| Suhakam Bloody Sunday report: Highlights | ||||
| ||||
| The following are some of the crucial observations and recommendations made in Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) report of the public inquiry on the May 28, 2006 demonstration at KLCC. Peaceful assemblies important for democracy Recommendation: “It is timely that the police and the FRU realise and accept that demonstrations and peaceful assemblies are not an annoyance but are a necessary element in a democratic nation. With that realisation in mind, the best possible method to preserve and maintain order is (police) restraint.” Cops interfered in protesters rights to assembly  The panel concluded that the participants of the demonstration were “entitled to the constitutional right to peaceable assembly, notwithstanding the lack of licence to do so.”“(We) emphasise that every citizen, including members from the opposition parties, should not be denied this constitutional guarantee”. “(We) find that the acts of the police in dispersing the assembly... had interfered with the right to the freedom of assembly of the protesters”. Police used ‘excessive force’ The panel found that the police, in the act of dispersing the protesters, had used ‘excessive force’ on 10 individuals, including one journalist. Evidence led the panel to positively identify L/Corp Mustika Lambonding to have used ‘excessive force’ on one of the demonstration participants. Whether the assembly was peaceful C/Insp Pusparajan and L/Corp Nasaruddin Hashim both from the FRU testified that the assembly, at all times, was orderly and not unruly. This was clearly observed in the video and sound recordings. “[...] there was no evidence that the crowd became disorderly, unruly or violent at any time at all [...] there was no shred of any evidence that any third party was there to disrupt the assembly” Arrest unwarranted While there was no permit issued for the assembly, the panel stressed that the assembly was peaceful and did not warrant any arrest.  It was observed that some arrests were carried about appropriately but were not justified “as these individuals were merely protesting peacefully”.The acts of the protesters during the incident “cannot be said to have breached the peace or calculated to have breached the peace”. Licencing requirements to assemble “Whilst international standards consider the requirement of prior authorisation or notice as being compatible with the right to freedom of assembly, the panel of inquiry finds that the requirement for a licence imposed by Section 27 of the Police Act 1967 and the lack of definition of the phrase, ‘prejudicial to the interest of the security of Malaysia’ effectively negates the right to freedom of assembly enshrined in Article 10 of the Federal Constitution.” Recommendations: “From the foregoing, it is observed that the laws regulating assemblies are moving towards a cooperative model in several jurisdictions where both parties, the organisers and the police, co-operate in the regulation of an assembly. Such co-operations has proven to be effective in maintaining peaceful and orderly assemblies. As such, the panel of inquiry recommends the repeal of subsections (2), (2A) - (2D), (4), (4A), (5), (5A) - (5C), (7) and (8) of Section 27, and also Section 27A of the Police Act 1967, thereby removing the need to apply for any licence to hold a peaceful assembly.” Protest organisers should notify police Recommendation: It was recommended that those intending to organise a peaceful assembly should notify in writing to the local police chief the details of the assembly. “The panel of inquiry also recommends that the requirement of notification be followed by meetings between the organisers of the proposed assembly and relevant police officers so as to confirm the practical arrangements for the assembly or procession.” “The panel further recommends that any persons whose rights may be affected by the assembly or any arrangement relating to the assembly should be allowed to make an urgent application to the High Court for intervention.” Warnings of dispersal  The panel found that the police issued four warnings for the crowd to disperse, but “most of those in the crowd could not make out the announcements because the warnings were not effectively conveyed.”It was found that most members of the crowd had started to disperse when the water cannon was activated but the police “charged after the members of the assembly”. Recommendations: “Orders to disperse should be clearly audible and given at least three times at ten-minute intervals, with sufficient time given to allow the crowd to disperse. “Once the crowd disperses, the police should not chase and arrest those moving away or those who have moved away,” Identification of riot police The majority of FRU personnel called as witnesses could not identify fellow personnel. “Firstly, the persons who used violence were in protective body armour and were using helmets and visors which obscured their faces. “Secondly, they did no wear personal identification (either names or badge numbers).” Recommendation: “While the panel acknowledges the necessity of the police and FRU personnel to wear helmets and other protective apparel or items, these apparel or items should bear clear identification (of the personnel’s identity).” Organisers should appoint marshals Recommendations: Regulations or guidelines pertaining to peaceful assemblies should require assembly organisers to appoint marshals and provide their details to the police. “The appointment of marshals should be implemented in Malaysia as they provide a focal point for members of an assembly and police for the purpose of consultation and liaison.” Use of helicopter  The panel concluded that the police helicopter present at the protest had received specific instruction to fly ‘low and hover over the crowd’ for two purposes: To prevent the assembly from hearing the speeches and to disrupt the assembly.“The panel finds that the instruction given to fly low and to hover over the crowd was rash and was given without consideration to the safety of the people at the place of assembly. Recommendation: “The panel is of the view that no helicopter should be used to disturb any assembly. The panel is of the opinion that usage of a helicopter during assemblies, if necessary, should be limited for monitoring purposes only” |
Friday, March 23, 2007
Suhakan Bloody Sunday Report Highlights (Malaysiakini)
Suhakam: Cops used ‘excessive force’ (Malaysiakini)
Suhakam: Cops used ‘excessive force’ | ||||
| ||||
| Suhakam’s panel of inquiry into allegations of police violence during an anti-fuel hike demonstration on May 28 last year at KLCC concluded that the police used ‘excessive force’ on 10 individuals in dispersing the crowd. The panel said that if it was deemed necessary, the police should also recommend that the public prosecutor take further action. The public inquiry was established to determine whether any human rights violations occurred during the May 28, 2006 demonstration at KLCC and if so:
|
“The severity of injuries suffered by these [...] persons varied, from five stitches on the head to bruises and abrasions,” said the panel in its report on the public inquiry of the incident.
