.

We are given to understand that one reason why inmates are kept in limbo for long periods of time is that the clemency process must be exhausted before a death sentence can be carried out. There is long delay in this process, because the Pardons Board convenes infrequently. This issue needs urgent attention, as long as capital punishment remains in our statute books.

The Bar Council renews its call for the abolition of capital punishment, and for a moratorium pending its abolition.

We are aware that a considerable portion of Malaysian society feels that the death penalty should remain, arguing that many (and some will say most) of these inmates have indeed committed heinous crimes, have gone through the legal process, and have been found guilty. In short, the impulsive reaction is that “they deserve it” and “they have to pay for the crimes they committed”.

There is no argument that guilty persons ought to receive punishment. But that is not the same as saying that they therefore ought to die. Even in the case of a convicted murderer, the death penalty is a reflection of the notion that “an eye for an eye” provides the best form of justice, a concept that we no longer embrace nor practise today.

This is not forgetting that from time to time there will be those who are in fact wrongly convicted, no matter how carefully the system operates. Is putting innocent men and women (or even if just one of them) to death, an acceptable feature in our system of justice, because society wishes to punish the guilty ones by employing this most extreme and irredeemable process?

We are glad that Suhakam is looking into the issues concerning capital punishment, and we hope that change will soon come. The Bar Council will be most happy to work with Suhakam on the same.

Dated 28 June 2006

Yeo Yang Poh
Chairman
Bar Council

Mkini: It's the gallows for abolish death penalty call

It's the gallows for abolish death penalty call

Ng Eng Kiat
Jun 28, 06 7:20pm

The government will maintain capital punishment for serious and heavy crimes as it is preventive in nature and protects public interest.

In a parliamentary written reply today, Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department M Kayveas said that as such, the death penalty would not be abolished .

Replying to Karpal Singh (DAP-Bukit Gelugor) at the Dewan Rakyat, he said the government was strict in dealing with serious crimes, hence the death penalty would remain.

It is also the government’s view that there are enough safeguards to ensure that the death penalty is not simply dished out, he added.

Kayveas said among the existing safeguards was an ‘experienced police force that was efficient in completing thorough investigations’ before someone is accused in court for an offence that carries the death penalty.

Apart from this was a ‘wise and knowledgeable Malaysian judiciary’ which tries cases fairly coupled with fact that those accused of offences that carry the death penalty are only tried in the higher courts, he added.

Review possible

With the existing court hierarchy in Malaysia, those convicted have two chances to appeal their capital punishment sentences, this being at the Appeals Court and the country’s highest court, the Federal Court, said the deputy minister.

Kayveas said those on death row could also bring their cases to the Pardons Board for a review if they have exhausted all avenues of judicial appeal.

The Malaysian Bar Council had, in March this year, passed a resolution calling for the death penalty to be abolished and for a moratorium on all executions.

Malaysia remains one of the 74 countries yet to abolish capital punishment while 123 other countries have.

NST: LONG WAIT TO DIE

Wednesday, 28 June 2006, 08:11
©New Straits Times
By Tony Emmanuel

KUALA LUMPUR: They are Malaysia's forgotten convicts - prisoners who have spent more than two decades on Death Row awaiting their tryst with death.

Among this group is a man who has been awaiting execution for 22 years, since the age of 26.

The authorities are tight-lipped on why these men have yet to be executed, but the New Straits Times understands that a combination of administrative hitches and delays in handing down written court judgements have kept these criminals in solitary confinement for years.

Usually, those sentenced to death spend up to 10 years exhausting the appeals and clemency process. But when a team from the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) visited Death Row in Kajang Prison to investigate the death of Alex Wong, there were several prisoners who had been awaiting execution for nearly two decades.

Suhakam is concerned whether these death row prisoners — convicted of murder, drug trafficking and firearm possession offences — are receiving two distinct punishments: the death sentence and years of living in solitary confinement.

It also wants to know whether executing someone after prolonged periods on death row violates the Constitution and the principles of justice.

There has been a debate in the United States and England on the length of time convicts spend on Death Row. In 1993, a British court found that it was inhuman and degrading to hang anyone who has spent more than five years on death row. It argued that such prisoners should have their sentences commuted to life in prison.

In the US, some death row inmates have spent more than 20 years awaiting execution and several prisoners were executed when they were in their 80s.

