Quantcast
Channel: CHARLES HECTOR
Viewing all 2589 articles
Browse latest View live

Bar perturbed about deteriorating state of atfairs?

$
0
0
Press Release | Openness, Transparency and Accountability are Indispensable to Eradicate Corruption




Friday, 13 January 2017 11:16am
ImageThe Malaysian Bar is very perturbed by recent reports that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (“MACC”)’s special operations division is being downsized[1], six of its senior officers are being transferred,[2] and its director Bahri Mohamad Zin has taken optional retirement, reportedly due to his unhappiness over the alleged inaction in respect of investigations into SRC International Sdn Bhd, a former subsidiary of 1MDB.[3]  The division reportedly handled high-profile cases relating to 1Malaysia Development Berhad (“1MDB”) and Federal Land Development Authority (“FELDA”).

These developments are disquieting because they reinforce the public perception that although one-and-a-half years have passed since it was revealed that funds of about USD700 million (approximately MYR2.7 billion) were transferred between private banks, offshore companies and funds linked to 1MDB, and then deposited into the personal accounts of the Prime Minister in AmIslamic Bank Berhad,[4] the authorities are reluctant or unwilling to get to the bottom of the serious allegations of financial impropriety concerning 1MDB, and bring action against those guilty of any wrongdoing.

This is in stark contrast to the developments in at least 11 countries— Australia, British Virgin Islands, Hong Kong, Luxembourg, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Singapore, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, United States of America, and Venezuela — where there have been investigations, measures imposed on financial institutions, criminal prosecutions and convictions, and proceedings for forfeiture of assets.

These actions raise serious questions regarding the investigations that are apparently being conducted in our own jurisdiction, and expose the lack of transparency regarding the findings.  It is indeed unsettling that no one has yet been prosecuted in Malaysia for any of the allegations

The Auditor General[5] and the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament were tasked with enquiring into the allegations of serious financial impropriety concerning 1MDB.  It is inexplicable that the Auditor General’s report has been classified as an “official secret” under the Official Secrets Act 1972 and is thereby prohibited from public disclosure,[6] particularly in light of repeated assurances by the Prime Minister that the report would be made public.[7]  This purported classification of the Auditor General’s report is being challenged in court.[8]   

The Public Accounts Committee’s report, which was made public, unequivocally calls on law enforcement agencies to carry out further investigations on Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi[9] — the then-Chief Executive Officer of 1MDB — and others from the 1MDB management who are implicated.  

To this end, the police have completed the first phase of investigations, according to news reports.[10] The Inspector General of Police had said that the investigations would involve interviewing persons overseas and would require the mutual assistance of law enforcement agencies in those foreign countries.  There has been little or no subsequent information on the purportedly ongoing police investigations.  

It has also been reported that our Attorney General has refused to accede to a request from the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland for mutual assistance— notwithstanding earlier assurances by both the Prime Minister and the Attorney General that Malaysia would cooperate with investigations by both the United States and Swiss authorities.[11]   

This is a troubling development that does not bode well for our commitment — as a State Party to the United Nations Convention against Corruption[12] — to assist other States Parties to investigate and prosecute crime and detain suspected criminals.

Further, there appears to be an attempt to deny or restrict the flow of information to Malaysian citizens on matters concerning the allegations made against 1MDB.  On 17 October 2016, the Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat reportedly decided that Ministers need not answer questions in Parliament in relation to the complaint filed by the United States Department of Justice,[13] citing the sub judice rule.[14]  The complaint is “to forfeit assets involved in and traceable to an international conspiracy to launder money misappropriated from 1Malaysia Development Berhad (“1MDB”)”.[15]  Malaysians are surely entitled to full disclosure of all available information pertaining to this undoubtedly weighty public interest matter.

It is difficult to see how proceedings in the United States could be influenced by proceedings in the Malaysian Parliament.  Moreover, our High Court recently decided that, as a matter of general principle, “debates on important public interest issues should not be stifled or be readily sacrificed on the altar of sub judice.”[16] Thus, thesub judice rule must not be used as a convenient cloak to conceal relevant information concerning the Department of Justice’s serious allegations

It is alarming that the attitude of our authorities towards these grave allegations appears to be one of indifference, which has fuelled widespread concerns of complicity with the wrongdoers.

We have witnessed the finding of guilt by the Sessions Court for charges under the Official Secrets Act 1972 for the unauthorised possession of page 98 of the Auditor General’s report, and for exposing the content of the report at a media conference at Parliament.[17]  This is despite recurrent assurances that the Official Secrets Act 1972 was not meant to cover up wrongdoing.[18] 

This series of events is troubling, as it portrays a government that continues to operate in an environment in which freedom of information is denied, transparency of governance is eschewed, and accountability to the public is shirked.  Such are the hallmarks of a mindset mired in the past, where governments purport to decide what is good for the people to know.  This degree of  condescension is antithetical to the development of a mature democracy where the government serves — rather than rules — the people.

We should be mindful of the words of prominent Malaysian economist Jomo Kwame Sundaram, who pointed to a deficit of confidence resulting from the 1MDB scandal: “What is of concern is that over the last one-and-a-half years or so, the ringgit has been steadily declining. . . . There are many other factors behind it, including a loss of confidence in the government as more and more revelations are made about 1MDB.”[19]  The call for transparency and accountability in Malaysia should not be regarded as merely a pious platitude, but a call to protect our economic interests as well. 

The Malaysian Bar calls for a new paradigm of open, transparent, and accountable governance, to eradicate corruption and affirm the rule of law.  We would do well to remember the words of Justice Louis Brandeis who said, “If the broad light of day could be let in upon men’s actions, it would purify them as the sun disinfects.”[20] The scandal engulfing 1MDB must be resolved promptly and its wrongdoers prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, to restore confidence in the administration of justice. 


Steven Thiru
President
Malaysian Bar

13 January 2017


[1] “MACC division that probed SRC allegedly being downsized”, Malaysiakini, 30 December 2016.

[2] “Six MACC officers involved in SRC probe transferred”, Malaysiakini, 31 December 2016.

[3] “MACC denies Bahri resigned due to SRC International”, Free Malaysia Today, 3 January 2016.

[4] (a) “Malaysian Anticorruption Body to Look Into Flow of Money to Najib”, The Wall Street Journal, 3 July 2015;

(b) “Malaysia Orders Freeze of Accounts Tied to Probe of Alleged Transfers to Prime Minister Najib”, The Wall Street Journal, 7 July 2015; and


[5] “1MDB audit begins”, The Sun Daily, 10 March 2015.

[6] “
1MDB audit report ‘secret’ until tabled in Parliament
”, Free Malaysia Today, 7 March 2016.

[7] “
Najib: Auditor-General will present full report on 1MDB
”, Free Malaysia Today, 10 July 2015.

[8] The Malaysian Bar is aware that this is the subject matter of a pending judicial review action by Selangor Menteri Besar (Chief Minister) Dato’ Seri Mohamed Azmin Ali in the High Court.


[10] (a) “
Special task force formed to investigate 1MDB: IGP
”, The Sun Daily, 14 April 2016; 

(b) “
IGP: 1MDB probe progressing, foreign interviews starting soon
”, Malay Mail Online, 21 July 2016; 

(c) “
IGP says in talks with AGC over 1MDB probe results
”, Malay Mail Online, 19 August 2016; and 

(b) “
Malaysia will cooperate with ‘lawful investigations’ of 1MDB, Najib’s office says
”, CNBC, 20 July 2016; and


[12] Malaysia signed the Convention on 9 December 2003, and ratified it on 24 September 2008. Switzerland signed it on 10 December 2003, and ratified it on 24 September 2009.  The Convention entered into force on 14 December 2005.


[14] “
Pandikar: Subjudice to discuss DOJ lawsuit against 1MDB
”, The Sun Daily, 17 October 2016.

[15] DOJ civil suit, para 5.

[16] Khairul Azwan Harun v Mohd Rafizi Ramli [2016] 6 CLJ 49, at para [33].

[17] YB Rafizi Ramli, the Member of Parliament for Pandan, was sentenced to 18 months’ jail for each offence, to be served concurrently.  The Sessions Court granted a stay pending disposal of his appeal to the High Court.



[20] Letter, Louis D Brandeis to Alice Goldmark (26 February 1891), in Louis D Brandeis, Letters of Louis D. BrandeisVolume I, 1870-1907, edited by Melvin I Urofsky and David W Levy (1971), p100.

Malaysia digesa berusaha bawa pulang 2 tahanan Guantanamo (FMT)

$
0
0

Malaysia digesa berusaha bawa pulang 2 tahanan Guantanamo

FMT Reporters
 | January 16, 2017 
 
Mohd Farik Amin dan Mohammed Nazir Lep ditahan lebih 10 tahun tanpa bicara.

camp-delta


PETALING JAYA: Sebuah pertubuhan tempatan yang menentang penggunaan seksaan ke atas tahanan menggesa Malaysia berusaha membawa pulang 2 warga Malaysia yang ditahan tanpa bicara lebih 10 tahun di pusat tahanan Teluk Guantanamo.

Kumpulan Rakyat Malaysia Bantah Hukuman Bunuh dan Seksaan (Madpet) berkata Mohd Farik Amin @ Yazid Zubair dan Mohammed Nazir Lep @ Bashir Lap, yang dituduh sebagai dalang serangan bom 2003 ke atas Hotel JW Marriott di Jakarta, perlu diberikan peluang membuktikan diri mereka tidak bersalah menerusi perbicaraan mahkamah, atau dibebaskan.

Teluk Guantanamo dijadikan pusat penempatan tahanan mewakili beberapa negara yang dituduh Washington sebagai terlibat dalam serangan keganasan, dan tidak terikat dengan undang-undang Amerika Syarikat disebabkan ia terletak di Cuba.

Ia diselubungi kontroversi berikutan pendedahan tahanan diseksa. Presiden Barack Obama berjanji menutup pusat tahanan itu, tetapi sehingga kini ia masih dibuka walaupun hanya beberapa hari Obama akan melepaskan jawatannya.

Sebelum ini, dilaporkan Farik dan Nazir bukan antara kira-kira 20 orang tahanan Guantanamo yang bakal dipindahkan ke penjara AS menjelang hari terakhir Obama pada 20 Januari.
Pengarah Bahagian Counter Terrorism Cawangan Khas Bukit Aman, Datuk Ayob Khan Mydin Pitchay dilaporkan berkata kedua-dua mereka berbahaya, dan memberi amaran pasangan itu boleh mengulangi aktiviti keganasan mereka sekiranya dibebaskan.

“Adakah pendirian polis Malaysia ini berdasarkan siasatan mereka sendiri atau penerimaan apa yang diberitahu kepada mereka oleh pihak berkuasa AS?” soal pengerusi Madpet, Charles Hector dalam kenyataannya.

Beliau mempertikaikan sama ada wujud usaha kerajaan Indonesia membawa mereka ke muka pengadilan atas tuduhan terlibat dalam serangan bom di Jakarta.

Charles berkata kerajaan Malaysia juga perlu memperjelaskan tuduhan ke atas mereka, dan sekiranya tidak ada bukti, mereka perlu dibebaskan. - FMT News, 16/1/2017


Kenyataan Penuh/Full Statement

Media Statement – 16/1/2017

MADPET Urges USA To Immediately Release 2 Malaysians Being Detained Without Trial For Over 10 Years In Guantanamo Bay Detention Centre

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) is shocked to find out that 2 Malaysians have been subjected to detention without trial for allegedly over 10 years in the United States of America’s infamous detention facility in Guantanamo  Bay in Cuba.(FMT News,8/1/2017). Mohd Farik Amin and Mohammed Nazir Lep  have been allegedly detained for about 10 years and 4 months, for allegedly being involved in the 2003 bombing of the JW Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, which killed 12 and injured 150 others.

Article 10 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights clearly states that, "Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.". Everyone have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

It must be pointed out that these 2 Malaysians were amongst the Guantanamo detainees who had been recommended for prosecution by the Guantánamo Review Task Force as of January 2010. But sadly, after almost 7 years, they have yet to be granted their fundamental right to a fair trial.

It is said that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility is controlled by the US military, but not actually part of the country and therefore not subject to US laws. There have been allegations of torture, and also deaths in custody at this detention facility. President Obama, when he became President promised that he will close down this facility, but alas it still remains open.

MADPET is of the opinion that all persons currently detained without trial should be immediately and unconditionally released. It is unconscionable and unjust for persons to be detained without trial, and in the case of these 2  Malaysians, it has been more than 10 years.

Malaysia should have been protesting the detention without trial of any Malaysian, who have been denied their right to fair trial. The failure to come to the aid and assistance is a failure on the part of the government.

Malaysia should certainly not support the justification forwarded by foreign nations to detain without trial, and/or to torture Malaysians. As such, it is most sad that the Malaysian police seems to be now justifying the 10 year plus detention without trial of Malaysians by the US.

MADPET is also disturbed by statements allegedly made by Malaysian police counter-terrorism chief, Ayob Khan Mydin Pitchay, which maybe an attempt to convince the Malaysian public the reason for the detention without trial, and maybe also the failure of the Malaysian government to come to the assistance of these Malaysians overseas – victims of denial of right to a fair trial.

Amongst others, Ayob Khan was quoted saying, ““They are high-ranking members with a great deal of influence. There is a high possibility they might return to their militant ways and join other groups, especially the Islamic State,”.  It may be of interest to know whether the Malaysian police’s view is based on their own investigation, or simply an acceptance of what the US detaining authority told them. Are there even attempts by the Indonesian government to get these 2 Malaysians to be charged and tried in Indonesian courts for their alleged crimes related to the bombing in Jakarta?

The police officer’s, public prosecutor’s and/or the government’s belief in the guilt or innocence is irrelevant because no one is guilty unless tried and convicted after a fair trial.

If they have broken laws in Malaysia, then they must forthwith be brought back, charged in court and tried. If they have not broken any Malaysian laws, then, of course, Malaysia will have no justification to arrest or detain them on return to Malaysia. Continued detention without trial in Malaysia is not acceptable.

The said media report indicated that  ‘…Ayob said that if the two were transferred back to Malaysia, they would be placed in the de-radicalisation programme, which has been proven to be effective…’. There also was a similar suggestion made earlier ‘…last September, deputy prime minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said Nazir might be transferred to Malaysia but he would have to continue the de-radicalisation programme in jail…’

MADPET is extremely concerned about what is meant by this ‘de-radicalisation programme in jail’, and hope that Malaysia is not proposing detention under trial under POCA(Prevention of Crime Act), POTA(Prevention of Terrorism Act) or some other Detention Without Trial law.

This is unacceptable and MADPET reiterates that Malaysia must abolish all detention without trial laws, and immediately release all those currently being detained and/or being subjected to restrictions by virtue of these draconian POCA and/or POTA.

Therefore, MADPET

Calls on the United States of America(USA) to immediately release Mohd Farik Amin, Mohammed Nazir Lep,any other Malaysians and others currently being detained without trial in Guantanamo Bay Detention facility and other detention facilities in or under the control of the USA.

Call on the Malaysian government to do the needful to ensure that human rights of Malaysians, including the right to fair trial, of those currently being held in Guantanamo Bay Detention facility and detention facilities overseas are always respected and protected;

Reiterate our call on Malaysia to immediately repeal the Prevention Of Crime Act 1959(POCA), Prevention Of Terrorism Act 2015(POTA)    any such Detention Without Trial laws; and

Reiterate our call for the immediate and unconditional release of all persons currently being detained/restricted under Prevention Of Crime Act 1959(POCA) or any such Detention Without Trial laws.

Charles Hector
For and on behalf of
MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

MADPET Urges USA To Immediately Release 2 Malaysians Being Detained Without Trial For Over 10 Years In Guantanamo Bay Detention Centre

$
0
0


Media Statement – 16/1/2017

MADPET Urges USA To Immediately Release 2 Malaysians Being Detained Without Trial For Over 10 Years In Guantanamo Bay Detention Centre

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) is shocked to find out that 2 Malaysians have been subjected to detention without trial for allegedly over 10 years in the United States of America’s infamous detention facility in Guantanamo  Bay in Cuba.(FMT News,8/1/2017). Mohd Farik Amin and Mohammed Nazir Lep  have been allegedly detained for about 10 years and 4 months, for allegedly being involved in the 2003 bombing of the JW Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, which killed 12 and injured 150 others.

Article 10 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights clearly states that, "Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.". Everyone have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

It must be pointed out that these 2 Malaysians were amongst the Guantanamo detainees who had been recommended for prosecution by the Guantánamo Review Task Force as of January 2010. But sadly, after almost 7 years, they have yet to be granted their fundamental right to a fair trial.

It is said that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility is controlled by the US military, but not actually part of the country and therefore not subject to US laws. There have been allegations of torture, and also deaths in custody at this detention facility. President Obama, when he became President promised that he will close down this facility, but alas it still remains open.

MADPET is of the opinion that all persons currently detained without trial should be immediately and unconditionally released. It is unconscionable and unjust for persons to be detained without trial, and in the case of these 2  Malaysians, it has been more than 10 years.

Malaysia should have been protesting the detention without trial of any Malaysian, who have been denied their right to fair trial. The failure to come to the aid and assistance is a failure on the part of the government.

Malaysia should certainly not support the justification forwarded by foreign nations to detain without trial, and/or to torture Malaysians. As such, it is most sad that the Malaysian police seems to be now justifying the 10 year plus detention without trial of Malaysians by the US.

MADPET is also disturbed by statements allegedly made by Malaysian police counter-terrorism chief, Ayob Khan Mydin Pitchay, which maybe an attempt to convince the Malaysian public the reason for the detention without trial, and maybe also the failure of the Malaysian government to come to the assistance of these Malaysians overseas – victims of denial of right to a fair trial.

Amongst others, Ayob Khan was quoted saying, ““They are high-ranking members with a great deal of influence. There is a high possibility they might return to their militant ways and join other groups, especially the Islamic State,”.  It may be of interest to know whether the Malaysian police’s view is based on their own investigation, or simply an acceptance of what the US detaining authority told them. Are there even attempts by the Indonesian government to get these 2 Malaysians to be charged and tried in Indonesian courts for their alleged crimes related to the bombing in Jakarta?

The police officer’s, public prosecutor’s and/or the government’s belief in the guilt or innocence is irrelevant because no one is guilty unless tried and convicted after a fair trial.

If they have broken laws in Malaysia, then they must forthwith be brought back, charged in court and tried. If they have not broken any Malaysian laws, then, of course, Malaysia will have no justification to arrest or detain them on return to Malaysia. Continued detention without trial in Malaysia is not acceptable.

The said media report indicated that  ‘…Ayob said that if the two were transferred back to Malaysia, they would be placed in the de-radicalisation programme, which has been proven to be effective…’. There also was a similar suggestion made earlier ‘…last September, deputy prime minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said Nazir might be transferred to Malaysia but he would have to continue the de-radicalisation programme in jail…’

MADPET is extremely concerned about what is meant by this ‘de-radicalisation programme in jail’, and hope that Malaysia is not proposing detention under trial under POCA(Prevention of Crime Act), POTA(Prevention of Terrorism Act) or some other Detention Without Trial law.

This is unacceptable and MADPET reiterates that Malaysia must abolish all detention without trial laws, and immediately release all those currently being detained and/or being subjected to restrictions by virtue of these draconian POCA and/or POTA.

Therefore, MADPET

Calls on the United States of America(USA) to immediately release Mohd Farik Amin, Mohammed Nazir Lep,any other Malaysians and others currently being detained without trial in Guantanamo Bay Detention facility and other detention facilities in or under the control of the USA.

