MADPET Calls For Repeal Of SOSMA, And Offences Criminalizing Activities ‘Detrimental To Parliamentary Democracy’

Media Statement – 28/9/2015

MADPET Calls For Repeal Of SOSMA, And Offences Criminalizing Activities ‘Detrimental To Parliamentary Democracy’ 

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) is shocked by the actions taken by the Malaysian police against Datuk Seri Khairuddin Abu Hassan for allegedly lodging reports with relevant authorities in other countries against 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), a private company owned by Malaysia.

Khairuddin was first arrested and remanded for investigation on 18/9/2015 under section 124C of the Penal Code, being the offence of ‘attempts to commit an activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy or does any act preparatory thereto shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to fifteen years’. This is one of the new offences included into the Penal Code, which came into effect on 31/7/2012. It is too vague since there seems to be not even a definition as to what really would be an ‘activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy’, and as such could very be easily abused.

On 23/9/2015, when the courts released him after possibly denying the police application for further remand, Khairruddin was immediately re-arrested for allegedly committing offences under Section 124K and 124L of the Penal Code. This would be the offence of committing ‘sabotage’ and attempting to do so respectively. 

Normally, when a person is arrested, being suspected of committing a criminal offence, the procedures and rights that are provided for in the Criminal Procedure Code applies. The police after arrest, can hold a suspect for no longer than 24 hours, and thereafter, if there is a need for further remand for the purposes of investigation, the police need to apply to the Magistrate for a remand order. Subsequent remand applications are permitted, whereby the total period of permissible detention for this purpose is 14 days. The Malaysian law now also sets limits on the maximum number of days of remand that can be granted by court on the first application, and applications thereafter.

Following the 2nd arrest of Khairuddin, the police allegedly stated that they would now rely on the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA), rather than the normal Criminal Procedure Code(CPC). 

Avoiding normal procedures, safeguards and rights by invoking SOSMA

SOSMA is a law that provides for ‘special measures relating to security offences for the purpose of maintaining public order and security and for connected matters’.  There are ‘special measures’ from the point of arrest until the end of trial, which do undermine the rights of the suspect and/or accused, including the right to a fair trial.

When SOSMA is used, the police no longer need to get a Magistrate’s order for the purposes of remanding a suspect for more than 24 hours. All that is required by SOSMA for detention beyond 24 hours is that ‘a police officer of or above the rank of Superintendent of Police…’ to ‘…extend the period of detention for a period of not more than twenty-eight days, for the purpose of investigation’. As such, the necessary check and balance provided by the Magistrate and the courts to ensure that the police do not abuse their powers and/or unjustifiably deny a suspect his freedom is gone. 

SOSMA also provides that no bail will be granted for persons charged with security offences, save for very limited exceptions. SOSMA also allows the court to accept evidence of witnesses, in the absence of the accused person and his lawyer. In essence, SOSMA allows for the abandonment of many of the fundamental requirements, safeguards and rights necessary to ensure a fair trial.

Was there new evidence after release to justify immediate re-arrest?

Unless new evidence has come to light since the release, an immediate re-arrest of a suspect would be wrong. Eventhough, Khairuddin’s re-arrest may be for a different offence, which happens to be under the same Part of the Penal Code, which most probably are based on the same facts would also be wrong. The police could have very well during his 5 days in detention investigated him concerning all related offences – there is no need for a re-arrest and further detention. Furthermore, considering that he was released by court, the action of police seems to be an act of disrespecting the court. Now, using SOSMA in this re-arrest, the police shuts out the court’s ability to ensure that the police are not abusing their powers of remand. 

It must be stressed that after a suspect is arrested, there is always the option to release the suspect on police bail on condition that he presents at the police station as and when needed to facilitate investigations. There is no necessity to continue to hold a suspect in detention for the purposes of investigation. 

If the prosecution has sufficient evidence, rightly the person should be charged in court, and any application for bail could be challenged. Even if released on bail, the courts could order that the accused not leave the country.

Punishment Comes After Conviction – Presumption of Innocence

MADPET reiterates the importance of adhering to legal principle that a person is presumed innocent unless proven guilty, and this ‘proof of guilt’ is not a matter to be determined by the police, prosecution and/or the Minister, but by  a court of law. 

As such, prolonged remand for the purposes of investigation, or re-arresting, be in for the same or different offences, and further remands could be seen as a violation of the presumption of innocence principle. Punishment comes only after conviction and sentencing by a court of law, and not before. 

Duty to report suspected crimes in any country?

Every human person has an obligation to highlight any alleged wrongdoing, crime, injustice or human rights violation – they are not expected to be indifferent or to turn a blind eye to the occurrence of suspected wrongdoings. 

Whether the allegation is true or not, or even whether there is evidence to support it or not, it is not the concern of the person lodging reports. That will be a matter for the relevant investigation authorities to investigate and determine. 

There is also no law in Malaysia that says that a Malaysian can only file reports/complaints about wrongdoings by Malaysians or Malaysian companies in Malaysia, and to file any such reports/complaints in any other country is a crime. 

Deterring lodging of complaints against ‘powerful’ persons and companies? 

Hence, MADPET, from information provided thus far in media reports, fails to see how what Khairuddin is alleged of doing, being the filing of reports with authorities in other countries, could even be perceived as a crime.  Note that the relevant authority in any country will only commence investigation if and only if the subject matter is a violation of their applicable laws, and it is a matter that falls within their jurisdiction.  