The Suhakam study also covers those being held in remand for long periods and those held at the pleasure of the Rulers.

Suhakam Commissioners are expected to seek the help of the Bar Council in compiling their report.


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

Waiting for date with the hangman

In 1993, a British court found that it was inhuman and degrading to hang anyone who had spent more than five years on Death Row. In Malaysia, one man has been on Death Row for 22 long years...

KUALA LUMPUR: One was sent to the gallows for firearms possession, another for multiple murders and the remaining three for drug trafficking.

In all, the five have spent a combined 70 years in jail. They are among those on death row who have been waiting a long time for their date with the hangman.

One of the drug traffickers was arrested in 1978. He was convicted and sentenced to death 14 years later. He remains in Kajang Prison.

The last time he was out of jail Tun Hussein Onn was Malaysia’s third prime minister and Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman was still known as Batu Road.

Another long time resident on Death Row is an individual convicted for firearms possession. He has spent the past 16 years behind bars.

The prisoner convicted of multiple murders has spent almost 10 years on death row. He is now seeking legal advice on options available to him.

MADPET(29/5/06) POLICE ATTACKS ON PEACEFUL PROTESTERS MUST END

MEDIA STATEMENT – 29/5/2006

POLICE ATTACKS ON PEACEFUL PROTESTERS MUST END
-Take action against policeman who used tear-gas gun butt on protester’s head-

MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty & Torture) is shocked by the conduct of the Malaysian police who forcibly dispersed a peaceful assembly of about 500 persons on Sunday(28/5/2006) at Kuala Lumpur City Centre(KLCC) using brutal and excessive force. These persons were there at about 10.30am in front of the Kuala Lumpur Twin Towers exercising their constitutionally guaranteed right of peaceful protest and legitimate dissent. This group included women and children. They were there expressing their opposition to the recent fuel hikes and the increase in electric tariffs, which were adversely affecting the majority of Malaysians.

In total disregard of their fundamental rights, these brave Malaysians were fired upon by an FRU(Federal Reserve Unit) water cannon and subjected to unreasonable force by FRU and plainclothes police personnel under the direction of the OCPD of Dang Wangi police district ACP Kamal Pasha.

The manner in which the police used violence on the crowd which resulted in about 3 persons suffering head injuries is deplorable and completely unacceptable. One victim was kicked and beaten by police in front of his two young daughters.

Possibly the most shocking image to emerge from the violent action of the police on Sunday 28th May 2006 is that of an FRU officer apparently using the using the butt end of his tear-gas canister launcher on the naked head of a protester. This is reminiscent of South Africa during the days of the Apartheid regime. This horrifying image, which will long endure in the minds of all peace-loving Malaysians, is itself an eloquent argument for the immediate formation of an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission(IPCMC).

We demand that immediate action be taken against the policeman who used the butt end of the tear gas launcher to assault a protester , ACP Kamal Pasha and all other policemen responsible for the 28th May attack on peaceful protesters. We also demand that the IPCMC be immediately set up in order to protect citizens of Malaysia from the unlawful acts of the police.

Charles Hector
N. Surendran

for Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET)
29th May 2006

MADPET(10/5/06):-OPPOSE DEATH PENALTY FOR WATER OFFENCES

OPPOSE DEATH PENALTY FOR WATER OFFENCES

MADPET (MALAYSIANS AGAINST DEATH PENALTY AND TORTURE) calls for the immediate removal of the clauses imposing the death penalty in the Water Services Industry Bill 2006, which came up for second reading in Parliament today(10/5/2006).

Section 121, under Part X : General Offences and Penalties of this Bill, which deals with the offence of water contamination provides that “…a person who contaminates or causes to be contaminated any watercourse or the water supply system or any part of the watercourse or water supply system with any substance (a) with the intention to cause death; (b) with the knowledge that he is likely to cause death; or (c) which would likely endanger the life of any person ….[and]… where death results shall be punished with death or imprisonment…”

The Malaysian Bar, a body representing over 12,000 Malaysian lawyers, at its 60th Annual General Meeting held on 18/3/2006 passed a Resolution calling for the abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia, an immediate moratorium on all executions pending abolition and the commutation of the sentences of all persons currently on death row.

