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

Double Execution in Less than 12 Hours Must Be Stopped, Amnesty International Malaysia Says

February 25, 2017, 11:07 am
$
0
0
23 February 2017

PRESS STATEMENT

Double Execution in Less than 12 Hours Must Be Stopped, Amnesty International Malaysia Says

Brothers Rames and Suthar Batumalai have less than 12 hours before they  face the noose if the authorities do not stop the execution in view of a pending clemency application.

The clemency application was submitted to the Negri Sembilan Pardons Board today by Haresh Mahadevan & Co, and it must be given time to review the application. The executions must not go on, Amnesty International Malaysia Executive Director Shamini Darshni Kaliemuthu said tonight. No executions must be carried out while appeals are pending.

“Late last night, we learned that Rames and Suthar were scheduled to be executed in Kajang Prison on Friday morning, which mean they have less than 12 hours to live now. The family is distraught and are appealing to the Yang Di Pertuan Negri Sembilan to spare their lives. ,” she said.

The family of Rames, 44, and Suthar, 39, was only informed yesterday that they should visit the brothers for the last time today ahead of their execution “soon”. Amnesty International sighted the letter.

Rames and Suthar were mandatorily sentenced to death in April 2010 under Section 302 of the Penal Code after they were found guilty of a murder committed on 4 February 2006. On 22 February 2017 the pair was moved from their separate detention facilities to Kajang prison where the executions are set to take place tomorrow. International law prohibits the use of the mandatory death penalty.

“The death penalty can never be justified regardless of the crime committed. The authorities must immediately take a step to prevent this double execution,” Shamini said.

Amnesty International believes that the brothers, who were represented at trial by the same lawyer, were convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone. During the trial they claimed that they had intervened to stop two other men from attacking and killing the deceased, claims which were disregarded by the High Court. The Court also failed to call a key witness, the deceased’s wife, to testify. Her testimony could have corroborated the brothers’ version of the facts and the involvement of the two other men in the murder.

“The 1984 UN Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty provide that the death penalty be imposed ‘only when the guilt of the person charged is based upon clear and convincing evidence leaving no room for an alternative explanation of the facts’ and this has not been made clear in this instance.”

Amnesty International has issued an Urgent Action to its global network to intervene on the executions and is also appealing to the Ruler of Negeri Sembilan state to stop the execution.

The secretive nature of executions in Malaysia has been consistently criticised by Amnesty International. Information is hardly made publicly available on individual death penalty cases and families are often informed merely days before that their loved ones will be executed.

“The lack of transparency around executions in Malaysia is a violation of international law and standards. Families must have sufficient time to prepare for the last visit and take any further recourse available at the national or international level.” Shamini said.

There is no conclusive evidence that the death penalty has a unique deterrent effect on crime.

“Amnesty International Malaysia does not downplay the seriousness of crimes committed, but we urge the authorities to consider introducing more effective crime prevention measures that respect human rights instead of continuously using one that has no merit. Amnesty International Malaysia calls on the Malaysian government to put a stop to the double execution and impose a moratorium on executions immediately with a view to full abolition."
______________________________
____________________________________________________
For more information please contact:
Devika Santhosh Nair
Communications Coordinator
Amnesty International Malaysia
+60 17 6506416 or devika@aimalaysia.org

//

--                                            
Much obliged,

Shamini Darshni Kaliemuthu
Executive Director
Amnesty International Malaysia
↧
Search

UN special rapporteur seeks halt to execution of brothers

February 25, 2017, 12:49 pm
$
0
0

UN special rapporteur seeks halt to execution of brothers

Published     Updated


The United Nations Special Rapporteur on summary executions, Agnes Callamard, has appealed for a halt to the execution of two brothers convicted of a 2006 murder.

“To proceed with their execution would be in flagrant violation of international standards for the application of the death penalty and would be tantamount to an arbitrary execution,” the UN human rights expert warned.

“There are strong indications that the death penalty may be carried out against the Batumalai brothers following judicial procedures that do not fulfil the most stringent guarantees of fair trial and due process,” said Callamard, stressing that fundamental safeguards had not been observed.

She based this on reports that the brother's claims were disregarded by the court, which failed to call the dead man’s wife as a witness, whose testimony may have corroborated theirs.

The police also reportedly failed to take blood samples and fingerprints to establish any direct link to the accused brothers to the crime.

Suthar Batumalai and B Ramesh Batumalai, were given the death penalty in 2010 for their alleged involvement in a killing four years earlier. During trial, both men pleaded innocent, and have maintained that they intervened only to stop two other men who were attacking the victim.

Having exhausted all legal avenues of appeal, they were set to face execution yesterday.

A new clemency petition was submitted on Feb 23 for consideration by the Negri Sembilan ruler, as the murder case occurred in the state, and the Pardons Board.

Callamard said: “I urge the authorities to approve this clemency request. The executions of the Batumalai brothers must be halted immediately, and they should be re-tried in compliance with international standards.”
 
The expert also warned against the mandatory use of the death penalty in Malaysia for various crimes, like murder.
“Legislation that leaves courts with no choice but to impose death sentences for specific crimes violates various human rights standards.

A mandatory death sentence necessarily fails to take into account mitigating circumstances that might otherwise show the specific crime to be less serious,” she said.

The execution of the two brothers yesterday was put off, but is reported to have been rescheduled.
↧
↧

Perjuangan memerlukan lebih daripada satu kenyataan atau piket - juang sampai keadilan dicapai?

February 26, 2017, 1:11 pm
$
0
0


Satu kenyataan, satu piket atau satu perhimpunan aman adalah tidak mencukupi untuk menjayakan mana-mana perjuangan... Apa yang diperlukan adalah 'stamina' untuk teruskan perjuangan dan tuntutan...

Perjuangan untuk keadilan memerlukan penglibatkan semua orang - hanya menyokong dalam hati dan minda tetapi tidak sendiri melakukan apa-apa tidak memadai...Semua yang menyokong akan bertindak - tindakan beraneka jenis boleh digunakan. Tindakan menghebohkan sesuatu isu kepada orang lain dengan matlamat akhirnya kita mendapat ramai yang menyokong sesuatu tuntutan...Menyuarakan seruan untuk keadilan kepada pihak yang menindas atau berlaku salah adalah juga berkesan...Boleh hantar surat, boleh hantar emel, boleh juga talipon/fax... 

Sebagai penguna, adakah kita hanya melihat harga dan mutu sesuatu barangan bila anda membeli? Jika pekerja syarikat yang membuat produk itu ditindas atau dicabul hak, adakah kamu masih akan membeli produk syarikat/majikan sedemikian? Jika penguna membuat tak tahu tindakan syarikat sedemikian dari segi hak pekerja, hak asasi, polisi alam sekitar, dll - penguna sebenarnya secara langsung 'merestui' kesalahan yang dilakukan sesuatu syarikat tersebut...Justeru, adakah anda penguna 'berprinsip' atau 'bermoral' - dan hanya akan membeli barang atau gunakan perkhidmatan syarikat yang baik dari segi cara layanan pekerja, cara mereka hormati hak pekerja...alam sekitar, dll...? Ramai sebenar kini mungkin hanya tengok harga dan nilai barangan/perkhidmatan - mungkin masa untuk bertukar...

Dalam kes Infineon, Presiden Union kini menjadi sasaran - dan telah dibuang kerja. Pembuangan kepimpinan Union banyak berlaku di Malaysia...dan ini tidak bagus dan harus ditentang. Kepimpinan mungkin dijadikan sasaran dengan harapan ini akan melemahkan persatuan, kesatuan, dll ...Adakah rakyat Malaysia akan menerima hakikat ini? Kini ada undang-undang menyatakan bahawa pekerja tidak boleh didiskriminasikan oleh majikan kerana pekerja terlibat dalam Union, kepimpinan Union - TETAPI masalahnya kini, ada majikan tetap buat dan melanggar undang-undang dan malangkan sistem pentadbiran keadilan bergerak terlalu perlahan dan sangat tak berkesan...

Pekerja dibuang tak ada kerja dan gaji, majikan terus beroperasi secara biasa, dan kes mengambil bertahun-tahun untuk selesai - mana adil... Mungkin, bila pembuangan kerja dicabar sebagai tak wajar, majikan terpaksa terus membayar 50%-100% gaji pekerja sehingga aduan/kes itu diselesaikan secara muktamad. Jika ada undang-undang sedemikian, pasti majikan pun mahu kes dijalankan cepat dan selesai pun cepat - kalau boleh dalam masa 3 bulan..maksima 6 bulan. Kini, tak ada perundangan saperti itu di Malaysia (ada yang kata Indonesia ada)...

Perjuangan untuk keadilan di Malaysia, sama ada keadilan untuk diri sendiri atau keadilan untuk orang lain di Malaysia, adalah semua tanggungjawab kita semua...

Kes Infineon - INFINEON pada masa ini mungkin akan segera membetulkan keadaan - mengembalikan kerja Presiden Union...membatalkan tindakan disiplin(atau hukuman) yang dikenakan 6 orang Exco Union... INFINEON di Germany dan juga Malaysia sedang mengkaji semula kes ini - mungkin ada 'kesilapan' berlaku - dan harapan adalah mereka akan buat yang betul dan hak pekerja/kesatuan sekerja dihormati...

Justeru, untuk membantu keadaan - tindakan anda kini sangat diperlukan. Nyatakan pendapat atau pendapat kamu juga kepada INFINEON...

Perjuangan untuk keadilan harus berterusan sehingga dapat...Bila ketuk pintu, orang dalam tak mahu buka ...TETAPI jika terus menerus ketuk...dan ketuk...akhirnya mereka yang enggan buka pun akan buka... 

Ini isu pekerja Malaysia - mana dia MP, ADUN, tokoh politik, Parti Politik...adakah mereka langsung tak risau sangat isu pekerja dan orang biasa? Wakil Rakyat - tetapi isu rakyat tak ambil peduli? Tanya kenalan kamu dari parti politik...

Harapan saya adalah INFINEON akan berlaku adil dan tak perlu kita teruskan perjuangan sampai dapat keadilan...

Di bawah, beberapa pemimpin Kesatuan Sekerja Malaysia yang telah menjadi mangsa ketidakadilan..
Ismail Nasaruddin, President of NUFAM

J Joseph Solomon, Secretary General of National Union of Bank Employees

Mohd Hatta Wahari, now former President of National Union of Journalist(NUJ)

Zulfadlee Thye Abdullah, President of Infineon Technologies Melaka Workers Union

Wan Noorulazhar, Electronic Industry Employees Union Western Region, Peninsular Malaysia (EIEUWR) President



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
CEREAL Centro 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
MTUC Selangor& Wilayah Persekutuan
Pusat Komas
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)
↧

Malaysia: Workers claim discrimination against union leaders at Infineon's assembly factory; company responds (BHRRC)

March 2, 2017, 3:11 am
$
0
0
Well, Infineon has responded to the Joint Statement by 55 Groups, and soon there may a response to the response by Infineon... It was all reported in the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre Website - follow the link to see the statement and the response. For ease, I have also posted the Infineon response and the original Joint Statement"INFINEON MUST STOP UNION BUSTING AND DISCRIMINATION AGAINST UNION LEADERS -Reinstate Zulfadlee Thye Abdullah, President of Infineon Technologies Melaka Workers Union"

INFINEON telah menjawab kepada kenyataan 55 kumpulan bertajuk INFINEON harus berhenti 'Union Busting" dan Diskriminasi terhadap kepimpinan Kesatuan Sekerja - Kembalikan kerja Zulfadlee Thye Abdullah, Presiden Infineon Technologies Melaka Workers Union..

Malaysia: Workers claim discrimination against union leaders at Infineon's assembly factory; company responds

The Infineon response:- 

 

Dear Ms Isabel Ebert,

Infineon employs ca. 8,000 employees in Malacca, Malaysia. The plant is Infineon’s biggest semiconductor production site worldwide. Infineon is well respected as a good and responsible employer in Malacca, and has been cultivating long-term and trusting relationships with employee representatives. Infineon enjoys an excellent reputation in Malaysia.

The report of January 31 by Good Electronics is known to us. Unfortunately the report contains factually incorrect and subjective conclusions. There is no truth to the allegation that Infineon is “union busting” or discriminating against union leaders and officers. The insinuation that Infineon is taking these steps shortly before negotiations for the next Collective Agreement begin, just to prejudice union members, is ignoble. That the events drove the timing of Infineon’s dismissal/disciplinary action; Infineon was not in control of these events. What is true is that Infineon does not tolerate or condone misconduct by its employees at any time; whether or not they are union leaders and officers is irrelevant.

Infineon is committed to human rights and worker rights. Infineon does not impinge on its employees’ freedom of association or participation in union activities. Union members (and union leaders/officers) are entitled to attend union activities when they are free (e.g. while on annual leave or on non-working days). However, the company has an obligation to investigate cases of apparent misconduct, even if those cases involve union leaders and officers. There is neither preferential treatment nor discriminatory treatment for union leaders and officers.

Infineon gave notice to an employee at the Malacca production site, who has been president of a local trade union since 2005. Reason for the dismissal was a case of misconduct by that employee in autumn 2016. The employee did admit his misconduct towards the company and the case is well documented. Infineon does not want to go into more details until the administrative/judicial process brought by the employee is completed.

We can assure you that Infineon did not make that decision easily and has carried out an in-depth examination of the case. Considering compliance guidelines and in accordance with Malaysian labour laws the local management has hereby concluded that this form of misconduct cannot be tolerated. Also Infineon has taken decisions and dismissed employees for clear cases of misconduct – in compliance with the common application of Malaysian law.

Infineon also investigated 6 other union leaders for misconduct and discovered that they acted contrary to Malaysia’s Industrial Relations Act and contrary to the existing Collective Agreement between the union and Infineon Malaysia. Therefore, the disciplinary action against them was justified by law. It was not done as an act of union busting, nor in violation of any of Infineon’s internal policies or the employees’ freedom of association.

Integrity is our guiding principle in dealings with our customers, shareholders, business partners, employees and the general public. We expect from all employees on all levels – especially high-ranking colleagues – a professional conduct according to the rules. Outlining the important regulations and provide support in legal and ethical questions, the Infineon business conduct guidelines apply to all persons employed at Infineon and members of corporate bodies of Infineon Technologies AG and its affiliates worldwide. We are absolutely bound by it.

2
The business conduct guidelines is available on our website:
http://www.infineon.com/cms/en/about-infineon/investor/corporate-governance/compliance/business-conduct-guidelines/

Please contact me if you have further questions.

Yours sincerely,

Alexander Trost
Vice President, Human Resources

Infineon Technologies Asia Pacific Pte Ltd
8 Kallang Sector
Singapore 349282

+65 6876 2020
alexander.trost@infineon.com

The said Joint Statement that INFINEON was responding to is as follows:- 

 

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
CEREAL Centro 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
MTUC Selangor& Wilayah Persekutuan
Pusat Komas
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)

↧

Much happening in Malaysia? VX? or pesticide? Deportation of suspects? No more visa on arrival for ...?

March 2, 2017, 6:59 am
$
0
0

So many interesting happenings following the death of a North Korean man in KL International Airport - he happened to be the step-brother of North Korea's leader...

C4 for a Mongolian...now VX for a North Korean...Well, a good distraction for our UMNO-BN government...if not we may all still be concerned with price hikes, 1MDB, Billions in PM's account, corruption of public servants, death in custody, etc... Opposition problems also seem to have fallen out of focus..

But, in this murder...allegedly committed by 2 women, a Vietnamese and an Indonesians... Hired women assassins?

Wow...so quickly have they been charged..and interesting the Health Minister also comes out to announce the outcome of the autopsy...Why is he making announcements about what is part of a criminal investigation?

The autopsy report revealed that Jong-nam died of organophosphate poisoning, with the substance having consistent qualities with the nerve agent VX, Health Minister Dr S Subramaniam said.
"Organophosphates are a group of chemicals that have many domestic and industrial uses, though they are most commonly used as Insecticides and are responsible for a number of poisonings. The main mechanism is blocking the enzyme acetylcholinesterase causing nervous and respiratory damages that result in the insects death, but they are also hazardous to humans. After the cessation of use of organochloride insecticides, they became the most commonly used Pesticides and are responsible for 70% of pesticidal use in the United States..."

And the 'main suspects' have apparently fled the country...how come? 

Police said that the North Korean suspect in custody would be deported. They have described four North Korean men as the "main suspects" but they have reportedly since fled the country.
And, now the North Koreans are making relevant points - if it was the women who did it, how come they did not die by reason of the VX nerve agent?

The North Korean high-level delegation to Malaysia wants to know how the two women who had purportedly killed Kim Jong-nam using the highly toxic substance VX nerve agent could survive...“The world’s greatest question is again, the question of the two ladies – they are the ones who directly contained the liquid on the palms of their hands to apply to the face. “They are the first ones to have contact with this material while the victim died - how did they survive?”

Well, it is a criminal case, and the Malaysian police would have to investigate it...and, so they did...and they said that this man was murdered - then there was report that he was killed using the dangerous  VX nerve agent...Well, how was the VX Agent used - you certainly cannot put a clothe soaked with VX Agent and apply it to somebody's face - you would also have been poisoned  and possibly be dead by now - Well, the North Koreans have finally raised this concern (see the report below)

The North Korean individual detained in connection with the death of Kim Jong-nam will be released from police custody tomorrow and deported, said attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali.Police do not have sufficient evidence to charge the man, Apandi told CNN

Now, a North Korean suspect was arrested and remanded - and our AG said that there was not enough evidence to charge him, so we are DEPORTING him? Odd, have the police stopped investigating...Normally, with a suspect where there is some evidence, but not yet sufficient evidence, the police will release him on police bail with the condition not to leave the country and to turn up for further investigation later when needed....if he leaves the country, it will be difficult to get for further questioning...or even to arrest and charge him...So, it is a mystery why he is being deported - is he an 'illegal immigrant' - No more a suspect, just release him and he can remain or go as he pleases? Why deport? Maybe, our AG may need to clarify...

Malaysia will cancel visa-free entry for North Koreans entering the country from March 6, Bernama reported today.According to Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, North Koreans will be required to obtain a visa before entering Malaysia for national security reasons.

Then, now Zahid Hamidi announces that Malaysia will discontinue visa on arrival for North Koreans ...this, I consider a foolish move - as it will certainly also affect Malaysians...for North Korea may retaliate and also cancel Malaysian visa on arrival privilege ...and Malaysians who want to visit North Korea suffers...Zahid Hamidi will not...What about the impact on tourism? What about the relationship between our 2 nations? Was this move by Zahid Hamidi a knee-jerk reaction? Was it brought about by external pressure from US and South Korea? 

What was the motive of the killing? Personal? Political? Why was the South Koreans and the US so involved and interested? Interesting questions...

North Korea - well, we know the US and the Western World have a negative perception about this country...and the main global media also is not too happy with North Korea? Some of us may have been influenced by these 'fake' or 'biased' reporting - it may be time for us to go do some research into the History of North Korea...??

In the midst of all that is happening, the Saudi King comes to Malaysia - did anyone ask him as to why his family gave billions to Najib paid into his personal account? Was it a 'bribe' - did Saudi get anything in return? Oops...that case is closed, AG Apandi Ali has decided... well, obviously it is not over with cases still proceeding in so many different countries...

Trump critical of media just by saying 'fake news' - his opinion, but in Malaysia Najib and his government simply cut our access to these sites - and has also effectively ended one good alternative media - the Malaysian Insider??

Malaysia to cancel visa-free entry for North Koreans

 | March 2, 2017
Home minister cites national security reasons.
Zahid-HamidiKUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia will cancel visa-free entry for North Koreans entering the country from March 6, Bernama reported today.

According to Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, North Koreans will be required to obtain a visa before entering Malaysia for national security reasons.

Speaking today, Zahid said the decision would be gazetted soon.

“I hope the decision of the home ministry will be implemented by the immigration department for the sake of national security,” he told a press conference after the ministry’s Excellent Service Award ceremony here.

The move comes more than two weeks after Kim Jong Nam, the estranged half-brother of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, was killed at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport 2 (klia2) with a toxic nerve agent.

Jong Nam was awaiting a morning flight to Macau on Feb 13 when he was attacked by two female assailants.

The women, Siti Aisyah and Doan Thi Huong, were identified after an airport CCTV recording showed them attacking Jong Nam with a substance later found to be the dangerous VX nerve agent, classified as a weapon of mass destruction and banned by the United Nations.

Yesterday, Siti Aisyah and Doan were charged with murder under Section 302 of the Penal Code. If found guilty, they face the mandatory death sentence.