Malaysia need to be very concerned that its actions now may only deter Malaysians from lodging reports/complaints about suspected crimes or wrongdoings against ‘powerful’ personalities and companies. No one is above the law.

MADPET thus calls for:-

a)      The immediate release of Datuk Seri Khairuddin Abu Hassan; 

b)      The immediate stop of the usage of Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA) in this and all other cases in Malaysia;  

c)       The repeal of this draconian Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA); and also

d)      The removal of all offences in our laws that criminalizes activities ‘detrimental to parliamentary democracy’, which is just too vague and as such could be easily abused.

Charles Hector

For and on behalf of

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

Stop abusing Sosma, release Khairuddin – Hakam

Published: 25 September 2015 7:58 PM

On September 24, 2015, former Umno leader Datuk Seri Khairuddin Abu Hassan was arrested under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma). Khairuddin was arrested allegedly over reports which were lodged with investigators abroad against 1Malaysia Development Berhad. He was first arrested and remanded on 18 September 2015 under section 124C of the Penal Code, on alleged activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy. Upon his release, he was rearrested under Sosma.

Khairuddin is now detained for investigations under Sections 124K and 124L of the Penal Code, allegedly for offences of “sabotage” or “attempting to sabotage the State”.
Hakam stands with the Bar Council and many other civil society organisations and all right thinking Malaysians in condemning these actions as being oppressive and contrary to the rule of law.  Sosma is in itself an authoritarian and oppressive piece of legislation that is now being abused to protect a prime minister (who ought to be accountable to the people) from scrutiny. In stark contrast a member of the public who threatens a riot in Petaling Street is treated with kid gloves and faces no police action.  This underscores the gross abuse of power and the political nature of these enforcement actions.
 

Sosma is meant for security offences that are “prejudicial to public order in, or the security of the Federation or any part thereof”. How are Datuk Khairuddin’s actions in filing reports overseas in respect of 1MDB, prejudicial to the security of the nation?  They may make some people uncomfortable but that is no basis for an arrest. Moreover, Khairuddin will be clearly exempt under Section 4(3) of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 [Sosma] which states “No person shall be arrested and detained under this section solely for his political belief or political activity.” Political belief or activity is defined under Section 4(12) paragraphs (b) and (c) respectively as, “the expression of an opinion directed towards any Government in the Federation” and “the pursuit of a course of action directed towards any Government in the Federation.”  In our view therefore the arrest of Khairuddin is unlawful even within the scope of Sosma.
 

This incident is one in a series of arbitrary measures taken by the powers that be to protect the prime minister from having to answer to the people.
 

Enforcement agencies must decide if their role is to serve the public or to protect leaders from answering for their deeds or misdeeds.  The choice is clear. Khairuddin must be immediately released and human rights abuses by the authorities must stop.  Let some semblance of sanity, fair play and respect for the rule of law return immediately to the administration of this nation.
 

We now read reports that Khairuddin was rushed to hospital with a high fever. However, no one is allowed access to him. Hakam urges the authorities to allow the family immediate access to him. We reiterate our demand that he be released immediately. – September 25, 2015.

* Hakam is the acronym of Persatuan Kebangsaan Hak Asasi Manusia or the National Human Rights Society.

  * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider. 

- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/stop-abusing-sosma-release-khairuddin-hakam#sthash.K56FkSfb.dpuf 

 

KENYATAAN BERTARIKH 25 SEPTEMBER 2015

 
PENGUNAAN SOSMA & PENANGKAPAN KRITIK 1MDB Termasuk ADDENDUM BERTARIKH 26 SEPTEMBER 2016 *

The Rakyat Post file pic

Pada 24 September 2015 bekas pemimpin UMNO Datuk Khairuddin Abu Hassan telah ditangkap dibawah Akta Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-langkah Khas) 2012 (SOSMA). Datuk Khairuddin telah ditangkap dipercayai disebabkan oleh laporan-laporan yang telah dibuat olehnya dengan penyiasat-penyiasat di luar negara terhadap 1MDB. Beliau telah ditangkap dan direman dahulu pada 18 September 2015 di bawah Seksyen 124C Kanun Keseksaan kerana didakwa terlibat dalam aktiviti-aktiviti yang menjejaskan demokrasi berparlimen. Selepas beliau dilepaskan beliau telah ditangkap semula dibawah SOSMA.

Datuk Khairuddin kini ditahan untuk siasatan di bawah Seksyen 124K dan Seksyen 124L Kanun Keseksaan, dipercayai untuk kesalahan-kesalahan “sabotaj” atau “percubaan untuk sabotaj negara”.

HAKAM mengambil pendirian yang sama dengan Majlis Peguam dan banyak lagi badan-badan bukan kerajaan lain dan juga semua warga Malaysia yang berfikiran munasabah dalam mengkritik dan mengecam tindakan-tindakan ini sebagai tindakan yang menindas dan bertentangan dengan kedaulatan undang-undang. 

SOSMA merupakan satu akta yang bersifat autoritarian dan menindas dan ia kini digunakan pula untuk melindungi Perdana Menteri (yang sepatutnya bertanggungjawab kepada rakyat) daripada penelitian. Dalam perbandingan yang begitu ketara, individu yang mengugut untuk mengadakan rusuhan di Petaling Street pula dipandang ringan dan tidak berdepan dengan tidakan polis. Ini menyerlahkan lagi penyalahgunaan kuasa dan tindakan-tindakan penguatkuasaan ini yang mempunyai agenda politik.