Call on the Malaysian government to do the needful to ensure that human rights of Malaysians, including the right to fair trial, of those currently being held in Guantanamo Bay Detention facility and detention facilities overseas are always respected and protected;

Reiterate our call on Malaysia to immediately repeal the Prevention Of Crime Act 1959(POCA), Prevention Of Terrorism Act 2015(POTA)    any such Detention Without Trial laws; and

Reiterate our call for the immediate and unconditional release of all persons currently being detained/restricted under Prevention Of Crime Act 1959(POCA) or any such Detention Without Trial laws.

Charles Hector
For and on behalf of
MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

*****

Will Obama send Malaysia terror accused home?

FMT Reporters
 | January 8, 2017 
Malaysia doesn't recognise the US court's authority on them and the Americans have their concerns with the law here so it'll be difficult, say sources.

camp-delta 

PETALING JAYA: Two Malaysian militants held in Guantanamo Bay, the United States’ infamous military prison in Cuba, are unlikely to be among the 22 detainees transferred back to their home or other countries, reported a local portal.

According to The Star Online, intelligence sources said the “long and difficult” transfer process meant it was unlikely that Mohd Farik Amin aka Yazid Zubair, and Mohammed Nazir Lep aka Bashir Lap, would be sent to Malaysia.

Farik and Nazir reportedly had a role to play in the 2003 bombing of the JW Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, which killed 12 and injured 150 others.

Before this, Daily Mail reported that outgoing US President Barrack Obama was planning to transfer 22 detainees before Jan 20, the date Donald Trump will be sworn in.

The targets for release were reportedly those who have been detained for more than 10 years — and both Farik and Nazir have been there for 10 years and four months.

But intelligence sources The Star Online spoke to ruled out the two being transferred back to Malaysia.

“It is a long and difficult process. Both countries must agree on the method of transfer and a suitable location, as well as duration to hold these prisoners in Malaysia,” the source told The Star.

It is understood that the US government was seeking to charge and sentence Farik and Nazir in a US military court but have the remainder of that prison term served in Malaysia.

Another source said the problem with this was that Malaysia didn’t recognise the military court’s authority and that the US didn’t agree with the Prevention of Crime Act, which Malaysia may use to detain the two.

Malaysian police counter-terrorism chief, Ayob Khan Mydin Pitchay said Farik and Nazir posed a high level of danger, given their involvement in international militant organisations, al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiah.

He said Farik was an explosives expert, while Nazir specialised in hijacking American interests in the region.

“They are high-ranking members with a great deal of influence. There is a high possibility they might return to their militant ways and join other groups, especially the Islamic State,” said Ayob, who is Bukit Aman Special Branch Counter Terrorism Division head.

In recent times, a number of Malaysians have left the country to join Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, with some even becoming suicide bombers.

Authorities in Malaysia have voiced concerns about returning militants attempting such activities here.
Ayob said that if the two were transferred back to Malaysia, they would be placed in the de-radicalisation programme, which has been proven to be effective.

Last September, deputy prime minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said Nazir might be transferred to Malaysia but he would have to continue the de-radicalisation programme in jail. - FMT News, 8/1/2017

****


Citizens of Malaysia

Two citizens of Malaysia have been held at Guantánamo. The detainees include Zubair (Mohd Farik Bin Amin) and Lillie (Mohammed Nazir Bin Lep).
NameCitizenshipStatus2010 Task Force Determination
Lillie (Mohammed Nazir Bin Lep)MalaysiaHeldRecommended for prosecution
Zubair (Mohd Farik Bin Amin)MalaysiaHeldRecommended for prosecution




Source:-
The Guantanamo Docket

Custodial death: Police behaviour ‘reprehensible and unconstitutional’

$
0
0

Custodial death: Police behaviour ‘reprehensible and unconstitutional’

by Prema Devaraj -
0
Activists remembering those who died in custody - Photo credit: http://ousel.blogspot.com/
Prema Devaraj wonders how effective efforts have been in halting custodial deaths or bringing about accountability in custodial deaths. 

By all accounts, it was an avoidable death. It is just that neither the IO (investigating officer) nor the police personnel bothered to take the necessary steps to send the deceased to hospital. If this is not behaviour which is reprehensible and unconstitutional, then I do not know what is…

Strong words from Justice S Nantha Balan in reference to the negligence of certain police officers in not providing timely medical assistance to Mr P Chandran, which resulted in his death four years ago when he was in the police lock-up in Dang Wangi.

In Justice S Nantha Balan’s written grounds for judgment, Mr Chandran’s death was avoidable, and the following were highlighted in media reports. The police personnel involved:
That Mr Chandran’s death was only noticed 12 hours after he died in the lock-up makes one wonder about the work ethic of the police officers involved and makes a mockery of the use of CCTV in lock-ups to monitor situations.

The Lock-Up Rules 1953 state the roles and responsibilities of police officers in charge of detainees in the lock-up. In this case, Justice Nantha Balan reportedly said he found hardly any or any credible evidence to show that the Lock-Up Rules 1953 were complied with.

Media reports on the 86-page judgment presented in court point to the lack of respect the police officers involved had for either Mr Chandran’s life or the laws pertaining to the rights of detainees in lock-ups.
Deaths in police custody have long been a shame factor for the police. Estimates from statistics released by the police over the years suggest at least one death in police custody per month.

Rogue officers who are responsible for such deaths and the lack of accountability over these deaths continue to smear the name of PDRM and erode the public’s trust in and respect for the police, who are meant to ensure the safety of the public, including those in custody.

In awarding RM357, 000 in damages to the family, Justice S Nantha Balan has acknowledged that a wrong doing has occurred and has attempted to rectify the situation through compensation, not that it can bring Mr Chandran back.

However Justice S Nantha Balan noted that no action had been taken against any of the police officers arising out of Mr Chandran’s death despite Sessions Judge Ahmad Bache, who sat as coroner, ruling in January 2014 that Mr Chandran’s death could have been averted had the police performed their duties and responsibilities.

How is it possible that no criminal charges were laid against the police officers involved?

Mr Chandran’s family have lived not only with the loss of Mr Chandran but also with the knowledge that those responsible for his death have not been charged or prosecuted with any crime.

This is not the first time something like this has happened in our country. We live at a time in our country’s history when making people accountable for their actions seems very difficult to do and integrity is sorely lacking.

And yet, it is these very principles of accountability and integrity that are needed to pull us out of the abyss of wrongdoing and inaction our nation has been dragged into.

Perhaps we may see these principles emerge as the MACC casts its nets over corrupt civil servants and pledges to eliminate graft by 2020.

However we might all believe in the process and the pledge better if the elephant in the room (ie the 1MDB scandal) is not spared diligent investigation and rigorous prosecution.

In the same vein, there must also be accountability in PDRM, especially over custodial deaths. We have witnessed the proposal and rejection of the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) over 10 years ago, the setting up of the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) and the coroner’s court, and more recently the introduction of the Self-Monitoring Analytics Reporting Technology (Smart) system to monitor inmates.

In 2015, there was the campaign #ACT4CAT to urge the government to accede to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT). The government was also urged to take the necessary legislative, policy and administrative measures to ensure the effective prevention of any practice that could lead to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

In 2016, the Bar Council renewed its call to the Malaysian government to establish the IPCMC. Suhakam, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, in marking Human Rights Day in December 2016 noted the issue of custodial deaths among other issues and called on the government to accede to the UNCAT.

One can only wonder how effective these efforts have been in halting custodial deaths or bringing about accountability in custodial deaths. The release of comprehensive statistics on custodial deaths is crucial in evaluating the situation and monitoring progress, if any, in this area.

For now, Justice S Nantha Balan’s use of the words “behaviour which is reprehensible and unconstitutional” rings true not just for the police officers responsible for the death of Mr Chandran – but for all those who, although having the power to stop such deaths and hand over rogue police officers for prosecution, continue to look the other way and perpetuate a culture of silence and denial over the issue of custodial deaths. - ALIRAN Website

Philippine : Do not revive the Death Penalty [ADPAN]

$
0
0
Philippine : Do not revive the Death Penalty

ADPAN strongly urges all members of the Philippine House of Representative and Senate to reject the reinstatement of the death penalty and uphold the rights to life as enshrined in the Constitution.

Reinstating the death penalty would violate Philippine’s international legal obligations, in particular, the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the country has ratified.

The reasons behind the reinstatement of the death penalty are ill founded and purely a political one. Numerous studies and analysis have concluded that death penalty does not deter crime. Indeed, there has been no existing reliable evidence to prove otherwise.

ADPAN also wishes to highlight that the UN Office on Drugs and Crime has consistently called for the abolishment of death penalty on drug related offences, citing that such irreversible and oppressive laws are not an effective prevention and solution and it is not supported by international drug conventions.

It is also to be noted that on 11th January 2017, Deputy Prime Minister of Thailand Mr Wisanu Krea-ngarm had said that Thailand would eventually do away with death penalty by trying to amend the law to find alternative to the capital punishment, taking into consideration the global trend on abolition.

The Malaysian government has also announced its intention to abolish the mandatory death penalty on drug offences while a comprehensive study is now underway that may also see the total abolition of the death penalty.

Philippine, if successfully revive the death penalty, would not only move backward in its human rights standards and obligations, and would also not be in line with the progress made by its neighboring countries towards the eventual abolition of death penalty.

ADPAN states its disappointment that this Bill to reinstate the death penalty is being rushed on 16 January 2017 when the House of Representative resumes, and urges all members of the House of Representative and Senate to consider it carefully and reject it, respecting and upholding the right to life.

Ngeow Chow Ying
For and on behalf of the
ADPAN Executive Committee
15 January 2017



The Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) is an independent cross-regional network committed to working for an end to the death penalty across the Asia Pacific region. ADPAN is made up of NGOs, organizations, civil society groups, lawyers and individual members, not linked to any political party, religion or government and campaigns against the death penalty. It currently has members in 28 countries: Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, China, Denmark, France, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Spain, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Tonga, Vietnam, UK, USA.

BERSIH 2.0:- Kelantan, Hentikan Penindasan Orang Asli/ Stop harassing the Orang Asli?

$
0
0
Inline image 1

Kenyataan media
25 Januari 2017

Hentikan Tindasan Terhadap Orang Asli

BERSIH 2.0 amat terkejut mendapat tahu bahawa Jabatan Perhutanan Kelantan (JPK) sekali lagi telah memusnahkan sekatan Orang Asli di Simpang Petei dan menahan lima orang aktivis semalam.

Tindakan yang tidak bertimbang rasa ini adalah suatu ancaman terhadap kehidupan masyarakat Orang Asli, dan bersifat ketamakan. Sebagai peringatan, penduduk Orang Asli di Simpang Petei telah diiktiraf sebagai pemilik sah kepada tanah tersebut dalam suatu keputusan mahkamah minggu lepas. (http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/369558)

Tindakan Jabatan Perhutanan jelas sekali telah mencabul hak asasi manusia dan menjejaskan hak kehidupan Orang Asli kerana kehidupan mereka berkait rapat dengan tanah adat.

BERSIH 2.0 juga dimaklumkan bahawa aktivis-aktivitis yang ditahan tidak dibawa ke balai polis, tetapi dibawa ke pejabat Jabatan Perhutanan. Pegawai-pegawai turut merampas barangan peribadi seperti motosikal dan telefon bimbit, dan menghalang perhubungan luar dengan komuniti Orang Asli di sana.

Pagi ini, 16 lagi orang aktivis dan dua wartawan juga telah ditahan. Jabatan Perhutanan juga dilaporkan sedang bersedia memusnahkan satu lagi sekatan Orang Asli.

Perbuatan Jabatan Perhutanan Kelantan adalah keterlaluan. Mereka telah melampaui bidang kuasa serta mengabaikan semua prosedur dan proses undang-undang berkaitan. Kelakuan mereka menyerupai samseng dan melanggar undang-undang Malaysia. Ini tidak boleh digalakkan atau ditoleransi lagi.

Kerajaan negeri Kelantan mesti memohon maaf dengan serta-merta dan mengiktiraf secara terbuka hakmilik Orang Asli ke atas tanah adat mereka.

Segala penindasan dan pemusnahan harta yang dilakukan terhadap masyarakat Orang Asli juga mesti dihentikan segera. Semua aktiviti pembalakan haram di hutan simpanan kekal Balah juga perlu dihentikan kerana bertentangan dengan undang-undang dan hak masyarakat Orang Asli.

Ditandatangani oleh ahli-ahli jawatankuasa pemandu BERSIH 2.0.




 Press statement
25 January 2017 
Stop harassing the Orang Asli
BERSIH 2.0 is horrified to learn that the Kelantan Forestry Department has once again destroyed the Orang Asli blockade at Simpang Petei and arrested five activists yesterday.
Their heartless action shows once again a complete disregard for Orang Asli life and livelihood in favour of greed. It bears reminding that the Orang Asli are the rightful owners of the land, a right that was supported by the court’s decision last week. (http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/369558)
What the Forestry Department is doing is a flagrant abuse of human rights, threatening the Orang Asli’s fundamental right to life as their way of life is tied to their ancestral land.
BERSIH 2.0 has also learned that the arrested activists were not taken to the police station, but rather to the Forestry Department office. The officers confiscated personal effects such as motorcycles and handphones and were actively trying to isolate the Orang Asli community.
Just this morning, 16 more activists and two journalists were also arrested. There are also plans to destroy another Orang Asli blockade.
The Forestry Department has gone too far. They have overstepped their authority and jurisdiction ignoring all due process and protocol. Their conduct is that of thugs and gangsters and are simply against the law. It must not and will not be tolerated.
The Kelantan state government must immediately apologise and publicly declare its recognition of the Orang Asli's right to their land.
All harassment and destruction of their properties must stop immediately. All logging activities in the Balah permanent forest reserve must also cease as such actions are illegal and against the rights of the Orang Asli. 


Signed by the BERSIH 2.0 Steering Committee members

--
Yap Pik Kuan
Media & Comms Officer

BERSIH 2.0 SecretariatTel. No : 03-7931 4444 / 019-4380428
Fax No : 03-7931 4111
Email: media@bersih.org

KELANTAN (kerajaan PR) - Orang Asli, Pembalakkan? Apa pendirian PAS, PKR, DAP?

$
0
0
Apa pendirian PAS, DAP dan PKR(parti component Pakatan Rakyat), yang berjaya menubuhkan kerajaan PR di Kelantan, kini di bawah pimpinan Menteri Besar PAS, mengenai isu berkenaan Orang Asli(perobohan 'blockade', penangkapan dan tahanan, kerosakkan harta benda), berkenaan dakwaan pembalakan haram dan korupsi di Kelantan? Dalam PRU akhir, rakyat Malaysia telah memilih Pakatan Rakyat sebagai kerajaan untuk 3 buah negeri di Malaysia - tak kira siapa yang menjadi Menteri Besar, setiap negeri itu adalah di bawah pemerintahan Pakatan Rakyat (PAS-DAP-PKR). Walaupun perhubungan antara parti berkenaan tidak se-erat dahulu, tak jadi hal kerana kesemua negeri tersebut adalah tanggungjawab kesemua PKR, DAP dan PAS.

Bila ada sesuatu yang tak betul berlaku di dalam kerajaan tadbiran Najib dan kerajaan BN, cepat benar parti politik pembangkang keluar menghebohkan isu dan berpendirian bahawa sesuatu itu tidak adil atau melanggar hak asasi...

Apa pula respon parti politik DAP, PKR dan PAS apabila sesuatu berlaku dalam negeri yang ditadbir kerajaan pembangkang saperti Pulau Pinang, Selangor dan/atau Kelantan? Adakah berdiam diri sahaja -- adakah tak peduli? 

Adakah parti pembangkang sama dengan parti-parti Barisan Nasional, tak mahu mengambil pendirian bila sesuatu yang tidak wajar atau tidak adil berlaku dalam kerajaan pembangkang? Adakah parti pembangkang sama saperti ASEAN, di mana negara ASEAN biasa tak akan mengebohkan salahlaku, pencabulan hak asasi dan ketidakadilan yang berlaku di negara ASEAN lain - tetapi dalam ASEAN pun sudah bertukar di mana kerajaan Malaysia telah berganjak dari tradisi mengenai isu Rohingya?

Justeru, apakah pendirian parti pembangkang tentang apa yang telah berlaku kepada Orang Asli di Gua Musang? Tentang dakwaan pembalakan haram ...mungkin juga korupsi dan kleptocracy? 

Tindakan terus berdiam diri, dan tidak mengambil pendirian ini amat membimbangkan. Rakyat tertanya adakah pembangkang juga sama saperti BN? Adakah ahli politik dan parti akan tidak menghiraukan salah laku 'kawan'? 

Dalan isu ketidakadilan, pencabulan hak, salahlaku...prinsip dan nilai saja yang akan menentukan respon dan tindakan. Lawan atau kawan, jika lakukan salah harus ditegur..kerana objektif utama adalah kearah sebuah negara dan kerajaan dimana tidak ada ketidakadilan, tidak ada pencabulan hak, tidak ada korupsi, tidak ada kleptocracy,...di mana sentiasa BERSIH, CEKAP dan AMANAH?

Adakah kesenyapan ahli politik dan parti politik kerana tidak mahu menjejaskan perhubungan apabila PRU akan datang boleh berlaku bila-bila masa? Tak boleh diterima alasan sedemikian..

Apa yang berlaku adalah di Kelantan di bawah pentadbiran Menteri Besar - justeru PAS juga harus bersuara? ADUN Pas (khusus backbencher) juga harus bersuara? Jika ini merupakan kesalahan Menteri Besar - mungkin Menteri Besar harus ditukar sahaja? Isu korupsi dan pembalakkan di Kelantan telah ditimbulkan seorang pemimpin PAS (Husam Musa), dan sedih sekali tindakan PAS adalah membuang beliau dari Parti - sama juga dengan cara BN? Adakah ini nilai dan cara Islam yang dilaungkan PAS? Apa pendirian PAS tentang apa yang berlaku?

Kini response 'rakan parti pembangkang lain' dan juga ADUN dan MP pembangkang nampaknya amat mengecewakan...kita harap bahawa mereka akan segera membuat pendirian dan bertindak memastikan keadilan...Jika tidak, rakyat akan ingat bila PRU tiba...

Senang untuk mengatakan bahawa punca masalah ini adalah Putrajaya dan undang-undang Persekutuan - tetapi rakyat Orang Asli ini adalah rakyat Kelantan, dan Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan yang akhirnya bertanggungjawab mengenai pembalakkan di Negeri itu serta juga tanggungjawab memastikan hak Orang Asli negeri itu  dihormati. Adakah pembalakan secara haram berlaku - tanpa permit/persetujuan Kerajaan Negeri? Jika kebenaran telah diberikan, bukankah Kerajaan Negeri sendiri yang gagal mengambil kira hak rakyat Orang Asli di kawasan berkenaan? Jawapan diperlukan daripada Menteri Besar Kelantan mengenai isu ini...

Mungkin kini fokus kepada Kelantan - tetapi isu sama melibatkan rakyat miskin juga telah timbul di negeri lain pentadbiran kerajaan pembangkang. Parti Pembangkang mesti jangan sahaja menumpukan perhatian mahu menang PRU akan datang, kerusi yang akan ditanding atau siapa harus jadi Perdana Menteri bila Pembangkang menang - Tumpuan harus diberikan kepada mendedahkan apakah polisi dan perancangan alternatif untuk Malaysia (ini mesti ditentukan sekarang sebelum PRU)...Rakyat mahukan alternatif dan tidak sama sekali mahukan 'kerajaan baru' yang akan mentadbir dengan cara yang sama dengan BN - di mana rakyat miskin terpinggir terus dilupakan, di mana masih lagi akan ada korupsi dan kleptokrasidalam kerajaan baru,...