Aside from the two women, police have also nabbed a Malaysian, Muhammad Farid Jallaludin, and North Korean citizen Ri Jong Chul to help in investigations into the murder.

Four other male suspects, all North Korean, fled the country on the same day of the murder. They have been identified as Ri Ji Hyon, Hong Song Hac, O Jong Gil and Ri Jae Nam.

Two other North Korean suspects, Hyon Kwang Song, who is the second secretary with the embassy in Kuala Lumpur, and Air Koryo employee, Kim Uk Il, are also wanted by police to help in the investigations.

South Korea and the US say Jong Nam was assassinated by agents of the North Korean regime.

Pyongyang however has dismissed suggestions that it had a hand in the killing, and accused Malaysia of collaborating with hostile forces, the phrase normally used by the regime to describe neighbouring South Korea.

The murder has rapidly cooled relations between North Korea and Malaysia, which had been unusually warm, with a reciprocal visa-free travel deal for visitors until now. Malaysia is one of the few countries that North Koreans could visit without a visa.

Up to 100,000 North Koreans are believed to be working abroad. Of these, around 1,000 currently work in Malaysia. Their remittances are a valuable source of foreign currency for the isolated regime. - FMT News, 2/3/2017


N Korea: How did duo survive contact with VX nerve agent?
The North Korean high-level delegation to Malaysia wants to know how the two women who had purportedly killed Kim Jong-nam using the highly toxic substance VX nerve agent could survive.

Kim, who was travelling using a North Korean passport under the name "Kim Chol", died on Feb 13 at KLIA2 after a chemical substance was used on him.

Citing “international chemical experts”, Ri Ton-il, former North Korean deputy ambassador to the United Nations, who is part of the delegation, in a press conference today, pointed out how the two women had used their bare hands to contain the material before applying it on the victim’s face.

“The world’s greatest question is again, the question of the two ladies – they are the ones who directly contained the liquid on the palms of their hands to apply to the face.

“They are the first ones to have contact with this material while the victim died - how did they survive?”

Ri, who read out a statement during the press conference held outside the North Korean embassy in Kuala Lumpur today, also pointed out how no one except the victim was affected by the nerve agent despite the tens of thousands of people at the airport.

“And everybody knows and should know the nature of this toxic material – that it is extremely toxic - that’s why it was categorised as a chemical weapon by the Organisation of Prohibition Chemcical Weapon (OPCW).

“It (also) has great penetration power - instant death as soon as it comes to contact with the body and air and one that comes into contact with it is instantly doomed to die.”

Again citing international chemical experts, Ri argued that the samples should then be sent to the OPCW.

“And in case it is approved by two separate international laboratories with the same conclusion, then they should come to identify who was the one who made it, who was the one who brought it into Malaysia (and) who was the one who passed on the material to the two ladies.”

Meanwhile, Ri also questioned South Korea whom he said had insisted that North Korea had sent the two women to Malaysia with the toxic material to be used against the victim.

“And one comes to ask this question - how did South Korean authorities come to know from the beginning of this incident, alleging about the use of chemical weapon from the beginning?

“Even North Korea had no idea on the first day of the announcement of the report but South Korean authorities announced on the very same day when this occurred.

“It means they knew this incident from the beginning and from a long time ago, they already knew this incident will occur,” added Ri.

Ri, earlier on during the press conference, had also confirmed that the delegation has had meetings with related cabinet members to “settle the humanitarian issue”.

Among them is in relation to the return of the deceased’s body to North Korea, the release of a North Korean suspect who was arrested and discussions on friendly relations between North Korea and Malaysia.

The delegation, added Ri, had also requested to view the body of the deceased as well as to have a meeting with the North Korean man arrested and the two female assailants as well.

“We are waiting for these meetings to be realised,” he said.

Meanwhile, US former assistant secretary of state was quoted by US news portal Politico that North Korea's use of VX nerve agent raises concern that the substance may also fall into the hands of terrorists.

"The spectre of chemical weapons proliferation, of VX in the hands of terrorists, now looms ever larger," he was quoted as saying.

Both the US and South Korea have accused North Korea of orchestrating Jong-nam's murder with the chemical weapon.

Indonesian Siti Aisyah, 25, and Vietnamese Doan Thi Huong, 28, were yesterday charged with Kim's murder under Section 302 of the Penal Code and if found guilty, they will face the death penalty.

Police said that the North Korean suspect in custody would be deported. They have described four North Korean men as the "main suspects" but they have reportedly since fled the country. - Malaysiakini, 2/3/2017


Detained N Korean to be deported

Published     Updated
The North Korean individual detained in connection with the death of Kim Jong-nam will be released from police custody tomorrow and deported, said attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali.

Police do not have sufficient evidence to charge the man, Apandi told CNN.

Jong-nam, who is North Korean supreme leader Kim Jong-un's half brother, was killed at KLIA2 on Feb 13.

Police are looking for four North Koreans in connection with the case, as well as three others whose nationalities have yet to be determined.

The autopsy report revealed that Jong-nam died of organophosphate poisoning, with the substance having consistent qualities with the nerve agent VX, Health Minister Dr S Subramaniam said.

The authorities will not release the body to North Korea until DNA samples to confirm Jong-nam's identity are received and tested.

An Indonesian woman and a Vietnamese woman were charged in the magistrate’s court in Sepang yesterday with murdering Jong-nam.

Police said investigations showed the women applied VX onto Jong-nam’s face with their bare hands.

The alleged murder has led to diplomatic tensions between Malaysia and North Korea, with Putrajaya today announcing that North Koreans will from Monday require a visa to enter Malaysia.

Malaysia is among a handful of countries in the world whose citizens have been allowed visa-free travel to North Korea, and vice-versa.

North Korea has cast doubts on Malaysia's investigations, and rejected claims that it had a hand in Jong-nam’s death.

Nevertheless, South Korean intelligence told lawmakers in Seoul that the North Korean ministries plotted the murder. - Malaysiakini, 2/3/2017



↧
↧

Death In Custody - 2 Immigration Officers Found Guilty of Killing Undocumented Migrant?

March 3, 2017, 10:57 am
$
0
0

2 Immigration Officers found guilty for the killing of an undocumented migrant worker 

 

2 pegawai imigresen bunuh Bangla dihukum mati

 
 | March 3, 2017
Mohd Aminuddin Mohd Yasin, 35, dan Zuhairul Effendey Zulkafli, 35, didapati bersalah membunuh pendatang asing tanpa izin Abu Bakar Siddiqe di pantri pejabat Imigresen di Perlis.

bunuh

KANGAR: Dua pegawai Jabatan Imigresen Perlis dijatuhi hukuman gantung sampai mati oleh Mahkamah Tinggi di sini hari ini, selepas didapati bersalah membunuh seorang tahanan warga Bangladesh pada 2014.

Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Abu Bakar Katar menjatuhi hukuman itu terhadap Mohd Aminuddin Mohd Yasin, 35, dan Zuhairul Effendey Zulkafli, 35, selepas mendapati pihak pembelaan gagal menimbulkan keraguan munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan.

Kedua-dua tertuduh didapati bersalah membunuh pendatang asing tanpa izin Abu Bakar Siddiqe, 45 di pantri pejabat Imigresen, Kompleks Kementerian Dalam Negeri di sini antara 10 malam dan 11 malam pada 29 Oktober 2014 mengikut Seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan yang membawa hukuman gantung sampai mati.

Abu Bakar dalam keputusannya berkata mahkamah meneliti semua inti pati kes pendakwaan dan menimbangkan pembelaan secara mendalam.

“Pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan tiada keraguan munasabah terhadap kes tersebut yang membawa hukuman mati mandatori, dan segala bukti pembelaan dan kenyataan tertuduh hanyalah bersifat penafian semata-mata,” katanya ketika menyampaikan keputusan itu.

Kedua-dua tertuduh pada mulanya dibebaskan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Kangar pada 1 Oktober 2015, di akhir kes pendakwaan tanpa dipanggil membela diri terhadap pertuduhan itu.

Pihak pendakwaan kemudiannya merayu ke Mahkamah Rayuan, dan mahkamah itu membenarkan rayuan serta memerintahkan kedua-dua tertuduh membela diri atas pertuduhan itu.

Mengikut fakta kes, mangsa yang mengadu sakit gastrik dan meminta ubat daripada pihak imigresen dibawa keluar dari lokap untuk ke pantri oleh tertuduh dan melalui rakaman kamera litar tertutup (CCTV) tertuduh sedang memegang kayu panjang.

Sebaik kembali ke lokap, mangsa memberitahu rakannya di dalam sel dia sakit kerana dipukul anggota Imigresen sambil menunjukkan kesan kecederaan, sedangkan sebelum ke pantri mangsa tidak cedera.

Beberapa hari kemudian kecederaan mangsa semakin parah, lalu dibawa ke hospital untuk mendapatkan rawatan sebelum disahkan meninggal dunia pada 4 November 2014 dan hasil bedah siasat mengesahkan sebab kematian ialah “multiple blunt force trauma due to soft tissues injuries”.

Ketika Abu Bakar menjatuhkan keputusan itu, kedua-dua tertuduh kelihatan tenang, tetapi ahli keluarga dan rakan sekerja kedua-duanya yang turut hadir dilihat menangis.

Pendakwaan dikendalikan Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Badius Zaman Ahmad manakala kedua-dua tertuduh diwakili peguam, Rahamatullah Baharudeen.- FMT News, 3/3/2017
↧

Cepat tindakan kes bunuh lelaki korea, kenapa lambat tuduh polis/pembunuh Syed Mohd Azlan?

March 3, 2017, 11:37 pm
$
0
0

Cepat sungguh polis Malaysia menjalankan penyiasatan sehingga boleh menuduh 2 orang di Mahkamah atas kesalahan membunuh seorang Korea?
Syed Mohd Azlan

Bila warganegara Malaysia dibunuh, kenapa pula begitu lama menyiasat dan menuduh di Mahkamah - adakah kerana polis yang kemungkinan besar membunuh atau terlibat? 
Bagus untuk membaca bahawa 2 orang pegawai Immigresen telah didapati bersalah dalam kes pembunuhan seorang pendatang asing tanpa izin(dari Bangladesh) dalam tahanan mereka...

Death In Custody - 2 Immigration Officers Found Guilty of Killing Undocumented Migrant?
Tapi bagaimana dengan pegawai polis yang membunuh orang dalam tahanan ...Peguam Negara terpaksa bertindak....

Police officers that tortured and killed detainee - what will the AG and the Malaysian government do?

Bulan Mac tahun ini, Menteri Zahid Hamidi kata kertas penyiasatann di hantar kepada AG, yang telah dipulangkan minta buat lagi siasatan..
Zahid, who is also deputy prime minister, said the AG's Chambers has sent back the initial investigation papers the police submitted on the death of Syed Mohd Azlan Syed Mohamed Nur....Zahid also gave his assurance that the investigations would be wrapped up and re-submitted to the AG's Chambers soon.  

Dalam kes Syed Mohd Azlan - 

...EAIC mengesyorkan kepada Pendakwa Raya (Peguam  Negara) bagi  pendakwaan  jenayah  dibawa terhadap  pegawai  dan anggota  PDRM  yang  didapati  telah  melakukan  salah  laku bersifat  kesalahan jenayah seperti yang dikenalpasti...
 

Terdapat   perlakuan serangan   bersifat jenayah   yang   melibatkan   unsur   niat bersama   atau   pensubahatan   (abetment)   oleh anggota   PDRM yang   terdiri daripada  anggota  pasukan tangkapan bagi melakukan kekerasan  fizikal  secara sengaja ke atas si mati yang telah mengakibatkan kecederaan dan kematian e atas  si  mati,  dan  perlakuan  ini  adalah  merupakan jenis kesalahan bersifat jenayah di bawah undang-undang,khususnya kesalahan di bawah seksyen 302 danseksyen   325   Kanun   Keseksaan...

Terdapat perlakuan gangguan bahan bukti yang material oleh anggota PDRM iaitu,(i ) membersihkan tempat kejadian sebelum dilawati dan diperiksa oleh pegawai perubatan,(ii) melupuskan tikar getah dan karpet yang dipercayai mempunyai kesan darah si mati di tempat kejadian tangkapan,dan (iii) perlakuanmenyembunyikan/menghilangkan saksi mata(eye witness) yang melihat kejadian tangkapan simati; 

Bila pagar yang diharapkan memakan padi - tidak harus berlaku apa-apa 'cover up' . Ya, bila polis, pegawai Imigresesn, pendakwa, hakim, Menteri, Pengarah yang melakukan kesalahan sebegini, tindakan pendakwaan yang terbuka harus diadakan ...

Tak guna, senyap-senyap buang kerja atau turun pangkat....perlu sangat penjawat awam saperti ini ditangkap, didakwa dan dibicarakan secara terbuka di Mahkamah...Pendakwaan mesti dilakukan dengan berkesan (jangan pula sengaja tak kemukakan keterangan perlu atau tak panggil saksi 'material') yang akhir berkesudahan dengan Mahkamah terpaksa melepaskan sidituduh...

SURUHANJAYA INTEGRITI AGENSI PENGUATKUASAAN(EAIC) telah melakukan inquiry penuh, panggil saksi, ambil keterangan - kenapa lambat sangat polis menyelesaikan penyiasatan...kenapa lama sangat AG mendakwa di Mahkamah...Kenapa lambat sangat polis di bawah Menteri Zahid Hamidi bertindak?

Complete death-in-custody probe, AG’s Chambers tells police

   Published     Updated
PARLIAMENT The Attorney-General's Chambers has asked the police to complete their probe on a death in custody case, Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said. 

Zahid, who is also deputy prime minister, said the AG's Chambers has sent back the initial investigation papers the police submitted on the death of Syed Mohd Azlan Syed Mohamed Nur. 

In a written parliamentary reply to Gobind Singh Deo (DAP-Puchong), Zahid also gave his assurance that the investigations would be wrapped up and re-submitted to the AG's Chambers soon. 

The Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) in its investigations found Syed Mohd Azlan, 25, was "murdered" by police personnel, who beat him up in the police station lock-up in Sungai Rengit, Johor, on Nov 3, 2014. 

Syed Mohd Azlan ( photo ) suffered 61 injuries to his face, body and legs, some of which were consistent with "defensive wounds while protecting himself from physical attack by police personnel", the EAIC found. 

The EAIC also found evidence that police personnel cleaned the scene of the beatings before the medical officers arrived to check on Syed Mohd Azlan. 

The police also disposed of the rubber mat and carpet believed to have been stained with the blood of the deceased. 

They also "hid away eye-witnesses" from the scene, the EAIC said. 

At a press conference at the Parliament lobby later, Gobind lamented how long the investigation has taken. 

'Tell us why no action has been taken' 
 
"Perhaps the AG (Mohamed Apandi Ali) should tell us why no action has been taken this long. 

"He should know justice delayed is justice denied. It’s human nature that witnesses forget when time goes by. The longer the delay, the strength of the prosecution of the case will weaken," Gobind said. 

Syed Mohd Azlan, a welder, was arrested on Nov 3, 2014, after a police report was lodged on a brawl involving a firearm in September that year. 

He was arrested by 13 police personnel, who ambushed the room he rented in Pengerang, Johor, the EAIC said. 
He was then taken to the Sungai Rengit police station and questioned on the brawl and if he had kept firearms. No firearm was found in a police search at Syed Mohd Azlan’s family home.

He was then taken to the Kota Tinggi police district headquarters for the remand procedure but was noticeably weak and unresponsive on the way there. 

Personnel escorting him then rushed him to a nearby clinic, where he was declared dead.
↧

Perhimpunan RUU 355 - Adakah PAS mempunyai matlamat sampingan?

March 10, 2017, 9:10 am
$
0
0
RUU 355 - Adakah terdapat matlamat lain? Kini pun ada hukuman sebat dalam undang-undang syariah di Kelantan...tetapi sehingga hari ini, adakah siapa-siapa yang pernah disebat di Kelantan kerana melakukan sesuatu jenayah di bawah undang-undang syariah? Apabila di 'Google', apa yang saya lihat adalah hanya kajian yang sedang dijalankan....Pindaan yang dicadangkan Hadi Awang hanya untuk menaikkan had hukuman yang sedia ada - denda, penjara dan sebatan(rotan)...bukan untuk membawa masuk hukuman potong 'tangan' atau hukuman mati. Kemudian, setiap Negeri akan memutuskan sama ada mahu menaikkan hukuman sedia ada ...Apa yang akan berlaku adalah kerajaan Negeri yang akan mempunyai kuasa...
 

Justeru, adakah sebab lain mengapa ada perhimpunan RUU355...

Adakah ianya kerana PAS perlu membuktikan bahawa ia masih mempunyai sokongan besar di kalangan rakyat Malaysia?

Sejak PRU yang lepas, banyak yang telah berlaku..

a) Ada yang dalam PAS keluar daripada PAS dan menubuhkan parti baru - Parti Amanah Negara? 6 ahli Parlimen PAS lompat jadi Ahli Parlimen Amanah, lebih kurang 7 ADUN PAS pun kini menjadi ADUN Amanah...

b) Pakatan Rakyat(PAS,DAP,PKR) sudah bubar - dan kini Pakatan Harapan pula - Amanah, DAP dan PKR? PAS kini nampaknya tidak lagi ada pakatan dengan mana-mana parti politik lain.

c) PAS dan DAP kini ada halangan mengadakan perhubungan atau pakatan bersama akibat Resolusi yang diluluskan dalam Mesyuarat Agung PAS. Saya anggap meluluskan Resolusi sedemikian adalah kesilapan besar - kerana ia mengikat tangan kepimpinan dan parti PAS sehingga Resolusi itu dipinda atau diketepikan dalam Mesyuarat Agung yang lain. Tidak bersalah untuk kepimpinan PAS dan Parti PAS menyuarakan pendapat atau mengadakan perhiumpunan aman mengenai pendirian mengenai DAP - tetapi Resolusi hanya telah mengikat tangan PAS. Ada yang katakan bahawa resolusi tersebut hanya taktik satu pasukan apabila mahu mencabar pasukan lagi satu dalam pemilihan PAS - mungkin betul ...mungkin tidak. Pendirian dan hubungan PAS-DAP sentiasa bercanggah ...tetapi bila sampai PRU, mereka sanggup bersama menentang musuh yang lebih penting iaitu UMNO-BN...kini macam mana?

d) PAS tidak pernah menghadapi PRU seorang diri...Jika dilihat sejarah, setiap kali PAS bertanding, ada 'pakatan' atau 'persetujuan' dengan parti pembangkang lain menghadapi pilihanraya. Ini telah memastikan satu lawan satu, di mana parti lain telah bersetuju tidak bertanding...Jika parti pembangkang lain telah atau akan bertanding, mungkin situasi berbeda di Kelantan. Undi yang calun PAS perolehi untuk PRU yang lepas semua kerana ini...Persoalan adalah berapa yang akan menyokong PAS jika PAS sendiri bertanding tanpa sebarang 'persetujuan' secara formal atau tidak formal dengan parti pembangkang yang lain...




e) Kelantan adalah negeri yang dimenangi Pembangkang - bukan PAS. Menteri Besar mungkin daripada PAS tetapi ini tidak menjadikan Kelantan negeri pembangkang...Kini tinggal3 negeri di bawah parti Pembangkang...Selangor, Pulau Pinang dan Kelantan.

f) PAS juga kini kehilangan ahli - dulu satu juta lebih, kini lebih kurang 800,000 sahaja. Tetapi, seseorang yang menjadi ahli berdaftar tidak semestinya akan mengundi untuk calun PAS. Ahli berdaftar juga tidak menunjukkan sokongan sesuatu parti kerana ramai di Malaysia dibawah pentadbiran UMNO-BN memilih tidak menjadi ahli berdaftar khususnya parti pembangkang kerana takut. Perhimpunan RUU Akta 355 memperlihatkan hanya lebih kurang 55,000 sahaja ...bermaksud semua ahli berdaftar pun tak turun...