It must be pointed out that a recent television poll done by RTM 2 during the Hello on Two programme on 7/5/2006 showed that 64% of Malaysians are for the abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia. This program has an estimated audience of 80,000. It is thus important that members of Parliament, the representatives of the people respond to the aspirations of Malaysians and remove the death penalty from the Water Bill and all other laws of Malaysia.

It is ironic that at a time when the nations of the world are rapidly moving towards abolition of the death penalty, Malaysia is once again unnecessarily and imprudently extending the range of capital offences. An average of three countries have abolished the death penalty each year over the last decade 122 countries have abolished capital punishment in law or practice as opposed to 74 countries which retain the death penalty;

We therefore call on all Parliamentarians, from both the Barisan National ruling coalition and the Opposition, who value human rights, justice and mercy to immediately cause the removal of the provisions that provide for the sentence of death.

N. Surendran
Salbiah Ahmad
Charles Hector

for Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET)

10th May 2006

Death to Malaysian Water Contaminators?

DEATH PENALTY:
Death to Malaysian Water Contaminators?

Anil Netto

PENANG, May 8 (IPS) - While there is a global trend toward abolishing the death penalty, the Malaysian government is set to add more entries to its list of capital offences -- like contamination of water and rape.

A new Water Services Industry Bill is one of two water-related bills due for a second reading in parliament this week. The bill seeks to revamp the way water is managed in the country, transferring control of state water authorities and privatised firms to a single federal regulatory body.

But it also provides for capital punishment for serious cases of water contamination that result in loss of life.

Anyone who contaminates the water supply with the intention of endangering lives or causing death could face the death penalty. The death penalty could also apply to those who contaminate the water supply with any substance that would likely endanger lives.

Opponents of the law believe the proposed rules are draconian and unworkable. Moreover, they do not address the real causes of water pollution.

"Most of the time, the real offenders are likely to be companies and you can't hang the companies," said Charles Hector, a human rights lawyer who was one of the coordinators of the campaign network Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET). "So who would face the death penalty then -- the chairman of the board? All the directors? The general manager? The administrative officer? It's absurd."

Hector told IPS there was no need to add to the death penalty laws as there are already provisions in the penal code that cover the intention to kill someone. "Besides," he added, "we are against the death penalty as it doesn't address the real issues."

More than half the rivers in Malaysia are polluted by raw or partially treated sewage as well as industrial effluents, agricultural run-offs, waste from animal husbandry and land development, and municipal rubbish.

These can pollute sources of drinking water. After a flood in February, residents around Kuala Lumpur complained of smelly water coming from their taps. A common complaint at other times is of murky water in parts of the country.

The soaring costs of maintaining the rivers prompted the government of the developed state of Selangor to announce in February that it would privatise three key rivers to firms, which would be tasked with ensuring their cleanliness. Critics argue that this is not the solution as the sources of river pollution have to be tackled.

The new water bills are being tabled at a time when the private sector has been eyeing a larger stake in water treatment, supply and distribution.

Top officials at the Energy, Water and Telecommunications Ministry could not be reached for comment about the provision for the death penalty despite several attempts. That leaves Malayasians only speculating why that provision was added.

"I think the death penalty was included because they had terrorists in mind" who might deliberately contaminate water sources, opposition Parliamentarian Teresa Kok told IPS, adding, however, that she was opposed to the death penalty.

Others have a different view. "It seems that the intention of the bill is merely to randomly prosecute harshly some nobodies to give an impression something is being done," was one comment in response to a blog entry on the issue at the popular website, Malaysia Today.

By including the death penalty in the bill before parliament, Malaysia is bucking a global trend against capital punishment. It is one of 74 countries where the death penalty is still allowed, while 123 countries have abolished capital punishment.

In contrast, Malaysia's neighbour, the Philippines, commuted the death sentences of all prisoners last month. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has appealed to the Philippine Congress to abolish the death penalty, while Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban has described the country's death penalty laws as unconstitutional.

In Malaysia, however, the death penalty remains mandatory for drug trafficking (including possession), murder, certain firearms offences and offences against the king.

The majority of the death sentences meted out are for drug trafficking. Out of 52 people sentenced to death from 2004 until July 2005, 36 were convicted for drug offences. Last December, Deputy Internal Security Minister Chia Kwang Chye said that from 1960 through last October, 434 convicts were hanged while 172 cases were pending appeal.