RAKYAT BUKAN BODOH - Mereka akan memilih MP dan ADUN terbaik, harap-harap daripada parti politik yang berprinsip yang akan membawa perubahan positif...

Dalam isu Orang Asli ini, Mahkamah nampaknya telah membuat keputusan...SUHAKAM juga telah menyatakan pendirian, banyak orang dan pertubuhan, termasuk BERSIH telah bersuara...

PRESS STATEMENT


KUALA LUMPUR (24 JANUARY 2017) - The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) is appalled at the decision by the Forestry Department of Kelantan to demolish another Orang Asli blockade in Gua Musang, Kelantan. SUHAKAM is informed that these blockades are set up by the Orang Asli to protect the forests and their customary lands from uncontrolled logging by companies, causing among others, severe floods in several areas in Kelantan, as well as destroying properties belonging to the Orang Asli.

SUHAKAM is deeply concerned that this marginalized and vulnerable community who are among Malaysia’s poorest minority have been targets of long-standing discrimination, exclusion and more recently, violence.

These blockades are a symbol of protest by them, opposing unrestrained commercialisation of the forests, which violates the many established principles on business and human rights, such as the duty of the State to protect, and duty of businesses to respect the human rights of the Orang Asli.

SUHAKAM in its National Inquiry in 2013 found that the Orang Asli face substantial, discriminatory and unbearable obstacles to the exercise and enjoyment of their rights to own, possess and control their lands and territories despite international recognition and acceptance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees the fundamental rights of all human beings. To date, even the basic rights of the Orang Asli remain without safeguards in Government policies and/or legislation.

SUHAKAM emphasizes that the Government must take concrete steps to expedite the implementation of the recommendations of the National Task Force Committee that has in principle accepted  17 out of the 18 recommendations by SUHAKAM. While these recommendations have been separated into 3 stages pending implementation, the Forestry Department and State Government of Kelantan have failed to respect these Government initiatives.

Despite clear evidence that the situation of the Orang Asli constitutes a serious derogation of Malaysia’s obligations to respect, protect and fulfil their rights, the Government has done little to meaningfully address their situation, and the Orang Asli continue to lose more land and with it the enjoyment of related rights. As a Government agency entrusted to oversee all affairs of the Orang Asli, JAKOA must fulfil its role by resolving the ongoing challenges faced by the Orang Asli.

SUHAKAM continues to receive complaints and the Orang Asli have expressedtheir disappointment towards the Government for the slow progress on the implementation of the recommendations of SUHAKAM’s National Inquiry.

SUHAKAM reiterates that major legislative and administrative reforms are needed to adequately define and protect the rights of the Orang Asli over their lands and resources, and decisive steps are necessary to urgently to find solutions that would allow the Orang Asli to recover their lands and territories. SUHAKAM also calls for a review of the National Forestry Act 1984.

SUHAKAM emphasises that the land rights of indigenous peoples play a key role in terms of the protection of our jungles and rainforests in the long run for our future generation.

TAN SRI RAZALI ISMAIL
Chairman
The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
24 January 2017
 
Sumber: Laman Web SUHAKAM  
Post berkaitan:-

BERSIH 2.0:- Kelantan, Hentikan Penindasan Orang Asli/ Stop harassing the Orang Asli?




Adakah rakyat Malaysia mahu jadi 'racist', bersikap perkauman? Apakah nilai dan prinsip asas kamu?

$
0
0

Adakah kamu 'racist'? Adakah kamu hanya mahu PM atau DPM daripada golongan etnik, agama, parti...anda? Atau adakah anda mahu yang terbaik, tak kira etnik atau agama atau parti politik?

Siapa yang harus jadi Perdana Menteri adalah Wakil Rakyat yang berkelayakkan. Perlembagaan Negara menyatakan bahawa ia merupakan individu yang mempunyai sokongan majoriti Ahli Parlimen, itu sahaja...tak ada syarat mengenai golongan ethnik atau agama, atau dari parti mana?

Apakah nilai yang dipegang rakyat Malaysia? Adakah rakyat Malaysia 'racist'? Adakah rakyat Malaysia prejudis? Adakah hanya lelaki Melayu yang boleh jadi pemimpin, Menteri Besar dan Perdana Menteri? Adakah anda akan membenarkan tokoh dan pemimpin politik senang memupuk nilai dan prinsip yang 'kurang murni'?

Sedih di Malaysia, parti-parti yang memegang kuasa sejak Kemerdekaan yang berkuasa adalah parti mewakili etnik tertentu, dan justeru untuk kewujudan terus parti sedemikian, perlu sangat 'racism' diperkasakan - perlu sangat rakyat etnik lain ditakuti dengan pendekatan bahawa sekira mereka tidak sokong parti kaum sendiri - mereka akan dianiyai oleh kaum lain jika parti lain berjaya merebut kuasa...

UMNO(Melayu), MCA(Cina), MIC(India)...tetapi strategi tersebut mungkin sudah gagal kerana rakyat Malaysia mungkin sudah ketepikan sifat perkauman dan menjadi rakyat Malaysia, tak kira etnik atau agama.

Adakah anda hanya prihatin kesejahteraan mereka daripada kumpulkan ethnik anda? mereka se agama dengan anda? mereka senegeri dengan anda? ATAU adakah anda prihatin tentang semua rakyat Malaysia (bukan sahaja itu tetapi setiap orang warga dunia?)

Jika ada mempunyai kapasiti membantu mereka yang menghadapi ketidakadilan dan/atau kesusahan? Andakah anda akan memilih membantu mereka sama etnik atau agama dahulu sebelum membantu orang lain ATAU adakah anda akan membantu mereka yang paling susah dan paling tertindas...

UMNO, MCA, MIC dan parti sedemikian seharus sudah lama bertukar membuka pintu menjadi parti untuk semua rakyat Malaysia...tetapi malangnya mereka takut...dan untuk terus berkuasa 'racism' diberikan tekanan... 

Statistik setempat bila sampai PRU masih lagi mengambil kira berapa Melayu, berapa Cina, berapa India, berapa 'lain-lain'..kenapa? Bukankah lebih baik kita hanya melihat berapa orang rakyat Malaysia? [Berapa sebenar bilangan orang Melayu di Malaysia? Lebih kurang 55% sahaja - dan kini sukar sekali mendapat statistik peratusan/bilangan orang Melayu di Malaysia  - kini digunakan perkataan lain iaitu 'Bumiputra' yang merupakan gabungan Melayu, orang Sabah dan Sarawak, Orang Asli, India Muslim (Ya, dahulu bapa MIC kinik anak UMNO...?). 



Baru ini berita mencadangkan bahawa Ahli ParlimenDAP akan dipilih jadi Perdana Menteri? Sedih ramai terus memikirkan yang Perdana Menteri Malaysia akan menjadi seorang dari golongan etnik Cina - sedih?? DAP ada juga ramai ahli berbilang kaum - tetapi BN selalu mahu gambarkan DAP sebagai parti 'Cina' - Ini tidak benar...Jika MP yang terlayak jadi Perdana Menteri adalah seorang etnik Iban, Kadazan, Orang Asli, Indonesia, Thai, India atau Cina - adakah kita tolak semua, hanya mahukan orang 'Melayu' menjadi PM - bukankah ini sifat 'perkauman"...dan bukan rational - kita mahu pimpinan terbaik...CEO terbaik untuk Malaysia?

Bila kerajaan UMNO_BN memilih 'orang putih' jadi CEO dan pegawai tinggi MAS, orang yang membantah tidak mahu PM bukan Melayu, tidak pun menimbulkan bantahan bila CEO dan pegawai tinggi syarikat milik penuh kerajaan mereka yang bukan warga negara - Mengapa?

Adakah kita mahu orang yang terbaik yang merupakan warganegara Malaysia menjadi Perdana Menteri Malaysia? Atau adakah kita hanya mahukan seorang "Melayu" atau "Islam"? Kerajaan kini dipimpin Najib, Melayu dan Islam - tetapi nyata ada banyak kelemahan? Bukankah kita harus memilih seorang Malaysia sahaja yang berkelayakan terbaik - tak kira jantina, tak kira agama, tak kira etnik - hanya asalkan ia rakyat Malaysia?

Taktik UMNO-BN memisahkan rakyat berasaskan etnik masih digunakan - beberapa hari lalu, telah pun menjadi berita penting - kononnya Lim Kit Siang mahu jadi DPM? Adakah ini berita penting? Atau adakah ini hanya untuk menimbulkan rasa 'racist' di kalangan rakyat Malaysia? Adakah ini usaha terdesak UMNO-BN untuk cuba menimbulkan 'kerisauan' di kalangan rakyat Malaysia dengan harapan UMNO-BN akan kekal menjadi pemenang dalam PRU akan datang?

Taktik sedemikian menimbulkan perasaan perkauman atau agama, malangnya, perangai sama juga wujud di kalangan beberapa parti dan ahlipolitik pembangkang...strategi mereka mengunakan isu perkauman dan etnik juga wujud?


Rakyat yang mempunyai kuasa - Wakil rakyat cuma wakil kita semua - Rakyat sudah terlalu lama membiarkan pemimpin menentukan apa yang harus dilakukan. Ini harus berakhir - rakyat mesti lebih aktif mengambil bahagian - mengarah, memantau, bersuara... Jika mana-mana parti politik atau pemimpin membuat sesuatu yang kita tak suka, kita akan juga gunakan PRU seterusnya - dan akan menolak pemimpin sedemikian..

Prinsip dan nilai peribadi harus ditentukan oleh kita sendiri...Jangan biarkan orang lain menukar nilai dan prinsip kita dengan senang

Kini, isu dan perasaan 'racism'(perkauman) dan agama sedih sekali digunakan oleh setengah ahli politik dan parti politik...UMNO-BN terdesak dan akan gunakan beraneka cara untuk terus kekal menguasai kerajaan Persekutuan...Pilihan di tangan saudara...

Dalam pemilihan kerajaan, kita harus memikirkan bukan hanya mengenai hari ini tetapi masa akan datang...Kita harus memikirkan kebaikkan semua rakyat Malaysia - bukan hanya kepentingan diri sendiri, etnik sendiri atau agama sendiri,... 

Pembangkang atau parti alternatif - kita harus lihat sejarah peribadi wakil atau parti...Adakah tujuan pemimpin hanya untuk menjadi Perdana Menteri akan datang, kerana beliau sebenarnya hampir jadi PM tetapi disingkirkan PM UMNO-BN...jadi kini 'pembangkang' tetapi tujuan sebenarnya bertanding bukan untuk kebaikkan rakyat - tetapi keinginan jadi PM atau Menteri? ...

Apakah cara pentadbiran alternatif yang dijanjikan? Senang hanya menghebohkan kekurangan mereka yang berkuasa...tetapi apakah sebenar alternatif yang dicadangkan?

Akhirnya, pilihan di tangan kamu...

   

  

Najib ejek Tun Mahathir sebagai 'U-turn' Mahathir

Koh Jun Lin        
Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Razak hari ini mengejek Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad sebagai “U-turn Mahathir”.

“Ini Dr Mahathir, Tun Mahathir, 'U-turn' Mahathir.

“Saya gelar dia U-turn Mahathir, bukan Tun Mahathir, (dia) selalu, terlalu banyak U-turn...,” katanya sambil mendakwa Mahathir sering bertukar pandangan.

Najib berkata demikian ketika berucap di Desa Pandan, Kuala Lumpur pagi ini.

Najib berkata, ketika lama menjadi perdana menteri sebelum ini, Mahathir sendiri menuduh pemimpin pemimpin popular DAP Lim Kit Siang sebagai rasis dan anti-Islam tetapi pendirian itu telah berubah.

“Tiba-tiba, jawatan timbalan perdana menteri dia nak bagi kepada Kit Siang. Di mana letak akal dia?” soal Najib.

Setiausaha Agung DAP Lim Guan Eng menafikan partinya mahukan jawatan timbalan perdana menteri jika pembangkang menang pilihan raya.- Malaysiakini, 20/1/2017
   

 





OT and public holiday work in January - Pay workers in January not end February?

$
0
0
Workers silence when rights reduced simply encourages government to reduce and reduce worker rights....

The Malaysian government, in 2012, amended the law about the time of payment of wages. It allowed the employer to delay the payment of overtime and work on public holidays(and rest day) to the following month.



That means, worker does overtime in January, worked on Sunday and public holidays in January - well now he will only get paid for that work when he receives his February wages - now, that needs to be paid not later than 7th March..

Before this, the worker would have to be paid when he receives the January wages - so, now there can be one(1) month delay - Will the worker get any additional interest? Nope - well, this is not logical - for even if I keep my money in the bank for a month, I get interest...if I invest, maybe even more. That means employers benefited - they could hold on to money belonging to workers for a month, and a smart employer will make more money with that....

BUT THE WORKERS AND UNIONS IN MALAYSIA SEEM TO BE OK WITH THIS...UNIONS ALSO SEEM TO BE OK? WHY? IT MAKES NO SENSE..Have Malaysian workers become so weak? Have their Unions become weak? Have they just lost their will to fight?

Now, normally if we get someone to do some work - we usually have to pay a deposit, maybe even 50%, and certainly pay the balance as soon as the work is completed - if we delay, we will have to pay interest. Look at Housing Developers, when the finish a particular stage of their work, they ask for payment..

Thus, when a worker works on a Public Holiday, he should rightly have been paid on that day or the following day at worse. Likewise for overtime, etc ...ANYWAY, by agreeing that money be paid at the end on the month - that already is unfair to the worker...BUT we accepted being paid at the end of the month for the monthly waged worker. So workers compromised for the benefit of the employer..

And then the UMNO-BN government amended the law again - helping employers even further saying - now no need to pay OT, work on Sunday(or rest day) and work on public holiday wages at the end of the month - you can delay ONE more month. (Government made it a law - and so workers easily lost their rights to receive all payment of work done in January when they receive January wages....and NO PROTEST - 'silence' from the over 14 million workers ...?? Nowadays, if you are even late paying your phone bills - you get notices vide SMS and even voice calls, and then they cut your services partially..then fully...SO, would ASTRO,CELCOM, TNB, etc ...be OK if the we all paid our bills one month later? I do not think so - but our workers in Malaysia it is OK to delay for one(1) month....What is the Opposition going to do about this? Did they even protest this ..are they demanding a repeal of this bad provision? Or are they not bothered about this 'petty issue'? Some employers may be paying workers what they are entitled at the end of the month, but how many other employers have taken advantage to delay payment...

More than 10 million workers and their families may be affected - and that is a lot of voters...Fight for better rights...or even fight for your rights is something many do not understand - they allow rights to be withered away slowly...and slowly - They simply 'do not want to rock the boat'...Why? FEAR? Look at the BN component parties, and even the UMNO members at the last General Meeting - they did not even ask for an explanation about the matters connetcted to 1MDB, Najib, etc ... well, they serve as 'good examples' for the ordinary people - When your rights are taken away, when you are 'stepped on' or exploited - the Malaysian way is to accept it and carry on living ...???? A good culture..or a bad one? 

COST OF LIVING increasing - and certainly the workers want their money NOW not next month... Why did the National Unions not make noise...or be still campaigning against that amendment to the Employment Act? Have the Union leaders been compromised - or too fearful? I say that people who are 'scared to act' or lead workers in their struggle should just resign...? Why did you contest - was it just for the 'position'? 

Guess what, if Employer cannot pay one(1) month later, Malaysian government says you can apply for a longer delay for the payment of OT, etc ... No limit in the law - so maybe 12 months may also be a reasonable request...

Is this the kind of rights that Malaysians want for our workers?


The principal Act is amended by substituting for section 19 the following section:
"Time of payment of wages

19. (1) Subject to subsection (2), every employer shall pay to each of his employees not later than the seventh day after the last day of any wage period the wages, less lawful deductions earned by such employee during such wage period.

(2) Wages for work done on a rest day, gazetted public holiday referred to in paragraphs 60D(1)(a) and (b)and overtime referred to in section 60A shall be paid not later than the last day of the next wage period.

(3) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), if the Director General is satisfied that payment within such time is not reasonably practicable, he may, on the application of the employer, extend the time of payment by such number of days as he thinks fit.". -EMPLOYMENT (AMENDMENT) ACT 2012 (In Force from:  1 April 2012 [PU(B) 85/2012]

Parti Pembangkang menjejaskan keinginan rakyat mendapat kerajaan selain dari UMNO-BN?

$
0
0
Apa yang diinginkan adalah kerajaan alternatif selain daripada kerajaan UMNO-BN - Rakyat mahu menikmati kerajaan alternatif, sesuatu yang kita belum menikmati sejak Kemerdekaan negara. Jika kerajaan pembangkang kita tak suka, boleh kita tolak sahaja PRU seterusnya. 

UMNO-BN tidak pernah ditumpas di peringkat Persekutuan memberanikan mereka membuat sesuka hati...lihat bagaimana Najib dan kerajaan UMNO-BN bertindak selama ini, dan kini dalam isu berkenaan 1MDB, isu wang berbillion dalam akaun peribadi Najib...

Alangkah baik jika rakyat Malaysia akhirnya ada peluang memilih di antara 2 atau lebih pakatan parti politik untuk menjadi kerajaan...Rakyat akan berkuasa kembali kerana semua parti akan menyedari bahawa jika mereka tidak berlaku adil atau melakukan terbaik untuk rakyat Malaysia - rakyat Malaysia ada pilihan, dan akan tolak parti memerintah gitu sahaja...Rakyat bukan bodoh tetapi arif...

KENAPA PILIHANRAYA PERSEKUTUAN DAN NEGERI PADA MASA YANG SAMA? KENAPA BUKAN PADA MASA YANG LAIN?

Pernahkah anda pernah memikirkan mengapa kerajaan UMNO-BN mahu mengadakan kedua-dua pilihanraya Parlimen dan DUN Negeri pada masa yang sama? Satu sebab mungkin adalah kerana mereka takut pada rakyat, takut rakyat akan kurang senang memberikan kuasa kepada hanya satu parti...Contohnya, jika UMNO-BN menang pilihanraya Parliament, ramai akan mungkin mengundi pembangkang untuk mentadbir kerajaan peringkat Negeri...supaya ada 'check and balance'

Finomena ini berlaku bila ada pilihanraya kerajaan tempatan dulu(Local Council Elections) - kebanyakkan menang oleh pembangkang. Rakyat akan mengimbangkan kuasa - tidak akan memberikan kuasa mutlak kepada hanya satu pihak, khususnya jika tak 100% percaya ..Justeru, pilihan raya kerajaan tempatan diberhentikan digantikan dengan perlantikan oleh kerajaan negeri - dan PRU Parlimen dan DUN terus diadakan serentak. Pilihanraya Senator di mana rakyat memilih Senator pun belum ada di Malaysia. Ini pendapat saya, apa pendapat saudara.

Sedih kerana ada parti pembangkang yang sama pendirian dengan UMNO-BN. Justeru, tidak di adakan pilihanraya ketua kampung/taman/kampung orang asli pun di Negeri yang ditadbir - tak ada minat juga memilih Majlis Bandaran secara demokratik - cara UMNO-BN diteruskan, orang parti mereka dilantik... 