PAS secretary-general Datuk Takiyuddin Hassan confessed today that its total membership had suffered a 20 per cent decline in the past one year. He said the party now had 800,000 people compared to one million in March 2015.- Malay Mail Online, 3/6/2016
JUSTERU, perhimpunan RUU Akta 355 mungkin ada matlamat sampingan - mahu menunjukkan bahawa PAS masih mempunyai sokongan ramai.Saya berpendirian bahawa PAS telah berjaya menunjukkan sokongan ini. Adakah parti pembangkang lain mempunyai keupayaan membawa begitu ramai untuk satu perhimpunan aman dianjurkan parti tersebut sendiri? Perhimpunan Aman yang telah diadakan sebelum ini yang mendapat sokongan ramai merupakan yang perhimpunan yang dianjurkan individu atau NGO(pertubuhan bukan kerajaan) - parti pembangkang hanya menyatakan sokongan atau sebaliknya? Ini dapat dilihat daripada perhimpunan aman REFORMASI, Bantah GST dan BERSIH? HINDRAF, semasa ia sebuah pergerakkan bukan parti politik, juga dapat sokongan lebih kurang 20,000. Satu kali bila parti keadilan memanggil perhimpunan - yang turun hanya lebih kurang 500 [Ini di waktu Anwar dikatakan sangat 'popular']

Masalah yang timbul adalah isu perhimpunan RUU Akta 355 - ada ahli PAS pun yang tak sokong. Ada pula ahli UMNO yang sokong dan hadhir? UMNO cuba melemahkan usaha 'matlamat sampingan' PAS melalui kehadiran beberapa ahli politik? Kini, UMNO mungkin juga boleh katakan sebilangan besar yang hadhir adalah orang UMNO...

Tujuan sampingan kedua:- Memperkasakan kerajaan Negeri?

Malaysia merupakan 'PERSEKUTUAN' terdiri daripada negeri-negeri. Akibat pentadbiran UMNO-BN, jika diperhatikan kuasa negeri, khususnya di Semenanjung Malaysia, telah sedikit demi sedikit dilupuskan. Kini ada yang berkempen untuk Sabah dan Sarawak, tetapi pertanyaan adalah mengapa bukan Negeri-negeri lain di Semenanjung Malaysia?

Kini urusan potong rumput dan kutipan sampah pun tidak lagi di tangan Kerajaan Tempatan (Local Council) atau kerajaan negeri - ianya kini sudah ditangan kerajaan Persekutuan. Kerajaan Persekutuan, tanpa memerlukan persetujuan Kerajaan Tempatan (atau kerajaan Negeri) kini memilih syarikat untuk menyediakan perkhidmatan saperti potong rumput tepi jalan, pungutan sampah, pembetungan, dll... Dahulu, bila kerajaan tempatan yang menentukan siapa diberi kontrak pengutipan sampah, di Temerloh, Majlis Perbandaran dapat juga memerlukan kontraktor menyediakan perkhidmatan tambahan saperti pperkhidmatan mengutip kayu besar dan barangan besar dengan bayaran wajar beberapa puluh ringgit sahaja (tak salah RM15) - kini bila diminta, perkhidmatan ini tidak ada lagi, dan nasihat diberi oleh Majlis adalah potong kecil-kecil dan bakar...Justeru, Majlis Pendaran kini hanya jadi tukang kutip wang untuk disalurkan kepada kerajaan pusat - aduan pun perlu disalurkan kepada kerajaan persekutuan untuk disampaikan kepada kontraktor mereka..Sedih...sedih?


Satu sebab mengapa kerajaan negeri di Semenanjung telah kehilangan banyak kuasa kepada kerajaan Persekutuan adalah kerana dahulu semua negeri pun dibawah kerajaan UMNO-BN... justeru senang sekali kerajaan negeri menyerahkan kuasa kepada kerajaan Persekutuan...

Kini, wang pencukaian pendapatan peribadi dan cukai korporat pun pergi ke tangan kerajaan Persekutuan. Pada pendapat saya, adalah wajar sebahagian ini disalurkan kepada kerajaan negeri - mungkin 20-25% pendapatan kerajaan Persekutuan dari cukai harus disalurkan kepada kerajaan negeri bergantung kepada bilangan penduduk. Ini akan memperkasakan upaya kerajaan negeri untuk melakukan kerja pembangunan untuk rakyat negeri? Apa pendapat anda?

Kini perundangan Islam juga di tangan kerajaan Persekutuan - Mengapa kerajaan negeri perlu meminta Akta Persekutuan dipinda supaya kerajaan negeri boleh menaikkan hukuman yang boleh dikenakan undang-undang kerajaan negeri? Mengikut Perlembagaan, ini adalah di bawah kuasa kerajaan negeri, bukan?

Pemilihan ahli kerajaan tempatan(Local Council) - adakah wajar kerajaan Persekutuan yang mempunyai kuasa terhadap isu ini - kini kerajaan Pulau Pinang dan Selangor mahu adakan pemilihan secara demokratik oleh rakyat setempat untuk memilih ahli Majlis Perbandaraan/Daerah/Bandaraya(Local Council) pun tak boleh kerana dihalang perundangan Persekutuan? Adakah ini wajar? Adakah parti pembangkang berjanji memansuhkan Akta ini?

Tetapi adakah Parti Pembangkang mahu memberikan kita lebih demokrasi - bebas mengundi secara demokratik ketua kampung, ketua taman, dll ....adakah Kelantan, Selangor dan Pulau Pinang melakukannya sekarang ... atau adakah hanya kerajaan negeri mahukan kuasa sahaja TETAPI tak sanggup kembalikan kuasa kepada rakyat untuk memilih kepimpinan tempatan(kampung, taman, kampung baru) - bukankah lebih baik 'lantik' saya orang kita atau kroni? Jangan biarkan rakyat setempat menentukan sendiri? Tak ada halangan kini untuk ada perlantikkan ketua kampung, ketua kampung baru, ketua taman, dll -- tetapi nampaknya Selangor, Pulau Pinang dan Kelantan tak minat...????

ISU AKAN DATANG?

Dengan pindaan Akta 355 - kerajaan negeri mendapat kuasa lebih dari segi hukuman? Adakah kerajaan negeri akan meningkatkan hukuman jenayah Islam atau tidak?Semasa kerajaan negeri mahu meningkatkan hukuman sesuatu jenayah - itu lah masanya kita luangkan pendapat. Setuju atau tidak setuju?? Apa rakyat mahukan - ini penting...


Mungkin kepimpinan PAS sendiri tak fikirkan tentang matlamat sampingan apabila perhimpunan RUU Akta 355 diadakan?

MASALAH dengan PAS adalah selalu mereka menyatakan 'cara Islam' tetapi butiran terperinchi tak diberikan...Apakah polisi pekerja, pendidikan, pencukaian, pertanian, pengangkutan awam,...PAS?

Adakah PAS juga akan berfikiran sempit macam UMNO...UMNO mahu jaga 'orang Melayu'...adakah PAS mahu jaga 'orang Islam' saja...Jangan lupa bahawa Malaysia terdiri daripada rakyat berbilang kaum dan agama..

RUU 355 menakutkan ramai orang...tetapi jangan lupa bahawa asal-usul isu ini mungkin taktik UMNO-BN kerana kebiasaan di Parlimen Usul dalam agenda tak akan sempat dibincangkan...ianya biasa selepas soalan parlimen, dan itu pun jarang boleh habis dijawab...Jadi kenapa usul Hadi Awang tiba-tiba dibawa kehadapan?

Adakah taktik UMNO-BN berjaya? Adakah solidariti pembangkang menentang UMNO-BN sudah dilemahkan? Adakah ini akan membawa kepada kemenangan UMNO-BN sekali lagi di PRU akan datang? 

Saya mahu merasakan kerajaan selain daripada UMNO-BN - Alternatif diperlukan..Kalau tak OK, kita tolak sahaja PRU akan datang... 



 













 
↧
Search

BR1M - Asal dapat OK? Keprihatinan lebih untuk Malaysia diperlukan?

March 11, 2017, 11:46 pm
$
0
0
Ramai bila diberikan wang atau hadiah rasa 'syok' - tetapi haruskah kita terima sahaja wang rakyat gitu sahaja? Bukankah kita semua lebih berprinsip dan berprihatin, dan sebenarnya mahu wang rakyat digunakan terutama untuk membantu mereka yang miskin dan benar benar memerlukan. 

Najib dan kerajaan UMNO-BN sebenarnya tidak memikirkan gitu dalam isu BR1M - mereka mahu memberi 'sedikit' wang untuk seberapa ramai yang boleh - Mengapa? Supaya kita berterima kasih dan menyokong Najib dan UMNO-BN - tapi itu bukan wang peribadi Najib atau UMNO-BN tetapi sebenarnya wang milik semua rakyat...

WANG KERAJAAN ADALAH WANG RAKYAT MALAYSIA - Justeru wajar dan adil bagi kerajaan membantu mereka yang miskin dan memerlukan - sama ada dengan bantuan wang (atau bantuan yang akan membebaskan mereka daripada kemiskinan selama-lamanya, satu contoh program kerajaan yang melakukan ini adalah program FELDA - bila dimulakan sehingga lebih kurang 1990 [Ini dijelaskan kemudian])

Sejak dahulu kerajaan telah membantu yang miskin dan memerlukan, kebanyakkannya melalui Kementerian Kebajikan... tetapi jika dilihat nilai peruntukkan yang diberikan, nyata tidak wajar atau adil - dan perlu sangat dinaikkan berasaskan kos kehidupan hari ini..

Kini, bagi yang miskin dan/atau yang memerlikan, Kementerian Kebajikan memberikan bantuan...Sebagai contoh, bagi warga tua yang memerlukan bantuan untuk terus hidup dalam komuniti dalam masyarakat saperti biasa - RM300 se bulan untuk tempuh 12 bulan sahaja. Siapa boleh hidup dengan RM300 sebulan? Ini harus dinaikkan dan biar tidak ada had bantuan ini diberikan... Ini harus diberikan kepada warga tua yang miskin tidak mempunyai keluarga yang mampu memberikan sokongan wang. Warga tua bapa kepada seorang ADUN tak perlu bantuan pun? 

BR1M - Mereka yang lebih miskin harus diberikan lebih berbanding dengan mereka yang lebih kaya. Justeru, mereka yang kini mempunyai isirumah kurang RM1,000 harus diberikan lebih...yang kurang RM2,000 dan seterusnya.. Kini diberi isirumah pendapatan kurang RM3,000 bantuan RM1,200 - ini RM100 setiap bulan...dan Najib dan kawannya dapat berapa? RM2.6 billion untuk Najib atau UMNO-BN...

Secara keseluruhan, seramai hampir 6,320,769 permohonan telah diluluskan bagi menerima BR1M 2017 yang merangkumi bantuan RM1,200 kepada 3,242,048 penerima isirumah yang berpendapatan bulanan RM3,000 dan kebawah, bantuan RM900 kepada 291,918 penerima isirumah yang berpendapatan bulanan diantara RM3,001 hingga RM4,000, dan bantuan RM450 kepada 2,786,803 penerima individu yang berpendapatan bulanan RM2,000 dan kebawah dengan jumlah peruntukan sebanyak RM5.41 billion. - Siaran MediaKEMENTERIAN KEWANGAN MALAYSIA - BANTUAN RAKYAT 1MALAYSIA 2017, 9/3/2017
Bujang dapat RM450 sahaja - tapi jika mereka terpaksa bayar sewa, dll...di mana ini keadaannya dengan mereka yang bujang tinggal seorang - kini berumur 40 atau lebih, mungkin sudah bercerai, mungkin duda atau balu, mungkin tidak pernah berkahwin... Untuk bujang anak muda bawah 25tahun, mungkin OK. Untuk bujang, tapi masih tinggal dengan saudara, mungkin OK...[Parkir kereta di KL kini RM4 sejam - setiap hari untuk 9 jam, bersamaan RM36...Makan kini sukar dapat untuk kurang RM6 - 2 kali makan RM12 tanpa minuman???]


Bilangan penduduk Malaysia 30 juta - kini BRIM 2017 diberikan kepada 6.3 juta orang (ini ketua isirumah/keluarga). Jika campur isteri dan katakan 2 anak sekeluarga, ini bermakna BR1M akan dinikmati lebih kurang 25 juta orang.... KESIMPULAN: UMNO-BN TELAH GAGAL JIKA 25 JUTA DARIPADA 30 JUTA RAKYAT MALAYSIA MEMERLUKAN BANTUAN KEWANGAN selepas lebihkurang 60 tahun memerintah??? 

Apa yang biasa dihebohkan adalah rakyat bukan 'Bumiputra' yang mengambil lebih, maka timbulkan perasaan 'racist' (perkauman) - Fokus kemarahan kepada mereka yang bukan 'Bumiputra' tidak kepada kerajaan? Kini dilihat, banyak harta/kekayaan negara telah pergi kepada beberapa individu sahaja. Anak tiri PM boleh buat 'Holywood Movie'? Kenapa beberapa orang anak bekas Perdana Menteri semua ini kaya-kaya belaka?

KUALA LUMPUR: The national debt stands at RM655.7 billion, or 53 per cent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product, as at June 2016, said Prime Minister Najib Razak today.- FMT News, 20/10/2016

BR1M - ini bukan hak yang terkandung dalam Akta - tetapi kini budibicara Perdana Menteri dan Kabinet beliau? Nak beri tahun ini, kita beri...tahun depan tak pasti? Persoalannya dari mana datang duit ini - pinjam lagi? Zaman Mahathir, hutang negara lebih kurang RM40 billion - kini sudah hampir RM700 billion. June 2016, Najib kata RM655 Billion...(percaya atau tidak?). Nilai ringgit jatuh keberhutangan dalam RM pun naik?

  
SIAPA DAPAT BRIM - LIHAT DI BAWAH?




Condition

Alocation
Ekasih Household income (e-kasih) < RM 1,000 RM 1,200
Household income < RM 3,000RM 1,200
Household income RM 3,000 to RM 4,000RM 900
Single individual 21 years old and above income < RM 2,000 RM 450
Elderly RM 1,000
As for BR1M 2017, thelead family member shall receive RM 1,200 for family with household income below RM 3,000. Family with household income between RM 3,000 and RM 4,000 shall receive RM 900 aid. A RM 450 aid will be given to single individuals that are over 21 years old.
Condition












Almost 7.1 million applicants have been approved to receive the 1Malaysia People's Aid (BR1M 2016), said Second Finance Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah. In a statement, he said this involves household assistance of RM1,050 to almost 162,000 recipients, household assistance of RM1,000 to 3.4 million recipients, household assistance of RM800 to 380,000 recipients and individual assistance of RM400 to 3.2 million recipients. - Astro Awani, 14/3/2016

A total of 6,320,769 applications for the 1Malaysia People’s Aid (BR1M) 2017 have been approved, said the Finance Ministry.It added in a statement on Tuesday that the applications involved an allocation of RM5.41 billion. - Bernama Report, 7/3/2017
↧
↧

UMNO-BN memudahkan 'Union Busting' - buang kerja, ahli union hilang keahlian?

March 13, 2017, 1:21 pm
$
0
0
UMNO-BN memang mahu pekerja di Malaysia kekal lemah - supaya senang ditindas dan dianiyai?

Kesatuan Sekerja merupakan cara bagaimana pekerja boleh menjadi kuat - BERSATU menentang Majikan adalah cara yang lebih wajar dan adil - berbanding dengan satu pekerja menentang Majikan. Justeru Kesatuan Sekerja (Trade Union) amat perlu ...


Mernjadi ahli Kesatuan Sekerja adalah untuk jadi kuat - bila seorang pekerja(ahli) ditindas atau dicabul haknya, AWAS kerana kita semua secara bersatu dan dengan solidariti akan berjuang memastikan pekerja yang ditindas mendapatkan keadilan dan penindasan berhenti...

Secara bersatu, Kesatuan Sekerja dapat juga berjuang menuntut hak lebih dan juga keadaan tempat kerja yang lebih selamat...

Pihak kerajaan penjajah British melemahkan pergerakkan Kesatuan Sekerja dengan hanya membenarkan kesatuan sekerja berasaskan sektor, industri, pekerjaan atau tempat kerja. Kemerdekaan dicapai, tetapi kerajaan pimpinan UMNO dan selepas itu UMNO-BN masih kekalkan strategi British dan Kesatuan Sekerja terus kekal lemah ...seekor harimau tanpa gigi dan taring... Undang-undang terus dipinda untuk memastikan pekerja dan Kesatuan Sekerja terus lemah...

PEKERJA mahu Kesatuan mereka menyokong dan berjuang untuk mereka apabila mereka ditindas atau ditipu majikan....Setengah majikan, bila pekerja mengadu atau membuat tuntutan akan dengan senang sekali membuang pekerjaan pekerja sedemikian - DAN UNDANG-UNDANG MALAYSIA KINI KATA JIKA KAMAU TAK KERJA LAGI KEAHLIAN KESATUAN KAMU JUGA AKAN LUPUT. Jika bukan lagi ahli, kesatuan sekerja pun sukar membantu memastikan keadilan untuk pekerja...wang kesatuan juga tak dapat digunakan...Bila ditimpa malang, kebolehan kesatuan membantu pun terus dihapuskan oleh undang-undang kerajaan UMNO-BN.

Kini ramai juga kena buang kerja kerana 'RETRENCHMENT' - kerana majikan tak lagi perlukan pekerja atau terus berhenti beroperasi... Keahlian kesatuan, ikut undang-undang UMNO-BN pun luput...

Justeru, pada masa ahli kesatuan mahukan bantuan kesatuan dan ahli kesatuan yang lain, kerajaan UMNO-BN memastikan pekerja berkenaan dibuang keahlian dan kesatuan sekerja hilang kemampuan membantu pekerja berkenaan...

Lihat Seksyen 26(1A) - 'retained as a member'...kekalkan sebagai ahli Kesatuan - tidak boleh jika sudah berhenti bekerja dengan majikan...

Section 26(1A) - Trade Unions Act 1959
(1A) No person shall join, or be a member of, or be accepted or retained as a member by, any trade union if he is not employed or engaged in any establishment, trade, occupation or industry in respect of which the trade union is registered.

Bukankah wajar keahlian Kesatuan Sekerja pekerja dikekalkan selagi pekerja tersebut sedia membayar yuran Kesatuan...dan terus jadi ahli? YA...

Union juga boleh membantu ahli mencari kerja .... Perjanjian Bersama boleh dimasukkan klausa menyatakan bahawa jika pekerja baru diperlukan oleh majikan, ahli union harus dijadikan priority - (justeru mereka yang mencari kerja boleh dibantu....)

KINI - pekerja yang diberhentikan yang menuntut kerja kembali mendakwa 'wrongful dismissal' hanya diiktiraf Mahkamah yang boleh masih terus jadi ahli UNION...ini terlalu sempit?

Bagaimana dengan mereka yang kena 'retrenchment' akibat majikan tak perlu lagi begitu ramai pekerja atau 'tutup kedai' macam MAS? Kini dikatakan beberapa ribu pekerja bekas MAS menuntut kerja kembali - tapi MAS sudah tidak beroperasi...
  
Tindakan section 20 - menuntut kerja kembali... lihat kes Wan Noorulazhar, pekerja RENESAS yang juga Presiden UNION lah dibuang kerja pada 26/8/2011 - sehingga kini, lebih kurang 6 tahun telah berlalu, tetapi kes masih belum lagi siap di Mahkamah Perusahaan...Mana keadilan - semua adalah kegagalan kerajaan UMNO-BN... (kes buang kerja secara salah yang menuntut kembali kerja harus diselesaikan dengan pantas - dalam masa 3 - 6 bulan... kalau tidak pekerja yang menjadi mangsa...

87 Kumpulan :-RENESAS HARUS SEGERA MENGIKTIRAF UNION DAN MENGEMBALIKAN PEKERJAAN WAN NOORULAZHAR



MANSUHKAN PERUNTUKAN YANG MENGAKHIRI KEAHLIAN KESATUANSEORANG  PEKERJA ...

Dengan ada peruntukkan sedemikian - Majikan pun senang 'Union Busting' atau senang keluarkan semua pemimpin Union dan/atau pekerja yang berani mahu menuntut hak atau mengadu keadilan...senang sahaja 'Buang Kerja' dan secara otomatik ahli union terkeluar dari Union...


 


 
↧

Syed Mohd Azlan - Polis 'pembunuh',yang 'cover up' kesalahan - kenapa belum didakwa di Mahkamah?

March 14, 2017, 10:04 pm
$
0
0
SYED MOHD AZLAN BIN SYED MOHAMED NUR mati dibunuh dalam tahanan polis TETAPI sehingga kini angota polis yang telah melakukan pembunuhan, dan kesalahan jenayah sapertimana dinyatakan dalam dapatan(findings) Suruhanjaya Integriti Agensi Penguatkuasaan[Enforcement Agencies Integrity Commission](EAIC) nampaknya belum lagi dituduh dan dibicarakan...

Suruhanjaya mendapati terdapat perlakuan jenayah yang melibatkan unsur niat bersama atau pensubahatan (abetment) oleh B1, B2, B3, B4 dan A1 bagi melakukan serangan kekerasan fizikal secara sengaja ke atassi mati yang telah mengakibatkan kecederaan dan kematian ke atas si mati, dan perlakuan ini adalah merupakan kesalahan jenayah di bawah undang-undang khususnya di bawah seksyen 302, seksyen 325 Kanun Keseksaan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 atau seksyen 107 Kanun yang sama.