But despite the country's tough stance, the drug menace remains serious. For MADPET, that proves that capital punishment is not the solution. It has never been proven that the death penalty effectively deters crime, the group says.

Parliamentarian Kok, however, is under no illusions that it will be easy to abolish capital punishment. She was a member of a Parliamentary select committee, made up predominantly of ruling coalition members, which traveled the country in 2004 seeking public views on proposed amendments to the penal code and criminal procedure code, which will be brought to Parliament on Thursday.

During the hearings, she said she got the impression that public sentiment was in favour of the death penalty. "The problem is that many among the public still want the death penalty in cases where the victim loses his or her life."

Kok told IPS that among proposed amendments to the codes is the provision for the death penalty for any act of terrorism involving the "release of poisonous substances into the environment". The death penalty would also be handed out to those found guilty of rape resulting in the death of the victim.

Kok pointed out that when the cabinet minister responsible for the law, Nazri Aziz, spoke out against the death penalty in March, he did not receive much support from his ruling coalition colleagues. "For me, a life is a life. No one has the right to take someone else's life, even if that person has taken another life," he had said.

Public opinion may be changing though. Nazri's comments were in response to an unprecedented resolution opposing the death penalty by the Malaysian Bar Council, the governing body for the country's 12,000 lawyers, at its annual general meeting on Mar. 18. The resolution, calling for the death penalty to be abolished and for a moratorium on all executions, was passed by a thumping 105-2 majority, with 21 abstentions.

And, during a recent morning talk show programme aired on state-run television station RTM2, a cell phone text message poll showed that just over 60 percent of those who responded supported the abolition of capital punishment. (FIN/2006)

MALAYSIA:Justice Minister backs abolition of death penalty

21 March, 2006

MALAYSIA
Justice Minister backs abolition of death penalty

For Nazri Aziz “a life is a life. No one has the right to take someone else's life, even if that person is a murderer”. From 1970 to the present, 359 people have been condemned to death; 159 are on death row.



Kuala Lumpur (AsiaNews/Agencies) – The Malaysian Justice Minister has said he supports abolishing Malaysia's death penalty. "For me, a life is a life. No one has the right to take someone else's life, even if that person has taken another life," Nazri Aziz, minister in charge of law, was quoted as saying to a local newspaper.

The minister’s statement comes as the Malaysian Bar Council launched a campaign for abolishment of the death penalty: “I welcome this proposal. This is definitely something which should be looked into.”

The Council said the death penalty is “barbaric, inhumane and an insufficient deterrent for crime”, and called for an immediate moratorium on all death sentences.

But the minister said this would not be possible: “The death sentence has been part of our laws for a long time. It goes with the fabric of the whole system. After discussions are held, hopefully the attorney general will advise the government.”

Malaysia is one of 76 countries which still impose the death penalty. It is mandatory for murder, for trafficking in heroin, cocaine, opium and marijuana, and for offences against the king. In the national penal code, possession of drugs is presumed to be trafficking.

At his discretion, a judge can also hand down the death penalty – administered by hanging – for crimes like kidnapping, associating with people carrying arms or explosives and waging war against the ruler.

Since 1970, Malaysia has hanged 359 people, 40 of them in the last 10 years. Most were convicted of drug trafficking. There are 159 prisoners on death row.

18/3/2006 - MALAYSIAN BAR RESOLUTION CALLING FOR ABOLITION OF DEATH PENALTY

RESOLUTION OF THE MALAYSIAN BAR FOR THE ABOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY
(which was adopted at the 60th AGM of the Malaysian Bar on 18/3/2006)

WHEREAS every human being has the inherent right to life;

WHEREAS Malaysia has hanged at least 358 persons between 1981 and 2005;

WHEREAS about 173 persons are on death row as at December 2005;

WHEREAS :

a) studies conducted throughout the world over the past seventy years have failed to find convincing evidence that capital punishment is a more effective deterrent of crime than long-term imprisonment;

b) studies conducted in Australia show that abolition of the death penalty had no effect on the homicide rate and in Canada there in fact was a sharp decline in the homicide rate after abolition;

c) in the United States over the past twenty years, states with the death penalty in general have had a higher homicide rate than states without the death penalty;

WHEREAS on the other hand the execution of human beings by the State gives an ‘example of barbarity’ to society and legitimizes the taking of human life;