Based on the video evidence and identification by a police witness, the panel positively identified L/Corp Mustika Lambonding as the police personnel who used excessive force on Lee Huat Seng.
“The assembly was peaceful. There was no violence. The actions and speeches (by protest participants) did not provide incitement or cause violence or a breach of the peace,” read the report.SUHAKAM Public Inquiry Report into 'Bloody Sunday' out (Malaysian Bar Website)
SUHAKAM Public Inquiry Report into 'Bloody Sunday' out | | |
| Contributed by Rajen Devaraj (Executive Officer) | |
| Friday, 23 March 2007, 03:51pm | |
|
The Bar Council and the Bar Council Legal Aid Centre (KL) both made submissions to SUHAKAM giving views on the facts of the case and making recommendations after taking into account laws in different jurisdictions such as America, Hong Kong, Ireland, Australia and United Kingdom. |
KUALA LUMPUR, Fri: SUHAKAM today released its Report of the Public Inquiry into the Incident at KLCC on 28 May 2006 making findings that the actions of the police and FRU in dispersing the peaceful assembly on that day were disproportionate and interfered with the rights of the protestors to assemble peacefully.
Members of the Bar present at the press conference lauded the SUHAKAM report and thanked the Panel of Inquiry for its good work. The Bar President, Ambiga Sreenevasan expressed gratitude to SUHAKAM for conducting the Inquiry and making the report, which the Bar fully supported.Wednesday, March 21, 2007
SALE OF SNAKES - NGOs lodge report against department (Malay Mail)
SALE OF SNAKES - NGOs lodge report against department
| A GROUP of non-governmental organisations lodged a police report against the Penang Wildlife Department for cruelty against animals yesterday. |
The group comprises Malaysian Animal Rights and Welfare Society, Selangor Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animal, Malaysians against Death Penalty and Torture, Malaysians Against Animal Assisted Therapy and Malaysian Association for Responsible Pet Ownership.
Surendran said the report was lodged following reports that the department had kept 2,400 ‘banded rat’ snakes, which were seized in an operation on March 6 in Batu Maung complex, for several days before selling them to traders.
He claimed the department had breached the Protection of Wild Life Act 1972 when it sold the snakes.
“We have no idea if the snakes were fed or given water when they were under the department’s care,” said Nagendran.
He said instead of selling the snakes, the department should release them into the wild, either here or in Thailand, where they were smuggled from.
“The department should not make money from the animals,” he said.
Brickfields police acting chief Superintendent Izany A.
Ghani said the report would be referred to Penang police headquarters for action.
Handling Confiscated Wildlife (WWF Malaysia)
Handling Confiscated Wildlife
There has been a lot of talk lately about the fate of confiscated wildlife and what concerned authorities should do to help ensure the long-term safety and well-being of such animals. Recent news on the 2,400 Banded Rat Snakes that were confiscated by the state Wildlife and National Parks Department (PERHILITAN) in the Batu Maung Cargo Complex and sold to licensed snake traders highlights the importance of
WWF-Malaysia and TRAFFIC Southeast Asia is of the position that the selling of the said snakes by the state wildlife office to licensed snake traders was not done with the welfare of the animals in mind. The selling to animal traders by the wildlife authorities may be publicly-perceived as an endorsement of illegal animal trapping, smuggling and/or sale, and this is a great concern especially so when it involves partially and/or totally protected species. WWF-Malaysia and TRAFFIC Southeast Asia fear that these 2,400 snakes may now end up being killed for their skins, culinary or medicinal purposes and this would simply be similar to what may have happened to the snakes had they been taken out of the country and not been confiscated.