Suruhanjaya juga mendapati perlakuan anggota polis B4 yang mengarahkan A29 supaya melupuskan barang bukti dan menyembunyikan saksi material iaitu secara mengarahkan A29 supaya menghilangkan diri, adalah satu kesalahan berunsur jenayah di bawah seksyen 118 atau seksyen 119 Kanun Keseksaan yang mewajarkan pendakwaan jenayah dibawa terhadap B4 tersebut.

Pada 3 November 2014, jam lebih kurang 3.30 pagi, sepasukan polis seramai 13 orang anggota termasuk pegawai yang diketuai oleh B1 yang berpangkat Inspektor telah membuat serbuan ke atas sebuah bilik di rumah bernombor 62, Kampung Simon, Teluk Ramunia, Sungai Rengit, Pengerang, Johor dan telah menangkap si mati. Tiada apa-apa senjata api dijumpai dari si mati.Selepas ditangkap, si mati dibawa ke Balai Polis Sungai Rengit. Soal siasat telah dijalankan oleh pegawai dan anggota-anggota serbuan ke atas si mati ...Satu laporan polis tentang kematian si mati telah dibuat oleh B1 pada jam 10.15 pagi, 3 November 2014 melalui Bandar Penawar Report No. 002169/14.

Berikutan kematian dalam tahanan polis ini, satu siasatan telah dilakukan Suruhanjaya Integriti Agensi Penguatkuasaan(EAIC). Petikan daripada lapuran tersebut ada dibawah...


Secara ringkas - angota polis didapati telah melakukan kesalahan - yang merupakan kesalahan dibawah undang-undang jenayah di Malaysia. 

INTEGRITI polis adalah penting - kita tidak mahu angota polis yang telah melakukan jenayah kekal dalam Polis DiRaja Malaysia.

Mereka yang melakukan kesalahan jenayah mesti dituduh dan dibicarakan di Mahkamah terbuka - bukan sahaja polis yang membunuh...tetapi juga mereka yang cuba menyembunyikan kesalahan ini atau 'cover-up'. Polis yang 'kotor' harus segera dikeluarkan untuk mengembalikan integriti polis - serta juga sebagai 'DETERENCE'(penghalang) yang akan memastikan mana-mana angota polis lain pada masa akan datang tidak akan berani menyalahgunakan kuasa dan/atau melakukan kesalahan jenayah lagi.

Tindakan Disiplin Dalaman - itu boleh digunakan untuk salah laku kerja - tetapi untuk kes pecah amanah saperti ini, di mana polis terlibat dalam pembunuhan, penderaan(torture), aktiviti melupuskan bukti atau tindakkan menghalang penyisatan, pemalsuan kandungan lapuran/diari, tindakan 'cover up' atau berdiam diri demi bantu rakan polis yang melakukan kesalahan jenayah - kita perlukan polis terlibat segera disiasat, dituduh di Mahkamah dan seterusnya didakwa dengan betul...Kita tak mahu kes sedemikian 'ditutup' atau siapa-siapa mengarahkan kes ditutup gitu sahaja..

Kalau kita tidak ada polis yang bercekap benar dan beramanah, kepercayaan rakyat kepada polis dan pihak pendakwaan akan luput...Sama juga dengan hakim.

Daripada insiden 'mata hitam' Anwar, kita pernah melihat banyak kes, apabila melibatkan polis, yang nampaknya macam telah di 'cover-up' - Kes Syed Mohd Azlan pun, jika EAIC tidak terlibat kemungkinan polis terlibat dalam kesalahan jenayah, atau kesalahan jenayah tersebut' mungkin 'cover-up' dan yang melakukan kesalahan, bukan sahaja berasaskan undang-undang negara tetapi juga SOP(atau Arahan Kepimpinan Polis)...akan terlepas gitu sahaja..

Siasatan EAIC sudah mendedahkan jenayah yang berlaku, serta juga siapa yang telah melakukannya...tetapi mengapa nampaknya tidak ada pendakwaan dan/atau pendakwaan di Mahkamah terbuka? Adakah polis tersebut masih lagi polis - adakah kini sudah naik pangkat? Polis 'kotor' harus disingkirkan daripada pihak polis - 'tiada maaf bagi mu'...Polis HARUS BERSIH CEKAP DAN AMANAH...Itu yang rakyat Malaysia harus dapat...

Malangnya, akibat tindakan salah beberapa orang polis, kesemua polis mendapat 'nama buruk' dan hilang kepercayaan rakyat. Justeru, khususnya polis dan pihak pengkuatkuasaan yang lain, tindakan segera dan 'terbuka' harus diambil bila jenayah atau kesalahan(khususnya yang melanggar undang-undang atau pecah amanah) dilakukan...

Rakyat diperlukan melapurkan bila mereka syaki jenayah telah berlaku - kalau polis sendiri tak buat bila jenayah dilakukan polis sendiri tidak lapurkan - sedih sekali, dan tidak boleh diterima...



Dapatan Siasatan yang diperolehi daripada lapuran tersebut adalah saperti ini...




9. DAPATAN SIASATAN
Dapatan dan syor berkaitannya.

9.1 Hasil daripada analisa dan dapatan siasatan yang dilakukan oleh Suruhanjaya, didapati kematian Syed Mohd Azlan Bin Syed Mohamed Nur ada kaitan dengan penggunaan kekerasan secara fizikal oleh pihak
polis ke atas si mati.

9.2 Suruhanjaya menerima pakai laporan perubatan oleh Dr. Rohayu Binti Shahar Adnan (A22) iaitu Pakar Perunding dan Ketua Jabatan, Jabatan Perubatan Forensik, Hospital Sultan Ismail, Johor Bahru, bahawa kematian si mati disebabkan oleh hentakan trauma tumpul pada dada si mati (blunt force trauma to the chest). Dapatan oleh doktor pakar tersebut adalah konsisten dengan keterangan yang terdapat khasnya keterangan A29 bahawa terdapat penggunaan kekerasan fizikal oleh anggota-anggota polis semasa tangkapan si mati.

9.3 Laporan bedah siasat juga melihatkan si mati mengalami 61 jenis kecederaan di tubuh badan. Sebahagian daripada kecederaan tersebut dialami oleh si mati semasa berusaha mempertahankan diri dari kekerasan dan serangan fizikal yang dilakukan ke atasnya oleh anggota-anggota polis yang menangkap dan membuat soal siasat ke atasnya.

9.4 Suruhanjaya mendapati bahawa keterangan oleh pegawai dan anggota serbuan bahawa berlaku pergelutan selama 3-5 minit di antara pasukan serbuan dan si mati adalah meragukan dan tidak kredibel setelah Suruhanjaya menimbangkan keterangan-keterangan berikut:

i.                    Serbuan ke atas si mati dibuat secara mengejut;
ii.                  Pasukan polis bersenjata lengkap dengan baju kalis peluru semasa serbuan;
iii.                Keadaan bilik yang bersaiz kecil dan tiada terdapat pintu lain atau tingkap yang terbuka tidak memungkinkan si mati untuk melarikan diri;
iv.                Semasa serbuan, hanya si mati dan A29 sahaja yang berada di dalam bilik tersebut;
v.                  Semasa serbuan, bilik tersebut mempunyai cahaya yang terang kerana lampu bilik yang sedang terpasang;
vi.                Saiz fizikal si mati yang tingginya ialah 160 cm dengan pinggang yang kecil iaitu 26 inci menggambarkan bahawa si mati mempunyai tubuh badan yang kecil dan kurus yang tidak memungkinkan si mati untuk bergelut semasa tangkapan dilakukan yang melibatkan 3 atau 4 orang anggota yang terlatih;
vii.              Keterangan A29 bahawa A29 dan si mati terus meniarapkan diri bersama-sama A29 apabila polis mengenalkan diri adalah lebih konsisten dengan fakta-fakta yang disebut di atas tadi iaitu (i – vi) bahawa tiada pergelutan 3-5 minit berlaku semasa tangkapan dibuat.

9.5 Walaupun pegawai dan anggota serbuan mendapati si mati ada mengalami kecederaan fizikal di tubuh badan dan pendarahan di beberapa bahagian muka, tetapi si mati telah tidak dibawa untuk mendapatkan apa-apa rawatan perubatan selepas ditangkap dan ini melanggari perenggan 4.4.2 SOP Tangkapan Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah PDRM;

9.6 Suruhanjaya mendapati anggota polis B4 telah mengganggu bahan bukti di tempat kejadian apabila mengarahkan A29 (pemilik rumah tempat tangkapan) melalui panggilan telefon kepada A29 pada jam lebih kurang 8.40 pagi, pada 3 November 2014 untuk membersihkan tempat kejadian dan melupuskan tikar getah dan karpet yang mempunyai kesan darah si mati. Akibat daripada arahan tersebut, A29 telah membakar tikar getah. Bagaimana pun, A29 telah mengambil keputusan sendiri untuk menyimpan karpet yang dikatakan mempunyai kesan darah si mati kerana tidak yakin terhadap siasatan pihak polis (keterangan mengenai kewujudan simpanan karpet ini hanya diberitahu oleh A29 kepada Pegawai Penyiasat Suruhanjaya yang kemudiannya meminta supaya A29 menyerahkan karpet tersebut kepada Pegawai Penyiasat polis bagi tindakan siasatan dengan menghantar karpet tersebut ke Jabatan Kimia Malaysia.)

9.7 Suruhanjaya juga mendapati anggota polis B4 telah membuat panggilan telefon kepada A29 mengarahkan A29 supaya menghilangkan /menyembunyikan diri selepas kejadian tangkapan dan kematian si mati. Perlakuan B4 tersebut adalah merupakan suatu salahlaku jenayah untuk menghilangkan atau menyembunyikan bukti atau keterangan material.

9.8 Suruhanjaya juga mendapati bahawa terdapat perlakuan untuk  menyembunyikan keterangan material (suppression of material evidence) apabila B1, B2, B3, B4 dan A1 iaitu pegawai dan anggota yang memasuki rumah serbuan mengetahui kehadiran A29 di tempat tangkapan si mati semasa serbuan tetapi telah gagal atau dengan sengaja tidak menzahirkan fakta material ini kepada Pegawai Penyiasat polis yang boleh mengakibatkan suatu siasatan yang adil dan lengkap tidak dapat dijalankan;

9.9 Suruhanjaya mendapati, walaupun terdapat barangan si mati seperti 2 buah telefon bimbit, kad pengenalan dan 1 beg pouch yang mana di dalamnya terdapat dompet wang, namun rampasan wang si mati itu telah tidak disenaraikan sebagai di antara barang yang dirampas dan tidak terdapat juga sebarang keterangan bahawa wang milik si mati telah dikembalikan semula kepada keluarga si mati. Keterangan B1 menunjukkan si mati memiliki sejumlah wang sewaktu tangkapan di sokong oleh keterangan A31. 

9.10 Siasatan juga mendapati si mati telah digari dengan menggunakan gari milik peribadi anggota B3 yang bukan dibekalkan oleh PDRM atau kerajaan. Kerana itu ada kemungkinan kesakitan dan kecederaan yang dialami oleh si mati semasa digari adalah akibat daripada penggunaan gari persendirian milik peribadi B3 yang tidak mengikut spesifikasi standard.

9.11 Suruhanjaya mendapati terdapat beberapa pemecahan serius ke atas SOP berkaitan tangkapan dan pengendalian orang tangkapan, pengendalian dan sitaan barang kes, menyembunyikan keterangan(rujuk perenggan 4.3.1.3; perenggan 4.3.5.2; perenggan 4.3.7.6 dan 4.3.7.8 SOP Tangkapan Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah PDRM bertarikh 7 Mei 2012); perenggan 4.12 (perenggan 6.1 dan 8.1) SOP Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah (Prosedur Penggeledahan dan Rampasan – PDRM/PK(JSJ):12 bertarikh 30 April 2012).

9.12 Suruhanjaya mendapati terdapat perlakuan jenayah yang melibatkan unsur niat bersama atau pensubahatan (abetment) oleh B1, B2, B3, B4 dan A1 bagi melakukan serangan kekerasan fizikal secara sengaja ke atassi mati yang telah mengakibatkan kecederaan dan kematian ke atas si mati, dan perlakuan ini adalah merupakan kesalahan jenayah di bawah undang-undang khususnya di bawah seksyen 302, seksyen 325 Kanun Keseksaan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 atau seksyen 107 Kanun yang sama.

9.13 Suruhanjaya juga mendapati perlakuan anggota polis B4 yang mengarahkan A29 supaya melupuskan barang bukti dan menyembunyikan saksi material iaitu secara mengarahkan A29 supaya menghilangkan diri, adalah satu kesalahan berunsur jenayah di bawah seksyen 118 atau seksyen 119 Kanun Keseksaan yang mewajarkan pendakwaan jenayah dibawa terhadap B4 tersebut.

9.14 Pasukan Petugas juga mendapati walau pun pihak anggota serbuan yang menyoalsiasat si mati dan dikatakan si mati mengaku menyimpan pistol dengan bapa si mati, tetapi pengakuan tersebut diragui kebenarannya dan cara ianya didapatkan dari si mati dan tidak mempunyai sebarang nilai berat kerana hakikatnya tiada apa-apa pistol dijumpai oleh pihak polis dari maklumat yang dikatakan diberikan oleh si mati semasa disoalsiasat di balai polis sebaik si mati dibawa balik ke balai. Versi maklumat yang dikatakan diberikan oleh si mati juga  berbeza-beza dari keterangan saksi-saksi polis yang mendengar pengakuan yang dikatakan itu di mana ada yang mengatakan si mati  menyebut di simpan di dalam tilam di rumah dan ada yang mengatakan si mati menyebut disimpan dengan bapanya. 

9.15 Suruhanjaya menerima perkara-perkara dan dapatan-dapatan siasatan Pasukan Petugas selaras dengan peruntukan seksyen 30(1)(b) Akta 700, untuk tindakan tatatatertib dibawa terhadap pegawai dan anggota-anggota yang dikenalpasti di dalam laporan ini yang didapati telah melakukan salah laku sepertimana skop salahlaku yang diberikan di bawah seksyen 24 Akta 700.

9.16 Suruhanjaya juga menerima perkara-perkara dan dapatan-dapatan siasatan Pasukan Petugas selaras dengan peruntukan seksyen 30(1)(c) Akta 700, bagi pendakwaan jenayah diperakukan kepada Pendakwa Raya terhadap pegawai dan anggota yang didapati telah melakukan salah laku jenayah seperti yang dikenalpasti di dalam Laporan ini.-
Sumber - LAPORAN SIASATAN EAIC KE ATAS KES KEMATIAN SYED MOHD AZLAN BIN SYED MOHAMED NUR SEMASA DI DALAM TAHANAN POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA-


Lihat juga kenyataan SUHAKAM pada 10/2/2017 -  

'These investigations must lead to the successful prosecution of policemen involved in the torture, illtreatment or death of an arrested person.'
↧

Shameful - 2 victims of mandatory death penalty executed when Malaysia may abolish death penalty?

March 15, 2017, 8:49 am
$
0
0


When Malaysia is in the process of conducting studies, which will result in the abolition of not just the mandatory death penalty, but possibly the death penalty, reasonableness and justice demands that there should be a moratium on all executions BUT alas 2 more Malaysian, victims of the mandatory death penalty have been executed again.. See related post:-

MALAYSIA’S CABINET’S DELAY IN TABLING LAWS ABOLISHING THE DEATH PENALTY RISKS UNNECESSARY LOSS OF LIFE -Immediate Moratorium On ALL Executions -




PRESS STATEMENT

Amnesty International condemns the double execution of Rames and Suthar Batumalai

Amnesty International condemns the double execution of Rames and Suthar Batumalai, Malaysian nationals convicted of murder, despite the new application for clemency filed by their lawyer on 23 February 2017. International law clearly states that executions may not be carried out pending any appeal or other proceeding relating to pardon or commutation of the sentence. The executions, which were initially scheduled for 24 February and halted at the last hour, were set again for Friday 17 March. Only yesterday, 14 March, the family was informed that the men would be hanged at today’s dawn.

“It is simply cruel that the family of the prisoners were told to prepare for executions this Friday, only to find out with less than 24 hours’ notice that they were given wrong information about the date of the execution. With the clemency appeal still pending, the brothers were denied of their opportunity to have their case reconsidered and have their clemency applications heard,” Shamini Darshni, Amnesty International Malaysia said.

“Their case was deeply troubling, with the death sentence imposed as the mandatory punishment for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence alone. They should have been granted the opportunity to have their applications heard and the executions should have been halted until the full and fair hearing of this application. Executions continue to be carried out in secretive and opaque conditions.

Malaysia must stop backpedalling on human rights and start protecting them by halting all executions and moving to abolish the death penalty. Malaysia remains among the minority of countries that continue to use this archaic method of sentencing people in a cruel and inhumane manner.”



For more information please contact:
Devika Santhosh Nair
Communications Coordinator
Amnesty International Malaysia
+60 17 6506416 or devika@aimalaysia.org
↧

Bar Resolution on Deaths In Police Custody and Police Brutality(2017)

March 19, 2017, 6:03 am
$
0
0
Resolution Adopted at the 71st Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar Held at Renaissance Kuala Lumpur Hotel (Saturday, 18 Mar 2017)

Resolution Regarding Deaths in Police Custody and Police Brutality

WHEREAS the Malaysian Bar,

(1) Recalling the Malaysian Bar resolution passed at the 53rd Annual General Meeting on 20.3.1999 on police shootings and custodial violence, among others, calling for the holding of inquiries into death in police custody cases and prosecution of the relevant police personnel;

(2) Recalling the Malaysian Bar resolution passed at the 55th Annual General Meeting on 17.7.2001 on unlawful shooting to death of individuals by police personnel and police brutality and deaths in police custody;

(3) Recalling the Malaysian Bar resolution passed at the 57th Annual General Meeting on 22.3.2003, among others, condemning the alarming statistics on deaths in police custody and shooting to death by police personnel, and calling for transparency and accountability in each and every case;

(4) Recalling the Malaysian Bar resolution passed at the 58th Annual General Meeting on 27.3.2004 calling for the Inspector General of Police of Malaysia and the Attorney General to investigate and institute the appropriate criminal proceedings against the relevant police personnel and commence immediate inquiry into mysterious deaths in police custody and shooting to death by police personnel;

(5) Recalling the Malaysian Bar resolution passed at the 61st Annual General Meeting on 17.3.2007 calling for the urgent formation of an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (“IPCMC”) and for the Attorney General to prosecute without fear or favour all or any criminal abuse of police powers; 

(6) Recalling the Malaysian Bar resolution passed at the 65th Annual General Meeting on 12.3.2011, among others, on inquiries into death in police custody cases;

(7) Noting with deep regret that the resolutions as recalled above have largely been ignored or unheeded as deaths in police custody under questionable circumstances, unlawful shooting to death by police personnel and police brutality while in the custody of the police continue to occur. 

(8) Whereas the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia Malaysia, “SUHAKAM”) has reported that from the years 2000 to 2014, 242 deaths in police custody were recorded.  Suara Rakyat Malaysia (“SUARAM”) has recorded 11 deaths in police custody for the year 2015, and 2 deaths in police custody for the year 2016. 
 
(9) Whereas to date in 2017, at least 3 deaths in police custody have been reported, which are as follows:- 

(9.1) Soh Kai Chiok, aged 49:

(a) The deceased (Soh Kai Chiok) was arrested and detained at Bera District Police Headquarters (IPD) in Pahang.  He was suspected of stealing bananas and was being investigated under Section 379 of the Penal Code.

(b) It has been reported that Soh Kai Chiok was arrested by the owner of the banana plantation and his four employees, and was handed over to the police with injuries on his left arm, left leg and on the face.  He was taken to the Triang Health Clinic and was referred to the Sultan Haji Ahmad Shah Hospital in Temerloh.

(c) According to the Bera district police chief, the guard at the police headquarters men's lock-up found Soh Kai Chiok unconscious.  Soh Kai Chiok was pronounced dead at 12.15am on 18.1.2017.  He also said that post-mortem results showed ulcers the size of a 50-sen coin were found in Soh’s intestines.

(9.2) S Balamurugan s/o M Suppiah, aged 44:

(a) The deceased (Balamurugan) was arrested on 6.2.2017.

(b) On 7.2.2017, Balamurugan was brought before a Magistrate for a remand order.  According to Balamurugan’s lawyer, at his remand hearing, Balamurugan was weak and unable to walk, had bruises on his face, was bleeding from his nose and mouth, and vomited blood.