Akta Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-langkah Khas) 2012 (SOSMA) bertujuan menangani kesalahan-kesalahan sekuriti yang “memudaratkan keselamatan awam di dalam, atau sekuriti Persekutuan atau mana-mana bahagian Persekutuan”. 

Persoalannya ialah, bagaimana tindakan-tindakan Datuk Khairuddin iaitu memfailkan laporan-laporan diluar negara berkenaan 1MDB memudaratkan keselamatan awam negara? Laporan-laporan tersebut mungkin telah menyebabkan sesetengah pihak berasa tidak selesa tetapi itu tidak boleh menjadi asas bagi satu penangkapan. 

Tambahan pula, Datuk Khairuddin akan dikecualikan di bawah Seksyen 4(3) Akta Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-langkah Khas) 2012 (SOSMA) yang menyatakan “Tiada seorang pun boleh ditangkap atau ditahan dibawah seksyen ini semata-mata atas kepercayaan politiknya atau aktiviti politiknya”. Kepercayaan politik atau aktiviti politik pula didefinisikan di bawah Seksyen 4(12) perenggan (b) dan (c) masing-masing sebagai “pernyataan pendapat yang ditujukan terhadap mana-mana Kerajaan di dalam Persekutuan” dan “pengambilan tindakan yang ditujukan terhadap mana-mana Kerajaan di dalam Persekutuan”. 

Pada pandangan kami, penangkapan ini adalah tidak sah disisi undang-undang khususnya di sisi SOSMA.

Insiden ini adalah salah satu daripada tindakan bersiri yang bersifat menindas dan diambil secara sewenang-wenangnya oleh pihak yang berkuasa untuk melindungi Perdana Menteri daripada memberi jawapan kepada rakyat.

Agensi-agensi penguatkuasaan harus memilih pendirian mereka samada peranan mereka adalah untuk melindungi rakyat atau untuk melindungi pemimpin-pemimpin daripada bertanggungjawab untuk tindakan-tindakan mereka samada betul atau salah. Pilihan tersebut sepatutnya jelas tanpa sebarang keraguan. Datuk 

Khairuddin patut dibebaskan dengan segera dan sikap pihak berkuasa yang giat mencabul hak asasi manusia dengan sewenang-wenangnya mestilah dihentikan. Biar sedikit kewarasan, keadilan dan pendekatan yang menghormati kedaulatan undang-undang kembali diamalkan dengan segera dalam aturcara pentadbiran negara ini.

HAKAM telah mendapat tahu melalui laporan-laporan media bahawa Datuk Khairuddin telah dikejarkan ke hospital dengan demam tinggi, walaubagaimanapun, beliau tidak dibenarkan sebarang pelawat. HAKAM mengesa pihak berkuasa untuk membenarkan ahli keluarga beliau untuk menjenguk dan melawat beliau. Akses ini harus diberikan dengan segara. HAKAM juga sekali lagi menegaskan bahawa beliau seharusnya dibebaskan dengan serta-merta. *

Dikeluarkan bagi pihak Jawatankuasa Eksekutif HAKAM

Ambiga Sreenevasan Presiden HAKAM

Source:- HAKAM Website - 

https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=27256617#editor/target=post;postID=6768038119656996454

 

STATEMENT DATED 25 SEPTEMBER 2015

 
ON THE USE OF SOSMA & ARREST OF 1MDB CRITIC

Incorporating ADDENDUM DATED 26 SEPTEMBER 2015 *

 

Datuk Khairuddin Abu Hassan was rearrested by police this evening under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, September 23, 2015.

On 24 September 2015 former Umno leader Datuk Khairuddin Abu Hassan was arrested under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA). Datuk Khairuddin was arrested allegedly over reports which were lodged with investigators abroad against 1MDB. He was first arrested and remanded on 18 September 2015 under section 124C of the Penal Code, on alleged activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy. Upon his release, he was rearrested under SOSMA.

Datuk Khairuddin is now detained for investigations under Sections 124K and 124L of the Penal Code, allegedly for offences of “sabotage” or “attempting to sabotage the State“.

HAKAM stands with the Bar Council and many other civil society organisations and all right thinking Malaysians in condemning these actions as being oppressive and contrary to the rule of law. SOSMA is in itself an authoritarian and oppressive piece of legislation that is now being abused to protect a Prime Minister (who ought to be accountable to the people) from scrutiny. In stark contrast a member of the public who threatens a riot in Petaling Street is treated with kid gloves and faces no police action. This underscores the gross abuse of power and the political nature of these enforcement actions.

SOSMA is meant for security offences that are “prejudicial to public order in, or the security of the Federation or any part thereof.”. How are Datuk Khairuddin’s actions in filing reports overseas in respect of 1MDB, prejudicial to the security of the nation? They may make some people uncomfortable but that is no basis for an arrest. Moreover, Khairuddin will be clearly exempt under Section 4(3) of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 [SOSMA] which states “No person shall be arrested and detained under this section solely for his political belief or political activity.” Political belief or activity is defined under Section 4(12) paragraphs (b) and (c) respectively as, “the expression of an opinion directed towards any Government in the Federation” and “the pursuit of a course of action directed towards any Government in the Federation.” In our view therefore the arrest of Datuk Khairuddin is unlawful even within the scope of SOSMA.