What could and should have been better was for the Malaysian authorities to send back the snakes to the relevant authorities from where the said snakes originated for possible release back into the environment from which the snakes were originally taken from. That would have been a better solution to the issue, and considering that if
Addressing the issue of what to do with confiscated wildlife is not as simple as releasing them back to the wild. There are a whole range of issues that need to be considered prior to any release attempts. If survivals of these animals are the primary concern, then going beyond that simplistic “feel good factor” of having just released back animals to the wild is crucial.
For example, an assessment needs to be made on the short- and long-term impacts of such an action on the ecology of the release area, on humans living in and around such release sites, and on the concerned species themselves. The species’ natural origins, food source, further threats from humans are just some of the many issues that have to be carefully considered when it comes to releasing confiscated wildlife, especially those seized in large numbers.
To use the 2,400 captured Banded Rat Snakes mentioned above as a relevant example, one possible way forward was to have quickly secured the services of a herpetologist, to at least determine, if at all the entire batch was of one species or multiple species, since there are various kinds of rat snakes. The use of molecular technology could have been applied, noting the cost implications, however, to assist in determining the origins of the animals. As there is more than one rat snake species native to Peninsular Malaysia and the region, it would have been reckless to simply release them in territories with populations that are genetically different from their kind. Banded Rat Snakes are a non-poisonous species found in many parts of South and
The bigger question to be asked in such circumstances is whether our local authorities do have the necessary resources and human expertise to conduct such intensive assessments and studies.
If concerned authorities were to succumb to popular sentiments and haphazardly release captured animals back to the wild without taking into account the above issues, serious environmental repercussions may arise. The crux of the matter is about ensuring the long-term wellbeing of confiscated wildlife without compromising the viability of other life forms and interrupting the delicate balance of nature.
The sad part is that this problem is not exclusive to snakes but also involves a whole gamut of other wildlife. The above situation only highlights the need for environmental organizations, universities, and scientific institutions and even interested members of the public to work closely with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, through its various agencies, to pool resources and expertise in coming up with workable guidelines in the proper management of confiscated wildlife. We need not start from scratch. There is a body of information that exists on how to manage the release of captive animals and we should be able to follow all the international guidelines and adapt them to our local conditions.
More often than not, large quantities of confiscated wildlife result from heavy demand for exotic meat and animal parts. Thus, the public also has a crucial role to play in putting a stop to such illegal trade by simply boycotting products (including food items and medicinal products) made of endangered animal parts. Members of the public need also be educated and imbued with the necessary commitment to combat illegal wildlife trade by reporting immediately to the relevant authorities if and when they learn of any illegal wildlife trade going on. More stringent laws also need to be put in place. This is some of the things that we need to help lessen the occurrence of confiscated wildlife and ultimately, the many other problems that come along with it.
WWF-Malaysia and TRAFFIC
Dr Dionysius S.K. Sharma
Executive Director/CEO WWF-Malaysia
&
Dr Mark Auliya
TRAFFIC
MALAYSIA: Illegal Migrant Workers May Escape the Cane
MALAYSIA: Illegal Migrant Workers May Escape the Cane
By Anil Netto
PENANG, Mar 20 (IPS) - With the Malaysian Bar calling for the abolition of corporal punishment ‘illegal' migrant workers, who are currently being rounded up in a nationwide sweep, may become the first beneficiaries of any change in policy.
At the weekend annual general meeting of the Bar, which comprises 12,000 lawyers in the country, a motion calling for the declaration of whipping as cruel, inhumane and degrading was unanimously adopted. The bar pushed for the abolition of the whipping sentence in various laws, including the Immigration Act.
The two lawyers, Latheefa Koya and Renuka T. Balasubramaniam, who moved the motion asked the Bar to lead public opinion in ‘‘rejecting and denouncing the sentence of whipping as it is anachronistic and inconsistent with a compassionate society in a developed nation''.
They also pointed out that whipping had failed as a deterrent and asserted that it is time for Malaysia to subscribe to Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that no one should be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
‘‘We are putting forward this motion now because of the increasing numbers of arrests and (cases of) whipping going on now,'' Latheefa Koya told IPS, pointing to the mass raids currently going on to pick up ‘illegal' migrants. ‘‘This motion is a step forward in getting rid of corporal punishment altogether.''