(c) Upon observing Balamurugan’s condition, the presiding Magistrate queried the Investigating Officer but the Investigating Officer did not reply.  The presiding Magistrate then rejected the remand application and instructed the Investigating Officer to take Balamurugan to the hospital for treatment immediately.

(d) Balamurugan was neither released nor brought to the hospital for medical treatment.

(e) On 8.2.2017, Balamurugan was found dead at the North Klang Police Headquarters.

(f) The first autopsy carried out at the Klang Hospital had reportedly indicated that Balamurugan had died of “heart problems”. However, the results of the second post-mortem conducted by Hospital Kuala Lumpur and released on 18.2.2017 states that the cause of death while Balamurugan was in police custody was “coronary artery disease with multiple blunt force injuries”.

(g) On 22.2.2017, the Inspector General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar said that police have started investigations under Section 345 of the Penal Code (wrongful confinement) against the investigating officer for failing to abide by a court order to release the deceased.  However, there has been no news since then. 

(h) On 9.2.2017, the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (“EAIC”) stated that it would commence investigation into the death of Balamurugan immediately.  On 28.2.2017, the EAIC stated that it has taken 47 witness statements. 

(i) Two teenagers, both age 16, who had been arrested together with Balamurugan and who had witnessed Balamurugan being assaulted, have, according to their lawyer, been beaten up and detained in an adult lock-up instead of being kept in a separate facility. 

(9.3) Thanaseelan Muniandy, aged 43:

(a) The deceased (Thanaseelan) was arrested in Bukit Beruntung on 21.02.17 for an alleged burglary.

(b) Thanaseelan was under a court remand from 22.02.17 to 25.02.17 at the Bukit Sentosa Police Station in the Hulu Selangor District. He was found unconscious in his cell at 1.50am on Saturday 25.02.17. An ambulance was called but Thanaseelan was pronounced dead at the scene by a medical personnel.

(c) According to Hulu Selangor Police Chief Superintendent R. Supramaniam, Thanaseelan had been complaining of stomach pains; and he was brought to the Kuala Kubu Baru Hospital for treatment on 24.2.2017.  The doctors gave him some medicine and the police brought him back to Bukit Sentosa Police Station. 

(d) Subsequent inquiries with the hospital have disclosed that Thanaseelan was not warded on 24.02.17, but the outpatient department could not confirm if he was brought in for treatment.  Investigations are on-going as to why he was sent back to police custody without adequate diagnosis and treatment.

(e) The pathologist who prepared the post-mortem report has said that preliminary findings show that Thanaseelan had died from “blood poisoning from suppurative peritonitis due to a perforated gastric ulcer” and that Thanaseelan would have suffered acute pain as there was so much pus in his stomach.  Thanaseelan had a history of chronic gastritis.

(f) Thanaseelan’s wife and family members have confirmed that despite being pronounced dead at 1.50am on 25.2.2017, the police only informed them approximately seven hours later. The distraught family members also claimed that they were never informed of the arrest. 

(10) Whereas Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty save in accordance with the law.

(11) Whereas Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution guarantees that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law. 

(12) Taking note that Malaysia is obliged to uphold the underlying values of international human rights laws and norms set out in, inter alia, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which sets out, among others, that every human being has the inherent right to life and dignity.

(13) Noting with regret that the Government of Malaysia has yet to establish the IPCMC, as recommended by the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysia Police in its report in 2005.  

(14) Taking note that by the time decisions are made to hold public inquiries or inquests, the trail of evidence relating to the circumstances of deaths in police custody or police brutality could easily be lost due to concealment, fabrication or destruction of evidence, as borne out by the recent findings of the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission ("EAIC") into the death of N Dharmendran while in police custody, and taking further note that the IPCMC provides an effective mechanism to intervene into any attempts or afterthoughts to conceal and destroy evidence almost immediately after any death in custody.

(15) Taking note that the many recommendations by SUHAKAM and EAIC to address deaths in police custody and police brutality have fallen on deaf ears, and enforcement of these recommendations remains weak and lacks political will. 

(16) Noting with regret that Malaysia has yet to ratify the United Nations Convention Against Torture which would, among others, ensure that law enforcement agencies are duty-bound to protect the people against torture or any forms of ill-treatment by providing the mechanism to prohibit, prevent and punish acts of torture and ill-treatment, as well as means of redress for victims.

(17) Deeply disturbed that the incidents of questionable deaths in police custody, unlawful shooting to death by police personnel and police brutality while in the custody of the police have significantly shaken public trust and confidence in the police force to uphold the law and order in this country, and reflect that the police force has failed to portray itself through its actions or inactions, as an accountable, transparent, disciplined and responsible police force.


THEREFORE it is hereby resolved that the Malaysian Bar:

(A) Is gravely concerned, disapproves and condemns the continuing occurrence of deaths in police custody and police brutality while in the custody of the police.

(B) Is deeply disturbed by the inaction or failure on the part of the Inspector General of Police of Malaysia and the Public Prosecutor respectively in commencing investigation and instituting criminal prosecution against the police personnel connected with deaths in police custody and police brutality in but a handful of the reported cases.

(C) Calls upon the Government of Malaysia to respect, promote and protect the rights of persons under the Federal Constitution and international human rights laws and norms.

(D) Calls upon the Royal Malaysia Police to abide by the principles of justice, good governance and the rule of law, and to respect, promote and protect the human rights of people in Malaysia.

(E) Calls upon the Government of Malaysia to urgently set up the IPCMC without any more delay.

(F) Calls upon the Government of Malaysia to ratify the United Nations Convention Against Torture and thereafter take steps for legal, policy and institutional reform in adherence to the same. 

(G) Mandates the Bar Council to take and continue all appropriate and necessary action to urge the Government of Malaysia to establish the IPCMC.

The motion was proposed by Steven Thiru (Chairman, Bar Council), on behalf of the Bar Council.

↧
↧

Resolusi Peguam 'Dakwa Polis melakukan jenayah', dan singkirkan 'polis kotor' - kes Syed Mohd Azlan?

March 20, 2017, 7:03 am
$
0
0
Resolusi menuntut supaya polis yang melakukan jenayah membunuh, jenayah menyembunyikan bukti, jenayah cuba 'menutup kebenaran' dalan kes kematian dalam tahanan saperti kes Syed Mohd Azlan Bin Syed Mohamed didakwa di Mahkamah untuk kesalahan jenayah mereka mendapat sokongan hampir semua peguam yang hadhir(ada 5 yang tidak membantah tetapi memilih berkecuali) dan kini sudah menjadi Resolusi Badan Peguam Malaysia. 

Resolusi ini dibuat dalam Mesyuarat Agung Malaysian Bar yang diadakan di Kuala Lumpur pada 18 Mac 2017, yang melihat kehadiran lebih kurang 842 peguam..
Resolusi menuntut polis yang melakukan jenayah, termasuk juga angota polis lain yang membantu menutup kebenaran disingkirkan daripada PDRM demi memastikan integriti polis Malaysia dan pentadbiran keadilan..

Tidak mahu lagi hanya 'tindakan disiplin' dalaman sahaja yang dilakukan secara senyap-senyap...untuk polis...

Jangan kamu yang menjadi mangsa salah laku polis, atau yang tahu tentang salah laku polis berdiam diri - kita perlu bersuara dan bertindak supaya kita dapat polis yang bersih, berintegriti, beramanah... 

Pendirian ratusan peguam Malaysia ini harus dibangakan - harap-harap parti-parti Pembangkang(dan juga parti dalam BN) juga mengambil pendirian kuat sedemikian...demi masa depan Malaysia...

Kalau polis 'kotor' atau yang melakukan jenayah dikekalkan...bagaimana kita boleh harapkan polis? TIADA MAAF UNTUK POLIS YANG MELAKUKAN JENAYAH ATAU YANG CUBA 'COVER UP'...Buang yang kotor ambil yang jernih...

2 Resolusi mengenai Kematian dalam Tahanan Police,untuk lihat resolusi kedua ikut link
2 Resolutions adopted by Malaysian Bar on Death in Custody, to view the 2nd follow the link:-

Bar Resolution on Deaths In Police Custody and Police Brutality(2017)





Resolution Regarding the Prosecution of Police Officers Who Killed and/or ‘Cover-Up’ Crimes of Fellow Police in Torture and Death in Custody Cases 

Whereas

1. Deaths in police custody continues to happen in Malaysia. There has been 3 deaths in police custody in 2017, namely:-

Jan 18 – Soh Kai Chiok at Triang police station in Bera District, Pahang;
Feb 7 – Balamurugan Suppiah – at North Klang police headquarters; and
Feb 25 – Thanaseelan Muniandy – at Bukit Sentosa police station in Hulu Selangor District.

2. The Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission(EAIC) has completed inquiries for at least 3 deaths and custody, and in 2 it had found the police liable for the death. It also found that there had been police officers that lied and even made false reports and entries into diaries. There has also been findings that there have been attempts to ‘cover-up’, and even destroy available evidence.

Syed Mohd Azlan Bin Syed Mohamed – 27/11/2014

3. In the Inquiry Report concerning the death in custody one of Syed Mohd Azlan Bin Syed Mohamed on 27 November 2014, amongst others, the EAIC found that police officers had killed (‘murdered’) Syed Mohd Azlan. They also found, amongst others, the involvement of police officers in trying to destroy evidence and interfere with the police investigations. They recommended the Public Prosecutor to charge these police officers under section 302(murder) and for various crimes. The following are merely some extracts from the said EAIC Report.

Suruhanjaya mendapati anggota polis B4 telah mengganggu bahan bukti di tempat kejadian apabila mengarahkan A29 (pemilik rumah tempat tangkapan) melalui panggilan telefon kepada A29 pada jam lebih kurang 8.40 pagi, pada 3 November 2014 untuk membersihkan tempat kejadian dan melupuskan tikar getah dan karpet yang mempunyai kesan darah si mati….(9.6)

Suruhanjaya juga mendapati anggota polis B4 telah membuat panggilan telefon kepada A29 mengarahkan A29 supaya menghilangkan /menyembunyikan diri selepas kejadian tangkapan dan kematian si mati… (9.7)
Suruhanjaya mendapati terdapat perlakuan jenayah yang melibatkan unsur niat bersama atau pensubahatan (abetment)oleh B1, B2, B3, B4 dan A1 bagi melakukan serangan kekerasan fizikal secara sengaja ke atas si mati yang telah mengakibatkan kecederaan dan kematian ke atas si mati, dan perlakuan ini adalah merupakan kesalahan jenayah di bawah undang-undang khususnya di bawah seksyen 302, seksyen 325 Kanun Keseksaan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 atau seksyen 107 Kanun yang sama. (9.12)

Suruhanjaya juga mendapati perlakuan anggota polis B4 yang mengarahkan A29 supaya melupuskan barang bukti dan menyembunyikan saksi material iaitu secara mengarahkan A29 supaya menghilangkan diri, adalah satu kesalahan berunsur jenayah di bawah seksyen 118 atau seksyen 119 Kanun Keseksaan  yang mewajarkan pendakwaan jenayah dibawa terhadap B4 tersebut. (9.13)

Suruhanjaya juga menerima perkara-perkara dan dapatan-dapatan  siasatan Pasukan Petugas selaras dengan peruntukan seksyen 30(1)(c) Akta 700, bagi pendakwaan jenayah diperakukan kepada Pendakwa Raya terhadap pegawai dan anggota yang didapati telah melakukan salah laku jenayah seperti yang dikenalpasti di dalam Laporan ini. (9.16)

4. Despite the recommendation  that these officers be charged and tried, there seem to be no information that any criminal action has been taken against these police officers that have broken the law.

Dharmendran a/l Narayanasamy (May 2013)

5. In the EAIC Inquiry Report concerning death in police custody of one Dharmendran a/l Narayanasamy, it was revealed again that police officers behaved dishonestly and tampered with police records. Some extracts of this report, as examples, are as follows:-

Suruhanjaya mendapati catatan entri tambahan di P32 pada 21 Mei 2013 di catatan entri no.3150selepas sahaja perkataan “terkawal”adalah maklumat butiran palsu/salahnyatayang direkasecara bersama oleh SP60 (A/SAC Khairi Ahrasa), SP27 (A/ACP Yahya Abdul Rahman), SP39 (DSP Glenn Anthony Sinappah) dan SP44(Insp.Hare Krishnan a/l Subramaniam) pada malam kejadian (21 Mei 2013) semasa perbincangan di Bilik Mesyuarat D9, …supaya membuat catatantambahan di entri no. 3150 tersebut berdasarkan maklumat yang direka-reka tersebut...(31.2.2)

Suruhanjaya mendapati catatan di entri no. 3154 di Eksibit P32 yang mencatatkan “L/Kpl 144682 terima aduan daripada OKT, penama Dharmendran a/l Narayanasamy maklum sesak nafas dan rasa hendak pergi hospital untuk buat rawatan.”;…juga merupakan entri palsu/salahnyata oleh pakatan bersama …(31.2.7)

Suruhanjaya mendapati perlakuan SP60, SP27, SP39 dan SP44 yang secara bersama mereka-reka kandungan entri no. 3150 bahagian kedua, entri no. 3151, 3152, 3153 dan 3154 dengan mengarahkan SP24 dan SP25 membuat catatan kandungan yang direka-reka tersebut di dalam Eksibit P32 adalah satu perlakuan salah laku yang serius yang melibatkan pegawai-pegawai kanan bertujuan untuk melindungi (cover-up) fakta sebenar kematian si mati dengan memberi maklumat yang diketahui sebagai tidak benar atau palsu yang boleh menjejaskan suatu siasatan kes yang adil dari dapat dilakukan berkaitan kematian si mati…(31.2.11)

Perlakuan SP60, SP27, SP39 dan SP44 yang mereka-reka entri alsu/salah nyata untuk dicatat di dalam Eksibit P32 (Buku Perharian Balai) boleh menjurus kepada kesalahan bersifat jenayah seperti yang diperuntukkan oleh seksyen 192, 201 dan/atau seksyen 203 Kanun Keseksaan.(31.2.12)

6. In this case 4 police officers had already been charged when the Inquiry started, as such the Inquiry did not look in greater detail the killing. It focused however on the other wrongdoings, including the dishonest behavior of the police who changed/tampered police records and documents for the purpose of possibly covering up the truth.

7. Again, we have no information of any of the said officers being charged in court for the alleged crimes that they committed.

8. It is possible that some ‘internal’ disciplinary action may have been taken against these police officers. There is also the possibility that no action was taken. In any event, this information seem to have not been reported in the media.

9. Honesty and integrity is expected especially from the police, enforcement officers, prosecutors and judges involved in the administration of criminal justice.

10. As such, when the police has been found to be wrongly and dishonestly tampering with evidence and records, and/or involved in actions of ‘cover-ups’, these actions cannot be tolerated. The failure of police officers to report wrongdoings and/or crimes of their fellow police officers also cannot be tolerated.

11. There is a need to weed out such ‘bad’ and/or dishonest police officers, and it is also important that such police officers not be ‘protected’, but be charged and tried in a court of law.

12. Such actions against ‘bad’ police officers is needed to protect the integrity of the police, and also may serve as a deterrence to other police officers, enforcement officers and prosecutors involved in the administration of justice in Malaysia.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED:-

A. That all police officers who have committed a crime, be it torture, murder, tampering with evidence or records, and/or covering up of crimes of fellow officers need to be removed to protect the integrity of the Malaysian police and the administration of justice;

B. That all police officers who have committed a crime related to the carrying out their duties should be promptly investigated, charged and tried in open court, rather than subjected to ‘secretive’ internal disciplinary actions;

C. That torture and death in custody be eradicated from Malaysia;

D. That the Bar Council continue doing the good work they are doing to ensure the eradication of torture and death in custody in Malaysia;

E. That the Bar Council ensures that the Standard Operating Procedures(SOP) governing all police action, be made public for it is necessary for all to know so that they could claim their rights, and/or highlight when their rights are violated; and

F. That Malaysia immediately sets up Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC).

The motion was proposed by Charles Hector Fernandez, Francis Pereira and Shanmugam a/l Ramasamy.

↧

‘Wrongfully’ sacked workers union president turns to Suhakam for help(FMT,17/3/2017)

March 21, 2017, 12:23 am
$
0
0
On 17/3/2017, a Human Rights Defenders' delegation, representing 55 groups, comprised of Syed Shahir bin Syed Mohamud, Charles Hector, Rudy Rusly(General Secretary of the Club Employeees Union Peninsular Malaysia), AdrianPereira, executive director of the North South Initiative(NSI) went to Malaysian Human Rights Commission(SUHAKAM) to bring to the attention the issue of Freedom of Association, Union Busting and the Victimization/Discriminization Against Worker Leaders - with particular reference to case involving Muhammad Zulfadlee Thye Bin Abdullah, the President of the Infineon Technologies Malaysia Workers Union (Kesatuan Pekerja Pekerja Infineon Technologies (M) Sdn Bhd) and 6 other Union Committee Members at INFINEON in Malacca.






The Union President is also wrongfully being prevented by the Company from entering the Union office, and/or carrying out his Union duties/responsibilities. He is also being prevented from being involved in the discussions and negotiations of the upcoming Collective Bargaining Agreement.

We met with Human Rights Commissioner, Lok Yim Pheng, and had a long meeting and discussion. It is our hope that SUHAKAM will conduct a thorough investigation, and maybe even have an inquiry and do the needful to ensure that human rights is respected and protected.


Our hope is that INFINEON, a company that claims to respect worker rights, will not delay matters and will immediately do the needful to respect worker and trade union rights, which are all human rights. As Human Rights Defenders, we shall struggle on until justice is done...

See related posts:- 

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

Malaysia: Workers claim discrimination against union leaders at Infineon's assembly factory; company responds (BHRRC)- We have send in our response to Infineon's response, and are currently still waiting for INFINEON's response to that.

 

 


 
‘Wrongfully’ sacked workers union president turns to Suhakam for help

March 17, 2017

Former senior employee claims company sacked him to stop him from fighting for workers’ rights.

suhakam-sacked 

KUALA LUMPUR: A former employee of an electronics company in Malacca, who is also president of the workers union, filed a complaint of wrongful termination with the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) here.

Muhammad Zulfadly Thye Abdullah, who was a senior technician analyst at the company, claimed he was dismissed for “committing the act of malingering”, or feigning illness to avoid going to work.

He said despite his dismissal, he remained the president of the union. He claimed he was prevented from carrying out his duties as the union president after his dismissal.

Zulfadly said he had been employed at the company since 1998, and the president of the workers union since 2005

Human rights lawyer Charles Hector, who brought the case to the attention of  Suhakam, said the company’s charge against Zulfadly was “defective”.

“According to the company policy, malingering is not a form of misconduct that can lead to termination,” he said.

Zulfadly stated in his memorandum that he was sacked on Dec 13 last year. He said he had obtained a medical certificate (MC) from the company panel clinic on Oct 18 for back pain, followed by another MC for the next three days, after being diagnosed with kidney stones.

However, the company found out that he had attended a union event in Putrajaya when he was on medical leave on Oct 18.

Zulfadly was charged with skipping work and subjected to a domestic inquiry. He was dismissed on Dec 13.

“I replied to the company that my decision to go to the union event was a last-minute one.

“It was a short event and I took the bus instead of driving there because of my back pain,” he said.

After he was sacked, Zulfadly claimed he was barred from carrying out his duties as the union president.

“I could not enter the union office in the factory compound and I was not allowed to perform my duty of negotiating over the collective agreement for the workers’ working shifts.”

He claimed the company had sacked him to prevent him from fighting for the workers’ rights.

“The Industrial Relations Act guarantees the right of workers to participate in unions.

“Even though I have been terminated from my job, I am still the president of the union, elected by fellow members.”

Suhakam commissioner Lok Yim Pheng, who heard the complaint, expressed sympathy with Zulfadly’s plight.

“I share a union background and I will be with you in this fight for workers’ rights,” said Loke, who is the former secretary-general of the National Union of the Teaching Profession.

She promised to look into Zulfadly’s complaint and make the appropriate recommendations to the government.

“Suhakam will put an end to this.”

Syed Shahir Syed Mohamud, who is former president of Malaysia Trade Union Congress, was also present.- FMT News, 17/3/2017


Some of the additional points raised at SUHAKAM :-


FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, UNION BUSTING  AND VICTIMIZATION OF UNION LEADERS

Freedom of Association is guaranteed by the Malaysian Federal Constitution, and worker’s right to promote, form and join Trade Unions are provided for in Malaysian laws.