TETAPI kini nampaknya kita lihat pula 'pembangkang lawan pembangkang'...sedih sangat...

Pada PRU lepas, kita ada Pakatan Rakyat - gabungan eksklusif PAS, DAP dan PKR (Saya kata eksklusif kerana PR nampaknya tidak minat membawa semua parti pembangkang lain di Malaysia dalam PR - banyak parti pembangkang juga mengambil pendirian tidak mahu bertanding ...biarkan PR lawan UMNO-BN ...satu lawan satu...

SELEPAS PRU lepas, walaupun menang 3 Negeri, Pakatan Rakyat telah berpecah...kini pembangkang juga nampaknya ada masalah... 

APA CABARAN PEMBANGKANG?



1 - PAS dan AMANAH(Parti Amanah Negara)

Mereka yang pecah daripada PAS menubuhkan Parti Baru akhir tahun 2015 - di mana akibatnya beberapa MP dan ADUN yang menang di bawah nama PAS telah melompat pergi ke AMANAH. Mengapa mereka meninggalkan PAS - kerana mereka kalah pilihanraya PAS? Adakah terdapat satu isu/prinsip asas yang menyebabkan mereka meninggalkan PAS selain daripada kalah pilihanraya PAS? Jika mereka tinggalkan sebelum pilihanraya, mungkin asas tubuhkan lebih kukuh...

Ini merumitkan keadaan kerana mana-mana parti DAP, PKR, UMNO, dll juga akan mendapati sukar bekerjasama dengan parti sedemikian yang ditubuhkan ahli yang meninggalkan parti mereka...jika lebih masa telah berlalu, mungkin keadaan akan lebih bertambah baik. Jika dilihat,PKR pun sehingga hari tidak mahu kerjasama dengan Parti Rakyat Malaysia(PRM).

Yang menyedihkan dan merumitkan keadaan, adalah bahawa tindakan PKR adalah untuk merapatkan diri dengan Amanah, dan bersama DAP telah menubuhkan Pakatan baru - Pakatan Harapan. [DAP situasinya lain..dijelaskan kemudian]. Kini PAS semestinya sukar duduk dalam semeja dengan Amanah, dan mungkin juga PKR.

2 - PAS DAN PKR?

Mengapa PKR? Kerajaan Selangor adalah kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat (DAP,PAS dan PKR). Tetapi adakah apa yang dikenali sebagai 'Kajang Move' [initiatif mahu menjadikan Anwar ADUN yang akan kemudian diharapkan akan dijadikan Menteri Besar] dibincang dan dipersetujui terlebih dahulu oleh DAP, PAS dan PKR - ada yang kata, ianya dibuat oleh PKR sahaja - tanpa perbincangan dan persetujuan PAS dan DAP)] Tindakan ini menyebabkan keretakan dalam Pakatan Rakyat. 

Selepas itu, bila Menteri Besar mengantikan Khalid dipilih, sebelum PAS membuat keputusan parti beberapa ADUN PAS di Selangor mendedahkan keputusan mereka. Betul, parti politik tidak ada hak memilih Menteri Besar - hanya ADUN tetapi, biasanya ketiga-tiga parti yang menjadi ahli Pakatan akan bincang dan setuju secara 'informal' sebelum apa-apa.

3 - PAS DAN DAP 

PAS dan DAP pada setiap masa ada percanggahan pendapat mengenai beberapa isu...Banyak kenyataan keras akan dibuat oleh kedua-dua parti tersebut TETAPI tidak pernah satu USUL di bawa kepada Mesyuarat Agung dan diluluskan - kini jadi Resolusi PAS. Sebagai Resolusi, kini Hadi Awang dan pimpinan PAS terikat - mereka tidak boleh bertukar pendirian atau melakukan sesuatu yang bercanggah dengan Resolusi tersebut. Resolusi hanya boleh dipinda atau dibatalkan melalui satu lagi Usul dalam Mesyuarat Agung. Justeru, PAS terikat dan sukar mengatasi halangan ini... 

Mengapa Resolusi tersebut dibentangkan? Adakah ianya hanya akibat (atau susulan terpaksa) pertikaian Team A dan Team B dalam pilihanraya PAS

3. PAS dan RUU untuk buat pindaan kepada Akta 355

Usul MP Pembangkang biasanya tidak akan dapat dibincangkan kerana tak cukup masa - tetapi kali ini UMNO-BN mengambil peluang untuk menghebohkan Usul Hadi Awang ini dan mahu pula bincang di Parlimen.

Harus diingat bahawa kini sudah wujud Akta 355, dan apa yang diusulkan oleh Hadi Awang adalah hanya untuk meningkatkan hukuman sedia wujud dalam Akta tersebut. Akta 355 tidak menetapkan 'jenayah' - hanya hukum maxima yang boleh dikenakan oleh Mahkamah Syariah. Usul Hadi Awang tidak cuba memasukkan hukuman 'potong tangan' atau hukuman mati - justeru keliru mengapa pula isu ini menjadi 'isu hangat' - Usul ini bukan untuk memasukkan hudud atau Qisas...Siapa yang membantah pindaan yang dicadangkan Hadi Awang? Tak faham mengapa perlu ada perhimpunan awam menyokong atau membantah...Isu mungkin timbul bila peringkat negeri berlaku pindaan meningkatkan hukuman jenayah tertentu...pada masa itu, kita harus fikir wajar atau tidak. Bagi diri saya, saya membantah hukuman 'corporal' atau yang merupakan penderaan - sebatan bagi saya harus dimansuhkan dari semua undang-undang di Malaysia. Begitu juga dengan hukuman mati..Isu mahu meningkat kadar maxima denda atau tempuh penjara tidak menimbulkan masalah dan yang menentukan hukuman harus hakim berkenaan...justeru jangan ditetapkan hukuman mandatori minima... hanya hukuman maxima yang boleh dikenakan.

Act 355 and Hadi's Motion - Are we unnecessarily jumping to conclusions? Prejudice?


Tetapi isu ini dengan sendirinya mencederakan pembangkang - PAS dan mungkin juga DAP. Isu 'negara Islam' atau cara Islam juga menjadi tekanan PAS sebelum PRU yang berkesudahan Pembangkang(terutama PAS) hilang kerajaan negeri Trengganu. 

PAS sentiasa bercakap pasal cara Islam tetapi pada masa yang sama, jika dilihat Kelantan - apakah sebenarnya yang 'Islam' yang PAS berjuang untuk? Apakah polisi PAS(atau pendirian Islam) mengenai isu pekerja, pencukaian, alam sekitar, Orang Asli, Pendidikan, Perubatan dan Kesihatan, Pencukaian dan GST, Korupsi dan Kleptocracy, Penswastaan, GLC,....yang dilihat adalah PAS mahukan undang-undang syariah..(kini tambah hukuman)...selain daripada itu tak jelas. PAS terpaksa membentang dasar lebih khusus mengenai apakah yang dimaksudkan 'cara Islam' untuk setiap isu tersebut? Adakah kerajaan Kelantan mengamalkan pentadbiran cara Islam - cuba nyatakan perbezaan cara pentadbiran yang dilaungkan PAS dan cara pentadbiran kerajaan UMNO-BN? Kita mahukan cadangan khusus - jangan cadangan 'vague'...

Tetapi, ini bukan sahaja masalah PAS tetapi juga masalah semua parti pembangkang - tak ada pendirian khusus atau dasar jelas mengenai apakah 'alternatif' yang mereka cadangkan. Apakah yang akan tukar? Adakah pembangkang akan pastikan bekalan air, bekalan letrik, pengangkutan awam khususnya kereta api dan bas, jalanraya, pembetungan semua akan ditarik balik daripada syarikat swasta dan kembali di bawah kerajaan? Adakah pembangkang akan memastikan bahawa subsidi akan diberikan untuk memastikan harga barangan makanan sentiasa rendah - minyak masak, beras, tepung, gula, susu, telur, gas masak...? ....Dulu pembangkang janji akan mereka kembalikan pilihanraya kerajaan tempatan(Local Council Elections) ...tetapi sehingga kini tak jadi..

Ketiadaan Nik Aziz pun telah menjejaskan PAS - khususnya di kalangan mereka yang bukan ahli PAS. Beliau sebagai seorang 'simple' mempunyai daya tarikan cukup tinggi. Tindakan PAS mencalunkan mereka yang bukan Islam dalam PRU yang lepas juga meredakan kebimbangan ramai...Tetapi bila isu Pindaan RUU 355 ini timbul, kesannya adalah mungkin kehilangan sokongan ramai yang telah sanggup undi calun PAS pada PRU lalu...



Parti Bersatu Pribumi Malaysia - Muhyiddin, Mahathir, Mukriz

Ya - lagi sekali bila Timbalan Perdana Menteri dipecat dan dibuang parti(Bukan sendiri tinggalkan parti berasaskan percanggahan pendapat, prinsip atau nilai) - kita melihat lagi satu parti pembangkang muncul. [PKR adalah contoh parti sedemikian..]. 

Sedih sekali ramai ahli dan parti politik pembangkang sedia wujud terus sahaja pi pelawa parti baru ini berjuang bersama, dan kini ada pula perjanjian dan.... 

Berapa MP dan ADUN BN mengikut Muhyiddin keluar UMNO dan menyertai Parti Bersatu? Berapa MP dan ADUN BN keluar UMNO bersama Mukriz dan/atau Mahathir?...Masa kamu pemimpin parti atau kerajaan, ramai penyokong - tetapi bila anda 'hilang' posisi atau jawatan, kebanyakkan penyokong akan meninggalkan anda dan terus menjadi orang yangpegang kuasa yang baru - ini mungkin budaya UMNO-BN. Jika diimbas kembali, sama juga berlaku bila Anwar disingkirkan...Berapa MP atau ADUN UMNO-BN meninggalkan parti dan menyertai parti Anwar?

Harapan ramai adalah bahawa Parti Bersatu akan berjaya menarik sokongan ahli UMNO atau penyokong UMNO-BN - tetapi menurut pandangan saya ini kemungkinan besar tidak akan berlaku. Sejak PRU lepas, banyak perkara telah berlaku termasuk isu 1MDB, penemuan billion dalam akaun peribadi PM Najib, dan lain-lain - ini kemungkinan besar telah menyebabkan lebih ramai rakyat Malaysia mahu menolak UMNO-BN dan sokongan kepada pembangkang telah bertambah...

RISIKO menyokong Muhyiddin dan partinya, adalah kemungkinan bahawa selepas PRU, selepas memenangi kerusi, mereka kemungkinan besar akan kembali kepada BN atau UMNO. Mungkin ada juga mereka yang dahulunya dari UMNO-BN kini dalam PKR yang akan kembali ke UMNO-BN. Mungkin kita akan lihat lagi apa yang berlaku di Perak - di mana hasil beberapa ADUN 'lompat parti', kerajaan pembangkang ditumpaskan dan kerajaan UMNO-BN terus kembali berkuasa...Saya risau jika UMNO-BN dalam PRU akan datang kalah tipis - adakah MP atau ADUN pembangkang dari Parti Bersatu Pribumi dan mungkin juga PKR mungkin rebut peluang untuk lompat parti, Mungkin berlaku...mungkin tak berlaku..

Semangat 46 - harapan rakyat dahulu akhirnya kembali ke UMNO...Sejarah membuat saya risau mengenai mereka yang baru tinggalkan(atau dibuang keluar) parti UMNO-BN kini 'pembangkang' - lebih baik mereka tidak bertanding PRU akan datang ...hanya menyokong pembangkang menang - PRU selepas itu, mungkin OK..


Cara Pentadbiran Kerajaan Dibawah Pembangkang

Bila tidak ada kerajaan yang ditadbir pembangkang (kecuali Kelantan), keadaannya berbeda. Kini berlainan, sebab kini rakyat juga akan menilai kerajaan di bawah pembangkang...Apakah perubahan cara pemerintahan? Apa perubahan dasar atau polisi? Kini pun ada juga 'skandal' atau perkara yang tak betul berlaku dalam kerajaan negeri di bawah pembangkang...

Pakatan Rakyat, dan kini pula ada Pakatan Baru - adakah ini semua pakatan untuk pilihanraya saja - tetapi selepas itu pentadbiran kerajaan negeri nampaknya dibiarkan kepada Menteri Besar? Mengapa barisan pimpinan Pakatan Pembangkang tidak terus memastikan bahawa kerajaan negeri juga ditadbir bersama - dan bukan sahaja suka hati setiap Menteri Besar (atau parti Menteri Besar)..

PAS telah menjadi Menteri Besar di Kelantan, Trenganu, Kedah dan untuk sedikit masa di Perak. Nyata cara pentadbiran berbeza - sebab membawa kepada kehilangan Trengganu dan Kedah...jika berbanding dengan Kelantan di bawah Nik Aziz dulu...Kini Menteri Besar Kelantan sudah orang lain dan kini wujud pula dakwaan pembalakkan haram dan isu ketidakprihatinan hak Orang Asli.

Negeri ditadbir Nik Aziz stabil dan rakyat terus menyokong kerajaan berkali-kali. Trengganu di mana Menteri Besar adalah Hadi Awang hanya satu penggal sahaja...sama dengan Kedah. Bila menjadi kerajaan, dengan sumber dan kuasa, memberikan peluang sangat besar untuk berdamping dengan rakyat dan tunjukkan bahawa Negeri di bawah kerajaan pembangkang? Kenapa Kedah dan Trengganu boleh hilang? Adakah semuanya bergantung kepada sifat, perwatakan, dan cara pentadbiran Menteri Besar? Pemimpin tertinggi parti politik mesti menyedari bahawa setengah orang memang ahli politik dan pemimpin parti politik yang cukup bagus - tetapi mungkin tidak mempunyai ciri-ciri perlu(atau kelayakkan) menjadi Menteri Besar atau pentadbir kerajaan yang baik...atau MP atau ADUN. Setengah orang mempunyai kelayakan perlu untuk melakukan kedua-dua tetapi bukan selalu. Adakah Trengganu atau Kedah akan kembali kepada UMNO-BN jika Nik Aziz yang menjadi Menteri Besar?

Nyata setiap negeri ada perbezaan kehendak rakyatTETAPIdasar, polisi dan prinsip asas mestilah sama  - iaitu polisi, dasar dan prinsip yang dipersetujui ketiga-tiga DAP, PASdan PKR. 

Justeru, pada pendapat saya, kepimpinan tinggi(Presiden) parti pembangkang harus tidak memegang jawatan Menteri Besar atau Ketua Menteri - tetapi kekal sebagai Majlis yang akan memantau selalu kesemua kerajaan di bawah pakatan pembangkang, dan pastikan dasar, nilai, prinsip...yang dipersetujui akan dilaksanakan oleh Menteri Besar...[Jika Presiden atau pemimpin parti juga Menteri Besar, susah pemantauan ini dijalankan...]

PRU akan datang - Ini bukan masa untuk hanya lawan untuk kerusi Parlimen atau DUN yang akan ditanding parti mana, atau berapa kerusi, atau jika menang siapa harus jadi Perdana Menteri atau Menteri Besar. 

Sekarang pendirian bersama harus dipersetujui - adakah POCA, POTA dan SOSMA akan segera dimansuhkan pada persidangan Parlimen Pertama, Adakah undang-undang menghalang diadakan pilihanraya kerajaan tempatan(local council elections) akan segera dipinda supaya local council elections akan di adakan dalam masa 100 hari selepas pilihanraya...Persediaan mesti dibuat kini - Jangan selepas PRU, kata pula nak kaji dan sebagainya untuk melengahkan implementasi program...

GST - apakah yang pembangkang akan buat? Jangan lupa cukai diperlukan untuk operasi kerajaan - jadi apakah yang pembangkang akan buat? Adakah cukai pendapatan orang kaya akan dinaikkan? Adakah kemudahan kesihatan akan diberikan secara percuma atau macam di Thailand - hanya perlu bayar lebih kurang RM3 untuk semua - caj wad, surgeri, dll...? Adakah kerajaan akan mengambil alih semua 'highway' dari pihak swasta dan tol akan dihapuskan? Adakah pengendalian jalan akan diambil alih oleh JKR dan tidak lagi diswastakan? Adakah parti pembangkang sudah berbincang dan sampai kepada persetujuan mengenai perkara sebegini???

PEMILIHAN MP DAN ADUN?

Setengah ahli politik ada kelayakkan yang perlu, setengah tidak...Setengah boleh ceramah dengan aggresif dan seronok dengar ...tetapi jika dilihat 'isi' tidak ada atau tidak memadai. Boleh kritik tetapi tak adapun cadangan alternatif...Berapa ADUN dan MP kini menimbulkan isu, mengeluarkan kenyataan media, mengadakan dialog bersama rakyat, hadir semua sesi Parlimen dan/atau DUN, mengemukakan soalan kepada kerajaan di Parlimen - atau soalan bagus, ada kefahaman tentang isu di Malaysia. Berapa MP, ADUN dan parti politik telah mengeluarkan kenyataan atau membuat pendirian mengenai Siti Noor Aishah Atam -Release Siti Noor Aishah Atam from Poca restrictions, kata 36 kumpulan (Malaysiakini, 20/12/2016)

PKR MP Shamsul Iskandar should explain why apparently only 5 questions at last Parliamentary session?

MP Abdullah Sani's Parliamentary Questions Analysed - Improvement Needed to Improve Quality?

**Sebagai contoh, saya melihat 2 MP sahaja - tetapi penilaian sedemikian perlu untuk semua MP/DUN. Kebanyakkan MP/ADUN ada dapat jawapan daru kerajaan, tetapi tak pula berkongsi dengan rakyat - Mengapa?



MASA DEPAN 

Rakyat pada masa ini sudah tidak mahu lagi kerajaan UMNO-BN - sudah terlalu lama berkuasa tak pernah dikalahkan - Justeru, perlu sangat ditolak UMNO-BN pada PRU akan datang...Saya berpendapat ini harus menjadi keutamaan...

Objektif ini sememangnya boleh dicapai selepas 1MDB, RM2.6 Billion, dll... Tetapi kini parti pembangkang harus berhenti bertikai antara satu sama lain - dan bersatu. 2 Parti yang mempunyai sokongan rakyat yang besar adalah DAP dan PAS...kini mungkin tinggal DAP saja kerana masalah PAS-Amanah,dll. Mungkin lebih ramai orang lain harus tampil kehadapan untuk bertanding jadi MP/ADUN?

Ego pemimpin parti mungkin perlu diketepikan - mungkin kerusi Parlimen dan/atau DUN tidak lagi diagihkan kepada mana-mana parti tetapi kepada calun terbaik setempat yang terbaik. Kini, jika kerusi ini kerusi PAS, calun dari tempat tersebut dari parti pembangkang yang lain atau mungkin belum lagi masuk parti jika diminta bertanding diketepikan...Ini tidak baik - pilih orang terbaik?

MP atau ADUN yang kurang senang duduk berbincang dan menjawab soalan mengenai isu semasa atau perkara berkaitan rakyat mungkin sebab 'takut' dan sebenarnya sendiri tak tahu isu dan tak ada pun idea untuk cara alternatif...harus ditolak. Mereka hanya suka pi majlis perkahwinan atau bila seseorang meninggal dunia atau melawat mangsa banjir/kebakaran - di mana hanya perlu bersalaman dan kata 'Hello'...mereka hanya suka buat ucapan - di mana orang tak dapat tanya apa-apa soalan atau berdebat...[Ini zaman internet - senang sekali ada blog/laman web sendiri dan nyatakan pendapat sendiri mengenai berbagai isu...kenapa tak buat?]