Corporal punishment -- whipping with a thick rattan cane -- is usually administered as a supplementary penalty for a range of crimes including armed robbery and drug trafficking. But in recent times, it has also been used on migrants deemed to be illegal under the Immigration Act. Those in breach of the Act face fines, jail terms and whipping.
In practice, migrants, including refugees, picked up during raids are either brought to court -- within two weeks -- or sent straight to immigration detention centres for eventual deportation.
Of those brought to court, those with valid documents but who have overstayed face prison terms and deportation. A caning sentence, usually two to three strokes, in addition to a stint in prison, is meted out to those without any documents, according to Latheefa, who works in Legal Aid. Women are not whipped.
Upon being brought to court, migrants often do not know what charges are brought against them, the two lawyers claim. ‘‘They are not informed of their right to legal representation, and in any event, are not provided with a reasonable opportunity to seek help. The lack of interpretation in appropriate languages renders the whole legal process a complete travesty of justice and human rights.''
Faced with indefinite detention, many of them turn in guilty pleas without realising the full implications.
In the past, rights groups have spoken out against whipping, which leaves large red welts and permanent scars on the buttocks. Rather than having any Islamic connotations, judicial corporal punishment here was first introduced in the late 19th century by British colonial administrators as an outgrowth of British judicial custom and practice at the time.
In their motion, Latheefa and Renuka pointed out that ‘‘whipping is clearly intended to be a humiliating experience.'' They cited New Zealander Aaron Cohen's description of the six strokes he received in 1982 for drug-trafficking:
‘‘It's just incredible pain. More like a burning - like someone sticking an iron on your bum. That's the sort of feeling. Pain - just ultimate pain,'' he said. ‘‘The strokes come at a rate of one a minute - but it seemed like a lifetime to me. I waited and waited for the first one and as soon as I let my breath out - ‘baam'. Afterwards my bum looked like a side of beef.''
Upon serving their sentences, "illegal'' migrants are sent to immigration holding centres for deportation.
In the past, Amnesty International has expressed grave concern over conditions for undocumented migrants held in immigration detention centres, ‘‘especially when mass arrests and deportations lead to severe overcrowding. Conditions in some immigration detention centres may be at times so poor as to amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment''.
The two lawyers' motion could face some resistance from other lawyers and ordinary Malaysians as migrant workers have often received negative coverage in the media. Many Malaysians are worried about the incidence of serious crime. Others link the rising crime rate with the high number of migrants, estimated to number close to 10 per cent of the population, even though statistics reveal that they are not more prone to crime.
The country's top police officer was reported as saying last month that only 2 per cent of crimes in the country were committed by foreigners. However, he proposed that all foreign workers be confined to their quarters and have their movements monitored by management to prevent them from committing crimes.
Despite the inuman conditions, Malaysia's relative prosperity has continued to attract thousands of illegal or undocumented workers from such neighbouring countries as Indonesia, Burma, India, the Philippines and Bangladesh where job opportunities are scarce.
For Irene Fernandez, director of the leading migrant rights groups Tenaganita, the lawyers' motion calling for an end to whipping is extremely important. ‘‘For us, it is like a tool for torture. It is a very inhuman thing to do,'' she told IPS.
The impact of whipping, she added, was tremendous and left migrant workers scarred for life. ‘‘Whipping should become history. As a nation now celebrating its 50th year of independence, whipping should be out, and not condoned anymore.'' (END/2007)
By Anil Netto
PENANG, Mar 20 (IPS) - With the Malaysian Bar calling for the abolition of corporal punishment ‘illegal' migrant workers, who are currently being rounded up in a nationwide sweep, may become the first beneficiaries of any change in policy.
At the weekend annual general meeting of the Bar, which comprises 12,000 lawyers in the country, a motion calling for the declaration of whipping as cruel, inhumane and degrading was unanimously adopted. The bar pushed for the abolition of the whipping sentence in various laws, including the Immigration Act.
The two lawyers, Latheefa Koya and Renuka T. Balasubramaniam, who moved the motion asked the Bar to lead public opinion in ‘‘rejecting and denouncing the sentence of whipping as it is anachronistic and inconsistent with a compassionate society in a developed nation''.
They also pointed out that whipping had failed as a deterrent and asserted that it is time for Malaysia to subscribe to Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that no one should be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
‘‘We are putting forward this motion now because of the increasing numbers of arrests and (cases of) whipping going on now,'' Latheefa Koya told IPS, pointing to the mass raids currently going on to pick up ‘illegal' migrants. ‘‘This motion is a step forward in getting rid of corporal punishment altogether.''