However, unlike societies and other associations, Trade Union’s in Malaysia have been subjugated by existing bad laws and practices in Malaysia. 

When Malaysia intended to a party in the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement(TPPA), some countries were forbidden to enter into agreement with Malaysia by reason of the Malaysia’s current labour laws and policies. Malaysia had to agree to amend its laws to comply with international standards and practice, if was to be part of the TPPA. As such, an agreement was entered into between the United States of America and Malaysia to this effect - Malaysia – United States Labour Consistency Plan. Now that the TPPA may not be going forward, Malaysia may not be proceeding with the necessary labour amendments. SUHAKAM need to do what is required to get Malaysia to amend/repeal laws so that it is in compliance with international standards.

However, even that TPPA motivated agreement, does not really cover all the needed changes in law.

RIGHT OF MEMBERSHIP OF TRADE UNION – Membership lost when employment lost?

Section 26(1A) of the Trade Unions Act 1959 provides that membership to a Trade Union will simply be lost when one loses one’s employment. For an in-house union, it is even worse, this means that the employer can get rid of Union leaders simply by terminating him/her…This means a worker, a member of the Union, on losing his/her job will no longer be able to rely on the Union for help and injustice. So, when a Union member most definitely needs the solidarity and support of the Union, it is lost…

Section 26(1A) - Trade Unions Act 1959
(1A) No person shall join, or be a member of, or be accepted or retained as a member by, any trade union if he is not employed or engaged in any establishment, trade, occupation or industry in respect of which the trade union is registered.

Now, the courts have determined that when a dismissed worker claims for ‘wrongful dismissal’ and is seeking reinstatement, then he/she shall be able to continue to be a Union member and/or a Union leader. But despite, several such judgments, Malaysia has yet to amend the law.

The reality is that some workers who have been ‘wrongfully terminated’ or ‘retrenched’ really may not be interested in being reinstated, or there in fact may be no opportunity to effectively be reinstated. This will also be workers (union members) who have had rights violated by their employer – but the law says they cannot retain their union membership. Hence not only can’t they get help/assistance from their Union in times of need, but the Union itself is barred from helping and/or fighting for the rights of these ‘members’.

The choice of joining or leaving a Trade Union must exist only with the member. The Trade Union may also have the right to expel members for good reason, just like any other Societies or associations. As such,  the existence of a law that terminates a membership of a Trade Union member goes against the fundamental principles of Freedom of Association.

Further, it gives employers the ‘power’ to terminate workers, and leaving them out in the cold alone separated from their fellow union members and the Trade Union itself – it creates a situation where Union Busting and Worker Exploitation can so easily be done by Employers.

Available Ineffective Remedies facilitates Union Busting and Worker Exploitation

Workers wrongfully dismissed have no immediate or direct access to the Industrial Court. Even after attempts at Conciliation fails, the matter is referred to the Minister who decides, without giving the affected worker the right to be heard, which cases get referred to the Industrial Court, and which are not.

Even after it arrives at the Industrial Court, it takes too long. As an example, in the case of  Wan Noorulazhar bin Mohd. Hanafiah, Electronic Industry Employees Union Western Region, Peninsular Malaysia (EIEUWR) wrongfully dismissed on 26/8/2011, but the Industrial Court has still not heard and disposed of this matter after almost 6 years.

UNION BUSTING - INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES MALAYSIA WORKERS UNION

Well about 40 members of the Union participated at a union event in Putrajaya, then INFINEON commenced disciplinary action on the Union President, and shortly thereafter on 6 other members of the Union Committee. 

The President was terminated, and the rest were given warnings.

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 was charged of committing the misconduct of commiting an act of malingering. This is not even in the list of misconducts of the said company. Act of malingering is pretending to be sick to avoid work – but Zulfadlee was not pretending as he truly was not well. He was examined by a qualified doctor, and was issued a Medical Certificate. Still not well, the following day the Specialist issued MC for 3 more days, and the radiology report confirms that he a stone in the kidney/bladder. But, he was still wrongfully terminated.

The fact that he was the Union President, certainly was a consideration – and this is wrong in law – victimization by reason of Union involvement.

Infineon knows very well that the Industrial Court and/or court process will take years and years. Justice delayed is justice denied. It matters not, as they will be able to continue to benefit for years even if what they did was wrong or an injustice.

The effect of a ‘warning’ may affect promotions and wage increments – and this certainly will put fear in the Union Committee.

What makes it worse is that all this is happening when the new Collective Bargaining Agreement discussions and negotiations was starting in January 2017.

INFINEON previously tried to change the 3 shift system to a 2 shift system, and the Union and its members opposed this strongly. A vote amongst Union members was made which proved that an overwhelming  majority opposed this. The current Collective Bargaining Agreement is also stopping the company from changing to a 2-shift system.. The only solution may be to change it through the upcoming CBA.This is simply a possible reason - but we do not know why exactly.

Hence the removal of the President, and the other actions may simply be to remove resistance from the Union and its members, so that the Employer may be able to push forward what they want.

Union President – prevented from entering Union Office and carrying out his duties.

As Zulfadlee is claiming ‘wrongful dismissal’, he clearly remains the Union President. Infineon, however is not even allowing him to go to the Union office. They also do not want him to participate in the Collective Bargaining discussions and negotiations between Union and Infineon Melaka. This is certainly wrong.

Union Busting in Malaysia

Over the past years, there have been several Union leaders who have similarly been ‘wrongfully dismissed.

-Wan Noorulazhar bin Mohd Hanafiah, an employee of RENESAS who is the President of the UNION was dismissed on 26/8/2011 by RENESAS whereby the alleged misconduct, was that his actions were ‘contrary to explicit company policies’. He allegedly made statements about treatment of workers in a closed Facebook Group, whose members were fellow workers.

19/8/2013 - 18 members of the National Union of Transport Equipment and Allied Industries Workers (NUTEAIW) in DRB HICOM subsidiary in Pekan were terminated for submitting a MTUC memorandum to one of the contesting candidates in the Pekan parliamentary constituency

- 29/11/2013 MAS wrongly terminated Ismail Nasaruddin, the President of NUFAM for a statement he issued in his capacity as President of NUFAM.

Other Union leaders who have ‘wrongfully terminated’ include Abdul Jamil Lalaludeen dan Chen Ka Fatt, Vice President and Treasurer respectively of theNational Union of Bank Employees (NUBE); and Hata Wahari, President  National Union of Journalists(NUJ). This is not the complete list of Union leaders who have been wrongfully terminated.

WORKER RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS, and SUHAKAM needs to immediately act on this – speaking out when rights are violated, and making also necessary recommendations for changes in laws so that Malaysia will be in compliance with international standards.
 
↧
Search

Bar Resolution for the Repeal of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 and All Detention Without Trial Laws, and Provision for Compensation for Deprivation of Liberty of the Innocent

March 21, 2017, 6:01 pm
$
0
0

Resolution for the Repeal of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 and All Detention Without Trial Laws, and Provision for Compensation for Deprivation of Liberty of the Innocent
Whereas:

(1) The case of Siti Noor Aishah Atam highlighted the very real possibility that innocent persons are wrongly made victims of draconian laws that allow for detention without trial.  Most victims are totally denied the right to a fair trial, but Siti Noor Aishah Atam, despite being acquitted by the courts, was still was subjected thereafter to detention without trial laws.

Detention Without Trial Laws

(2) Detention without trial continues to exist in Malaysia despite the fact that the draconian Internal Security Act 1960 (“ISA”) and the Emergency (Public Order and Crimes Prevention) Ordinance 1969 have been repealed.
(3) The Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 [Act 747] (“SOSMA”), which came into force on 31 July 2012 vide section 32(1), and repealed the ISA.  The Emergency (Public Order and Crimes Prevention) Ordinance 1969 was also repealed in 2013.

(4) The Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985, which provides for detentions and/or restrictions without trial, still remains.  Vide Resolution under subsection 1(4) [PU(B) 241/2015], this Act was extended for a further period of five years with effect from 15 June 2015.

(5) Other laws that provided for detention without trial today include the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (“POCA”), following amendments in 2014, and the new Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 (“POTA”).

(6) Vide Prevention of Crime (Amendment And Extension) Act 2014, a new Part IVA entitled “Detention Orders” was inserted, which now allows for detention without trial orders.  Section 19A, amongst others state, “. . . . (1) The Board may, after considering the report of the Inquiry Officer . . . . and the outcome of any review under section 11, direct that any registered person be detained under a detention order for a period not exceeding two years, and may renew any such detention order for a further period not exceeding two years at a time, if it is satisfied that such detention is necessary in the interest of public order, public security or prevention of crime . . .”.

No Judicial Review to Challenge the Reasons One is Victimised

(7) Like the now repealed draconian ISA, there shall be no judicial review with regards the reasons or justification of detention and/or restriction orders under these detention without trial laws, but only “in regard to any question on compliance with any procedural requirement in this Act governing such act or decision”.  Section 15A(1) POCA states that “ . . . . There shall be no judicial review in any court of, and no court shall have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of, any act done or decision made by the Board in the exercise of its discretionary power in accordance with this Act, except in regard to any question on compliance with any procedural requirement in this Act governing such act or decision”.

(8) POCA’s usage which was originally limited for triads or crime gangs have been significantly extended vide Prevention of Crime (Amendment of First and Second Schedule) Order 2014 [PU(A) 122/2014], which came into force in 2 May 2014.  Whilst previously limited for those persons who belong to any group, body, gang or association of 5 more persons who associate for purposes which include the commission of offences “involving violence or extortion” — it was extended to all offences under the Penal Code, and persons who also consort with these groups of two or more persons.  As such, now any person who allegedly commits any Penal Code offence with two or more persons can now be subjected to POCA, irrespective of whether it involved violence or not.

(9) POCA now can also be used against persons allegedly involved in the trafficking in dangerous drugs, in trafficking of persons and smuggling of migrants, and those who benefit from such actions.  It can be used against those who allegedly engage in the commission or support of terrorist acts under the Penal Code.  It can also be used for persons who recruit, or agree to recruit, another person to participate in the commission of an offence.

(10) POCA can also be used against “. . . . all persons who, being not less than twenty-one years of age, have since attaining the age of seventeen been convicted on at least three occasions of offences involving dishonesty or violence”.

(11) The breadth of the application of POCA is draconian, and it opens to the possibility of unchecked abuse by the police, public prosecutors and the Government.  It undermines the safeguards to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

Remand Devoid of Judicial Discretion

(12) With regard to post arrest remand for the purposes of investigation, Parliament amended the Criminal Procedure Code, restricting also the permissible length of remand orders by Magistrates (section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code), where even “if the offence which is being investigated is punishable with death or imprisonment of fourteen years or more, the detention shall not be more than seven days on the first application and shall not be more than seven days on the second application”.  The Magistrate is empowered to exercise his/her judicial discretion, after considering the representations made either by the accused himself; or through a counsel of his choice; the representations of the police or the prosecutors; including also considering what the police had done since arrest as contained in the police diary.  Now, even if dissatisfied with the decision of the Magistrate, there is still the possibility of revision by the High Court Judge.

(13) Parliament amended the law concerning remand, possibly to prevent abuse of remand but all these safeguards are ignored if POCA, POTA and/or SOSMA is/are used.

(14) When POCA is used, all that is needed is a production of a statement in writing signed by a police officer not below the rank of Inspector, stating that there are grounds for believing that the name of that person should be entered on the Register, and the Magistrate has no choice but to remand the person in police custody for a period of 21 days. (Before the 2014 amendment, the required statement was of a police officer not below the rank of Assistant Superintendent — now just an Inspector will suffice.)  Judicial discretion of the Magistrate in the remand proceeding is ousted.  The right to be heard of the suspect and/or his lawyer is denied.

(15) For a further remand, all that is required is a statement in writing signed by the Public Prosecutor and a statement by a police officer not below the rank of Assistant Superintendent, the suspect will be remanded for a further period of 38 days.

(16) The same when POTA is used, judicial discretion of the Magistrate is ousted.  On the production of the statements by the police, and subsequently the police and public prosecutor, the Magistrate has no choice but give the remand order of 21 days, and thereafter 38 days.  The right to be heard is denied, and the judicial discretion of a Magistrate is ousted.

(17) When SOSMA is used, there is not even the need to bring the suspect before the Magistrate.  A police officer of or above the rank of Superintendent of Police may extend the period of detention for a period of not more than 28 days, for the purpose of investigation.

Right to Consult and/or Be Represented by Lawyer Curtailed and/or Denied to Persons Subject to Inquiry and/or Witnesses

(18) Under POCA, the right to be represented by a lawyer during the inquiry is limited, as stated in section 9(5): “Neither the person who is the subject of the inquiry nor a witness at an inquiry shall be represented by an advocate and solicitor at the inquiry except when his own evidence is being taken and recorded by the Inquiry Officer.”

(19) There is not even the right to be present and/or represented during the inquiry when evidence is taken from other witnesses and/or sources, let alone the right to cross-examine let alone challenge alleged evidence against the victim of these detention without trial laws.

(20) It must be noted, that the right to be represented by a lawyer is denied to any person/s in detention and/or confined in prison when the Inquiry Officer conducts his inquiry.  Section 9A(2) states: “(2) Nothing in this section shall authorise the attendance of the subject of the inquiry or his advocate and solicitor or representative, if any, at the place of detention or prison.”
(21) There is also no right of representation when the Inquiry Officer submits his report to the Board of Inquiry.  There is also no right to even make a submission for the consideration of the Inquiry Officer and/or Board of Inquiry before a final decision is made.  Section 9(6) states: “The Public Prosecutor may appear at an inquiry to assist the Inquiry Officer.”  But no such right to the victim or his lawyer.

(22) The process is grossly unjust, and an innocent victim like Siti Noor Aishah Atam can easily and/or unjustly be deprived of his/her liberty, rights and freedom. 

Danger of Abuse, Corruption and Miscarriage of Justice

(23) Corruption has always been suspected when it comes to the police and/or prosecutors.  This possibility of corruption is escalated when detention without trial laws and SOSMA are used, especially when judicial monitoring of administrative decisions is stifled and/or excluded.  The right to be heard and the right to a fair trial are denied.

(24) The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (“MACC”) stated that about 54% of civil servants under the age of 40 are corrupt (New Straits Times and Malaysiakini, 8 Mar 2017), and this is most disturbing.

(25) When persons are not charged, tried and convicted, there is also the possibility that others involved in the crime will never be revealed, and will simply escape having to face justice.

(26) Detention without trial laws encourage a lackadaisical attitude and inefficiency in the police force and other enforcement and prosecution officers, as there is now no more the need to find sufficient evidence as required by law to prove in court that one is guilty of a crime.  The case of Siti Noor Aishah Atam is evidence of this, when even the books for which she was arrested for in the first place were not even books banned in Malaysia.  The courts in that case acquitted Siti at the close of the prosecution case, as the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case.

(27) When innocent persons are placed under detention without trial, it is also possible that the true criminals will never be caught and brought to justice.  Police may just close the files, believing that they have managed to get the real perpetrator, when the persons in detention may be some innocent person.  The belief of the police and/or prosecution in the guilt of a person is immaterial, as what is important is for the court to decide on the guilt of an accused person, also noting the large number criminal trials that have ended with acquittals.

(28) Victims of crimes also deserve to see justice be done, and this can only happen if there is a fair trial, a conviction and a sentence.  In the absence of a conviction, victims and their families are also denied the possibility of subsequently commencing a legal action claiming for damages and/or compensation.

(29) With the unavailability of judicial review of the reasons or justifications of the actions and/or decisions of the police, public prosecutors and/or the Board of Inquiry, including the imposition of remand orders, detention orders and/or restrictions / conditions on the victims of POCA and such detention without trial laws, the likelihood of miscarriage of justice is extremely high.  Innocent persons will be wrongly deprived of their liberty, freedom and human rights.
Lost Right to Rely on the Double Jeopardy Principle

(30) Worse still, for these victims of detention without trial laws is that they can always at any time during their detentions and/or any time later, be charged, convicted in court and sentenced for, the very same offences for which they were subjected to detention and/or restrictions / conditions under POCA and such detention without trial laws. 

(31) Section 19G of POCA states: “The detention of any person under this Part shall be without prejudice to the taking of any criminal proceeding against that person, whether during or after the period of his detention.” 

(32) The double jeopardy principle that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charge, following a valid acquittal or conviction, will not apply.

Siti Noor Atam Aishah — Proof of the Abuse of SOSMA and POCA?

(33) Siti Noor Aishah Atam — a 29-year-old Malaysian woman and a University of Malaya Masters of Usuluddin (Islamic Studies) student — was arrested on 22 Mar 2016, for the alleged possession of 12 books related to on Jemaah Islamiyah (“JI”), Islamic State (“IS”) and Al-Qaeda (“AQ”) at her residence.  She was charged under section 130JB(1)(a) of the Penal Code, tried, acquitted and was released by Judicial Commissioner Datuk Mohamad Shariff Abu Samah in the High Court [Di dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Jenayah 4 Kuala Lumpur di dalam Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur Perbicaraan Jenayah No: 45SO-7-5/2016].

(34) The Public Prosecutor at the High Court applied that Siti continue to be detained under SOSMA pending the filing of the appeal, which the court denied.  A BERNAMA report carried by Sinar Harian stated: “. . . . Mahkamah turut menolak permohonan Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Mohamad Mustaffa P. Kunyalam untuk menahan Siti Noor Aishah di dalam penjara mengikut Seksyen 30(1) Akta Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-langkah Khas) 2012 (SOSMA) sementara menunggu rayuan difailkan oleh pihak pendakwaan terhadap pembebasan tertuduh. . . .’ (Bernama— Sinar Harian, 29 Sept 2016).

(35) It was reported (Malaysiakini, 29 Nov 2016), that Siti Nor Aishah, after release was thereafter arrested and detained under POCA until Saturday (26 Nov 2016), and was then fitted with an electronic monitoring device (“EMD”), and asked to report every Friday at the police station in Bukit Aman for eight weeks.

(36) She would also most likely been subjected to Restriction Orders (or Police Supervision Orders) under POCA, which could include inhibitions with regard to movement, restrictions as to the people she can communicate with, and even restrictions with regard access to the internet and social media.

(37) The re-arrest and detention under POCA in the case of Siti Noor Aishah Atam may also be an act of contempt of court.

(38) Siti Noor Aishah Atam’s case provides a good example, to suggest that many (if not all) of the persons who are currently detained and/or restricted may be innocent. 

Compensation for Deprivation of Liberty, Freedoms and Rights

(39) A person arrested and detained by police or the authorities suffers more than the loss of liberty.  It also affects his/her employment and/or income generation activities.  It impacts not just on his/her good name, and also causes much suffering to the family and dependents, including children.

(40) All the more unjust is that these detention and/or restrictions are with regard to a person not being accorded even the right to heard and a fair trial — not even the right to a judicial review of the reasons for his loss of liberty.

(41) As such, those under detention without trial laws must be presumed to be innocent.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in Article 11, states: “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.”

(42) There is a need for the provision of monetary compensation and damages caused by the unjust deprivation of liberty by the State.  It is most unjust for these innocent persons not to be compensated for their loss of liberty, freedom and rights.  There are provisions in other jurisdictions.

(43) The provision of such compensation payable by the Government would also deter police officers and others from unnecessarily detaining persons using POCA, POTA and/or SOSMA.

SOSMA — A New ESCAR

(44) The Malaysian Bar opposed the passing of the Essential (Security Cases) Regulations 1975 (“ESCAR”), which were promulgated to amend the procedural and evidential rules in relation to trials for offences against national interest.  The Regulations brought draconian changes in the basic rules of evidence and the judicial discretion of the courts in meting out sentences.

(45) In October 1977, the Malaysian Bar held an Extraordinary General Meeting (“EGM”) to discuss the ESCAR, and resolved to advise all Members of the Bar not to appear in trials under the ESCAR.

(46) The SOSMA is similar to the ESCAR, and the Malaysian Bar need to strongly oppose its usage, and call for its repeal.

Therefore, it is hereby resolved:

(A) That the Malaysian Bar call on the Malaysian Government to repeal all detention without trial laws, including the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (“POCA”), Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015(“POTA”) and the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 be repealed;

(B) That the Malaysian Bar call on the Malaysian Government to immediately and unconditionally release all those currently detained and/or restricted under detention without trials including Siti Noor Aishah Atam;

(C) That the Malaysian Bar call on the Malaysian Government to repeal the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 [Act 747] (“SOSMA”); 

(D) That the Malaysian Bar call on the Malaysian Government to enact laws that provide for compensation for all persons deprived of liberty by reason of detention and/or restrictions imposed under detention without trial laws and/or SOSMA;

(E) That the Bar Council do whatsoever deemed necessary to ensure that detention without trial laws and SOSMA are repealed, that all victims of these laws are immediately and unconditionally released, that the SOSMA is repealed; and
(F) That the Bar Council do whatsoever deemed necessary to ensure that laws are enacted to ensure just compensation is provided for all those deprived of liberty by actions of the State in the administration of criminal justice.