Parlimen adalah tempat di mana MP akan membincangkan undang-undang yang harus dipinda, dan/atau yang baru dibuat. Mengapa peruntukkan undang-undang ini harus disokong atau dipinda atau ditolak terus. Adakah MP (atau bakal MP) anda ada kebolehan ini?

Parlimen adalah tempat di mana MP akan sentiasa memantau kerajaan - Semua hujahan harus mempunyai 'poin'...dan isi...MP kena siasat..dan dedah...

Apa yang kamu mahu? Apa yang rakyat mahu? Adakah anda mahu sesuatu yang berkualiti - atau adakah hanya pentingkan 'jenama' tapi tidak mementingkan mutu dan kualiti MP dan ADUN kita? Adakah kita mahukan MP dan ADUN penuh masa atau 'separa masa'? Adakah kamu mahu MP atau ADUN yang hanya mahu pangkat, kuasa dan memntingkan diri - atau adakah kamu mahu MP atau ADUN yang benar-benar mengutamakan rakyat dan negara?

Masa depan anda ditangan anda... 

 
 

  






  










Apa tinggal milik rakyat selepas apa kerajaan UMNO-BN? Lanjutan kontrak MAHB 35 tahun?

$
0
0
Kenapa kerajaan UMNO-BN melanjutkan kontrak MAHB untuk 35 tahun lagi? Siapa sebenarnya memiliki MAHB, yang merupakan satu syarikat yang disenaraikan di Bursa Saham - erti siapa saja boleh beli saham?

Adakah MAHB sebuah 'GLC', dan berapakah peratus saham dimiliki kerajaan Malaysia? Ingat bahawa, untuk masih lagi mempunyai 'controling interest', kerajaan Malaysia harus memiliki lebih 50% saham syarikat? Jika kerajaan tidak mempunyai 'controling interest', bagaimanakah kerajaan boleh mengawal MAHB?

Apakah pendapatan(bukan cukai) daripada MAHB yang diperolehi oleh kerajaan - rakyat Malaysia? Untung atau rugi? 

Bagi GLC - ia mestilah transparent dari segi pemilikan saham, pendapatan dan kerugian, dll - di mana maklumat ini patut wujud di laman web MAHB. 

Banyak penswastaan berlaku dan persoalan utama adalah berapa lagi tinggal pemilikan kerajaan Malaysia - justeru Rakyat Malaysia? Atau adakah semuanya telah 'terlepas tangan' pergi kepada individu dan keluarga tertentu...

Akhirnya, kerajaan (yakni kita rakyat Malaysia) sebenarnya tidak lagi ada aset...

Kenapa 35 tahun? Bukankah ini terlampau? Kini kerajaan baru mahu batalkan pun susah - kena pula membayar pampasan berjuta-juta atau berbillion ringgit? Sewajarnya, kontrak tersebut hanya dilanjutkan paling maksima 5 tahun...

Adakah MAHB kini mempunyai 'monopoly' pengendalian semua lapangan terbang? Tak bagus atau pandai - apa kata ada syarikat lain boleh memberikan perkhidmatan lebih baik dengan kos lebih rendah? Kini terikat dengan perjanjian 35 tahun?

MAS - seharusnya kita sudah belajar?

Pengalaman 1MDB - seharusnya sudah belajar...



Friday, 3 February 2017 | MYT 8:18 PM

M'sia Airports given 35 more years to manage KLIA, other airports


MAHB operates the KL International Airport, which has the highest passenger traffic among airports in the country at 52.6 million passengers last year.



KUALA LUMPUR: The Government has extended Malaysia Airports Holdings Bhd’s (MAHB) operating rights for the KL International Airport (KLIA) as well as the other designated airports by an additional 35 years.

The airport operator told Bursa Malaysia that the Cabinet had in December last year approved the extension of the operating period from the existing 25 years to 60 years.

MAHB received on Jan 27 a letter from the Transport Ministry dated Dec 28, 2016, informing it that the extension approvals were granted at a Cabinet meeting on Dec 21, 2016.

The approvals are subject to terms and conditions.

MAHB had signed the two original operating agreements with the Government (for KLIA operation and the operations of the other airports) on Feb 12, 2009.

A “negotiation committee” chaired by the Transport Ministry would be formed to negotiate the relevant new terms and conditions, MAHB said.

The committee will comprise representatives from MAHB, the Finance Ministry and other relevant Government agencies.

The new terms and conditions would subsequently be submitted to the Cabinet for its consideration and approval, said MAHB.- 3/2/2017

55 Groups - INFINEON MUST STOP UNION BUSTING AND DISCRIMINATION AGAINST UNION LEADERS - Reinstate Union President?

$
0
0


Joint  Statement – 31/1/2017

INFINEON MUST STOP UNION BUSTING AND DISCRIMINATION AGAINST UNION LEADERS

Reinstate Zulfadlee Thye Abdullah, President of Infineon Technologies Melaka Workers Union

We, the 55 undersigned organisations and trade union are shocked to hear about the wrongful termination of Muhammad Zulfadlee Thye Bin Abdullah, the President of the Infineon Technologies Malaysia Workers Union (Kesatuan Pekerja Pekerja Infineon Technologies (M) Sdn Bhd) at INFINEON in Malacca, which is said to be the largest assembly of INFINEON with a workforce of about 8000 people.  Zulfadlee, an employee since 1998, has been the President of the Union  since 2005.

INFINEON is a German Company that produces, amongst others, electronic and auto components, which are said to be used by major Brands including Apple, BOSCH, Philips, Microsoft, Hewlette Packard, Dell and Continental.


On 13/12/2016, Zulfadlee was terminated on the grounds that he ‘committed the act of malingering’, with reference to a sick leave obtained on 18/10/2016 from a doctor, Dr Aw Cheng Yew  of  Klinik Melaka, which is a panel clinic of the Employer. The basis of the allegation seems to be because he was present at an activity of the Selangor Division of the Malaysian Trade Union Congress(MTUC)  in Putrajaya on the same date when he was on sick leave.  As such, one may assume that maybe the charge was simply pretending to be sick (or faking illness) for the purpose of avoiding work or duty. 



It must be stated that the reason for termination used was not an employment misconduct stated in INFINEON Technologies (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd’s document entitled Policy for Misconduct and Disciplinary.

Further, the word ‘malingering’ is not a commonly used word, and as such many are unaware of the meaning of that word. To compound matters, in this case, the word ‘malingering’ allegedly was never even clearly explained to Zulfadlee, whose mother tongue is the Malay language. When such English words are used in a charges levied against a worker, and then not explained clearly, it will have a tendency to be confusing and may result in injustice.

In law, Zulfadlee was entitled to 22 days of paid sick leave every year, and it must be pointed out that he was examined by a qualified doctor who concluded that he was entitled to   sick leave, and a medical certificate was signed and issued by the said doctor. A sick leave is given only when the doctor, after examining decides a worker is not medically fit to perform his/her duties at work.

There was no question of Zulfadlee lying or pretending to be sick, for on the subsequent day he went to see a specialist doctor, who allegedly discovered that he had a stone in his bladder and he was then given further sick leave for 3 days on 19/10/2016, 20/10/2016 and 21/10/2016. Despite being on sick leave, Zulfadlee did come to the office for a few hours to do some urgent work on 2 of these days but he was not charged for committing the ‘act of malingering’ for these days.

Being on a sick leave does not  mean that one is to be confined at home and bed rest, and cannot do any other things including also attending some union meeting or activity – a sick leave only means that he is not medically fit for work on the said day, and in law he becomes entitled to paid sick leave.

On 18/10/2016, Zulfadlee said that he had no plans whatsoever to go to the Putrajaya union activity with his union members who planned to go. It was only after he had obtained medical leave whilst he was sending off the union members heading to Putrajaya, that he was convinced by his fellow union members and suddenly decided to follow them in the bus.

Now, even if an Employer disputes the Medical Certificate issued by the doctor, then the Employer should reasonably have taken action against the doctor and/or the clinic – not with the employee.  It must be pointed out that generally a panel clinic of the employer, are less likely to simply issue Medical Certificates to employees unless the doctor is convinced that the said worker is entitled to sick leave. In this case, the Employer really had no reasonable basis to even suggest that Zulfadlee was ‘malingering’ or lied to obtain the sick leave. In such health matters, the Employer is certainly not competent – only the qualified doctor is.

We do not believe that any failings of a doctor, if there even is, should ever be blamed on a worker, and certainly not be used as justification for termination.

Further, attending or participating in a union activity cannot and should never be an employment misconduct and/or a breach of the employment contract.

ANTI-UNION ACTION & DISCRIMINATORY ACTION AGAINST UNION PRESIDENT

As such, we are of the opinion that the termination of the Union President may really not  be because of an ‘act of malingering’ by an employee, but simply a union busting action targeting the Union President and the Union.

In INFINEON’s letter dated 6/1/2017, rejecting Zulfadlee’s  appeal against the termination it was stated, amongst others, ‘…The basis of our decision was premised on the fact that the Management could not condone nor mitigate punishments for a serious act of misconduct committed by a Union President leading the employees of Kesatuan Pekerja - Pekerja lnfineon Technologies Malaysia itwu,’ This letter was signed by Lee Cheong Chee, the President & Managing Director of lnfineon Technologies Melaka.

The said letter, also did state, ‘…your illustrious career and contributions to the Company has been well acknowledged through your progress during your tenure. While that may ordinarily be a mitigating factor in considering any appeal, the Management has decided that theyour act of malingering is deemed to be unacceptable and is aggravated in view of you being the Union President at the point the act of misconduct was committed…’

Besides Zulfadlee, 6 other members of the Executive Committee of the Union, including the Vice President and the Secretary, were also targeted and subjected to disciplinary action – and some of this had ended with a stern warning, whilst only the Union President was terminated.

Considering the fact that out of the 40 over employees that participated in the Union program on 18/10/2016, and only the President and 6 of the Union leaders have been subjected to disciplinary action, it certainly looks that  INFINEON  maybe discriminating against employees who are leaders of the Union, and maybe reasonably said to be an act of ‘union busting’.

The timing of these disciplinary actions and the termination of the Union President, when the Union and INFINEON is starting negotiations concerning the next Collective Bargaining Agreement, whereby the first meeting is scheduled for 23/1/2017 is most disturbing. Members of the Union will most likely be prejudiced by this.

It looks like the Employer’s actions in this case was maybe to instill fear in the Union, its members and other employees, which may affect the effectiveness of the trade union. These actions of the Employer would impact on the duty and obligation of Unions to fight for better rights and working conditions, highlight future wrongdoings, and fight against violation of the worker rights. It is failure to recognize and respect  the freedom of association.

The failure of this Union and/or its members to openly protest the wrongful dismissal of the Union President indicates that the Employer’s strategy to create a docile and compliant union maybe working. It may also seriously affect the upcoming Collective Bargaining Agreement to the  detriment of employees and Union members.

OBLIGATION TO UPHOLD WORKER AND UNION RIGHTS, AND FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION

INFINEON Technologies (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.,a subsidiary of INFINEON, a German company, in this case seem to have acted contrary to the INFINEON’s own policy and Code of Conduct, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidelines, Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition Code of Conduct, UN standards and principles; and other relevant standards and good practices.


Brands and corporations that do have INFINEON in their supply chain also have the obligation to ensure that justice be done, and that Codes of Conducts or Policies not be violated by reason of these action/s of INFINEON, vide it’s Malaysian subsidiary, INFINEON Technologies (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd, including the discrimination and the wrongful termination of the Union leader.


Justice demands that INFINEON Technologies (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd should immediately reinstate Zulfadlee without electing to simply just wait for the long drawn out court process in Malaysia, that could take even 5 - 9 years before court may award victory to a wrongfully terminated worker. As such, unless INFINEON immediately reinstates Zulfadlee, an employee of INFINEON for 18 years,  great injustice would be done to this worker who has wrongfully been deprived of his employment and income that is so needed for him and his family to survive.

Unjust Malaysian laws at present, states that if the worker cannot be reinstated, he will be awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement for just a maximum of 24 months, when previously this compensation would have been payment of all income worker would have earned from date of wrong dismissal until the date of judgment(or reinstatement). The new amended limit is not anymore a deterrent for employers seeking to wrongfully get rid of employees, especially worker leaders.

Further, in the case of a Union leader, the chances of getting employment with any other employer, especially in the same sector, is also most difficult compared to other workers. Termination of strong Union leaders is grossly unjust to the Union and its members. Without immediate reinstatement, great injustice will be done.

Therefore, we

Call for the immediate reinstatement of Zulfadlee Thye Bin Abdullah, the President INFINEON Technologies Workers Union;

Call for the immediate withdrawal of disciplinary action/s against other Union leaders and/or members, and/or for the revocation of any punishment that has already been handed out;

Call on INFINEON and its subsidiary, INFINEON Technologies (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd, to respect and promote worker and trade union rights, and cease discrimination against Union leaders, and also cease union busting activities.

Call on Apple, BOSCH, Philips and other companies that has INFINEON in its supply chain to immediately  ensure that INFINEON respect the Freedom of Association of Workers, Worker and Trade Union Rights;

Call on Germany to ensure that INFINEON comply with the OECD Guidelines, United Nations and  International Labour Organisation (ILO) standards, principles and best practices, and other similar obligations to ensure that human rights and worker rights are respected, protected and promoted;

Call on INFINEON and INFINEON Technologies Melaka to respect and promote human rights, including worker and trade union rights

Charles Hector
Syed Shahir bin Syed Mohamud
Mohd Roszeli bin Majid
Pranom Somwong

For and on behalf of the 55organisations, trade unions and groups listed below

ALIRAN
Asociación de Trabajadoras del Hogar a Domicilio y de Maquila–ATRAHDOM,Guatemala C.A.
Association of Human Rights Defenders and Promoters- HRDP
Building and Wood Worker's International (BWI) Asia Pacific
CEREALCentro De Reflexión Y Acción Laboral (CEREAL), México
Center for Alliance of Labor and Human Rights (CENTRAL) -  Cambodia
Christian Development Alternative (CDA), Bangladesh
Clean Clothes Campaign International Office(CCC)
Club Employees Union Peninsular Malaysia
CWI(Committe For Workers International) Malaysia
Electrical Industry Workers' Union(EIWU)
Electronics Industry Employees Union Southern Region Peninsular Malaysia(EIEUSR)
Electronic Industry Employees Union Northern Region Peninsular Malaysia
GoodElectronics Thailand
IndustriALLGlobal Union
Institute for Development of Alternative Living (IDEAL)
Kesatuan Eksekutif AIROD
Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Mitsui Copper Foil(MCFEU)
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perodua EngineManufacturing Sdn. Bhd
Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional Sdn Bhd (KPP Proton)
MADPET [Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture]
Malaysian Trade Union Congress(MTUC)
Movimentu Kamponezes Timor Leste-Mokatil
National Union of Bank Employees (NUBE)
National Union Employees in Companies Manufacturing Rubber Products (NUECMRP)
National Union of Flight Attendants Malaysia (NUFAM)
National Union of Transport Equipment & Allied Industries Workers (NUTEAIW)
North SouthInitiative (NSI)
Paper Products Manufacturing Employees’ Union of Malaysia (PPMEU)
Parti Rakyat Malaysia(PRM)
Pertubuhan Angkatan Bahaman, Temerloh, Pahang, Malaysia
Persatuan Komuniti Prihation Selangor & KL
Persatuan Sahabat Wanita Selangor(PSWS)
PINAY (The Filipino Women's Organization in Quebec), Canada
Progressive Voice, Myanmar
PROHAM -Persatuan Promosi Hak Asasi Manusia
Sawit Watch, Indonesia
Solidarity of Cavite Workers (SCW), Philippines
SUARAM (Suara Rakyat Malaysia)
Tenaga Nasional Junior Officers Union (TNBJOU)
WH4C(Workers Hub For Change)
Workers Assistance Center, Inc., Philippines
Yayasan LINTAS NUSA, Batam-Indonesia

Global Women's Strike UK
Legal Action for Women UK
Women of Colour GWS
Pusat Komas

MTUC Selangor& Wilayah Persekutuan
SHARPS, South Korea
GoodElectronics International Network
CIVIDEP, India
Students & Scholars Against Corporate Misbehaviour (SACOM), Hong Kong
Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM)
Jaringan Rakyat Tertindas (JERIT)
Community Development Centre (CDC)





Proton - Less than 50% - Government no more in control of companies?

$
0
0

GLC - what does that really mean? In a company, you would be able to control that company only if you have more than 50% of the shares - Then, and only then can you decide on what the company do or does not do, even who the Directors and CEO are...

 

Government of Malaysia controls directly through Khazanah, MoF Inc{Ministry of Finance Incorporated], KWAP[Kumpulan Wang Persaraan /Government Pension Fund], and BNM[Bank Negara Malaysia...

Alternatively, according to the government it also includes the 7 GLICs(Government-Linked Investment Companies) which includes Employees Provident Fund (EPF), Khazanah Nasional Bhd (Khazanah), Kumpulan Wang Amanah Pencen(KWAP), Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera (LTAT), Lembaga Tabung Haji (LTH), Menteri Kewangan Diperbadankan (MKD), and Permodalan Nasional Bhd (PNB). [Source:- Putrajaya Committee GLC High Performace Website 

But, as mentioned earlier, to control any company, one needs to own more that 50% of the Company...Well, the only information of the amount that government owns was given in the 2004 data...after that, we do not know. How many of these 'GLCs' do the Malaysian government still own...The 2005 data provides percentage of government shareholdings - after that could not find anymore percentage ownership. What is the situation today?

Now the info from Putrajaya Committee GLC High Performace Website  [http://www.pcg.gov.my/PDF/4.%20Section%20IV.pdf#page=3&zoom=auto,-12,398], the ones in the list not in bold red, the Malaysian government does not own more that 50%...so, it is no more in control - just a shareholder?

Latest, we heard that 51% of Proton will be sold of to a Chinese company or some other foreign company...

Companies owned by friends, families and/or cronies are not 'government controlled companies' ...

Some say GLC means the government owns at least 20% - but really this is nonsense. We should just have GCC (Government owned and controlled companies - and that too directly by the government...), and for them, maybe special treatment..

TELL US WHAT ARE THE GOVERNMENT OWNED COMPANIES WITH CONTROL - More than 50% Shareholding..

What the other companies that government own shares in?

In 2005, data was revealed by the government - what is the status now...do the government still owns as much? or has been sold off to some foreigners or others?

What are the percentage of government ownership not provided for the other companies like DRB HICOM, MAS, etc..