WHEREAS Malaysia lacks safeguards that would ensure a fair trial such as the right to immediate access to a lawyer upon arrest, right to full disclosure of evidence in the possession of the police and prosecution, and has to the extreme prejudice of accused persons loaded a capital crime statute such as the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ( which generates the largest number of death sentences annually ) with presumptions of trafficking that compromise the presumption of innocence which is integral to any fair and just criminal justice system;

WHEREAS:

a) it is not possible in any system of human justice to prevent the horrifying possibility of the execution of innocent persons; and

b) the infliction of the death penalty makes wrongful convictions irreversible;

WHEREAS :

a) 122 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice as opposed to 74 countries which retain the death penalty;

b) An average of three countries have abolished the death penalty each year over the last decade;

c) the trend worldwide has been for the abolition of the death penalty;

WHEREAS the UN Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2005/59 passed in 2005 calls upon all states to abolish the death penalty and states that the abolition of the death penalty is essential for the protection of the right to life of every human being;

WHEREAS Article 1 of the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides that ‘ No one within the jurisdiction of a State party to the present Optional Protocol shall be executed ’.

WHEREAS the death penalty has no place in any society which values human rights, justice and mercy;

NOW IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the Malaysian Bar calls for the:

1) Abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia;

2) An immediate moratorium on all executions pending abolition;

3) Commutation of the sentences of all persons currently on death row;

4) Ratification by Malaysia of the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Proposers: N.Surendran , Charles Hector, Amer Hamzah Arshad, Sreekant Pillai

* the facts and statistics relied on here are from Professor Roger Hood’s The Death Penalty( A Worldwide Perspective) OUP 2002, Amnesty International and statistics released by the Government of Malaysia.

MADPET(26/2/06):NO JUSTIFICATION FOR DEATH PENALTY FOR DRUG TRAFFICKERS

NO JUSTIFICATION FOR DEATH PENALTY FOR DRUG TRAFFICKERS
- Prime Minister Abdullah was wrong to endorse the death penalty -

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) is disturbed by the statement issued by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi justifying the death penalty for drug traffickers as reported by Bernama on 22/2/2006.

The Prime Minister is blindly echoing the flawed and fundamentally mistaken argument that the death penalty deters potential offenders from trafficking in drugs. The fact is that it has never been proven that the death penalty effectively deters the commission of capital crimes. This is proven by studies conducted throughout the world over the past 70 years using various different methodological approaches.

The official report to the United Nations on the death penalty 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 Prime Minister also failed to take into consideration the great and real risk that innocent persons may be executed under Malaysia’s harsh drug laws. This is a very real danger in view of the fact that the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 is tainted with presumptions of trafficking which effectively places the burden of proving innocence upon the accused person. This militates against the fundamental and well established presumption of innocence enshrined in the criminal justice system of all civilized nations.

By reason of being caught in possession of a small amount of drugs, the presumption is activated that the person is a drug trafficker. Many innocent victims may not even have been aware that they are carrying drugs. In a recent case, Msimanga Lesaly, a Nigerian widow and mother of five, was condemned to death by the Malaysian courts despite her protests that she was unaware that she had drugs in her possession. As a result of the presumption of trafficking, she was unjustly forced to try and prove that she was innocent of the offence of trafficking whereas it should have been the task of the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was in fact trafficking in drugs. It should also be remembered that the resources of an individual forced to prove her innocence of trafficking is minimal compared to the vast powers and resources of the State in carrying out prosecutions.

It should be noted that the majority of death sentences handed out in Malaysia are for the offence of drug trafficking. In 6 December 2005, it was disclosed in Parliament that of 52 people who were sentenced to death from 2004 until July 2005, 36 were convicted for drug offences.

The tendency throughout the world has been towards the abolition of the death penalty, with an average of 3 countries abolishing the death penalty over the last decade. At present 122 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice as opposed to 74 countries which retain the death penalty.

Crucially, in 2005 the UN Commission on Human Rights passed Resolution 2005/59 that called upon all states to abolish the death penalty and states that the abolition of the death penalty is essential for the protection of the right to life of every human being;

It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister of Malaysia did not take into account the above facts when he endorsed the barbarous practice of executing human beings.

We call upon the government of Malaysia to abolish the death penalty for all offences in Malaysia and for an immediate moratorium on all executions pending abolition.