The motion was proposed by Charles Hector Fernandez, Francis Pereira and Shanmugam a/l Ramasamy.
↧

Siti Noor Aishah - POCA,POTA..dimansuhkan - Resolusi Badan Peguam

March 22, 2017, 4:37 am
$
0
0
Kes Siti Noor Aishah Atam mendapat perhatian lebih 800 peguam yang menghadiri Mesyuarat Agung Badan Peguam pada 18/3/2017 - di mana satu Resolusi mengenai Siti Noor Aishah dan mangsa lain Akta POCA dan akta lain yang membenarkan penahanan tanpa bicara telah diluluskan. 

Resolusi menuntut agar POTA, POTA dan akta sedemikian yang memberikan penahanan tanpa bicara dimansuhkan. Sekiranya anda ditahan atau dihadkan kebebasan di Akta membenarkan tahanan tanpa bicara sedemikian, anda tidak ada hak untuk mencabar SEBAB penahanan. Yang bersalah pun boleh dengan senang dimangsakan. Mahkamah Tinggi telah mendapati Siti tidak bersalah dan telah bebaskan beliau tetapi terus selepas itu menjadi mangsa akta tanpa bicara...

Bila polis tahan anda, mereka hanya boleh tahan maksima 24 jam - jika mahu tahan lebih lama, mereka perlu bawa orang yang disyaki kepada Majistret dan seteruskan dapatkan perintah reman daripada Majistret. Majistret akan mengambil kira hujahan pihak polis, orang yang disyaki(atau peguam beliau) dan juga akan mengkaji Diari polis untuk menentukan apakah penyiasatan yang sudah dilakukan. Berasaskan semua ini, Majistret akan memutuskan sama ada tahanan reman dilanjutkan atau tidak, serta untuk berapa lama secara wajar...

Tetapi jika POCA atau POTA digunakan, budibicara Majistret terus dirampas. Apa yang diperlukan hanya kenyataan polis dan terpaksa Majistret memberikan perintah reman 21 hari. Selepas itu, jika polis bawa kenyataan polis dan kenyataan pendakwa raya, terpaksa Majistret melanjutkan reman untuk 38 hari.

Teruk lagi jika SOSMA digunakan, tak perlu pun di bawa kepada Majistret. Polis sendiri dapat lanjutkan reman untuk 21 hari..

Sejak Mei 2014, POCA bertambah bahawa - dulu dihadkan kepada jenayah melibatkan kekerasan dan ugutan...tetapi kini boleh dipakai untuk semua jenayah didalam Kanun Keseksaan...dan asalkan 2 atau 3 orang terlibat, boleh dipakai. Sama ada ia digunakan secara betul atau ikut had yang ditetapkan, kita tidak akan tahu secara pasti - kita kena percaya polis dan/atau kerajaan UMNO-BN. Kini, Mahkamah sendiri tidak boleh lagi mengkaji SEBAB mengapa seseorang dijadikan mangsa POCA dan/atau POTA...Tak buat salah pun boleh jadi mangsa - dan tak ada cara kini untuk membetulkan keadaan dan mendapatkan keadilan...

Kalau pakai POCA atau mana-mana Akta Tanpa Bicara - senang sangat bagi polis dan/atau pentadbiran kerajaan...tak ada keterangan pun boleh ...kan tak boleh kita bawa kes kepada Mahkamah untuk mengkaji semula alasan dan asas pengunaan Akta tersebut...

Akta sedemikian harus dimansuhkan...Baca Resolusi Badan Peguam yang telah disokong majoriti besar peguam yang hadhir  - hanya beberapa yang membantah atau berkecuali...


Malangnya media massa tak melapurkan dengan jelas kandungan Resolusi ini...yang saya anggap sangat penting untuk rakyat Malaysia...hari ini mungkin anda selamat, tetapi besuk macam mana - anda atau kenalan saudara akan menjadi mangsa...

Dalam demokrasi, Mahkamah memainkan peranan penting - untuk memastikan tidak ada salahlaku pihak polis atau pentadbiran kerajaan...Justeru, rakyat yang dimangsakan boleh menuntut Mahkamah mengkaji semula(judicial review, dll) mana-mana keputusan kerajaan(Menteri,polis, dll...) - tetapi Akta tanpa bicara menghalang Mahkamah melihat sama ada SEBAB dan atau ASAS pengunaan Akta tanpa bicara ini digunakan adalah betul dan/atau wajar...Kuasa Hakim dan Mahkamah dirampas...

Jika anda atau kenalan anda menjadi mangsa Akta tanpa bicara, bawa kepada perhatian Majlis Peguam, SUHAKAM, dll...


Mangsa POCA, POTA...biasa bukan orang kenalan ramai atau 'celebriti' - tetapi warga biasa saperti Siti Noor Aishah ...Adakah PAS, DAP, PKR, Amanah, MCA, MIC, Gerakan, UMNO, dll...prihatin mengenai rakyat biasa saperti ini? Bila tokoh politik jadi mangsa, barulah heboh dan bising...



Resolution for the Repeal of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 and All Detention Without Trial Laws, and Provision for Compensation for Deprivation of Liberty of the Innocent
Whereas:

(1) The case of Siti Noor Aishah Atam highlighted the very real possibility that innocent persons are wrongly made victims of draconian laws that allow for detention without trial.  Most victims are totally denied the right to a fair trial, but Siti Noor Aishah Atam, despite being acquitted by the courts, was still was subjected thereafter to detention without trial laws.

Detention Without Trial Laws

(2) Detention without trial continues to exist in Malaysia despite the fact that the draconian Internal Security Act 1960 (“ISA”) and the Emergency (Public Order and Crimes Prevention) Ordinance 1969 have been repealed.
(3) The Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 [Act 747] (“SOSMA”), which came into force on 31 July 2012 vide section 32(1), and repealed the ISA.  The Emergency (Public Order and Crimes Prevention) Ordinance 1969 was also repealed in 2013.

(4) The Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985, which provides for detentions and/or restrictions without trial, still remains.  Vide Resolution under subsection 1(4) [PU(B) 241/2015], this Act was extended for a further period of five years with effect from 15 June 2015.

(5) Other laws that provided for detention without trial today include the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (“POCA”), following amendments in 2014, and the new Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 (“POTA”).

(6) Vide Prevention of Crime (Amendment And Extension) Act 2014, a new Part IVA entitled “Detention Orders” was inserted, which now allows for detention without trial orders.  Section 19A, amongst others state, “. . . . (1) The Board may, after considering the report of the Inquiry Officer . . . . and the outcome of any review under section 11, direct that any registered person be detained under a detention order for a period not exceeding two years, and may renew any such detention order for a further period not exceeding two years at a time, if it is satisfied that such detention is necessary in the interest of public order, public security or prevention of crime . . .”.

No Judicial Review to Challenge the Reasons One is Victimised

(7) Like the now repealed draconian ISA, there shall be no judicial review with regards the reasons or justification of detention and/or restriction orders under these detention without trial laws, but only “in regard to any question on compliance with any procedural requirement in this Act governing such act or decision”.  Section 15A(1) POCA states that “ . . . . There shall be no judicial review in any court of, and no court shall have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of, any act done or decision made by the Board in the exercise of its discretionary power in accordance with this Act, except in regard to any question on compliance with any procedural requirement in this Act governing such act or decision”.

(8) POCA’s usage which was originally limited for triads or crime gangs have been significantly extended vide Prevention of Crime (Amendment of First and Second Schedule) Order 2014 [PU(A) 122/2014], which came into force in 2 May 2014.  Whilst previously limited for those persons who belong to any group, body, gang or association of 5 more persons who associate for purposes which include the commission of offences “involving violence or extortion” — it was extended to all offences under the Penal Code, and persons who also consort with these groups of two or more persons.  As such, now any person who allegedly commits any Penal Code offence with two or more persons can now be subjected to POCA, irrespective of whether it involved violence or not.

(9) POCA now can also be used against persons allegedly involved in the trafficking in dangerous drugs, in trafficking of persons and smuggling of migrants, and those who benefit from such actions.  It can be used against those who allegedly engage in the commission or support of terrorist acts under the Penal Code.  It can also be used for persons who recruit, or agree to recruit, another person to participate in the commission of an offence.

(10) POCA can also be used against “. . . . all persons who, being not less than twenty-one years of age, have since attaining the age of seventeen been convicted on at least three occasions of offences involving dishonesty or violence”.

(11) The breadth of the application of POCA is draconian, and it opens to the possibility of unchecked abuse by the police, public prosecutors and the Government.  It undermines the safeguards to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

Remand Devoid of Judicial Discretion

(12) With regard to post arrest remand for the purposes of investigation, Parliament amended the Criminal Procedure Code, restricting also the permissible length of remand orders by Magistrates (section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code), where even “if the offence which is being investigated is punishable with death or imprisonment of fourteen years or more, the detention shall not be more than seven days on the first application and shall not be more than seven days on the second application”.  The Magistrate is empowered to exercise his/her judicial discretion, after considering the representations made either by the accused himself; or through a counsel of his choice; the representations of the police or the prosecutors; including also considering what the police had done since arrest as contained in the police diary.  Now, even if dissatisfied with the decision of the Magistrate, there is still the possibility of revision by the High Court Judge.

(13) Parliament amended the law concerning remand, possibly to prevent abuse of remand but all these safeguards are ignored if POCA, POTA and/or SOSMA is/are used.

(14) When POCA is used, all that is needed is a production of a statement in writing signed by a police officer not below the rank of Inspector, stating that there are grounds for believing that the name of that person should be entered on the Register, and the Magistrate has no choice but to remand the person in police custody for a period of 21 days. (Before the 2014 amendment, the required statement was of a police officer not below the rank of Assistant Superintendent — now just an Inspector will suffice.)  Judicial discretion of the Magistrate in the remand proceeding is ousted.  The right to be heard of the suspect and/or his lawyer is denied.

(15) For a further remand, all that is required is a statement in writing signed by the Public Prosecutor and a statement by a police officer not below the rank of Assistant Superintendent, the suspect will be remanded for a further period of 38 days.

(16) The same when POTA is used, judicial discretion of the Magistrate is ousted.  On the production of the statements by the police, and subsequently the police and public prosecutor, the Magistrate has no choice but give the remand order of 21 days, and thereafter 38 days.  The right to be heard is denied, and the judicial discretion of a Magistrate is ousted.

(17) When SOSMA is used, there is not even the need to bring the suspect before the Magistrate.  A police officer of or above the rank of Superintendent of Police may extend the period of detention for a period of not more than 28 days, for the purpose of investigation.

Right to Consult and/or Be Represented by Lawyer Curtailed and/or Denied to Persons Subject to Inquiry and/or Witnesses

(18) Under POCA, the right to be represented by a lawyer during the inquiry is limited, as stated in section 9(5): “Neither the person who is the subject of the inquiry nor a witness at an inquiry shall be represented by an advocate and solicitor at the inquiry except when his own evidence is being taken and recorded by the Inquiry Officer.”

(19) There is not even the right to be present and/or represented during the inquiry when evidence is taken from other witnesses and/or sources, let alone the right to cross-examine let alone challenge alleged evidence against the victim of these detention without trial laws.

(20) It must be noted, that the right to be represented by a lawyer is denied to any person/s in detention and/or confined in prison when the Inquiry Officer conducts his inquiry.  Section 9A(2) states: “(2) Nothing in this section shall authorise the attendance of the subject of the inquiry or his advocate and solicitor or representative, if any, at the place of detention or prison.”
(21) There is also no right of representation when the Inquiry Officer submits his report to the Board of Inquiry.  There is also no right to even make a submission for the consideration of the Inquiry Officer and/or Board of Inquiry before a final decision is made.  Section 9(6) states: “The Public Prosecutor may appear at an inquiry to assist the Inquiry Officer.”  But no such right to the victim or his lawyer.

(22) The process is grossly unjust, and an innocent victim like Siti Noor Aishah Atam can easily and/or unjustly be deprived of his/her liberty, rights and freedom. 

Danger of Abuse, Corruption and Miscarriage of Justice

(23) Corruption has always been suspected when it comes to the police and/or prosecutors.  This possibility of corruption is escalated when detention without trial laws and SOSMA are used, especially when judicial monitoring of administrative decisions is stifled and/or excluded.  The right to be heard and the right to a fair trial are denied.

(24) The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (“MACC”) stated that about 54% of civil servants under the age of 40 are corrupt (New Straits Times and Malaysiakini, 8 Mar 2017), and this is most disturbing.

(25) When persons are not charged, tried and convicted, there is also the possibility that others involved in the crime will never be revealed, and will simply escape having to face justice.

(26) Detention without trial laws encourage a lackadaisical attitude and inefficiency in the police force and other enforcement and prosecution officers, as there is now no more the need to find sufficient evidence as required by law to prove in court that one is guilty of a crime.  The case of Siti Noor Aishah Atam is evidence of this, when even the books for which she was arrested for in the first place were not even books banned in Malaysia.  The courts in that case acquitted Siti at the close of the prosecution case, as the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case.

(27) When innocent persons are placed under detention without trial, it is also possible that the true criminals will never be caught and brought to justice.  Police may just close the files, believing that they have managed to get the real perpetrator, when the persons in detention may be some innocent person.  The belief of the police and/or prosecution in the guilt of a person is immaterial, as what is important is for the court to decide on the guilt of an accused person, also noting the large number criminal trials that have ended with acquittals.

(28) Victims of crimes also deserve to see justice be done, and this can only happen if there is a fair trial, a conviction and a sentence.  In the absence of a conviction, victims and their families are also denied the possibility of subsequently commencing a legal action claiming for damages and/or compensation.

(29) With the unavailability of judicial review of the reasons or justifications of the actions and/or decisions of the police, public prosecutors and/or the Board of Inquiry, including the imposition of remand orders, detention orders and/or restrictions / conditions on the victims of POCA and such detention without trial laws, the likelihood of miscarriage of justice is extremely high.  Innocent persons will be wrongly deprived of their liberty, freedom and human rights.
Lost Right to Rely on the Double Jeopardy Principle

(30) Worse still, for these victims of detention without trial laws is that they can always at any time during their detentions and/or any time later, be charged, convicted in court and sentenced for, the very same offences for which they were subjected to detention and/or restrictions / conditions under POCA and such detention without trial laws. 

(31) Section 19G of POCA states: “The detention of any person under this Part shall be without prejudice to the taking of any criminal proceeding against that person, whether during or after the period of his detention.” 

(32) The double jeopardy principle that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charge, following a valid acquittal or conviction, will not apply.

Siti Noor Atam Aishah — Proof of the Abuse of SOSMA and POCA?

(33) Siti Noor Aishah Atam — a 29-year-old Malaysian woman and a University of Malaya Masters of Usuluddin (Islamic Studies) student — was arrested on 22 Mar 2016, for the alleged possession of 12 books related to on Jemaah Islamiyah (“JI”), Islamic State (“IS”) and Al-Qaeda (“AQ”) at her residence.  She was charged under section 130JB(1)(a) of the Penal Code, tried, acquitted and was released by Judicial Commissioner Datuk Mohamad Shariff Abu Samah in the High Court [Di dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Jenayah 4 Kuala Lumpur di dalam Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur Perbicaraan Jenayah No: 45SO-7-5/2016].

(34) The Public Prosecutor at the High Court applied that Siti continue to be detained under SOSMA pending the filing of the appeal, which the court denied.  A BERNAMA report carried by Sinar Harian stated: “. . . . Mahkamah turut menolak permohonan Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Mohamad Mustaffa P. Kunyalam untuk menahan Siti Noor Aishah di dalam penjara mengikut Seksyen 30(1) Akta Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-langkah Khas) 2012 (SOSMA) sementara menunggu rayuan difailkan oleh pihak pendakwaan terhadap pembebasan tertuduh. . . .’ (Bernama— Sinar Harian, 29 Sept 2016).

(35) It was reported (Malaysiakini, 29 Nov 2016), that Siti Nor Aishah, after release was thereafter arrested and detained under POCA until Saturday (26 Nov 2016), and was then fitted with an electronic monitoring device (“EMD”), and asked to report every Friday at the police station in Bukit Aman for eight weeks.

(36) She would also most likely been subjected to Restriction Orders (or Police Supervision Orders) under POCA, which could include inhibitions with regard to movement, restrictions as to the people she can communicate with, and even restrictions with regard access to the internet and social media.

(37) The re-arrest and detention under POCA in the case of Siti Noor Aishah Atam may also be an act of contempt of court.

(38) Siti Noor Aishah Atam’s case provides a good example, to suggest that many (if not all) of the persons who are currently detained and/or restricted may be innocent. 

Compensation for Deprivation of Liberty, Freedoms and Rights

(39) A person arrested and detained by police or the authorities suffers more than the loss of liberty.  It also affects his/her employment and/or income generation activities.  It impacts not just on his/her good name, and also causes much suffering to the family and dependents, including children.

(40) All the more unjust is that these detention and/or restrictions are with regard to a person not being accorded even the right to heard and a fair trial — not even the right to a judicial review of the reasons for his loss of liberty.

(41) As such, those under detention without trial laws must be presumed to be innocent.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in Article 11, states: “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.”

(42) There is a need for the provision of monetary compensation and damages caused by the unjust deprivation of liberty by the State.  It is most unjust for these innocent persons not to be compensated for their loss of liberty, freedom and rights.  There are provisions in other jurisdictions.

(43) The provision of such compensation payable by the Government would also deter police officers and others from unnecessarily detaining persons using POCA, POTA and/or SOSMA.

SOSMA — A New ESCAR

(44) The Malaysian Bar opposed the passing of the Essential (Security Cases) Regulations 1975 (“ESCAR”), which were promulgated to amend the procedural and evidential rules in relation to trials for offences against national interest.  The Regulations brought draconian changes in the basic rules of evidence and the judicial discretion of the courts in meting out sentences.

(45) In October 1977, the Malaysian Bar held an Extraordinary General Meeting (“EGM”) to discuss the ESCAR, and resolved to advise all Members of the Bar not to appear in trials under the ESCAR.

(46) The SOSMA is similar to the ESCAR, and the Malaysian Bar need to strongly oppose its usage, and call for its repeal.

Therefore, it is hereby resolved:

(A) That the Malaysian Bar call on the Malaysian Government to repeal all detention without trial laws, including the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (“POCA”), Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015(“POTA”) and the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 be repealed;

(B) That the Malaysian Bar call on the Malaysian Government to immediately and unconditionally release all those currently detained and/or restricted under detention without trials including Siti Noor Aishah Atam;

(C) That the Malaysian Bar call on the Malaysian Government to repeal the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 [Act 747] (“SOSMA”); 

(D) That the Malaysian Bar call on the Malaysian Government to enact laws that provide for compensation for all persons deprived of liberty by reason of detention and/or restrictions imposed under detention without trial laws and/or SOSMA;

(E) That the Bar Council do whatsoever deemed necessary to ensure that detention without trial laws and SOSMA are repealed, that all victims of these laws are immediately and unconditionally released, that the SOSMA is repealed; and
(F) That the Bar Council do whatsoever deemed necessary to ensure that laws are enacted to ensure just compensation is provided for all those deprived of liberty by actions of the State in the administration of criminal justice.


The motion was proposed by Charles Hector Fernandez, Francis Pereira and Shanmugam a/l Ramasamy.
↧
↧

HRD Lena Hendry fined RM10,000...

March 22, 2017, 9:12 am
$
0
0

 

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..?

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



Lena Hendry fined RM10,000 for airing documentary

 | March 22, 2017 
 
Human rights activist found guilty last month of screening documentary on Sri Lankan civil war, No Fire Zone: The Killing Fields of Sri Lanka.

VIDEO INSIDE
Lena-Hendry_law_600

KUALA LUMPUR: Human rights activist Lena Hendry was fined RM10,000 for airing an uncensored documentary on the Sri Lankan civil war in 2013.

Magistrate Mohd Rehan Mohd Aris meted out the fine after the court had deliberated an appropriate sentence to be imposed on the Pusat Komas programme coordinator.

“After reading the submissions from the defence and prosecution, the court decided to impose a RM10,000 fine on the accused,” he told the packed courtroom.

Lena faces a one-year jail term if she fails to settle the RM10,000 fine.

The court also ordered Lena to settle the fine by today.