Corporal punishment -- whipping with a thick rattan cane -- is usually administered as a supplementary penalty for a range of crimes including armed robbery and drug trafficking. But in recent times, it has also been used on migrants deemed to be illegal under the Immigration Act. Those in breach of the Act face fines, jail terms and whipping.
In practice, migrants, including refugees, picked up during raids are either brought to court -- within two weeks -- or sent straight to immigration detention centres for eventual deportation.
Of those brought to court, those with valid documents but who have overstayed face prison terms and deportation. A caning sentence, usually two to three strokes, in addition to a stint in prison, is meted out to those without any documents, according to Latheefa, who works in Legal Aid. Women are not whipped.
Upon being brought to court, migrants often do not know what charges are brought against them, the two lawyers claim. ‘‘They are not informed of their right to legal representation, and in any event, are not provided with a reasonable opportunity to seek help. The lack of interpretation in appropriate languages renders the whole legal process a complete travesty of justice and human rights.''
Faced with indefinite detention, many of them turn in guilty pleas without realising the full implications.
In the past, rights groups have spoken out against whipping, which leaves large red welts and permanent scars on the buttocks. Rather than having any Islamic connotations, judicial corporal punishment here was first introduced in the late 19th century by British colonial administrators as an outgrowth of British judicial custom and practice at the time.
In their motion, Latheefa and Renuka pointed out that ‘‘whipping is clearly intended to be a humiliating experience.'' They cited New Zealander Aaron Cohen's description of the six strokes he received in 1982 for drug-trafficking:
‘‘It's just incredible pain. More like a burning - like someone sticking an iron on your bum. That's the sort of feeling. Pain - just ultimate pain,'' he said. ‘‘The strokes come at a rate of one a minute - but it seemed like a lifetime to me. I waited and waited for the first one and as soon as I let my breath out - ‘baam'. Afterwards my bum looked like a side of beef.''
Upon serving their sentences, "illegal'' migrants are sent to immigration holding centres for deportation.
In the past, Amnesty International has expressed grave concern over conditions for undocumented migrants held in immigration detention centres, ‘‘especially when mass arrests and deportations lead to severe overcrowding. Conditions in some immigration detention centres may be at times so poor as to amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment''.
The two lawyers' motion could face some resistance from other lawyers and ordinary Malaysians as migrant workers have often received negative coverage in the media. Many Malaysians are worried about the incidence of serious crime. Others link the rising crime rate with the high number of migrants, estimated to number close to 10 per cent of the population, even though statistics reveal that they are not more prone to crime.
The country's top police officer was reported as saying last month that only 2 per cent of crimes in the country were committed by foreigners. However, he proposed that all foreign workers be confined to their quarters and have their movements monitored by management to prevent them from committing crimes.
Despite the inuman conditions, Malaysia's relative prosperity has continued to attract thousands of illegal or undocumented workers from such neighbouring countries as Indonesia, Burma, India, the Philippines and Bangladesh where job opportunities are scarce.
For Irene Fernandez, director of the leading migrant rights groups Tenaganita, the lawyers' motion calling for an end to whipping is extremely important. ‘‘For us, it is like a tool for torture. It is a very inhuman thing to do,'' she told IPS.
The impact of whipping, she added, was tremendous and left migrant workers scarred for life. ‘‘Whipping should become history. As a nation now celebrating its 50th year of independence, whipping should be out, and not condoned anymore.'' (END/2007)
Uproar over sale of protected snakes (Malaysiakini)
Uproar over sale of protected snakes
| ||||
| Animal rights activists are up in arms over the reported sale of some 2,400 protected snakes to licensed traders by - of all agencies - a state wildlife department. (Partial protection allows for trade of the animals concerned, but under strictly controlled provisions.)
The department, meanwhile, had to dispose of the snakes as soon as possible to prevent them from dying in the containers in which they were kept, especially since “several had died already”. |
While having headed off the illicit trade, however, the department may have breached its own regulations when it auctioned the snakes two days later to traders, said the groups.
Echoing his statement, treasurer of the pro-tem Malaysian Animal Rights and Welfare Society Abdul Karim Stuart Russell said the department has in effect encouraged trade in the protected species.
He also cited Section 92 of the Wildlife Act, which renders illegal ‘any act of cruelty to wildlife’.
He explained that the snakes could not be returned to Thailand as it was only suspected that the snakes originated from there.Monday, March 19, 2007
MADPET: REMOVE DEATH PENALTY FROM ALL MALAYSIAN LAWS
MEDIA STATEMENT –20/3/2007
REMOVE DEATH PENALTY FROM ALL MALAYSIAN LAWS
Death Penalty for “Terrorist” and “Terrorist
Financiers” Unsafe and Unacceptable
MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) is shocked and disappointed that
It was reported recently that those convicted of terror acts that cause death will now face the mandatory death penalty. (Star
It came into effect a day after Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz signed the gazette notice on March 5. Ironically, this was the same Minister who was reported in 2006 saying “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,.."