This incident is one in a series of arbitrary measures taken by the powers that be to protect the Prime Minister from having to answer to the people.

Enforcement agencies must decide if their role is to serve the rakyat or to protect leaders from answering for their deeds or misdeeds. The choice is clear. Datuk Khairuddin must be immediately released and human rights abuses by the authorities must stop. Let some semblance of sanity, fair play and respect for the rule of law return immediately to the administration of this nation.

We now read reports that Datuk Khairuddin was rushed to hospital with a high fever. However, no one is allowed access to him. HAKAM urges the authorities to allow the family immediate access to him. We reiterate our demand that he be released immediately.*

Issued on behalf of HAKAM Executive Committee

Ambiga Sreenevasan
President
HAKAM

 

Source:- HAKAM Website

MADPET & 65 Groups - Repeal MAS Law That Suspends Or Deny Existing Worker And Trade Union Rights And Access To Justice

Media Statement-    4 August 2015 (now 66)

The statement was reported by Rakyat Post and also carried in Malaysiakini

Repeal MAS Law That Suspends Or Deny Existing Worker And Trade Union Rights And Access To Justice – Laws that deny worker rights to assist businesses should never be enacted

We, the undersigned 66 civil society organizations, trade unions and concerned groups, are disturbed by the Malaysian government’s unjust use of an Act of Parliament to suspend and/or deny existing worker rights in law, including also access to justice mechanisms, for the benefit of a private business and employer, being the Malaysian Airlines System Berhad(MAS Bhd), now wholly owned private company by Malaysia’s sovereign wealth fund, Khazanah Nasional Berhad, a company.

Malaysia tabled and passed speedily the Malaysian Airline System Berhad (Administration) Act 2015 [Act 765], which came into force on 20/2/2015. This Act is most unjust to workers and trade unions of employees of the airline.

The Act, in section 11, states that “…on the appointment of the Administrator, a moratorium shall take effect during which… (e) no proceedings and no execution or other legal process in any court or tribunal may be commenced or continued with, and no distress may be levied, against the Administered Companies or their property except with the prior written consent of the Administrator;” – whereby the Administered company includes MAS Bhd, its wholly owned subsidiaries and some partially owned subsidiaries. The Administrator was appointed on or about 25/5/2015, and the period of administration could last for a maximum period of 2 years commencing from the date of the appointment of the Administrator. 

What is disturbing is that when administration and moratorium ends, all monies, assets and business of MAS Bhd would most likely be transferred to a new legal entity Malaysian Airline Berhad(MAB). MAS Bhd would most likely be left an empty shell.

Worker Claiming Rights Cases Against MAS Bhd – Stopped and May Not Proceed

There are currently many cases initiated and filed, now pending before access to justice mechanisms, including tribunals and courts between workers and MAS Bhd, the employer,   claiming wrongful dismissal and/or other worker rights, or between trade unions and MAS Bhd. The effect of the moratorium is that all these actions and cases will stop, and not proceed further until administration of MAS Bhd ends.  

At the end, when moratorium is lifted, MAS Bhd would most likely be an empty shell – with no work and no money. Hence, it will be workers and trade unions that will suffer. Workers and Trade Unions do not just lose their right to justice, but also will have to shoulder additional loses, including all the monies utilized for lawyer and court fees,  time and others. For many workers, it may also mean loss of wages for the days they could not work because they had to attend at relevant departments, tribunal or court in their pursuit for justice. Hence, not only will workers and trade unions be denied justice, but will suffer even more injustice by reason of this anti-worker legislation.

Right To Join Parties To Satisfy Worker Claims Against MAS Bhd Denied

Normally, when the employer has lost the ability to provide remedies, damages or compensation to satisfy the claims of the worker, to ensure justice, the worker can proceed with an application to join third parties to the suit, possibly the owners (Khazanah Nasional) or others.

This MAS Act now unjustly prevents this ability to join parties, in amongst others, in section 25(2), which states that “ The Malaysia Airlines Berhad, the appointer and the Administrator shall not be named as a party in any claim or application made or joined as a party in any proceeding commenced or continued by or on behalf of any employees or former employees of the Administered Companies pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act 1967 [Act 177], Employment Act 1955 [Act 265], Sabah Labour Ordinance 1950 [Sabah Cap. 67], Sarawak Labour Ordinance 1952 [Sarawak Cap. 76] or the Trade Unions Act 1959 [Act 262].’

In fact, section 25(1) says clearly, amongst others, that ‘…the Administered Companies, the Administrator, appointer or the Malaysia Airlines Berhad shall not—(a) be regarded as the successor, assignee or transferee or a successor employer to the Administered Companies; (b) be liable for any obligation relating to any retirement plan or other post-employment benefit plans in respect of the employees or former employees of the Administered Companies or any predecessor of the Administered Companies that exists prior to the assumption of control or appointment; or (c) be liable for any sum which is calculated by reference to a period of time prior to the Malaysia Airlines Berhad becoming the employer of the person in question…’

Same Owner of both MAS Bhd and new Malaysian Airline Berhad(MAB)

Considering that the it is Khazanah Nasional that is the sole owner of MAS Bhd, and also the new company MAB, clearly all that is happening is really nothing other than the ‘same person changing shirts’ – and justice would demand that the new entity MAB or the owner, Khazanah, should be justly taking over the obligation and responsibility of MAS Bhd especially for cases involving worker and trade union rights.