Name of Gompany [Total Government shareholding (%) as March 2005]




Malayan Banking Bhd (63.5)

Telekom Malaysia Bhd (63.8)

Tenaga Nasional Bhd (73.7)

Malaysia International Shipping Corp Bhd (MISC) (72.1)

Sime Darby Bhd (57.3)

Petronas Gas Bhd (89.8)

PLUS Expressways Bhd (77.0)

Commerce Asset Holdings Bhd (47.9)

Golden Hope Plantations Bhd (78.8)

Malaysian Airline System Bhd (80.8)

Proton Holdings Bhd (68.8)

Petronas Dagangan Bhd (78.0)

Island & Peninsular Bhd (56.3)

UMW Holdings Bhd (58.6)

Kumpulan Guthrie Bhd (82.5)

Affin Holdings Bhd (54.3)

Malaysia Airports Holdings Bhd (77.3)

Bintulu Port Holdings Bhd (71.3)

POS Malaysia & Services Holdings Bhd (35.4)

NCB Holdings Bhd (60.2)

UEM World Bhd (50.8)

Malaysian Industrial Development Finance Bhd (MIDF) (40.1)

Boustead Holdings (71.3)

BIMB Holdings Bhd (67.6)

Chemical Co. of Malaysia Bhd (69.4)

Malaysian Nasional Reinsurance Bhd (69.3)

MNI Holdings Bhd(84.6)

UDA Holdings Bhd (56.7)

Malaysian Resources Corp Bhd (30.6)

Pelangi Bhd (43.2)

Time Engineering Bhd (51.9)

Malaysia Building Society Bhd (79.1)

Faber Group Bhd (41.4)

Formosa Prosonic Industries Bhd (28.5)

Central Industries Corp (38.6)

YA Horng Electronic Malaysia Bhd (29.6)

Hunza Consolidated Bhd (19.1)

D’Nonce Technology Bhd (24.4)

Johan Ceramics Bhd (73.4)
·         ****Shareholding as of March 2005

 

Foreign stratetic partner for Proton to be selected by first half

PETALING JAYA: DRB-Hicom Bhd aims to complete the selection of a foreign partner for automotive arm Proton Holdings Bhd by the first half of this year.

In a statement yesterday, the group said it is waiting for the submission of bids from potential foreign strategic partners.

“As we have stated previously, the parties have conducted their own due diligence on Proton over the past weeks. DRB-Hicom is now waiting for the submission of bids from the parties, after which an earnest evaluation of the bids will commence,” said DRB-Hicom group managing director Datuk Seri Syed Faisal Albar.

It was reported that Chinese automaker Geely Automobile Holdings Ltd is the front runner, ahead of French carmakers PSA Group and Renault SA.

Proton has been a drag for DRB-Hicom since the acquisition of the car maker in 2012. DRB-Hicom incurred a widened net loss of RM478.94 million for six months ended Sept 30, 2016.

In its search for the right foreign strategic partner for Proton, DRB-Hicom said it will evaluate three key criteria – strategic, operational and cultural fit.

A strategic fit will enable both parties to derive tangible benefits from the range of technology and products available, complementing each other’s needs in their own markets, and achieving economies of scale.

“In evaluating the potential partners, DRB-Hicom will insist that the Proton badge and its technology will be expanded into Asean markets first and global arena subsequently,” Syed Faisal said.

An operational fit will ensure that both parties complement each other’s strengths and existing company structures blend well to achieve seamless operation while a cultural fit would ensure a successful union.

As part of the evaluation, he said, the group will also assess the intention of the potential partners in utilising the current “home-grown” vendor network.

“This is a very significant element in our evaluation, as DRB-Hicom who also own subsidiaries serving Proton as vendors, would avoid for these ‘home-grown’ network to be diluted substantially,” he explained.

Syed Faisal said the partnership would also benefit the foreign partner, as it would be able to offer Proton’s range of affordable cars namely Persona, Saga, Preve and Iriz to specific markets across the globe.

He said the foreign partner would also be able to immediately increase their production capacity via Proton’s Tanjung Malim plant in Proton City, which has a low utilisation rate presently.

Syed Faisal stressed that the search for a foreign partner is a critical exercise to ensure the sustainability of Proton and is confident that Proton will enhance its brand equity with the right partner.

“We have stated before that we will maintain a significant equity in Proton, and this has not changed. The foreign strategic partner search is not about shirking our national responsibility but about enhancing Proton as a bona-fide carmaker, and eventually putting them, and Malaysia, on the global map,” he added. - The Sun Daily, 8/2/2017

http://www.thesundaily.my/news/2154622

Geely shares soar to record on report it’s buying Proton’s Malaysia car assembly

A successful Proton bid will add 150,000 units of annual capacity to Geely’s output and give the Chinese carmaker access to Asean’s 10-member market
PUBLISHED : Friday, 03 February, 2017, 6:43pm
UPDATED : Friday, 03 February, 2017, 10:50pm

Summer Zhen
Summer Zhen

Geely, based in the Zhejiang provincial capital of Hangzhou, is a leading contender to buy a 51 per cent controlling stake in Malaysia’s largest carmaker Proton Holdings Bhd., according to a Thursday report in The Star newspaper, which cited unidentified sources. - http://www.scmp.com/business/china-business/article/2067885/geely-shares-soar-record-report-its-buying-protons-malaysia

15. Who are the GLCs? What is the definition of GLCs?

A: Government-Linked Companies (GLCs) are defined as companies that have a primary commercial objective and in which the Malaysian Government has a direct controlling stake.

Controlling stake refers to the Government's ability (not just percentage ownership) to appoint Board members, senior management, and/or make major decisions (e.g. contract awards, strategy, restructuring and financing, acquisitions and divestments etc.) for GLCs, either directly or through GLICs.

Includes GLCs, where the Government of Malaysia controls directly through Khazanah, MoF Inc, KWAP, and BNM; or where GLICs and/or other federal government linked agencies collectively have a controlling stake.

Includes companies where GLCs themselves have a controlling stake, i.e. subsidiaries and affiliates of GLCs.


16. Who are the GLICs?

A: Government-Linked Investment Companies (GLICs) are defined as Federal Government linked investment companies that allocate some or all of their funds to GLC investments.

Defined by the influence of the Federal Government in: appointing/approving Board members and senior management, and having these individuals report directly to the Government, as well as in providing funds for operations and/or guaranteeing capital (and some income) placed by unit holders.

This definition currently includes seven GLICs: Employees Provident Fund (EPF), Khazanah Nasional Bhd (Khazanah), Kumpulan Wang Amanah Pencen (KWAP), Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera (LTAT), Lembaga Tabung Haji (LTH), Menteri Kewangan Diperbadankan (MKD), Permodalan Nasional Bhd (PNB).  Source:- Putrajaya Committee Putrajaya for GLC High Performance Websites

Only 33 human traffickers convicted? 42 public servants 'guilty', and what sentence for them? Failings of Minister Zahid Hamidi?

$
0
0

Only 33 human traffickers convicted in Malaysia? Was this cases of people detaining and forcing women to be sex workers? 

Well, in Malaysia "trafficking in persons" have a very much broader meaning including 'forced labour' and labour exploitation...The law now says that there must be coercion as well...and there must be the object of exploitation...

So, Minister Zahid Hamidi need to give us more details of the offences that these 'human traffickers' did - Was it forced labour? Was it 'illegal activity or the removal of human organs'?

Was it for acquiring, maintaining, transfering, harbouring, providing or receiving a person? 

Were the victims foreigners or local Malaysians? Well, since Malaysia's solution with regard to foreigners, is to speedily sent them out of Malaysia back to their countries of origin - thus making it difficult to have the required witnesses needed by prosecution for the purposes of conviction of these 'human traffickers'...Hence, many 'human traffickers' would easily be able to escape justice...

More details are required, and explanation must be given as to why so few have been convicted? Surely, by reason of the broad definition of 'trafficking in persons', there should have been so many more - How many companies/businesses were convicted? None?

There are so many different stages in 'trafficking of persons' - and as such for each victim, there should be quite a few different perpetrators - so why so few were convicted...

"trafficking in persons" means all actions involved in acquiring or maintaining the labour or services of a person through coercion, and includes the act of recruiting, conveying, transferring, harbouring, providing or receiving a person for the purposes of this Act; - Section 2, ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS AND ANTI-SMUGGLING OF MIGRANTS ACT 2007

"exploitation" means all forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, any illegal activity or the removal of human organs;

"coercion" means-
(a) threat of serious harm to or physical restraint against any person;
(b) any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that failure to perform an act would result in serious harm to or physical restraint against any person; or
(c) the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process;
 
12  Offence of trafficking in persons

 Any person, who traffics in persons not being a child, for the purpose of exploitation, commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding fifteen years, and shall also be liable to fine.

15  Offence of profiting from exploitation of a trafficked person

Any person who profits from the exploitation of a trafficked person commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding fifteen years, and shall also be liable to a fine of not less than five hundred thousand ringgit but not exceeding one million ringgit and shall also be liable to forfeiture of the profits from the offence. 

Now, even the easier offence to secure conviction, i.e. the withholding of passports, as we have heard of so many reported complaints and studies >>> only 18 convicted is absurd. 

Most disappointing was the fact that '42 civil servants from enforcement agencies were detained, investigated and necessary action taken for their involvement in activities related to human trafficking and smuggling in migrants'. What is necessary action? Were they simply warned...or were they just transfered to a different department or town...or were they simply dismissed from service. What is required is that they ve charged, tried and convicted - 'interior disciplinary action' is not acceptable..

Public Servants like this, who are expected to enforce the law, should be prosecuted with determination. The fact they were from enforcement agencies makes it an aggravating factor when it comes to sentencing. Were they not charged, tried, convicted because they may reveal the involvement of superior officers and maybe even the Minister? 

Faith need to be restored in public servants and enforcement agencies - the 'corrupt' and the 'criminals' need to be weeded out, prosecuted and convicted and certainly given a high punishments. The Government must ensure that such cases are highlighted in the media, and hopefully will deter other public servants from abusing their positions...

Are public servants being 'bribed'...or are they being threatened with harm...Is that the reason for such low numbers of convictions? How many public servants have been convicted? 

About 1,130 victims - Why only 16 allowed to move freely, and only 10 allowed to work? Why were all the 1,000 over victims allowed to move freely and work in Malaysia at least until the case against these 'human traffickers' was tried in court. 

Who were this victims? Country of origin? Victims of what type of 'human trafficking'?

On the face of it, the media report looks OK - but a closer analysis will cause much dissapointment especially with regard to the Minister in Charge, Ahmad Zahid Hamidi? 

 

33 convicted of human trafficking last year

Bernama
 
 | February 8, 2017

18 employers were also charged under the Passport Act 1966 for withholding passports of their employees.

Zahid-Hamidi_human-tracking_600

PUTRAJAYA: Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said 100 convictions of human trafficking-related cases, involving 33 individuals, were recorded under the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants (Atipsom) Act 2007 last year.

They included 79 convictions for human trafficking, nine convictions for smuggling of migrants, including in Wang Kelian, and 12 convictions under the Immigration Act, the Penal Code and other related acts.

Zahid, who is also home minister, said the increase in the success rate was the result of close cooperation and the continued commitment of the deputy public prosecutors, enforcement officers and officers who protect the human trafficking victims and members of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Council (Mapo).

“The number of investigation papers related to such cases also increased from 158 in 2015 to 326 in 2016, which marks a two-fold increase,” he said in a statement issued by the home ministry today.

The increase in investigations related to such cases reflects the commitment and close cooperation and enforcement of Mapo, which comprises the police, Immigration Department, Manpower Department, Customs and Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency, with the assistance of law enforcement bodies like the courts and the attorney-general’s office, he said.
Zahid, in the statement, said 18 individuals/employers were charged under the Passport Act 1966 for withholding passports of their employees, which provides for a maximum fine of RM10,000, or a jail term of up to 10 years, or both, upon conviction.

“During the same period, 42 civil servants from enforcement agencies were detained, investigated and necessary action taken for their involvement in activities related to human trafficking and smuggling in migrants.”

Zahid said 1,130 victims who were believed to have been exploited by their employers were given protection through placements at shelter homes throughout the country until December last year, and that a majority of them were women.

He said last year, 16 human trafficking victims were granted permission to move freely and 10 allowed to work in Malaysia before returning to their own country.

“The government, through Mapo, is always committed to combating crimes related to human trafficking. I urge all stakeholders to play a significant role by channelling information to the enforcement agencies,” he said.- FMT News, 8/2/2017

JUDGES SHOULD DECIDE ON BAIL, NOT THE PUBLIC PROCECUTOR -Access to Bail Must Not Be Denied To The Poor Or By Law (MADPET)

$
0
0

See related post:-Judges should decide on Bail - not the Public Prosecutor?

Judges should decide on bail, not the public prosecutor

   Charles Hector     Published     Updated
Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet) is shocked that the public prosecutor may be considering a proposal to deny bail for repeat offenders of small drug-related crimes that carry the penalty of five years’ imprisonment or less.

This was reportedly disclosed by Perak Narcotics Criminal Investigation Department head ACP VR Ravi Chandran who said there was a need to do so “... due to the increase of 12.2 percent, or 2,220 people, who were arrested for various drug-related offences last year” (‘Perak mulls denying bail for repeat drug offenders’, FMT News, Feb 2, 2017 and The Star Feb 3, 2017).

We recall the legal principle that every accused shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty, that is proven guilty after a fair trial.

The purpose of bail is simply that the accused person be released on condition that he turns up in court on the dates fixed for his/her case. Judges do consider all relevant factors, before deciding on the question of bail, which also may be granted on many other conditions, if needed.

As it is now, section 41B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 already denies bail for persons charged with offences under the Act that carries the death sentences or sentences of more than five years’ imprisonment.
Section 41B 1(c), however, states as follows, “where the offence is punishable with imprisonment for five years or less and the public prosecutor certifies in writing that it is not in the public interest to grant bail to the accused person”. That means the public prosecutor will decide, and the accused has to stay in detention until the trial is over and the court decides whether he/she is guilty or not. This is unacceptable.

Judges should decide whether bail is to be granted or denied to an accused in any particular case. In bail applications, judges do consider all the arguments of the prosecutor and also the accused persons. Judges, after taking into account all relevant facts and the law, decide whether bail be granted or not, and if granted on what conditions.

It is wrong for Parliament through laws to oust this discretion of judges and/or courts. It is even more unjust, if that decision rests just in the hands of the public prosecutor.

What the Perak police are allegedly asking for is even more draconian, they want bail to be denied to all ‘repeat offenders’. It must be noted that some, especially the poor, even when innocent, do plead guilty especially for offences that carry lesser sentences.

Section 41B(1)(c) give the power of denial of bail to the public prosecutor, who simply has to certify “... in writing that it is not in the public interest to grant bail to the accused person...” Judges and courts power to decide on bail is simply ousted.

Worse still, the application seems to be for a blanket denial of bail for all persons charged with a drug-related offence, and this is unacceptable. This would include even persons allegedly with a very small amounts of drugs, possibly simply for personal usage. Every person’s application for bail should be considered individually.

There is great injustice when an innocent person is deprived of his liberty for so many months or years, and then found to be not guilty. As it is, trials in Malaysia can take a very long time, and it is possible some may have been detained for periods that are even longer than the maximum imprisonment sentence they would have faced if found guilty by court.

Denial of bail means not just the loss of liberty. It will also affect a person’s employment and income, a person’s business and other income generating activities. The impact will be also be felt by the family and dependants.

Now that Malaysia is a signatory of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and by reason of the values Malaysians hold, we have to ask whether it is in the best interest of the child if her/his parent, brother or sister, is kept in detention even before the court finds/him/her guilty.

What is worse, is the greater injustice that befalls a person and also his/her family, if the courts finally determines that he/she is not guilty. Harm cause by this denial of bail can never be erased, and in Malaysia, at present there is still no law that provides for just compensation for those victims, whose freedom and liberty have been denied for so long.

‘Need for a law for just compensation’

It is thus important, that we, at the very least, have a law to provide for just compensation and/or damages to such persons, found to be innocent, for the time they had already spent in detention by reason of denial of bail, poverty, wrong court decisions that are overturned by higher courts, and even unnecessary detention by police for remand.

In some case, where there may have been justification to keep a person in detention and that person is finally acquitted and set free, he/she also needs to be compensation for the loss of liberty and freedoms, he/she had to suffer by reason of the said detentions.

The poor suffer the greatest when courts set bail at an amount which is too high and/or affordable to them and/or their family/friends. In Malaysia, where the bail is set at RM10,000, then the surety is expected to have that RM10,000 and be willing to part with it for the necessary duration.

A poor man earning RM1,000 per month, which is used to support himself and his family, when asked to post bail of even RM2,000 may find it almost impossible. A poor man’s family and friends also may not be able to afford to come up with that much. The end result is that even if bail is granted, but is unaffordable, a person may end up in detention until the trial is over.

Worse still is the situation when a person, who has been in detention by reason of denial of bail or being unable to afford bail, is finally found guilty for an offence where the maximum sentence is much less than the time actually spend in detention awaiting the end of trial. There is still no compensation for the extra unnecessary time spend in detention.

Some judges do consider the period the convicted has spend in detention when handing out sentence, and sentence them to the time spend already in detention which enables the convicted to immediately go free. But the doubt arises whether the same judge would have given a much lesser sentence if the same accussed had been out on bail pending conviction.

This bleak reality also results in many persons who may be actually innocent pleading guilty at the onset, because by so doing, they will just simply have to spend time in prison for a shorter defined period, and thereafter resume their ordinary life as soon as they get released. A great injustice happens.

Now, if bail is denied for minor drug related crimes, that carry sentences, if convicted, of imprisonment of five years or less, the naturally we may find many of these persons who are innocent or will never be found guilty, simply pleading guilty at the very start of the trial. It may good for the government, the police/enforcement officers and the prosecution to show effective law enforcement, but in actual fact it may not be true and a great injustice would occur.

As such, Madpet urges

a) That the question of bail must be always determined by the judges and/or courts, and certainly never the public prosecutor;

b) That all laws and/or provisions of law that deny the right to apply for bail, including Section 41B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 be immediately repealed;

c) That right to bail is exercisable by all who are entitled, especially the poor. Bail amounts should be set taking into account the income of the accused and/or his immediate family;

d) That trials, where the accused are not out on bail, be expedited, and completed preferably not later than six (6) months;

e) That Malaysia enacts a law that will properly compensate the loss of liberty, freedoms and rights for those who have spend time in detention who is ultimately found not guilty and/or are acquitted. This compensation should also probably compensate the expenses incurred by the said accused (or even initially convicted) in his/her struggle than ended up in court finding him not guilty and/or acquitting him;

f) That Malaysia promotes and respects the human rights and freedom of all, including the right to a fair trial and the right to bail.


CHARLES HECTOR is coordinator, Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet).

Source: Malaysiakini, 15/2/2017


Media Statement:- 15/2/2017

JUDGES SHOULD DECIDE ON BAIL, NOT THE PUBLIC PROCECUTOR


-Access to Bail Must Not Be Denied To The Poor Or By Law –



MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) is shocked that the Public Prosecutor maybe considering the proposal  to deny bail for repeat offenders of small drug-related crimes that carries the penalty of 5 years or less. This was reportedly disclosed by Perak Narcotic Criminal Investigation Department head ACP V R Ravi Chandran  who said there was a need to do so ‘… due to the increase of 12.2%, or 2,220 people, who were arrested for various drug-related offences last year..’.(FMT News, 2/2/2017 ‘Perak mulls denying bail for repeat drug offenders’)/and  Star 3/2/1017).


We recall the legal principle that every accused shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty, that is proven guilty after a fair trial.


The purpose of bail is simply that the accused person be released on condition that he turns up in court on the dates fixed for his/her case. Judges do consider all relevant factors, before deciding on the question of bail, which also may be granted on many other conditions, if needed.   


As it is now, section 41B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 already denies bail for persons charged with offences under the Act that carries the death sentences or sentences of more than 5 years imprisonment. Section 41B 1(c), however, states as follows, ‘where the offence is punishable with imprisonment for five years or less and the Public Prosecutor certifies in writing that it is not in the public interest to grant bail to the accused person. That means the Public Prosecutor will decide, and the accused has to stay in detention until the trial is over and the court decides whether he/she is guilty or not. This is unacceptable.