It is not possible in any system of human justice to prevent the horrifying possibility of the execution of innocent persons; and the infliction of the death penalty makes wrongful convictions irreversible. In an age, when it is possible to isolate persons guilty of the most heinous of crimes from society by the imposition of life imprisonment, there can be no more justification for the usage of the death penalty.
The Malaysian Bar, a body representing over 12,000 Malaysian lawyers, at its 60th Annual General Meeting held on
It must also be pointed out that a television poll done by RTM 2 during the Hello on Two programme on
It is ironic that at a time when the nations of the world are rapidly moving towards abolition of the death penalty,
MADPET reiterates its call 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)
RESOLUTION FOR THE END OF THE STATE OF EMERGENCY AND AN END TO LAW ENFORCEMENT” BY THE UNTRAINED AND ARMED PEOPLE'S VOLUNTEER CORPS ( RELA)
MALAYSIAN BAR RESOLUTION FOR THE END OF THE STATE OF
(passed unanimously at the 61st Malaysian Bar AGM held on 17/3/2007)
Whereas:-
1. On 31st August 2007, it will be 50 years since Malaysia achieved its independence and has been for over 30 years been a peaceful democratic nation.
2. It is sad that
3. Since independence, five states of emergency have been declared under Article 150 of the Federal Constitution. The first was the only one to have been revoked. The remaining four are still in operation. The second state of emergency was proclaimed in September 1964 when the country was faced with a campaign of violence from
4. The next state of emergency was declared on
5. The fourth proclamation came on
6. On
7. By reason of the proclamation of emergency, numerous legislations were enacted and are still in force, including also :-
a) Emergency (Essential Powers) Act, 1964 (30/64), today known as the Emergency (Essential Powers) Act 1979;
b) Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969;
c) Essential (Security Cases) Regulations 1975
8. For example, Section 6 of the Emergency (Essential Powers) Act 1979, states that “"For so long as the Proclamation of Emergency referred to in the preamble to this Act remains in force, the regulations made under the Emergency (Essential Powers) Act, 1964 (30/64) (except those regulations which the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may by notification in the Gazette declare not to be in force) shall be in force and shall have effect as if they have been made under this Act; and the regulations may be amended, modified or repealed as if they have been made under this Act.". [The proclamation of emergency referred to in this Act was the proclamation issued on
9. The Ikatan Relawan Rakyat or better known as RELA (a People's Volunteer Corps) came into being by virtue of Essential (Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat) Regulations 1966 [P.U. 33/1966], under Emergency (Essential Powers) Act, 1964 (30/64), and continue to be in force by virtue of Section 6 of the Emergency (Essential Powers) Act 1979.
10. By virtue of the Essential (Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat) (Amendment) Regulations 2005, which came into operation on 1 February 2005, the powers of the Rela, have been dangerously over-extended giving RELA personnel the right to bear and use firearms, stop, search and demand documents, arrest without a warrant, and enter premises without a warrant. and all these powers can be exercised the RELA personnel has reasonable belief that any person is a terrorist, undesirable person, illegal immigrant or an occupier. Illegal immigrant and occupier (which would be Malaysians usually) was added on by this 2005 amendment.
11. These not-professionally trained volunteers has also now been accorded protection by the new amendments whereby it is stated that "…The Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 shall apply to any action, suit, prosecution or proceedings against the Ketua Pengarah Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat, Timbalan Ketua Pengarah Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat or any member of the Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat in respect of any act, neglect or default done or committed by him in good faith or any omission omitted by him in good faith, in such capacity."
12. Noting also that there has been numerous complaints that have surfaced in the media about the RELA not just from migrants but also Malaysians ranging from torture, gangster-like behavior, damage to property, wrongful arrest and detention and even the causing of deaths.
13. Its was reported that RELA arrested a total of 17,700 people believed
to be illegal immigrants and screened 94,010 people up to September
2006, and that means 94,010 people (or 76,310) with proper documentations were subjected to unnecessary harassment and their right to a remedy in law is difficult. Of the people arrested, recent reports in the media indicate that many may even not be “illegal” or “undocumented” migrants at all.