Charles Hector
N. Surendran
Salbiah Ahmad

for Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET)
26th February 2006

MADPET(21/2/06) :CHINA MUST CEASE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

CHINA MUST CEASE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Stop persecution of Human Rights Defenders

MADPET condemns the continuing and escalating suppression of religious freedom, human rights and basic civil liberties in China.

On February 12 2006, the Asia Pacific Relay Hunger Strike for Anti-Persecution Support Network began a hunger strike in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in order to support the human rights movement in China and in protest against the cruel persecution of human rights activists and oppressed people in China. This hunger strike campaign also seeks to publicise and gather support for prominent human rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng. In a blatant atempt to silence Mr.Gao, the Chinese authorities have closed down his law office and are said to have repeatedly threatened him and even placed him under 24 hour police surveillance.

Mr.Gao has been at the forefront of the legal battle on behalf of political and religious dissidents. His legal firm has been involved in a land dispute case against locally elected officials in Taishi Village in Guangdong which is a test case for local democracy, has supported Chen Guangcheng a lawyer under house arrest in Linyi City because of his involvement in class action suit aginst local authorities, has defended Zheng Yichun a journalist and former professor who has sentenced to seven years imprisonment for his on-line writings and has aided Falun Gong members who have been brutally tortured and imprisoned by the Chinese authorities. In one of his letters dated 22 November 2005 to President Hu Jin Tao and Premier Wen Jiabao, Mr Gau disclosed “…the true accounts of unbelievable brutality, among the records of the government’s inhumane torture of its own people, …the lewd yet routine practice of attacking women’s genitals by 6-10 Office staff and the police…Almost all who have been persecuted, be they male or female, were first stripped naked before any torture...”

The Chinese government also continues to persecute many other human rights activists and lawyers in an attempt to cow them into abandoning their principled and brave stand against persecution and repression. A case in point is that of Zheng Enchong, a human rights lawyer who has been imprisoned for three years on absurd charges and who has allegedly been beaten in prison in Shanghai. These actions of the Chinese authorities are in flagrant defiance of international norms and basic standards of human decency.

We demand that the Government of China guarantees the safety of Gao Zhisheng and other human rights defenders and lawyers and allows them to continue their efforts on behalf of the people of China without further harassment and persecution.

We call for the immediate release of activists such as Zheng Engchong who have been imprisoned upon baseless charges.

We also ask that the Government of Malaysia request the Chinese Government for an immediate assurance of the safety of Gao Zhisheng.

N. Surendran, Charles Hector & Salbiah Ahmad
for Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET)
21st February 2006

MADPET(9/2/06):-THE DEATH PENALTY MUST BE ABOLISHED - Malaysia Must Respect the Right To Life

THE DEATH PENALTY MUST BE ABOLISHED
Malaysia Must Respect the Right To Life

MADPET (Malaysians against Death Penalty and Torture) is deeply perturbed by the continued imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in Malaysia, and reiterates its call for the abolition of the death penalty, and a moratorium on the carrying out of all death sentences pending abolition.

On 6 December 2005, the Deputy Internal Security Minister disclosed in Parliament that 52 people were sentenced to death from 2004 until July. Of these, 36 were convicted for drug offences and 16 for murders. This disclosure brings the number of persons on death row to approximately 173. In November 2003, it was said that there were 121 persons, including 4 women, on the death row.

It was disclosed in February 2005 that over the past 24 years 358 persons have been hanged in Malaysia.

Malaysia lacks many safeguards that would ensure a fair trial which make it most unsafe to sentence a person to death. There is at present no right to a phone call upon arrest, no right to immediate access to a lawyer upon arrest and no right to full disclosure (i.e. the right of access to documents and information that were obtained during the police investigation and after). In Malaysia, in practice an accused only gets access to his own cautioned statement and the first information report. The police and the prosecution do not even have a duty to make known witnesses and evidence that they may have discovered that would have assisted the accused person in his defence. Without pre-trial full disclosure, an accused is deprived of the opportunity and the means to fullly exercise his right to defend himself. Without these necessary safeguards to ensure a fair trial, it becomes a real and horrifying possibility that innocent persons will be sent to the gallows.