The new MAB and MAS Bhd, both owned by Khazanah, really is nothing other that the same owner forming a new company to escape responsibility and liability to workers, is also supported by the following:-

1. Christoph Mueller, the new chief executive of MAS Bhd was appointed on 1/5/2015, would later assume the same position with MAB. Same CEO for MAS Bhd, and new MAB?
2. When the employees of MAS Bhd received their termination letters in early June 2015, those that were offered employment by the new MAB, were offered a different termination package from those not offered employment in MAB. Those offered employment in MAB, which was to take effect from 1/9/2015, were asked to continue coming in to work in MAS Bhd, while the others, about 6,000, were asked to stop coming in to work with the assurance they will continue to receive normal salary but could not commence employment with another employer before 31/8/2015 unless they first get approval of MAS Bhd’s Human Resource Department. For many airline employees, other than basic wages, income from allowances and such if they are working makes up sometimes 50% or more of their monthly take home income. Rightly, all employees of MAS Bhd, irrespective of whether they will be later employed in MAB, should have received the same benefits and ex-gratia on termination by MAS Bhd.

In the name of justice, MAB or Khazanah or the Malaysian government should really take over the obligation of any or all claims of employees and trade unions against MAS Bhd.

Avoiding Just Principles of Lay-Off and Termination

When an employer wants to reduce staff, they would justly retrench the number of workers they no longer need – and there are just  requirements that need to be complied in any retrenchment exercise like the ‘Last In First Out’(LIFO) principle. Here, this is avoided by MAS Bhd simply terminating all employees on 31/8/2015. Justly, the about 6,000 who were no longer required to come into work since June, should have been laid off then and there and paid all their entitlements.

Union Busting?

With the termination of all employees of Malaysia Airlines Systems Bhd (MAS Bhd), it would also mean the demise of about 7 in-house trade unions.

The only national trade union, the National Union of Flight Attendants Malaysia, managed to  show support of 62.73% of the qualified employees, and obtain the Minister’s order that made it  a recognized union in MAS Bhd. Rather than accept this, MAS Bhd  went  for judicial review challenging the Minister’s decision. NUFAM alleges that only 2 out 10 executive committee members of the Union, who are employees in MAS Bhd have been offered employment in the new MAB.

As such, this ‘restructuring exercise of the airline’ and this new law can also be considered a means of union busting.

Loss of Regular Employment Until Retirement

Many workers who are regular employees until retirement in MAS Bhd, who have been offered employment in the new MAB find that they will now become precarious employees on short-term contracts, some even on 3 or 6 months employment contracts. There is no law in Malaysia that stipulates that short-term contract employees will continue as employees if the work they were hired to do still exist. Short-term and other precarious forms of employment also would likely deter union formation or involvement, deter workers from claiming rights and facilitate easier exploitation of workers.

Ignoring Worker and Families Financial Security and Wellbeing

Workers in Malaysia have families and dependents, and also many now have monthly loan-repayment obligations, and justly they should be provided secure regular employment until retirement, whereby they still could be terminated for misconducts, or laid off where the employers has to reduce jobs.

Whilst Malaysia says that it is concerned about the airline business, it has demonstrated a serious lack of concern for the welfare and wellbeing of workers.

We therefore urge:-

That the said Malaysian Airline System Berhad(Administration) Act 2015 be repealed, and the effect this Act has had on workers and trade unions be reversed. No law should be enacted to suspend/deny worker rights for selected employers;

That all pending cases with regard to labour matters, be it with workers or unions, shall be justly resolved or settled forthwith by MAS Bhd, and its owners Khazanah Nasional;

That for all worker and trade union cases against MAS Bhd,  MAB and Khazanah Nasional shall agree to be joined in as parties and assume obligations of MAS Bhd to workers;

That if the Malaysian Airlines is desirous of reducing the number of employees, it be done by letting go employees in compliance with the Last In First Out(LIFO) principle and other established just legal principles;

That if the Malaysian Airlines is to be taken over by another entity, like the Malaysian Airlines Berhad(MAB), workers should be employed by MAB as secure regular employees and not by means of precarious forms of employment like short-term contracts;

That Malaysia considers the rights, welfare and wellbeing of workers and their families are just as important, if not more, than the wellbeing and profits of government-owned or linked businesses.  