* “…six foreign workers, all with legal travel and work documents, were whisked out of their quarters in a resort in Cherating in the wee hours of the morning on Dec 28 last year when RELA members "literally broke into their chalet and ordered them out." (The Star,
* “…a team of 30 to 40 RELA members (half not in uniforms) turned up to look for foreign workers, assaulted some and allegedly stole cash and valuables during the raid. The companies, who lodged police reports, said that all the workers had legal work permits…..”(The Star,
* “22 workers of an IT company were beaten and made to do a 50m "duck-walk" at Section 30 in Shah Alam…” (The Star,
* Residents of about 10 households in Taman Anggerik, Cheras,
14. There have also been report of beatings and even deaths caused by RELA volunteers. As an example, in early 2006 it was reported that Ahmad Apik, 35, and Edy Sathurrohman, 26, both Indonesians, lost their lives, and they each left behind a wife and 2 young children. (Star,
15. The policy and practice of paying members of the People's Volunteer Corps (RELA) RM80-00 for each undocumented migrant must be stopped (The Star,
15.
16. Some migrants may be undocumented, but they are still human beings and deserved to be treated humanely and should be accorded equal protection under the law.
17. Malaysia, a party to the April 1999 BANGKOK DECLARATION ON IRREGULAR MIGRATION, which clearly states “Irregular [undocumented] migrants should be granted humanitarian treatment, including appropriate health and other services, while the cases of irregular migration are being handled, according to law. Any unfair treatment toward them should be avoided” must adhere to its commitments.
18. New laws can always be enacted by a parliament in times of peace if needed.
IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED:-
a) That we, the Malaysian Bar, call upon the Yang Di-Pertuan Agung to revoke all existing Proclamations of Emergency in Malaysia;
b) That we, the Malaysian Bar call for the repeal all legislations and Acts that were enacted and continue to be in force by reason of the now existing unrevoked Proclamations of Emergency;
c) That we, the Malaysian Bar reiterate our call for the repeal of Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 and the Essential (Security Cases) Regulations 1975;
d) That we, the Malaysian Bar specifically call for the repeal of the Emergency (Essential Powers) Act 1979 and all Regulations and Rules made thereunder, in particular Essential (Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat) Regulations 1966 [P.U. 33/1966], as amended by the Essential (Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat) (Amendment) Regulations 2005;
e) That we, the Malaysian Bar call for the employment and usage of only properly trained professional law enforcement personnel in
f) That we, the Malaysian Bar urge that inquests be conducted for Ahmad Apik, Edy Sathurrohman and for the other persons who have died as result of alleged RELA actions;
g) That we, the Malaysian Bar urge that all persons including undocumented migrants and/or refugees be treated humanely and accorded equal protection of the law;
h) That we, the Malaysian Bar call on the Malaysian government to immediately ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families;
i) That we, the Malaysian Bar call on the Malaysian government to immediately ratify the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Proposers:
Charles Hector
Francis Pereira
Malaysia law stipulates death for terrorists causing death
World News
Malaysia law stipulates death for terrorists causing death
Kuala Lumpur, Mar 18: Malaysia has introduced a new law under which those convicted of terrorist acts that cause death and their financiers will face mandatory capital punishment, a media report said here today.
The law, which comes under the amended Penal Code, came into effect on March 6, the Sunday Star newspaper reported.
Under the amendment, those convicted of terror acts that cause death will now face the mandatory death penalty, it said adding, those found guilty of giving financial aid to such terrorists will also meet the same fate.
If no death is caused, the convicted persons would be liable to a jail sentence of seven to 30 years and a fine.
These provisions are provided for in a new chapter in the Code dealing with offences against terrorism.
The new chapter, among others, stipulates terrorist acts as providing devices, training, facilities, property and other services to terrorists as well as harbouring terrorists and intentionally not giving information on terrorists and their property.
These offences mainly carry the new maximum life imprisonment term of 30 years and a fine.
The law, which comes under the amended Penal Code, came into effect on March 6, the Sunday Star newspaper reported.
Under the amendment, those convicted of terror acts that cause death will now face the mandatory death penalty, it said adding, those found guilty of giving financial aid to such terrorists will also meet the same fate.
If no death is caused, the convicted persons would be liable to a jail sentence of seven to 30 years and a fine.
These provisions are provided for in a new chapter in the Code dealing with offences against terrorism.
The new chapter, among others, stipulates terrorist acts as providing devices, training, facilities, property and other services to terrorists as well as harbouring terrorists and intentionally not giving information on terrorists and their property.
These offences mainly carry the new maximum life imprisonment term of 30 years and a fine.
--- PTI
Article Title: Malaysia law stipulates death for terrorists causing death
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Gov't introduces mandatory death for terror (Malaysiakini)
Terrorists who cause death to hang (Star)
Sunday March 18, 2007
Terrorists who cause death to hang
PUTRAJAYA: Those convicted of terror acts that cause death will now face the mandatory death penalty.