Last month, the court found Lena guilty of the charge under Section 6(1)(b) of the Film Censorship Act for showing No Fire Zone: The Killing Fields of Sri Lanka, a documentary on the Sri Lankan civil war that lasted for 26 years.

Lena committed the offence at the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Chamber of Commmerce Hall here on July 3, 2013.

The court granted her a stay of execution on her jail sentence pending any appeal, however, Lena decided to pay the fine.

She was first acquitted by the same Magistrate on March last year at the end of the prosecution’s case.

However, the High Court overturned the acquittal and order Lena to enter defence for her charge.

Lena was represented by lawyer New Sin Yew and Joshua Tay while deputy public prosecutor Nurakmal Farhan Aziz appeared for the prosecution.- FMT News, 22/3/2017
↧

UMNO-BN must trust Judges to pronounce right sentences - Repeal Mandatory Death Penalty

March 27, 2017, 2:43 am
$
0
0
UMNO-BN government just do not trust Malaysian judges - so through laws, they create mandatory death penalty - no chance for the judges to exercise their discretion when it comes to sentencing. To those who really do not deserve, and to those who really deserve - execution....kill them all. Justice - I do not think it is. Our values and principles - well, certainly not - our objective must be the reform of the criminal, not the extinguishing of his/her life.. 

Well, after a long time, Najib's Cabinet seem agreeable to the abolition of the death penalty for drug offences. Why stop there? Abolish all mandatory death penalty....Why is the UMNO-BN government not ready to do this? 

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Azalina Othman, the new de facto Law Minister, during the Parliamentary session on 2/11/2016 clarified that Malaysia was not just looking at the mandatory death penalty, but all death penalty. They were considering possibly replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment. It was indicated that further studies were to be done, and that. "The decision on the implementation of the death penalty in this country, either be repealed or maintained, is a policy matter to be decided by the government based on the results of the study,"(The Sun Daily, 3/11/2016)

In fact, abolish all death penalty - if we believe in repentance, mercy and reform...It has many times been pointed out that our administration of justice system can make mistakes, and it is greatly unjust to hang an 'innocent' man. 

Islam - well, here we are talking about death penalty and mandatory death penalty in what is not Islamic law. So, I am sure that Muslims will also not object to the abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia...

MORATORIUM - no executions until the government completes its study whether to abolish the death penalty or not. No reasonable country will continue killing persons when the country may tomorrow abolish the death penalty...Our Minister in Charge, , have told us that Malaysia is studying 

MALAYSIA’S CABINET’S DELAY IN TABLING LAWS ABOLISHING THE DEATH PENALTY RISKS UNNECESSARY LOSS OF LIFE -Immediate Moratorium On ALL Executions -




Sunday, 26 March 2017

Ex-judges want review of mandatory death penalty


PETALING JAYA: The proposed amendments to review the mandatory death sentence for drug trafficking will give judges wider discretion when deciding if a person is to hang, says former chief justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim.

He said giving judges leeway for dis­­cretion would be a positive move in some circumstances.

“There are some situations where a crime might not warrant the death penalty. If this amendment is allowed, judges would be able to use their own discretion,” he said when met after a legal lecture he delivered yesterday.

He was responding to the Cabi­net’s agreement to review the Dange­rous Drugs Act 1952 to allow judges to use their discretion in sentencing offenders instead of impo­sing the mandatory death sentence.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Azalina Oth­man Said, who made the announcement last week, said the review would enable judges to mete out suitable sentences in marginal ca­­­ses where offenders could be jailed instead.

She said the review was presented to the Cabinet on March 1 by Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali.

Ahmad Fairuz said during his time on the Federal Court bench, the duty of having to sentence a man to death weighed on the conscience.

Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, who was a former minister in charge of law, said judges would have the option to mete out suitable senten­ces on a case-by-case basis.

“We always worry that judges do not have other options than the man­datory death sentence. In some cases, there is not much evidence, but the judges have no other options but to give the death penalty,” he said.

Nazri said the move to give jud­ges more discretion over the death penalty in drug trafficking cases was long overdue.

He said the proposed amendments to provide such discretionary powers to judges had come during his tenure when he was in charge of the law portfolio.

“When I was the minister, there were about 240 Malaysians who are suspected to be drug mules all over the world. Some of their family members came to see me personally and pleaded for leniency.

“We also can use this to negotiate with other governments who have arrested Malaysians suspected to be drug mules,” he added.

Nazri said another factor that was considered was that there were cases that judges who do not wish to mete out death sentences in drug trafficking cases.

“Some judges do not believe in the death penalty. So when the case comes before them, although there was enough evidence to impose a conviction, they will find some technicality to acquit the person,” he said.

Former court of appeal judge Da­­tuk Mah Weng Kwai, who is also Su­hakam commissioner, is in fa­­vour of abolishing the death penalty.

“As for sentencing in cases of Section 39(B) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, I believe that the grant of judicial discretion to judges is a step forward,” he said.

Senior criminal law practitioner Kitson Foong said the move would address cases of drug mules where the offender might be an innocent carrier.

“This will be a good opportunity for the court to spare the life of an individual who has been used by drug cartels,” he said.- Star, 25/3/2017

Read more at http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2017/03/26/exjudges-want-review-of-mandatory-death-penalty/#jSMKx1KrpY5l3iJo.99
 
 
 
Monday, 27 March 2017

Lam Thye suggests moratorium on death penalty cases



PETALING JAYA: The Government should consider whether its review of the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking should include making it retrospective on pending cases, said social activist Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye (pic).

Lee said the proposal for the review under Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act was timely as this could help prevent a “travesty of justice”.

Judges, he said, must be given the discretion to mete out suitable sentences on a case by case basis, especially for drug mules.

“While supporting the review of Section 39B, I also hope that the Government will address the issue raised by lawmakers and legal practitioners, including whether the move, if approved, could have a retrospective effect on pending death penalty cases,” he said in a statement here yesterday.

He also called on the Government to decide whether a moratorium should be imposed on pending cases so as to ensure justice for those facing such charges.

Lee was responding to a report in The Star that lawyers and human rights groups had called for all pending executions to be put on hold while the decision by the Government to review the death penalty for drug trafficking was being deliberated.

Last week, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said said that the review would enable judges to mete out suitable sentences in marginal cases where the offenders could be jailed instead.

She said the review was presented to the Cabinet on March 1 by Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali.

Lee said at the same time, authorities must intensify efforts to reduce drug trafficking, addiction and other drug-related crimes through preventive education, adding that “prevention is always better than cure”.

Citing a report from Amnesty International, he said the death penalty should only be used for the “most serious crimes” like murder.

“It (the report) says that drug crime does not meet that threshold. Various United Nations bodies have repeatedly said that it falls short of the ‘most serious crimes’,” he pointed out.

Read more at http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2017/03/27/lam-thye-suggests-moratorium-on-death-penalty-cases/#dE387PU29RT43vAu.99

Press Release | Judicial Discretion is a Positive Step Towards Abolition of the Death Penalty

Saturday, 25 March 2017 10:57am
ImageThe Malaysian Bar welcomes the announcement by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of legal affairs YB Dato’ Sri Azalina Othman Said that, following a presentation by Attorney General Tan Sri Dato’ Sri Haji Mohamed Apandi Haji Ali, the Cabinet has agreed to review Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, with a view to removing the mandatory death penalty and restoring judicial discretion in sentencing.  It has been reported that the Minister has directed that the necessary legislative amendments be drafted.  

It is prudent and just that the decision regarding whether to impose the death penalty be left to the discretion of the Judge.  The statutory imposition of the mandatory punishment prohibits Judges from considering mitigating factors and circumstances that surround each case, before sentencing.  Such mitigating factors can include, and are not limited to, the offender’s age, rehabilitation goals, past criminal record, role played in the offence, mental capacity, reparations made, fear of another person, use of violence, harm done to property or persons, and degree of cooperation with the authorities.  Furthermore, studies have shown that there is no conclusive evidence of the deterrent value of the death penalty, particularly in respect of drug offences. 

Given the imminent amendments to the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, the Malaysian Bar renews our call to the Government to officially declare and implement a moratorium on all pending executions.  In the interest of justice and fairness, no executions should be carried out when reforms are in progress.  It is only right that when the reforms come into effect, they should be applied retrospectively.

While the proposed review relates only to the mandatory death penalty as provided in the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, the Malaysian Bar reiterates that the death penalty is an extreme, abhorrent and inhumane punishment, irrespective of the crime committed.  There are also provisions for the imposition of the mandatory death penalty in the Penal Code and Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971, and of the discretionary death penalty in the Kidnapping Act 1961.

The Malaysian Bar calls upon the Government to act swiftly to abolish the death penalty for all crimes, and to uphold the right to life, which is absolute, universal and inalienable.

George Varughese
President
Malaysian Bar 

25 March 2017
↧

GDP - Is UMNO-BN borrowing to increase spending to increase GDP? Debt RM908.7 Billion, Reserves RM426Billion only?

March 28, 2017, 9:24 am
$
0
0
UMNO-BN government have been relying on Malaysia's GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT(GDP) to give the impression that all is well in Malaysia but is it true or a lie. Many do not know what really is GDP and how it is calculated, and so I have done some research and hope this will help you understand a bit more.

A person with increasing debt is certainly not a person who is economically good. Malaysia's external debt is now RM908.7bil in 2016(according to the government)...and it looks that Malaysia's reserve(US$95bil (RM426.3bil) is not sufficient to cover the debt...

GDP values can be 'manipulated' - one way to do this is allegedly 'pumping in more money' into the economy...Has Malaysia been borrowing and 'pumping in money' to maintain the impression that the current UMNO-BN is doing a 'good' job? The people of Malaysia must start educating themselves ...about the more important realities - and decide for themselves...what they want...

Is it Malaysians that are contributing to GDP - or is it really foreign companies? GDP certainly is not reflective of economic wellbeing of Malaysians and their families...

How did Malaysia come to this state - it maybe too simplistic to blame oil prices - more justified to blame the UMNO-BN government ....
 



GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT - A lie or the truth of the well being of the Malaysian people?

Definition: Gross domestic product is the best way to measure a country's economy. GDP is the total value of everything produced by all the people and companies in the country. It doesn't matter if they are citizens or foreign-owned companies. If they are located within the country's boundaries, the government counts their production as GDP. - thebalance.com
So, if a German company is situated in Malaysia, and it produces RM1 billion worth of products - we take it into consideration for Malaysia's GDP? In fact, what Malaysians get would only be the salaries of Malaysian workers, the levy and other fees imposed on migrant workers working there, taxes and duties imposed, land tax, 'cukai pintu' , cost of Malaysia's own citizens-made products, profits made by the supply of products by Malaysian-owned companies...What a foreign company produces really do not belong to Malaysia or Malaysians, does it? Likewise what foreigners earn, save for taxes imposed, belongs to foreigners?

Well, GDP has also various different calculation methods, but it should all give the same result. Let's look at what is said to be the most common method of calculation...

Gross domestic product can be calculated using the following formula:

GDP = C + G + I + NX

where
C is equal to all private consumption, or consumer spending, in a nation's economy, G is the sum of government spending, I is the sum of all the country's investment, including businesses capital expenditures and NX is the nation's total net exports, calculated as total exports minus total imports (NX = Exports - Imports).
C is consumer spending - Thus, if we spend more it improves our GDP. Well, the government actions and/or failures results in the increase of the cost of living - then naturally the spending increases, would it not? Kopi O Ice used to cost RM1, now it is RM2.30?
G is the sum of government spending - well, then the government simply have to spend more and it will make our GDP look better. It looks at spending, so if Malaysia borrows billions and spends it - it will improve the GDP, irrespective of the rise of Malaysia's debt. Recent Bank Negara report now puts Malaysia's external debt at RM908.7 billion. About two third in foreign currencies, so drop of the ringgit will increase this debt..and 25% of Malaysia's export earning is used to pay back loans and loan interest... In the GDP calculation, it seems to be not bothered about the country's debt - only the spending. So, did Malaysia just simply borrow and borrow more to just to spend more and keep our GDP high? Well, in my opinion, that will mean that the economic well being have really not improved..During the Mahathir era, our debt was stable at about RM40 billion - after Pak Lah and Najib took over, it has been increasing at a dangerous rate - now, according to Bank Negara, it is as high as RM908.7 billion in 2016 - now possibly even higher...

Malaysia’s total external debt rose 9% to RM908.7bil in 2016, Bank Negara said, which is equal to 73.9% of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP).

Slightly less than two-thirds of the country’s external debt are denominated in foreign currencies. About a third of this debt is made up of interbank borrowings and foreign currency deposits in local banks. 

Excluding the valuation effects, Malaysia’s external debt was 6.2% higher.

Meanwhile, the country’s debt service ratio, or which includes payment of principal and interest, went up to 25% of its export earnings, compared with 22.6% in 2015 and 19.1% in 2014.- Star, 24/3/2017
I is the sum of the country's investment - not too sure what it means? Are we talking about foreign investment into Malaysia? It includes capital expenditure as well? Would capital expenditure also include wages? But foreign investment is really 'unstable' - because foreign MNCs can so easily run to another country - so, to keep them here, Malaysia has to make Malaysia attractive - low wages, weaker unions, precarious employment (easy fire?easy terminate?), maybe even lower water and electricity tariff? Maybe even lower 'taxes'? Preferential treatment for foreign MNCs without providing the same to locally owned companies, will make it more difficult for locally owned businesses to survive...and they die.

NX is the nation's total net exports - well, it not the money earned by the government by way of taxes, duties, etc. A Japanese company imports materials from overseas, and exports its products - What does Malaysia really gain save for the taxes....?
In short, GDP is far from a real indicator of the economic well-being of Malaysians...For that we need to look at actual earnings of Malaysians, and actual earnings of the Malaysian government through taxes, duties and various fees charged. 

What is REAL state of the economic wellbeing  of Malaysia and Malaysians - give us the real statistics of Malaysian individuals and family earnings - How many families earn less than RM1,000 per month, How many earn less than RM2,000 and so on... Now all that government generally provide is the MEAN earnings which is the average, and it gives no clear picture when the richest may be earning RM1 billion per month, and the poorest RM50...MEDIAN gives a better indicator, but still not a complete picture, a median is the list of earnings of say 100 persons, lowest to highest - and the median is what the 50th person earns...
Did the UMNO-BN government borrow money to pump it into the Malaysian economy to give us the 'false' impression that Malaysia is doing well? Looking at the ever increasing external debt, that possibility is very real? On the face of it, Malaysia seems to be 'always' growing - but then our debt has skyrocketed. Loans need to be repayed with interest and this government may really not be bothered to what happens to Malaysia in the future...pumping in money into the economy also can result in the increase in the cost of living..Now, Malaysia's expenditure annually to make loan payments and interest have been increasing...
According to standard macroeconomic theory, an increase in the supply of money should lower the interest rates in the economy, leading to more consumption and lending/borrowing. In the short run, this should, but does not always, correlate to an increase in total output and spending and, presumably, GDP. The long-run effects of an increase in the money supply are much more difficult to predict. There is a strong historical tendency for asset prices, such as housing, stocks, etc., to artificially rise after too much liquidity enters the economy. This misallocation of capital leads to waste and speculative investments, often resulting in burst bubbles and recession. On the other hand, it is possible money is not misallocated, and the only long-term effect is higher prices than consumers normally would have faced. - Investopedia
Bank Negara says that ' Malaysia’s total external debt rose 9% to RM908.7bil in 2016'- but I wonder, whether we have considered how much Malaysia is committed as guarantor? Malaysian government stands as 'guarantor' for many loans taken by others ...how much is that?Gov’t has guaranteed RM177.8b worth of GLCs' debts? WHY? GLC not government-owned?

DOES MALAYSIA HAVE SUFFICIENT MONIES TO SETTLE OUR DEBTS?

Bank negara says that we have international reserves of US$95bil(RM426.3 bil), and I am afraid, as currently at end of 2016, our debt was RM908.7 billion > NOT ENOUGH EVEN TO SETTLE OUR DEBTS?  Would that mean, Malaysia may need to sell its lands and assets to settle its debts?

At the end of 2016, Bank Negara’s international reserves stood at US$94.5bil (RM423.9bil).As at Feb 28, 2017, the reserves amounted to US$95bil (RM426.3bil). The central bank said the reserves were ample to facilitate international transactions and sufficient to finance 8.5 months of retained imports and were equivalent to 1.1 times the short-term external debt.- Star, 24/3/2017

RM423.9bil equal to 1.1 times the short-term external debt - that is very scary to me. Remember also that some debts do not have fixed interest rates - for example Bonds. See earlier post:- 1MDB, Malaysian Bonds, Moody, Credit Rating - More Worries for Malaysians?
There have been countries that have shown an increasing GDP but in reality the real situation was bad...There can also be 'lies' - now there are allegations that China is lying about the GDP. What about Malaysia? 
What is the real state of economic wellbeing of individuals and families in Malaysia today. Have Malaysians been led to believe that we have been well - when we really are not? Are government borrowings being used to 'pop-up' our GDP? 

Sadly, Malaysian politicians (backbenchers and Opposition politicians especially) have mostly not been keeping us all informed about the economic reality of Malaysia - WHY? Incompetent and inefficient? Illiterate about such 'serious' matters? Do we need better politicians and political parties?

UMNO-BN government have been slowly denying us relevant information. 

How many Malaysians earn less than RM500? RM1,000? RM1,500?...per month...

How many Malaysian families earn less than  RM500? RM1,000? RM1,500?...per month...

What is the poverty line income in Malaysia for an individual? for a family?...Very hard to get this information ...Why? What is the UMNO-BN government hiding?

What is the number of petty crimes like theft, etc - many a times this also is an indication of the economic wellbeing of Malaysians... Petty crimes usually increase when the number of desparate poor that find difficulty earning an income to support themselves and their families...(now we have 'crime index' - and no real statistical details of the number of crimes...) What is the government hiding..

Cost of living has really increased - but at the same time income including wages have not increased at the same rate...hence, have real wages and/or income of Malaysia really gone down...

Many Malaysians are really in debt - they are purchasing things on credit cards and by getting loans...But then, there is a decline on stable employment - regular employment until retirement...Retrenchment have been increasing...and note that when you do not make your monthly payments, you can lose your homes, your cars, your telephone services, etc...

TELL US THE TRUTH - What really is the state of economic wellbeing of Malaysians and their families...We know that Members of Parliament and State Legislative Assembly Persons are earning well...but what about the rest of Malaysians... ?

Friday, 24 March 2017

Bank Negara: External debt remains manageable


Currency weakness: The weaker ringgit adds to higher cost of foreign debts
Currency weakness: The weaker ringgit adds to higher cost of foreign debts

PETALING JAYA: The weaker ringgit contributed to the higher cost of foreign debts.


Malaysia’s total external debt rose 9% to RM908.7bil in 2016, Bank Negara said, which is equal to 73.9% of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP).

Slightly less than two-thirds of the country’s external debt are denominated in foreign currencies. About a third of this debt is made up of interbank borrowings and foreign currency deposits in local banks. 

Excluding the valuation effects, Malaysia’s external debt was 6.2% higher.

Meanwhile, the country’s debt service ratio, or which includes payment of principal and interest, went up to 25% of its export earnings, compared with 22.6% in 2015 and 19.1% in 2014.

In its 2016 annual report, the central bank said the country’s external debt remained manageable, given its currency, maturity and balance sheet profiles.

“The profile of Malaysia’s external debt remained healthy with more than one-third of total external debt being denominated in ringgit, thus limiting the risks arising from foreign exchange fluctuations.

“The remaining portion of the external debt, which is denominated in foreign currency, is mostly hedged either naturally using export earnings or through the use of financial instruments,” it said.

Most of these debts, it said, were offshore borrowings, which were raised mainly to expand productive capacity and to improve the managenent of financial resources within corporate groups.

At the end of 2016, the country’s offshore borrowings fell to 42.7% of the GDP compared to 60% of GDP during the Asian Financial Crisis.

Bank Negara said the rollover risks were also contained, as 58.6% of the total external debt was of medium to long-term maturity.

“In addition, not all short-term external debts pose a claim on reserves due to the availability of export earnings and external assets which enable borrowers to meet external obligations without necessarily creating a claim on international reserves,” it said.

At the end of 2016, Bank Negara’s international reserves stood at US$94.5bil (RM423.9bil).

As at Feb 28, 2017, the reserves amounted to US$95bil (RM426.3bil).

The central bank said the reserves were ample to facilitate international transactions and sufficient to finance 8.5 months of retained imports and were equivalent to 1.1 times the short-term external debt. - - Star, 24/3/2017
↧
Viewing all 2589 articles
Browse latest View live
Search