The death penalty has never been proven to be effective in deterring crime. Studies conducted throughout the world have repeatedly established this fact. Matters are made worse in the Malaysian context as the government has in general unjustifiably and systematically witheld necessary information on the passing of and execution of death sentences. The government is thus preventing public debate on the death penalty. In 2005, the UN Special Rapporteur Philip Alston stated in his report, “ For a government to insist on a principled defence of the death penalty but to refuse to divulge to its own population the extent to which, and the reasons for which it is applied is unacceptable.”

As of December 2005, 122 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. The worldwide trend has been towards increasing awareness of the inhumanity, brutality and irrevocability of the death penalty. The death penalty is repugnant to human dignity and the right to life. In 2005 , the UN Commission on Human Rights by Resolution 2005/29 declared that the abolition of the death penalty is essential to protect the right to life.

In the name of humanity, justice and human dignity, and in defence of the principle that all life is sacred, we call upon the Government of Malaysia to abolish the death penalty, and declare an immediate moratorium on the carrying out of all death sentences pending abolition.

Charles Hector
N. Surendran
Salbiah Ahmad

for Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET)

9th February 2006

Jailers beat us, claims EO detainee (Malaysiakini)

Jailers beat us, claims EO detainee

Andrew Ong Jan 5, 07 2:05pm

Warders attacked some 40 inmates in the Simpang Renggam detention camp on Wednesday afternoon leaving scores injured, claimed an inmate. The source, who contacted malaysiakini that evening, said detainees from seven cells in a particular block were attacked after being made to squat. “They used ratan canes and batons. Some of us were beaten until we vomited. Others could not walk as their bones were broken,” said the inmate, a businessman prior to incarceration and accused of being notorious criminal gang member in Johor. According to newsreports today, 16 detainees were given out-patient treatment at the Kluang Hospital on Wednesday evening following the incident. One of them, S Selvam, allegedly suffered a broken hip, according to the New Straits Times. The source however claimed 21 individuals sought medical attention. Rehabilitation or reaffirmation? He said the beatings probably stemmed from a fracas between two youths that day, but the matter was then ‘handled’ and resolved by senior inmates. Two hour laters, an unspecified number of warders carried out the attacks. “Normally, they would call detainees in for questioning to find out about any fights that have taken place, but not this time,” he said, warning that resentment towards warders and the government by inmates were growing after the alleged attack. “This is a Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak (Moral Rehabilitation Centre) but they treat us worst than animals. Kita langsung tidak boleh baik. Depa buat kita lebih teruk. (We can’t be better persons like this. They make us even worse),” he added. Detention centre authorities could not be contacted for comments. Suhakam to probe Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) commissioner Siva Subramaniam said the human rights watchdog would be investigating the matter. “Suhakam is concerned if the accusations are true. Prisoners need to be treated well as they are human beings too,” said Siva, who contacted by malaysiakini yesterday after he heard similar allegations on the beatings at the detention centre. He added that a Suhakam delegation might visit the centre on Monday. Almost all detainees in the detention camp are held under the Emergency (Public Order and Preventive of Crime) Ordinance 1969, a law which allows detention without trial. Detention can be renewed every two years under the discretion of the internal security minister on advice from the police. Generally, detainees at the centre range from alleged criminal gang members to petty thieves. They are normally never charged in court for their alleged crimes. The Simpang Renggam detention camp which holds about 1,000 inmates is often a subject of controversy due to its deplorable, unsanitary and overcrowded conditions

madpet(10/11/05) -TAKE STERN ACTION AGAINST POLICE FOR TORTURE OF SUSPECT

TAKE STERN ACTION AGAINST POLICE FOR TORTURE OF SUSPECT
- torture incident witnessed by lawyer & 2 others -

Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET) is shocked by the recent revelation of torture at the Banting District Police headquarters on 28 October 2005 (as reported in the New Straits Times 29/10/2005). The suspect’s mouth was gagged with a white tape/plaster and his arm was being pulled upwards behind him and he was crying in pain.

This harrowing incident was witnessed by a lawyer and 2 others. All three eye-witnesses immediately lodged police reports about the incident.

We also view with great concern that the reaction of the Officer in Charge of the Police District(OCPD) of Banting, Superintendent Shah Gzali Khan, was to deny the allegations, even before proper investigations have been commenced. His denial and his threats of action against the complainants was reported in the NST of 29/10/2005.

It bodes ill for the nation that the uniformed protectors of the public are terrorizing and torturing persons in violation of the law and human decency.