Charles Hector

Syed Shahir bin Syed Mohamud

Mohd Roszeli bin Majid

Pranom Somwong

For and on behalf the 66 organisations, trade unions and groups listed below

ALIRAN

Airlines Workers' Union Sarawak

Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma (Altsean-Burma)

Asia Monitor Resource Centre(AMRC), Hong Kong

Centro de Reflexión y Acción Laboral, CEREAL (Labour Studies and Action Centre), México

Center for Orang  Asli Concerns (COAC), Malaysia

Clean Clothes Campaign

Club Employees Union Peninsular Malaysia

Committee for Asian Women

CWI Malaysia (Committee For Workers’ International, Malaysia)

Daeduck Employees Union-Ind., CEPZ, Rosario, Cavite, Philippines

Eagle Ridge Golf Course and Residential Estate Employees Union, Cavite, Philippines

Electronic Industry Employees Union (EIEU) Southern Region, Peninsular Malaysia

Electronic Industry Employees Union(EIEU) Northern Region, Peninsular Malaysia

Garment and Allied Workers Union, Haryana, India

Globalization Monitor

Hye Sung Workers Union, CEPZ, Rosario, Cavite, Philippines

Institut PEREMPUAN (Indonesia)

Jaringan Kampung Orang Asli Semenanjung Malaysia(JKOASM)

Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Perodua

Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Mitsui Copper Foil(MCFEU)

Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja MHS Aviation Berhad(MHSEU)

Kesatuan Eksekutif AIROD

Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perodua Engine Manufacturing Sdn. Bhd

Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional Sdn Bhd (KPP Proton)

Knights For Peace, International

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

Network of Action for Migrants in Malaysia(NAMM)

Nagkakaisang Manggagawa ng Keyrin(trade union), CEPZ, Rosario, Cavite, Philippines

North South Initiative

Malaysian Humanist and Rationalist Movement ("myHARAM")

Malaysian Trade Union Congress(MTUC)

Metal Industry Employees' Union(MIEU), Malaysia

MAP Foundation, Chiangmai, Thailand

Masyarakat Akar Rumput (MAKAR Indonesia)

Migrante International

Myanmar Ethnic Rohingya Human Rights Organization Malaysia (MERHROM)

National Union of Transport Equipment & Allied Industries Workers (NUTEAIW)

National Union of Flight Attendants Malaysia (NUFAM)

National Union of Hotel, Bar and Restaurant Workers (NUHBRW)

National Union of Journalist (NUJ) Cawangan Utusan Melayu

National Union of Tobacco Industry Workers(NUTIW)

National Union Employees in Companies Manufacturing Rubber Products(NUECMRP)

Non-Metallic Mineral Products Manufacturing Employees Union (NMMPMEU)

NUBE (National Union of Banking Employees)

Paper Products Manufacturing Employees’ Union of Malaysia (PPMEU)

Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM)

Peoples Service Organization (PSO)

Perak Women for Women Society (PWW)

PERMAS (Persatuan Masyarakat Selangor & Wilayah Persekutuan)

Persatuan Sahabat Wanita Selangor

Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor

Persatuan Komuniti Prihatin Selangor dan Kuala Lumpur

PINAY (Filipino Women's Organization in Quebec), Canada

Pusat KOMAS

Railwaymen's Union of Malaysia (RUM)

Sahabat Rakyat (人民之友)

School of Acting Justly, Loving Tenderly and Treading humbly (SALT)

Solidarity of Cavite Workers, Cavite, Philippines

Tenaga National  Berhad Junior Officers Union (TNBJOU)

Tenaganita

Workers Assistance Center, Inc (WAC),

WH4C (Workers Hub For Change)

Yayasan LINTAS NUSA Batam – Indonesia

Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja AIROD Sdn Bhd

PROHAM - Society for the Promotion of Human Rights, Malaysia

Do away with state-sponsored killing – Amy Maguire (Malaysian Insider)

Do away with state-sponsored killing – Amy Maguire

Published: 10 August 2015 3:00 PM 

The execution by firing squad of Australian nationals Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran in April this year brought the issue of capital punishment to the forefront of Australia’s consciousness and reignited debate over the practice on a global scale.

The two young men were executed alongside six others in Bali after being convicted of drug offences in Indonesia. In light of this we must ask what sort of crimes – if any – justify state-sanctioned killings.

Public opinion in Australia in relation to the executions was hard to discern. Polls reflected conflicting sentiments on the death penalty. In January 2015, a Roy Morgan poll found 52% supported the penalty for those convicted of drug trafficking overseas. A month later, a conflicting Lowy Institute Poll found 62% of Australian adults opposed the executions of Chan and Sukumaran.
The mixed public opinion in relation to these executions echoed that in evidence when Australians Kevin Barlow and Brian Chambers were hanged in Malaysia in 1986. A historical report from the Australian Institute of Criminology suggested public support for capital punishment at the time ranged from 43% to 70%, depending on the crimes. A national survey in May 1986, however, revealed only 17% supported the death penalty for persons convicted of serious drug trafficking. 

 

Despite the variance in public sentiment, in both cases the Australian government response was strongly stated and in definite opposition to the death penalty. The then prime minister Bob Hawke called the execution of Barlow and Chambers “barbaric”, sparking outrage in Malaysia. The remark drove a wedge between Australia and Malaysia. Relations were only rebuilt after the 2003 retirement of former prime minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

In response to the execution of Sukumaran and Chan, Australia’s prime minister, Tony Abbott, and foreign minister, Julie Bishop, labelled the killings “cruel and unnecessary”. Australia’s official response emphasised the men’s rehabilitation during their ten years on death row.

Hours after their deaths were confirmed, Tony Abbott announced the “unprecedented step” of recalling Australia’s ambassador to Indonesia. As many guessed, however, this move was only short-lived. The ambassador returned quietly about five weeks later.

Although ultimately ineffective, there is no doubt Australia lobbied strongly against the death penalty in the case of Chan and Sukumaran. Australia’s response to the executions reflected the official and well-established view that Australia is opposed to capital punishment in law and policy.