The new law, which comes under the amended Penal Code, came into effect on March 6. Under the amendment, those convicted of giving financial aid to such terrorists will also meet the same fate.
If no death is caused, the convicted persons would be liable to a jail sentence of seven to 30 years and a fine.
These provisions are provided for in a new chapter in the Code dealing with offences against terrorism.
It came into effect a day after Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz signed the gazette notice on March 5.
The new chapter, among others, stipulates terrorist acts as providing devices, training, facilities, property and other services to terrorists as well as harbouring terrorists and intentionally not giving information on terrorists and their property.
These offences mainly carry the new maximum life imprisonment term of 30 years and a fine.
Offences such as intentional omission in giving information related to terrorist acts, providing or collecting property for terrorist acts carry a minimum seven years' jail with a maximum of 30 years' imprisonment as well as a fine.
All these offences allow the police to arrest suspects without a warrant and are not bailable in court.
LAWYERS UNANIMOUS IN CALL FOR THE DEMISE OF RELA ...
LAWYERS UNANIMOUS IN CALL FOR THE DEMISE OF RELA AND THE USAGE OF ONLY PROFESSIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONELL IN
The Malaysian
Bar at its 17th March 2007 Annual General Meetings unanimously called for the end of RELA, the Volunteer Peoples’ Corp, which have attracted much public outcry in the way that they have been going after both Malaysians and migrants. There have been allegations of torture and even the causing of death by volunteer RELA personnel, who also received payment of RM80-00 for each undocumented migrant they managed to catch.
The Bar’s Resolution called for the repeal of the Emergency (Essential Powers) Act 1979 and all Regulations and Rules made there under, in particular Essential (Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat) Regulations 1966 [P.U. 33/1966], as amended by the Essential (Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat) (Amendment) Regulations 2005, also for the employment and usage of only properly trained professional law enforcement personnel in Malaysia as opposed to the RELA volunteers.
The Resolution also called for inquests be conducted for Ahmad Apik, Edy Sathurrohman and for the other persons who have died as result of alleged RELA actions.
By virtue of the Essential (Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat) (Amendment) Regulations 2005, which came into operation on 1 February 2005, the powers of the Rela, have been dangerously over-extended giving RELA personnel the right to bear and use firearms, stop, search and demand documents, arrest without a warrant, and enter premises without a warrant. and all these powers can be exercised the RELA personnel has reasonable belief that any person is a terrorist, undesirable person, illegal immigrant or an occupier. Illegal immigrant and occupier (which would be Malaysians usually) was added on by this 2005 amendment.
These not-professionally trained volunteers has also now been accorded protection by the new amendments whereby it is stated that "…The Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 shall apply to any action, suit, prosecution or proceedings against the Ketua Pengarah Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat, Timbalan Ketua Pengarah Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat or any member of the Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat in respect of any act, neglect or default done or committed by him in good faith or any omission omitted by him in good faith, in such capacity."
Revoke All 4 Existing Proclamations Of Emergency
Lawyers in Malaysia were also unanimous in their call upon the Yang Di Pertuan Agong to revoke all 4 existing Proclamations of Emergency in Malaysia, for the repeal all legislations and Acts that were enacted and continue to be in force by reason of the now existing unrevoked Proclamations of Emergency including the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 and the Essential (Security Cases) Regulations 1975.
Since independence, five states of emergency have been declared under Article 150 of the Federal Constitution. The first was the only one to have been revoked. The remaining four are still in operation. The second state of emergency was proclaimed in September 1964 when the country was faced with a campaign of violence from Indonesia. Although the threat ceased within less than two years, the state of emergency was never revoked.
The next state of emergency was declared on
The fourth proclamation came on
On
Humane Treatment for ALL
The Malaysian Bar asked that all persons including undocumented migrants and/or refugees be treated humanely and accorded equal protection of the law.
Malaysia, who is a party to the April 1999 BANGKOK DECLARATION ON IRREGULAR MIGRATION, which clearly states “Irregular [undocumented] migrants should be granted humanitarian treatment, including appropriate health and other services, while the cases of irregular migration are being handled, according to law. Any unfair treatment toward them should be avoided” must adhere to its commitments.
It was also stressed in the Resolution, that all persons, be they citizens or otherwise, are guaranteed by our own Malaysian Federal Constitution to equal protection of the law.
Ratification of International Conventions
The Malaysian Bar also called on the Malaysian government to immediately ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families and also the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Charles Hector
Petaling Jaya
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)