Judges should decide whether bail is to be granted or denied to an accused in any particular case. In bail applications, judges do consider all the arguments of the prosecutor and also the accused persons. Judges, after taking into account all relevant facts and the law, decides whether bail be granted or not, and if granted on what conditions. It is wrong for Parliament through laws to oust this discretion of judges and/or courts. It is even more unjust, if that decision rests just in the hands of the Public Prosecutor.


What the Perak police is allegedly asking for is even more draconian, they want bail to be denied to all ‘repeat offenders’. It must be noted that some, especially the poor, even when innocent, do plead guilty especially for offences that carry lesser sentences.


Section 41B(1)(c) give the power of denial of bail to the Public Prosecutor, who simply has to certify ‘… in writing that it is not in the public interest to grant bail to the accused person…’Judges and courts power to decide on bail is simply ousted.


Worse still, the application seems to be for a blanket denial of bail for all persons charged with a drug related offence is unacceptable.  This would include even persons allegedly with a very small amounts of drugs, possibly simply for personal usage. Every person’s application for bail should be considered individually.


Great injustice when an innocent person is deprived of his liberty for so many months or years, and then found to be not guilty. As it is, trials in Malaysia can take a very long time, and it is possible some may have been detained for periods that are even longer than the maximum imprisonment sentence they would have faced if found guilty by court.


Denial of bail means not just the loss of liberty. It will also affect a person’s employment and income, a person’s business and other income generating activities. The impact will be also be felt by the family and dependants. Now, that Malaysia is a signatory of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and by reason of the values Malaysians hold, we have to ask whether it is in the best interest of the child if her/his parent, brother or sister, is kept in detention even before the court finds/him/her guilty.


What is worse, is the greater injustice that befalls a person and also his/her family, if the courts finally determines that he/she is not guilty. Harm cause by this denial of bail can never be erased, and in Malaysia, at present there is still no law that provides for just compensation for those victims, whose freedom and liberty have been denied for so long. It is thus important, that we, at the very least, have a law to provide for just compensation and/or damages to such persons, found to be innocent, for the time they had already spent in detention by reason of denial of bail, poverty, wrong court decisions that are overturned by higher courts, and even unnecessary detention by police for remand. In some case, where there may have been justification to keep a person in detention and that person is finally acquitted and set free, he/she also needs to be compensation for the loss of liberty and freedoms, he/she had to suffer by reason of the said detentions.


The poor suffer the greatest when courts set bail at an amount, which is too high and/or affordable to them and/or their family/friends. In Malaysia, where the bail is set at RM10,000, then the surety is expected to have that RM10,000 and be willing to part with it for the necessary duration. A poor man earning RM1,000 per month, which is used to support himself and his family, when asked to post bail of even RM2,000 may find it almost impossible. A poor man’s family and friends also may not be able to afford to come up with that much. End result is that even if bail is granted, but is unaffordable, a person may end up in detention until the trial is over.


Worse still is the situation when a person, who has been in detention by reason of denial of bail or being unable to afford bail, is finally found guilty for an offence where the maximum sentence is much less than the time actually spend in detention awaiting the end of trial. There is still no compensation for the extra unnecessary time spend in detention. Some judges, do consider the period the convicted has spend in detention when handing out sentence, and sentence them to the time spend already in detention which enables the convicted to immediately go free. But the doubt arises whether the same judge would have given a much lesser sentence if the same accussed had been out on bail pending conviction.


This bleak reality also results in many persons who may be actually innocent pleading guilty at the onset, because by so doing, they will just simply have to spend time in prison for a shorter defined period, and thereafter resume their ordinary life as soon as they get released. A great injustice happens.


Now, if bail is denied for minor drug related crimes, that carry sentences, if convicted, of imprisonment of five years or less, the naturally we may find many of these persons who are innocent or will never be found guilty, simply pleading guilty at the very start of the trial. It may good for the government, the police/enforcement officers and the prosecution to show effective law enforcement, but in actual fact it may not be true and a great injustice would occur.


As such, MADPET calls for


a)      That the question of bail must be always determined by the Judges and/or Courts, and certainly never the Public Prosecutor;


b)      That all laws and/or provisions of law that deny the right to apply for bail, including section 41B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 be immediately repealed;


c)       That right to bail is exercisable by all who are entitled, especially the poor. Bail amounts should be set taking into account the income of the accused and/or his immediate family;


d)      That trials, where the accused are not out on bail, be expedited, and completed preferably not later than six(6) months;


e)      That Malaysia enacts a law that will properly compensate the loss of liberty, freedoms and rights for those who have spend time in detention who is ultimately found not guilty and/or are acquitted. This compensation should also probably compensate the expenses incurred by the said accused (or even initially convicted) in his/her struggle than ended up in court finding him not guilty and/or acquitting him;


f)       That Malaysia promotes and respects the human rights and freedom of all, including the right to a fair trial and the right to bail.



Charles Hector

For and on behalf of MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

Malaysia: End impunity for unlawful deaths in custody (Amnesty International)

$
0
0


AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
PUBLIC STATEMENT
15 February 2017
ASA 28/5698/2017


Malaysia: End impunity for unlawful deaths in custody

The Malaysian authorities must immediately order an independent and impartial investigation into the recent death of a 44 year old man in police custody and address the alarming number of deaths in detention and the lack of adequate investigations into possible human rights violations involved in such. At stake are two of the key human rights, which are non-derogable under international human rights law, namely the right to life and freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

On 6 February 2017, S Balamurugan was arrested with two of his friends for burglary. The following day, he was brought to court for a remand hearing. S Balamurungan’s lawyer stated in a police report that he could not walk and that he was bleeding severely from his mouth during his appearance in court. The presiding Magistrate rejected the police officers’ request to remand S Balamurugan in police custody and ordered that he be released and sent to a hospital for medical treatment.
 
However, the police appear to have failed to comply with the Magistrate’s orders.When his family went to the North Klang Police Station later that day to wait for his release, they were informed that S Balamurugan had been re-arrested. The day after, his family was informed that he had died. When his wife went to identify S Balamurugan’s body, they said that it was badly bruised and covered with blood, despite a post-mortem which stated that he had died from a heart attack.

An unlawful custodial death is a serious human rights violation. All deaths in custody must be promptly, independently and effectively investigated. Where there are grounds for believing that the cause of death was unlawful, and where sufficient, admissible evidence is found, suspected perpetrators, including those with command responsibility, must be prosecuted in fair trials.

Amnesty International calls on the Malaysian government to independently, impartially and effectively investigate the death of S Balamurugan, immediately suspend police officers allegedly involved in his death, and ensure that those suspected of responsibility are held to account.

Background
Amnesty International has monitored other cases in Malaysia in which responsible authorities have not been held accountable for unlawful deaths in custody. For example, in 2013, N Dharmendran died from injuries sustained while in police custody. Despite photographs shared by the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) that showed severe injuries and bruising on his body, no one has yet been held to account for his death. This case and many others illustrate the apparent failure of Malaysian authorities to hold police officers and other government officials accountable for unlawful conduct and human rights violations.

Keadilan boleh dicapai pekerja jika ada kesangguppan berjuang? Sumbangan KWSP?

$
0
0
Jika mahu berjuang untuk hak asasi dan keadilan, pekerja boleh berjaya...Bila hak dicabul, merunggut sahaja tidak menyelesaikan masalah...yang penting adalah terus berjuang sehingga keadilan di capai...

Di dalam kes, majikan gagal membayar sumbangan KWSP ...dan satu halangan menjadi surat keluaran KWSP sendiri ...kebanyakkan orang akan terus 'menyerah' kerana KWSP sendiri nampaknya menyatakan majikan tak buat salah....tetapi pekerja ini teruskan perjuangan...dan akhirnya mencapai kemenangan...surat KWSP itu tidak menyatakan apa yang benar..

"..Majikan telah menggunakan surat daripada pegawai KWSP sebagai kata muktamad dalam rundingan itu. Dalam surat tersebut, pegawai KWSP menyokong tindakan majikan yang menegaskan perkongsian untung yang dibayar tidak perlu dicarumkan dalam KWSP. Apabila pihak pekerja membawa surat itu ke KWSP cawangan Batu Caves sebagai tujuan pengesahan, pihak pegawai di sana menekankan bahawa surat berkenaan tidak sepatutnya dikeluarkan kerana ianya bercanggah sama sekali dengan akta KWSP..."
In satu contoh bagaimana perjuangan bukan senang tetapi jika kita teruskan perjuangan dengan keyakinan tanpa perasaan takut...keadilan boleh dicapai. Perjuangan seorang mungkin senang ditangkis - tetapi perjuangan yang mempunyai sokongan dan solidariti ramai...sukar diketepikan. 

Tak ada kesatuan sekerja, tetapi pekerja kilang ini telah 'Organize" dan berjaya ramai pekerja untuk berjuang mendapatkan keadilan dan akhirnya dapat...

Pengalaman ini memberikan kita inspirasi ...memberikan kita keyakinan bahawa bukan mustahil menang dalam perjuangan menentang majikan atau mereka kuat...Hanya perlukan komitmen dan kesanggupan akan berjuang bersungguh-sungguh, tanpa takut ... 




Pekerja Kilang Ais Meraikan Kemenangan

Pekerja Kilang Ais Meraikan Kemenangan

Posted by trotsky1917
PEKERJA KILANG ATLAS EDIBLE AIS DI KEPONG DAN BATU CAVES MERAIKAN KEMENANGAN DALAM PERJUANGAN MENUNTUT CARUMAN KWSP KE ATAS KOMISEN
Hampir RM800,000 berjaya dituntut oleh 100 pekerja Kilang Atlas Edible Ais di Kepong dan Batu Caves!

RM5 juta yang dilesapkan oleh majikan daripada 23 cawangan Kilang Atlas Edible Ais di Lembah Kelang, Selangor dan Negeri Sembilan berjaya dituntut!

Lebih 1000 pekerja daripada 23 cawangan mendapat manfaat.

Pemotongan bulanan caruman KWSP untuk komisen berjaya dituntut!

Dengan solidariti dan kepimpinan yang mantap, pekerja mampu menang!

Pada 18hb. Februari yang lalu, Persatuan Pekerja Kilang Atlas Edible Ais Kepong dan Batu Caves menganjurkan majlis jamuan di perkarangan kilang untuk meraikan kemenangan mereka dalam perjuangan menuntut hak ke atas pemotongan caruman KWSP ke atas komisen.

Pada bulan Ogos 2016, pihak KWSP telah memaklumkan kepada Jawatankuasa Pekerja Atlas Ais Kepong dan Batu Caves bahawa majikan Kilang Atlas Edible Ais telah didapati bersalah akibat tidak mencarum KWSP untuk komisen, dan dengan itu KWSP akan menuntut supaya pembayaran caruman tidak dibayar selama ini dibayar balik ke tabung KWSP pekerja.

Ini adalah kejayaan kepada perjuangan pekerja Atlas Ais di cawangan Kepong dan Batu Caves, hasil pembinaan solidariti pekerja, serta perjuangan mereka untuk mendedahkan penipuan serta menuntut hak pekerja. Kejayaan ini juga memberikan manfaat kepada pekerja Kilang Atlas Edible Ais di cawangan-cawangan yang lain.

Dengan kejayaan ini, KWSP telah memaklumkan bahawa majikan akan membayar hampir RM800,000 ringgit ke tabung KWSP pekerja untuk seramai 100 orang pekerja Atlas Ais di Kepong dan Batu Caves. Pihak KWSP juga telah memaklumkan bahawa mereka juga telah menuntut majikan kilang Atlas Ais untuk membuat pembayaran hampir RM5 juta untuk 23 cawangan lain di kawasan Lembah Kelang dan Negeri Sembilan.

Kejayaan ini juga telah merangsang pekerja Kilang Atlas Edible Ais menubuhkan Jawatankuasa pekerja serta Persatuan Pekerja untuk terus membina solidariti pekerja serta memperjuangan hak dan kebajikan pekerja. Sosialis Alternatif telah bersama dengan pekerja Atlas untuk membina dan memantapkan perjuangan tersebut.

LATAR BELAKANG PERJUANGAN

Kejayaan ini adalah susulan daripada protes dan aduan pekerja di KWSP pada bulan Jun 2016 yang lepas, di mana lebih 80 pekerja Atlas Edible Ice Sdn Bhd, cawangan Kepong dan Batu Caves turun untuk membantah komplot majikan dan pegawai KWSP dalam penipuan ke atas caruman KWSP ke atas komisen. Dengan berbekalkan sepanduk, kain rentang seperti “Lebih 20 Tahun Majikan Tipu Pekerja”, “Jutaan Ringgit Dari Akaun KWSP Pekerja Lesap “ dan sebagainya, para pekerja turun membantah komplot dan penipuan majikan di Bangunan Ibu Pejabat KWSP Jalan Raja Laut, Kuala Lumpur.

Para pekerja yang terlibat adalah terdiri daripada pemandu dan pembantu lori yang memasarkan dan menghantar ais ke seluruh restoran di sekitar Lembah Klang. Dengan penghantaran an pemasaran ais, mereka akan memperoleh komisen berdasarkan jumlah jualan harian (dalam tan). Manakala bayaran komisen pula akan dibuat secara bulanan berdasarkan jumlah berat yang terkumpul.

Seksyen 2 Akta KWSP menetapkan bahawa “Semua saraan dalam bentuk wang yang kena dibayar kepada pekerja di bawah kontrak perkhidmatan atau perantisan sama ada ia dipersetujui untuk dibayar secara bulanan, mingguan, harian atau selainnya. Antara bayaran yang dikenakan caruman KWSP: Gaji , Bayaran bagi cuti rehat tahunan dan cuti sakit yang tidak digunakan, Bonus, Elaun, Komisen, Insentif, Tunggakan upah, Upah bagi cuti bersalin, Upah bagi cuti belajar, Upah bagi cuti separuh gaji dan bayaran-bayaran lain di bawah kontrak perkhidmatan atau sebaliknya.”

Namun, selama ini majikan di Atlas Edible Ice tidak membuat caruman untuk komisen berkenaan. Tambahan pula, majikan dengan sengaja menukar dari komisen ke ‘perkongsian untung’ hanya selepas tahun 2006 tanpa pengetahuan pekerja sedangkan bidang pekerjaan masih sama. Tindakan tersebut menjelaskan bahawa majikan bukan sahaja tidak mencarum, malah satu penipuan yang dirancang teliti telah berlaku sekian lama.

Isu penyelewengan yang sama juga pernah berlaku di Atlas cawangan Nilai, dan akibat didesak oleh para pekerja Nilai akhirnya majikan bersetuju untuk membuat pembayaran secara tunai. Majikan terpaksa membuat perjanjian pembayaran secara tunai pada November 2015 terhadap duit caruman KWSP ke atas komisen yang tidak dibayar dengan syarat perkara itu tidak tersebar ke cawangan Atlas lain. Akibat pendedahan dan tuntutan pekerja Atlas Nilai, majikan juga telah mula mencarum KWSP untuk komisen di Atlas cawangan Nilai pada bulan Mei 2015, dan di cawangan-cawangan lain pada bulan Oktober 2015.

Malangnya, para pekerja turut mendapati terdapat usaha komplot dalaman daripada pegawai KWSP dengan pihak majikan. Para pekerja Kepong dan Batu Caves telah melakukan dua rundingan dengan majikan mengenai caruman yang tidak dibayar. Majikan telah menggunakan surat daripada pegawai KWSP sebagai kata muktamad dalam rundingan itu. Dalam surat tersebut, pegawai KWSP menyokong tindakan majikan yang menegaskan perkongsian untung yang dibayar tidak perlu dicarumkan dalam KWSP. Apabila pihak pekerja membawa surat itu ke KWSP cawangan Batu Caves sebagai tujuan pengesahan, pihak pegawai di sana menekankan bahawa surat berkenaan tidak sepatutnya dikeluarkan kerana ianya bercanggah sama sekali dengan akta KWSP.

Walaupun para pekerja menyatakan kesahihan surat itu boleh dipertikaikan, majikan tetap berkeras menganggap ianya adalah muktamad dan menggelak untuk bertanggungjawab terhadap caruman pekerja. Yang dikesali, pegawai KWSP yang sepatutnya berada di pihak pekerja dalam membuat keputusan tetapi tidak berbuat demikian dan berkomplot dengan pihak majikan dalam penipuan ke atas duit saraan hari tua pekerja.

Justeru itu, pihak pekerja mendesak pihak KWSP menyiasat pegawai yang mengeluarkan surat tersebut dan tindakan yang tegas diambil terhadap majikan yang ingkar dan melanggar undang-undang yang telah ditetapkan. Jawatankuasa pekerja juga telah membawa isu ini untuk perhatian dan tindakan SPRM, Kementerian Sumber Manusia, Jabatan Tenaga Kerja Semenanjung Malaysia, Biro Pengaduan Awam, Suhakam dan MTUC. Akibat tindakan dan tuntutan pekerja, pihak KWSP telah membuat siasatan terhadap aduan pekerja dan memutuskan bahawa majikan bersalah dan pembayaran harus dibuat ke tabung pekerja oleh majikan.

Kejayaan ini menjelaskan bahawa pekerja mampu menang jika bersatu di bawah sebuah kepimpinan yang bertindak untuk hak dan kebajikan pekerja. Syabas kepada Jawatankuasa pekerja dan semua warga pekerja Atlas Kepong dan Batu Caves yang berjaya menegakkan hak pekerja. Perjuangan seumpama ini mampu dibina oleh para pekerja lain dengan membina solidariti dan kepimpinan pekerja. Kesatuan sekerja yang masih lemah di negara ini juga harus dibina melalui pembinaan kepimpinan yang memihak kepada pekerja serta penglibatan secara aktif dalam perjuangan pekerja.

BERSATU TEGUH BERCERAI ROBOH…MANTAPKAN KEPIMPINAN DAN ORGANISASI PEKERJA, TERUSKAN PERJUANGAN!

Sumber: Laman WebSosialis Alternative

Philippines: House of Representatives must uphold international law obligations ahead of first death penalty vote

$
0
0


JOINT STATEMENT

19 February 2017

Philippines: House of Representatives must uphold international law obligations ahead of first death penalty vote

Ahead of the first vote on the proposed legislative amendments to reintroduce the death penalty in the Philippines, the undersigned organizations are calling on the country’s lawmakers to uphold its international law obligations and vote against the measure. The move would set the Philippines against its positive achievements in this area and the global trend towards abolition of the death penalty.

On 20 February the House of Representatives of the Philippines is expected to vote on a Bill to reintroduce the death penalty for a wide range of offences. The move would violate the country’s intended obligations under international law. In 2007 the Philippines ratified the Second Optional Protocol of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights that categorically prohibits executions and commits the country to the abolition of this punishment. These obligations cannot be withdrawn at any time.

We remain concerned at the “U turn” that the present administration is proposing for the country on the issue of the death penalty. Since its abolition of the death penalty − for the second time − in 2006, the Philippines has been a strong advocate of the abolition of the death penalty and has championed several initiatives to this aim in international forums. It has also worked to commute the death sentences imposed on Filipino nationals abroad, such as overseas workers. The legal assistance and political pressure that the authorities of the Philippines have provided to those facing this punishment in other countries has undoubtedly contributed to the protection of their rights, including the right to a fair trial, and could become ineffective if moves were made to re-introduce this penalty back home.

As of today, 141 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice; several governments are taking steps to repeal this punishment from national law.