Yet the death penalty is imposed thousands of times each year and in many cases Australia and other abolitionist countries do not lobby strongly in protest. At a time when the issue is fresh in the public mind, an examination of the worldwide practice is warranted.

Which countries execute – and why?

 
Amnesty International reports annually on the imposition of the death penalty globally. It provides only minimum figures, because it only reports figures where reasonable confirmation exists. China, North Korea and some other states treat capital punishment as a state secret. The numbers executed in those states are not reported, although it is estimated that China executes and sentences to death thousands of people each year. Published reports of capital punishment statistics therefore exclude practices in China and North Korea.

In 2014, at least 22 countries carried out the executions of 607 people or more. At least 2,466 people were sentenced to death around the world. The five countries responsible for the most executions, according to confirmed data, were Iran (289), Saudi Arabia (90), Iraq (61), the US (35) and Sudan (23). In the US, 3,035 people were living on death row.

The death penalty is imposed in some countries for “crimes” which are not even regarded as such in many other countries. The Cornell University Law School Project Death Penalty Worldwide charts the practice of capital punishment in all retentionist countries. Australian observers of the death penalty are arguably most familiar with the punishment as it has been applied to drug offenders in some Southeast Asian countries.

However, in Afghanistan, it is legal for the state to execute a person convicted of apostasy, adultery or consensual homosexual sex. In Iran, the death penalty may be imposed for recidivist theft. In Saudi Arabia, executions are carried out as punishment for “crimes” including sorcery, witchcraft and repeat partaking of alcohol.

Although official statistics are unavailable, it is known that Chinese law permits capital punishment for serious graft or bribery offences involving large sums of money.

In 2014, executions were carried out in various countries by beheading, hanging, lethal injection and shooting. In the United Arab Emirates it is legal to execute by stoning. In 2014 all executions in the US were carried out by lethal injection – but some states retain other methods as legal options, including hanging, shooting, the gas chamber and the electric chair.

Amnesty International is currently campaigning to prevent the execution of people with mental or intellectual disabilities. Capital punishment continues to be imposed against people who lack the capacity to adequately understand their actions or punishment.

In January this year, the US states of Texas and Georgia executed intellectually disabled men. This contravened federal court bans on imposing the death penalty in such cases. Texas defines intellectual disability in relation to a character in the John Steinbeck novel Of Mice and Men rather than according to the standards set by medical science.

Globally, and notably in the US, the death penalty is also imposed disproportionately against the poor and those from minority racial and ethnic groups. In violation of international law, Egypt, Iran, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and other countries continue to execute juveniles.

Barbaric and ineffective

 
Even the most pragmatic analysis must reject the death penalty as ineffectual and unreliable. In the US since 1973, more than 150 death row inmates have been exonerated, often based on DNA evidence. There is no evidence that capital punishment is any more effective at deterring crime than life imprisonment.

States that carry out capital punishment debase their justice systems and devalue human life. The practice is indefensible regardless of the severity of the crime for which it is meted out. When imposed against the mentally ill, intellectually disabled people or children – or disproportionately against racial minorities and the poor – capital punishment is barbaric. Abolitionist countries are obliged to lobby against the practice, whether or not it affects their nationals. – The Conversation, August 10, 2015.

* Amy Maguire is lecturer in International Law at University of Newcastle.

  * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.

 

Source:-  - Malaysian Insider, 10/8/2015

Sirul finally disclosing who ordered the killing? Not true it seems...but good if he does soon.

Sirul Azhar Umar and former Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri death sentence must be commuted to imprisonment.

WHY? Besides all the obvious reason why death penalty need to be abolished, in this case there are other reasons..

There has always been doubt whether these 2 persons were acting on their own, a view that gained even more strength when Sirul in Australia allegedly said that he was ordered/instructed/directed to do what he did...Stay alive they must so that we can also unravel who else were involved in the murder, and ensure that all responsible are caught, tried and duly sentenced...

Further, if we look at the trial transcripts, we find that the evidence are 'questionable'..remembering the fact that the 2 never confessed...so (1) Why will they take the police to the allege site and say that this is how and where they killed - doubtful too since it is just the testimony of police officers, uncorroborated with any tape or video recordings; (2) Jewelery in the jacket, and one of them told them this??? - odd, since would not the police have already gone to the house, car, etc of murder suspects to find any evidence that will solidify their belief... to say they went just when the suspect told them is odd to me (or maybe I have been watching too many TV programs), ... In any event, even the Court of Appeal (3 Judges) was not ready to affirm the conviction - and they acquitted both of them.

Political Agenda - PM or his wife may have ordered the killing? This is all not at all relevant for the moment - all that is important is that there should not be a miscarriage of justice...

There will be a 'miscarriage of justice' if they are both executed, and the full truth is thus suppressed..

Some say ' why did Sirul not say so earlier?' Well, if he did, then still this would be tantamount to admitting that he 'murdered' someone, and he would be facing the death penalty. I killed because I was ordered is certainly no defence. It makes sense, that now after the final appeal at the Federal Court is done that he now speaks out... after all, at this stage there is almost nothing to lose anymore...So, it was sad that the police here was not keen to re-open the investigation ...more to find and bring all others involved to justice. It was also most sad that Najib, as Prime Minister, did not call for the investigation to be re-opened...we certainly do not want any accomplice to get away scot free for murder...