All those involved in this atrocity, including those police officers who stood by and did nothing to prevent it , must be brought to justice.

We demand the following:-

a) That the Inspector General of Police (IGP) appoint an independent police team to investigate this matter;

b) That the Home Affairs Minister and the IGP take urgent steps to put an end to custodial torture by police personnel in police stations throughout the country

c) That the government immediately sets up a permanent independent body to investigate complaints of abuse or torture perpetrated by the police.

d) That the victim of torture be identified and be justly compensated.

Charles Hector
Salbiah Ahmad
for Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET)

10th November 2005

MADPET(19/4/05) STOP HANGING OF SINGAPORE TWINS' FATHER

STOP HANGING OF SINGAPORE TWINS’ FATHER

We note with concern and sadness the case of 14 year old Singaporean twins Gopalan and Krishnan Murugesu, who have been tramping the streets of the city-state seeking public support for a petition against the execution of their father. Their father Shanmugam Murugesu was sentenced to death for drug possession and will be executed unless Singapore President S.R.Nathan grants his petition for clemency. This heart-rending case well illustrates the evil caused by the infliction of the death penalty.

The death penalty is an extremely cruel and degrading form of punishment.The condemned person not only suffers from the barbarity of the execution itself, but also the cruelty of waiting upon death row for the day he is to be methodically killed by the state.

It has never been proven that the imposition of the death penalty reduces the incidence of crime. On the other hand, there is overwhelming proof of the horrendous impact of the death penalty upon the loved ones of thecondemned person.

These two young boys will almost certainly be seriously traumatized by the killing of their father by the State, particularly since he is the only parent they have. They are mere children who should be in school or at theplayground, and living the carefree existence of childhood. Instead, they are walking the streets of Singapore, begging for their's father's life. How can the State of Singapore justify this?

Justice that is not tempered with mercy is nothing more than the brute unfeeling exercise of force by the State. In the name of pity and human dignity, and for the sake of these suffering children, we call upon His Excellency President S.R. Nathan to grant the clemency petition of Shanmugam Murugesu.

We also call upon the government of Singapore to immediately impose a moratorium upon all executions, as a first step towards final abolition of the death penalty.

N. Surendran
Charles Hector
Salbiah Ahmad

for Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET)

19th April 2005

MADPET(9/4/05) POLICE MUST STOP HUMILIATING ARRESTED PERSONS

Police Must STOP Humiliating Arrested Persons

We are shocked that the Federal CID Director Comm. Datuk Fauzi Shaari has defended the action of police in giving crew-cuts to arrested persons detained at police station lock-ups. It must be remembered that persons detained at police lock-ups are mere suspects pending investigation. Many a time arrested persons are released in a couple of hours or days after police investigations show that they are not involved in the crime they are suspected to have committed.In his statement reported in the Star (9/4/2005), Datuk Fauzi Shaari absurdly claims that the crew-cuts are necessary for hygiene and discipline reasons.

In claiming that the crew-cuts are necessary for discipline reasons, Datok Fauzi Shaari clearly exhibits the police department’s inveterate inability to understand that arrested persons are not convicts and are innocent until proven guilty. The police have no right to humiliate arrested persons in this manner in order to impose discipline. It is not the task of the police department to teach discipline to the Malaysian public.

It is time the police realize that in this country arrested persons cannot be treated as if they were inmates of notorious penal institutions such as Chekhov’s Island of Sakhalin or the Gulag Archipelago or Devil’s Island. This seems obvious to everyone except the police department who appear to think that it is permissible to treat arrested suspects as if they were hardened convicts.

As regard Datok Fauzi’s claim that crew-cuts are necessary for hygiene purposes, we take this as an admission that police lock-ups are unhygienic places. It is undeniable that lock-ups in Malaysia are generally smelly, dirty, over-crowded and lacking adequate toilet and bathroom facilities. The police department ought to take the initiative to improve conditions instead of giving crew-cuts to detainees

In addition, the time of the police department is better spent investigating and solving crimes instead of posing as ‘barbers’ to arrested persons.

It is unacceptable that the Federal CID Chief should think that he has the right to treat Malaysians in this manner and for these reasons.

We demand that the practice of giving hair-cuts to arrested persons immediately cease as it is humiliating and is an affront to human dignity.

N. Surendran
Charles Hector
for Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET)

9th April 2005
Kuala Lumpur