The reasons countries abolish the death penalty are many and include the fact that there is no evidence that killing by the state deters crime, and much evidence to the contrary; that the death penalty invariably discriminates against the poor and disadvantaged, and that society and the state are seriously harmed and brutalised by descending to the act of killing prisoners.

A move to reintroduce this punishment would set the Philippines starkly against the global trend towards abolition. We oppose the death penalty in all cases and under any circumstances as a violation of the right to life, recognized by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights; and as the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.

We renew our call on the members of the House of Representatives of the Philippines to ensure its international commitments are respected and the Bill to reintroduce the death penalty is rejected.

This statement is signed by:

ACAT-Philippines
ADPAN-Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network
Amnesty International
Death Penalty Focus
ECPM-Ensemble Contre la Peine de Mort
FIACAT-Federation of Actions of Christians for the Abolition of Torture
FIDH-International Federation for Human Rights
MADPET-Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture
Reprieve-Australia

Penyata Cetak Bank DiPos Amat perlu oleh Rakyat Malaysia? Hak dinafikan tanpa persetujuan terdahulu penguna?

$
0
0
Penyata Cetak Akaun Bank yang dihantar setiap hari oleh Maybank nampaknya sudah tiada - kini mereka mahu kita layari internet dan dapatkan penyata secara sendiri...Kalau penguna secara khusus tak setuju, ini salah? Atau adakah kerajaan UMNO-BN secara salah membenarkan ini?

Please be informed that Maybank will no longer be mailing any hard copy bank statements to customers. You can now conveniently access your e-Statement (online statement) via Maybank2u and receive via your registered e-mail address. With e-Statement, you can view, download or print your bank statements anytime.-Maybank2u.com
Tindakan tak wajar dan tidak mengambil kira hakikat rakyat Malaysia...

Berapa orang sebenarnya mempunyai akses kepada internet? Dan juga printer? 

Kini ramai memilih untuk membuka akaun bank, di mana mereka akan dibekalkan penyata cetak melalui pos ... Jika tidak mahu penyata bulanan, mereka akan hanya buka akaun simpanan sahaja - di mana untuk ini hanya ada buku akaun sahaja...nak update kena pi bank dan update...Sekarang kena cari bank baru, yang akan terus memberikan penyata akaun cetak setiap bulan. Atau adakah ini tindakan kerajaan UMNO-BN yang 'memaksa' semua bank memberhentikan penghantaran penyata cetak?

Jika penguna 'internet banking' sahaja tidak dihantar penyata bulanan melalui pos - mungkin boleh terima...Tetapi, untuk ramai orang, penyata bank cetak ini penting - untuk pasti gaji masuk, untuk pastikan duit pencen masuk, untuk memastikan dividend pelaburan saham masuk, memastikan anak ada masuk wang dalam akaun bank,....kini, ada pula 'auto-pay' banyak bil - ini bererti pihak pembekal akan terus potong dari akaun bank anda, kini ada pula Visa 'pay wave' - jadi kena pastikan juga tak ada wang yang tak dibelanjakan tidak terkeluar dari akaun...Jika membayar melalui cek, nak pastikan cek tersebut sudah diterima dan ditunaikan....

Saya sendiri yang biasa guna komputer dan internet - tetapi memilih untuk tidak mengunakan 'phone banking' atau 'internet banking'...kan, itu pilihan penguna...Saya mahu penyata cetak kerana senang dibaca dan seterusnya disimpan dalam fail...Ada ramai yang tak suka baca dikomputer atau 'smart phone' - lebih gemar baca dokumen cetak...[Berapa ramai ada Printer di rumah untuk cetak, ingat banyak majikan tak akan benarkan pekerja mencetak di tempat kerja dokumen peribadi...malah ada juga majikan yang menghalang pengunaan komputer tempat kerja untuk urusan peribadi...]

Warga tua juga bergantung kepada penyata akaun ini, peniaga pun bergantung kepada penyata akaun ini...yang biasa disimpan dalam fail...Perbandingan penyata akaun dengan rekod sendiri juga senang ada penyata bank cetak ditangan...

Taktik'berhenti hantar penyata cetak' - sangat menyusahkan rakyat dan penguna - kini tak ada penyata...sukar untuk kita pastikan apa-apa salah laku berlaku...kenapa? Oh tak ada internet..tak tahu guna internet dan komputer...dan juga tak ada PRINTER untuk cetak dan periksa dan simpan...Penguna, bila menyimpan wang dalam sesuatu bank, mahukan faedah(tapi faedah pun kini di Malaysia terlampau rendah) dan mereka mahukan perkhidmatan(mendapat penyata bercetak setiap bulan...dan kemudahan mengeluarkan wang dengan senang, atau buat urusan wang yang lain...Bila masuk perjanjian dengan bank, bank kata akan hantar penyata bercetak setiap bulan - kini bank 'pecah kontrak' tanpa persetujuan khusus penguna?


PERJANJIAN DI ANTARA BANK DAN PENGUNA senang sahaja secara salah diubah satu pihak - iaitu bank? Bukankah ini salah? Ini tak boleh...sebab jika mahu menukar perjanjian, perlu persetujuan kedua-dua pihak...

Kini bank telah memecah kontrak tanpa persetujuan 'penguna' - salah...

Kini nampaknya, Bank macam mahu PAKSA rakyat bersetuju secara tidak langsung, 'memaksa' penguna setuju tidak mahu terima penyata bercetak melalui pos...kalau tak setuju, kamu tak boleh pun dapat penyata melalui emel...Lihat langkah ke-3 untuk mendapatkan penyata melalui emel dibawah...
Registration via email:
STEP 1: Login to M2U.
STEP 2: Select "Bills & Statements" and then "Statements".
STEP 3: If you are a first time user, you will be prompted to "Accept Stop Hardcopy notification". Click Accept.
STEP 4: Click "Email Statement Delivery", enter and confirm password, select the desired Account and enter your e-mail address. Click Continue.
STEP 5: Click ‘Confirm' to complete registration.-Maybank2u.com
Mengenakan syarat sebegini adalah salah. Menurut pendapat saya, hak menerima penyata cetak melalui pos harus dihormati - Jika pengguna mahu guna cara lain untuk melihat akaun mereka, sama ada secara 'online' atau untuk mendapat penyata menerusi emel, itu hak tambahan...Hak sedia ada tak harus dilepaskan...


Sebab lain mengapa penyata cetak yang dijana Maybank diperlukan? Ia merupakan dokumen yang jelas dikeluarkan Maybank - boleh digunakan sebagai bukti untuk apa-apa tuntutan... Penyata ONLINE dicetak hitam puteh oleh 'pengguna' mungkin tidak akan diterima sebagai bukti di Mahkamah atau oleh pihak lain? Boleh pula dakwaan timbul, ia bukan dokumen yang dijana Maybank...Maklumat Online boleh juga kena 'hack' atau ditukar bila-bila masa...Bank sendiri boleh tukar...justeru penyata janaan Maybank yang dicetak Maybank sendiri adalah bukti terkuat...dan tidak boleh dipertikaikan oleh bank tersebut pun kemudian hari...? [Berapa orang ada akses kepada Printer? Kos Printer, Kertas dan Dakwat Printer semua ditanggung pengguna. Kalau mahu cetak dokumen dikedai - kos kini tak kurang daripada RM2 satu muka surat, itu pun hitam putih bukan warna...]

Mereka yang telah dahulu ditanya dan telah jelas setuju tidak mahu terima penyata cetak terus dari Maybank, bank tersebut bolehlah hantar penyata melalui emel atau cara lain...saperti mana dipersetujui kedua-dua pihak, bank dan pengguna..

Kini penyata bulanan tak sampai beberapa bulan, bila mahu lihat penyata dilaman, mereka kata 'setuju dulu tak mahu lagi terima penyata cetak melalui pos biasa' - tak adil.

Kini simpan wang dalam bank, faedah terlalu rendah - kini penyata bulanan pun tak mahu dihantar melalui pos...

Kini ramai terpaksa minta pihak bank untuk akaun cetak, kemungkinan bank pula akan kenakan caj...Saya berpendirian bahawa bank seharusnya tidak mengenakan apa-apa caj untuk permintaan kini untuk penyata cetak bulanan...

Harus diingat, ATM pun kini tak boleh dapat lihat atau cetak penyata akaun bulanan...yang dapat dilihat pun disetengah bank hanya 'Mini Statement' ...untuk beberapa transaksi terkini untuk jangkamasa tertentu...ATM pun kini tak wujud disemua tempat ...kini ramai kena pi bandar untuk guna ATM. Tambahan pula, kini setengah bank sedang tutup cawangan dibandar-bandar kecil...

Kerajaan harus serta merta memastikan semua bank menghantar kepada semua penguna penyata cetak melalui pos untuk setiap bulan hingga kini mulai masa bank berhenti berbuat demikian...

Bank, seterusnya mesti mendapat persetujuan bertandatangan dari penguna, jika mereka mahu berhenti penyata bercetak janaan Bank melalui pos.. Kalau tak dapat persetujuan, bank harus terus penghantaran penyata cetak melalui pos...[Mungkin setengah mungkin setuju tak perlu hantar setiap bulan, 3 bulan sekali OK...}. Bagi penguna akan datang syarat perjanjian jika kata penyata hanya boleh dilihat online atau akan dihantar melalui emel, dan penguna setuju...itu OK. 

Saya percaya bahawa penguna baru (dan sedia ada) ramai akan tukar kepada bank yang terus akan menghantar penyata cetak melalui pos. Kerajaan atau Bank Negara harus tidak memaksa bank berhentikan perkhidmatan(atau perkhidmatan baru)  yang bank mahu berikan kepada penguna...itu hak bank...

Mengapa ini berlaku? Mahu jimat wang - kerana ada bank milikan kerajaan atau kroni hadapi masalah berkaitan dengan 1MDB, RM2 billion dalam akaun peribadiNajib, penurunan nilai ringgit....? 


Mengapa ini berlaku? Mahu jimat kertas - GST kini semua kena berikan resit panjang kepada penguna...Tak logik.

Mungkin Menteri, MP dan 'yang kaya' ada komputer dirumah, internet dan juga mesin cetak warna...senang untuk mereka- tapi fikirkan RAKYAT yang tidak ada semua ini, yang kurang pendapatan... Yang miskin kini tak tahu pun berapa wang masuk dan keluar dan untuk apa...Pegerakan wang dalam akaun bank mereka kini 'tersembunyi' - senang pula mereka ditipu...Adakah ini hasrat kerajaan UMNO-BN.

Kalau, di Thailand, Bank buka sampai malam - senang orang pi buat urusan bank - tak payah pi bank masa kerja? Di negara lain, nak update buku akaun pun senang boleh dibuat dimesin ATM...Mesin ATM yang boleh deposit cek atau wang tunai berada di banyak lokasi - di Malaysia kini hanya ATM dibanyak lokasi - hanya untuk keluar wang atau buat 'bayaran' online mengunakan wang sedia ada dalam akaun - setiap lokasi pun kebanyakkan di bandar saja???

Tindakan berhenti menghantar penyata cetak bulanan kepada penguna melalui pos menyusahkan rakyat - Adakah UMNO-BN peduli? Adakah parti pembangkang peduli? Ingatlah mereka yang kurang berpendatan, warga tua, dll..  

 



HRD Lena Hendry found Guilty - A Sad day for Human Rights?

$
0
0
On 21/2/2017, Human Rights Defender, Lena Hendry, has been found GUILTY by the Magistrate Court, and another date was fixed for sentencing.  The charge under Section 6(1)(b) of the Film Censorship Act 2002 carries a jail term of up to three years or a fine of up to RM30,000 or both if convicted..




See earlier related posts:- 

ARTICLE 19, ALIRAN, PROHAM, NUBE,WH4C & 111 Others say Drop Charges against Lena Hendry

Lena Hendry - Drop Charges says ICJ, Article 19, FIDH, Front Line, OMCT & 116 other groups

HR Defender Lena Hendry Acquitted by Court - Draconian law remains..?


Remember:-

On 10/3/2016, she was acquitted by the Magistrate Court 

Activist Lena Hendry has been acquitted of the charge of screening a film on the Sri Lankan killing fields, which had not been approved by the Censorship Board.... "The magistrate has found that the prosecution has failed to prove a prima facie case against her (Hendry) and has therefore acquitted her,...
But the government did not let go, and the prosecution appealed to the High Court...and on 21/9/2016, the High Court allowed the appeal, and
Judicial Commissioner Shariff Abu Samah set aside the Magistrate Court’s order which acquitted Lena in March at the end of the prosecution’s case...The High Court ordered Lena Hendry, an activist, to enter defence
Not sure whether there was an appeal to the Court of Appeal, but in any event , the trial at the Magistrate's Court continued, and Lena Hendry has now been found guilty...


Tuesday, 21 February 2017 | MYT 4:48 PM

Activist Lena Hendry disappointed over conviction




KUALA LUMPUR: Activist Lena Hendry was convicted by a magistrate's court over the charge of screening a Sri Lankan civil war documentary that had not been approved by the Censorship Board.

Hendry, 32, who stood expressionless in the dock upon hearing the verdict, said she was disappointed with the judgment.

"We will definitely appeal. No proof to convict me," Hendry, who was accompanied by her lawyer New Sin Yew, told reporters here Tuesday.

Her well-wishers, friends and supporters surrounded her after the judgment, and they hugged and consoled her.

A supporter of her was holding a placard saying "Human Rights Documentaries are not dangerous".

One of those present in the public gallery was Ivy Josiah, who is Hakam's (National Human Rights Society) exco member and former executive director of Women Aid Organisation.

Josiah said she was disappointed over the ruling, saying that "the film had been shown everywhere in the world."

In his judgment, magistrate Mohd Rehan Mohd Aris ruled that the defence had failed to raise reasonable doubts in the case.

"The accused is found guilty," he told the packed courtroom.

Mohd Rehan ordered both parties to file their respective submissions and set March 22 for sentencing.
He also extended Hendry's bail of RM1,000 pending disposal of the case.

A High Court had on Sept 21, 2016 set aside an acquittal order against Hendry and ordered her to enter her defence over the charge.

In reversing her acquittal order, Judicial Commissioner Mohamad Shariff Abu Samah found that there was a prima facie case against Hendry.

Mohd Rehan had on March 10 last year acquitted Hendry after ruling that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against her at the end of their case.

A total of eight prosecution witnesses and three defence witnesses, including Hendry, had given sworn evidence in the trial. 

Hendry, who was also the programme coordinator for a human rights group Pusat Komas, claimed trial in a magistrate’s court on Sept 19, 2013 to illegally screening the documentary “No Fire Zone: The Killing Fields of Sri Lanka".

The film directed by British national Callum Macrae explores the alleged oppression by the Sri Lankan government of Tamils in the island nation.

She was said to have committed the offence at the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall at Jalan Maharajalela here at 9pm on July 3, 2013.  

The charge under Section 6(1)(b) of the Film Censorship Act 2002 carries a jail term of up to three years or a fine of up to RM30,000 or both if convicted. DPP Nurakmal Farhan Aziz prosecuted the case

Read more at http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2017/02/21/activist-lena-hendry-disappointed-over-conviction/#Cr0umC5heUWR3EFs.99
RESPONSES

21 February 2017
Conviction of Lena Hendry Another Blow to Freedom of Expression!
Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) finds the decision to convict Lena Hendry by the magistrate court under Section 6(1)(b) of the Film Censorship Board regrettable and flawed in nature.
The absence of adequate evidence led to Lena’s initial accquital was sound as there was a lack of evidence on part of the prosecution in their charges. The subsequent conviction of Lena on 21stFebruary depart from this and utilized the flawed system in Malaysia which undo the presumption of innocence that serve as the foundation of any common law based criminal justice system. Convicting the defense based on their inability to prove beyond reasonable doubt of their innocence remains a blatant trangression against the right to fair trial and Lena’s conviction marks another injustice by the Malaysian criminal justice system.
On top of the manifest injustice in her conviction, the attempt to punish an individual for screening a documentary is reprehensible on many levels. A documentary is often made to serve as a historical record of an event that transpired and leaves a legacy or story that can be viewed by the future generations. Censoring or preventing documentaries from being screened does not protect the public but only serve to protect select groups by hiding an inconvinient truth and deprive future generations of important knowledge on history.

Furthermore an attempt to punish an individual for allegedly screening ‘No Fire Zone’ is contemptible to say the least as the act of preventing the screening tantamounts to protecting those who may have committed crime against humanity. if the Malaysian government seeks to protect others against genocide and crime against humanity, why is it now complicit in protecting those who may have commited crime against humanity.

SUARAM reiterate our strongest condemnation against the repression of freedom of expression by the Malaysian government and stand in solidarity with Lena Hendry in her fight for human rights and democracy!

In Solidarity
Sevan Doraisamy
Executive Director
SUARAM

Malaysia: Convicted for Showing a Film
Prosecution of Lena Hendry Violates Right to Free Expression

(Bangkok, February 22, 2017) – A Malaysian court’s conviction of rights activist Lena Hendry for her role in showing a documentary film violates her right to freedom of expression, Human Rights Watch said today. On February 21, 2017, a Kuala Lumpur court found Hendry guilty of organizing a private screening of the award-winning human rights documentary, “No Fire Zone: The Killing Fields of Sri Lanka,” without censorship board approval nearly four years ago. She will be sentenced on March 22, and faces fines and up to three years in prison.

“It’s an outrageous assault on basic free expression that Lena Hendry could go to prison for helping to show a documentary film,” said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “This prosecution is part of the Malaysian government’s disturbing pattern of harassment and intimidation of those seeking to raise public awareness of human rights issues.”

Hendry, a former staff member of the human rights group Pusat KOMAS, was convicted under section 6 of Malaysia’s Film Censorship Act, which prohibits the “circulation, distribution, display, production, sale, hire” or “possession” of any film, whether imported or domestically produced, without first obtaining approval from the government-appointed Board of Censors. Malaysia’s highest court
rejected a constitutional challenge to the law in September 2015. A magistrate acquitted her of the charge in March 2016, finding that the government had failed to make a basic case showing her guilt. On September 21, 2016, the High Court reversed Hendry’s acquittal and ordered a resumption of the case after the government appealed.

Bringing criminal penalties for possessing or privately showing a film without government approval violates freedom of expression by imposing a disproportionate burden on a fundamental right, Human Rights Watch said.

The Film Censorship Act is rarely invoked, and Pusat KOMAS regularly screens films on politics, human rights, culture, and other issues without censorship board approval, with admission by pre-registration only.

The prosecution in this case appears to have been motivated by the Malaysian government’s desire to appease Sri Lankan embassy officials, who had publicly demanded that the film not be shown and visited the venue on the day of the film’s showing to urge the venue’s managers to cancel the event. “No Fire Zone” tells the story of war crimes committed in the last months of Sri Lanka’s civil war in 2009, including Sri Lankan army shelling that indiscriminately killed thousands of civilians and the extrajudicial executions of captured fighters and supporters of the secessionist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.

“The Film Censorship Act violates rights by giving the government the power to arbitrarily suppress films it doesn’t want Malaysians to see, and to prosecute those who dare to show them,” Robertson said. “Malaysia should scrap this draconian law’s criminal penalties, revise it to comply with international rights standards, and allow Malaysian citizens to view films of their choosing.”

For more Human Rights Watch reporting on Malaysia, please visit: https://www.hrw.org/asia/malaysia

Viewing all 2589 articles
Browse latest View live