 

 

  

 

Lawyer denies Sirul testifying in Aussie court on Altantuya murder

Thursday July 9, 2015
09:30 AM GMT+8

File picture of Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azhar Umar (heads covered) during one of their court appearances in 2009. — Picture by Choo Choy May KUALA LUMPUR, July 9 — Sirul Azhar Umar’s lawyer has dismissed as a hoax a message circulating on WhatsApp that his client will testify in Australian courts that Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor ordered the ex-police commando to murder Altantuya Shaariibuu.

Local daily The Star reported Sirul’s lawyer, Hasnal Rezua Merican, as saying that the message on the mobile messaging app cited a purported report by Australia’s Herald Sun that Rosmah had ordered the killing of the Mongolian woman for blackmailing her husband, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

“I have checked with Sirul and he has absolutely no knowledge of saying any such thing or speaking with any journalist from the Herald Sun,” Hasnal was quoted saying.

“The message, which is being spread, is a hoax, and I believe that it originated in Malaysia and was meant for a local audience,” he added.

The Star reported the lawyer as saying that he could not find any such report by the Herald Sun. Malay Mail Online could not find the purported report either.

Sirul is being held at an immigration detention centre in Sydney when he went to Australia after he and former Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri were acquitted by the Court of Appeal in 2013 of murdering Altantuya.

The Federal Court reversed the acquittal last January and sentenced them to death by hanging.

Sirul has claimed that he had killed the 28-year-old Altantuya under orders, but did not mention who was behind such instructions.

Malaysia is seeking to extradite Sirul home to face his sentencing, but he remains in Sydney as Australian law forbids the government from sending criminals to countries that have the death penalty.

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/lawyer-denies-sirul-testifying-in-aussie-court-on-altantuya-murder#sthash.fXClK8kL.dpuf

Malaysia's Parliamentarians for Global Action (PGA) adopt on 11 June 2015 for abolition of death penalty

Malaysian chapter of Parliamentarians for Global Action (PGA) will play a pivotal role to spearhead the people’s campaign to banish the death penalty....in Kuala Lumpur on June 11 had adopted the stance.

PGA Malaysian Chapter is headed by Tourism and Culture Minister and Padang Rengas MP Nazri Aziz while its deputy chairman is Minister in Prime Minister’s Department and Batang Sadong MP Nancy Sukri...The Secretary is DAP’s Ipoh MP M Kula Segaran

Kula said Nancy, who had raised the issue many times with the federal government, revealed that the Attorney-General in a June 9 reply to her written enquiry said his chamber’s study on the matter was still ongoing.

In 2010, Nazri, then Law Minister, said the federal government intended to abolish the death penalty while the AG in a statement in 2012 said that laws would be introduced to abolish it. 

PGA M’sia to play pivotal role in death penalty abolishment

FMT Reporters

 | June 17, 2015 

 

Its secretary says PGA Malaysia will promote and advance the abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia.

GEORGE TOWN: The Malaysian chapter of Parliamentarians for Global Action (PGA) will play a pivotal role to spearhead the people’s campaign to banish the death penalty.

PGA Malaysia secretary and DAP’s Ipoh MP M Kula Segaran said the chapter’s meeting held in the Parliament House committee room in Kuala Lumpur on June 11 had adopted the stance.

He said PGA Malaysia sensed that there was a strong undercurrent movement in the country to end the death penalty.

However it also acknowledged that stronger public pressure and discussions with all stakeholders were required to bring real and long term changes.

“The meeting decided that PGA Malaysia will play the role of the promotion and advancement of abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia,” said Kula.

PGA is a non-profit, non-partisan international network of committed legislators that informs and mobilises parliamentarians in all regions of the world to advocate for human rights and the rule of law, democracy, human security, non-discrimination, and gender equality.

Currently it consists of over 1,100 legislators in more than 140 elected parliaments around the globe.

PGA Malaysian Chapter is headed by Tourism and Culture Minister and Padang Rengas MP Nazri Aziz while its deputy chairman is Minister in Prime Minister’s Department and Batang Sadong MP Nancy Sukri.

PGA’s Human Rights Committee chairman, Italian MP Mario Marazziti and its secretariat representative Maia Trujillo attended the meeting.

Other members present were Kota Melaka MP Sim Tong Him, Lanang MP Alice Lau Kiong Yieng, Bukit Katil MP Shamsul Iskandar, Ipoh Timur MP Thomas Su and Kapar MP G Manivannan.

Kula, the DAP national vice-chairman said Nazri reaffirmed his stand at the meeting that the death penalty must be abolished.

However Nazri acknowledged that in view of current public pressure, PGA Malaysia must first focus on repealing the mandatory death sentence.

Kula said Nancy, who had raised the issue many times with the federal government, revealed that the Attorney-General in a June 9 reply to her written enquiry said his chamber’s study on the matter was still ongoing.

Marazzitti also briefed the PGA Malaysia about his experience in getting the people and elected representatives to support the abolishment of the death penalty. He has written books on the subject and been instrumental in pushing for it in various countries.

In 2010, Nazri, then Law Minister, said the federal government intended to abolish the death penalty while the AG in a statement in 2012 said that laws would be introduced to abolish it.

“Although the above are positive developments, real changes into the abolishment have yet to materialise.

“In essence, Malaysians were not against the abolishment of the mandatory death penalty,” said Kula. - FMT News,17 June 2015